Rittenhouse Trial

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,117
4,506
1,743
I haven't seen this interview, but I found it interesting to hear that he supports the BLM movement and wants to see change.

Still doesn't change anything. He was innocent and proven so in a court of law. Still have no problem with his use of a gun to protect himself.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
People are found guilty or acquitted. There is no finding of innocence.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
Innocent until proven guilty, he was not proven guilty, so innocent.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,117
4,506
1,743
That's fair. We're all just trying to call things like we see them. Be careful not to believe everything you hear though. The "OK" sign controversy is nothing more than a hoax.

4chan decided back in 2017 that they were going to try to prank the media by fooling them into thinking that it was a symbol for white supremacy. They flooded social media with memes about it. The media took it hook, line, and sinker, and now many people correlate it with white supremacy.

It's true that some white supremacists have used the sign since that happened, but the vast majority of people do it just to trigger the far left. I don't know what Kyle Rittenhouse has in his heart. He may be a racist. But I wouldn't make that judgement from that photo. He may just be joking around like a normal teenager.
If some people are doing it to be racist and many are doing it just to troll the libs, then isn't it a little off putting that there are a fair amount of people willing to do something that may be taken as racist just to be jerks? IMO that says more about them than the people they are trying to irritate.

And I agree it's stupid. It should have been ignored my the media when it first became a thing but it wasn't and here we are. With something like this, context matters alot. There was a scene from Malcolm in the middle where the kids were using it as a "made you look" to hit each other. Lots of things from that generation of television haven't aged well but that was as innocent then (relatively speaking for that show) as it is today. Compare that to the Rittenhouse photo. Yeah he may have been trolling the libs there but who he was with and what he was charged with make it a really bad look. That was a mistake and he is really lucky it didn't come back to bite him in this.
Made you look has been going on since at least the 70's and and my kids and others still play it today.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,204
20,814
1,743
Innocent until proven guilty, he was not proven guilty, so innocent.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
He was NOT "proven innocent" as you said.

"Innocent until proven guilty" means that he is presumed to be innocent with no proof being given what-so-ever.

The prosecution failed to proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury, then the presumption kicks in and no "proof of innocence" is needed or made. He was acquitted...found NOT guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Proving he is innocent" and "presuming he is innocent unless the prosecution proves he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are NOT the same thing.
 
Sep 9, 2012
1,652
616
743
41
When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The
Republicans? Or, the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this
answer is incorrect.
Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights
initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.
The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction,
founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against
the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.
In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission
was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it
entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case
Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven
justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both
Republicans.
The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander-
in-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the man who
freed the slaves.
Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, aDemocrat, assassinated
President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed
the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed
slaves into the South’s economic and social order.
Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment,
which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the
15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal
Republican support.
During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for
the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as
Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats
did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.
But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back
into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with
measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run
businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s
right to vote.
And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan,
founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes:
“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”
President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated
many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House -
the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.”
A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act
of 1964 came from Democrats.
Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of
Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans
mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.
And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from
voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to
vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to
have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred
years.”
So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of
its history oppressing.

That's just a snippet from google.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,204
20,814
1,743
Oh good, now in addition to google lawyers, we've got google historians.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

House version votes for/against:

Southern Democrats 7-87 (7.4% for)
Southern Republicans 0-10 (0% for)
Northern Democrats 145-9 (94.1% for)
Northern Republicans 138-24 (85%)

So in the House, more Democrats than Republicans voted for the bill and more Southern Democrats voted for the bill than did Southern Republicans (at zero). Furthermore, Northern Democrats voted for the bill at a higher rate than Northern Republicans. Heck, Southern Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than Southern Republicans too.

Senate version votes for/against:

Southern Democrats 1-21 (4.5% for)
Southern Republicans 0-1 (0%)
Northern Democrats 45-1 (97.8% for)
Northern Republicans 27-5 (84.4% for)

Those same trends continued in the Senate.

The vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a REGIONAL vote, not a PARTY vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was fostered through and advocated by two Democratic Presidents, one Northern, then one Southern. the Civil Rights Act had no chance of passing ever without the efforts of Northern Democrats in the House and Senate and the efforts of Lyndon Johnson when he was in Congress, Kennedy, and Johnson when he was President.

Then throw in the fact that the longest filibuster in history (against the 1957 Civil Rights Act) was by Strom Thurmond....who became a Republican officially after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Then throw in the fact that Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater ran on opposition to the same Civil Rights Act. Then consider the Dixiecrat movement after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and the fact than they increasing began voting Republican. Then throw in Nixon's recordings of strategy sessions where it is revealed that the War on Drugs was absolutely envisioned on racial lines for racial purposes. Then throw in the whole Southern Strategy of Republicans since Nixon.

Just saying....simple minded approaches of "google it up" to history are well....simple minded and largely confirmatory of any bias the individual already had.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2014
1,301
380
713
When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The
Republicans? Or, the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this
answer is incorrect.
Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights
initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.
The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction,
founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against
the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.
In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission
was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it
entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case
Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven
justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both
Republicans.
The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander-
in-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the man who
freed the slaves.
Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, aDemocrat, assassinated
President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed
the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed
slaves into the South’s economic and social order.
Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment,
which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the
15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal
Republican support.
During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for
the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as
Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats
did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.
But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back
into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with
measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run
businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s
right to vote.
And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan,
founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes:
“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”
President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated
many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House -
the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.”
A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act
of 1964 came from Democrats.
Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of
Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans
mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.
And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from
voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to
vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to
have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred
years.”
So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of
its history oppressing.

That's just a snippet from google.
the two political parties basically switched platforms a century ago...google that...
 
Sep 9, 2012
1,652
616
743
41
Oh good, now in addition to google lawyers, we've got google historians.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

House version votes for/against:

Southern Democrats 7-87 (7.4% for)
Southern Republicans 0-10 (0% for)
Northern Democrats 145-9 (94.1% for)
Northern Republicans 138-24 (85%)

So in the House, more Democrats than Republicans voted for the bill and more Southern Democrats voted for the bill than did Southern Republicans (at zero). Furthermore, Northern Democrats voted for the bill at a higher rate than Northern Republicans. Heck, Southern Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than Southern Republicans too.

Senate version votes for/against:

Southern Democrats 1-21 (4.5% for)
Southern Republicans 0-1 (0%)
Northern Democrats 45-1 (97.8% for)
Northern Republicans 27-5 (84.4% for)

Those same trends continued in the Senate.

The vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a REGIONAL vote, not a PARTY vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was fostered through and advocated by two Democratic Presidents, one Northern, then one Southern. the Civil Rights Act had no chance of passing ever without the efforts of Northern Democrats in the House and Senate and the efforts of Lyndon Johnson when he was in Congress, Kennedy, and Johnson when he was President.

Then throw in the fact that the longest filibuster in history (against the 1957 Civil Rights Act) was by Strom Thurmond....who became a Republican officially after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Then throw in the fact that Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater ran on opposition to the same Civil Rights Act. Then consider the Dixiecrat movement after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and the fact than they increasing began voting Republican. Then throw in Nixon's recordings of strategy sessions where it is revealed that the War on Drugs was absolutely envisioned on racial lines for racial purposes. Then throw in the whole Southern Strategy of Republicans since Nixon.

Just saying....simple minded approaches of "google it up" to history are well....simple minded and largely confirmatory of any bias the individual already had.
So your denying what the democrats have done? Someone asked for examples and I went to google and copied and pasted info from the second link. I also, never said anything about republicans being 100% innocent. It isn't my job to educate anyone on history. Hopefully Monkey reads both post, gets interested and decides to explore himself. I don't have a massive library full of books to reference info from. Google is the quickest and easiest way for me to find info, as it more than likely is for most. Is that a simple minded approach? I would say yes. I would also argue calling someone someone simple minded because they use what they have at the disposal, simple minded.

As for the civil rights act. It was the fifteenth amendment, passed by republicans at the end of the civil war, that gave blacks the right to vote amongst other rights. Because of this, we had the first elected black senators. When federal troops withdrew from the south and Democrats took control of the south again. They went to work putting state and local voting laws into place that took the right to vote away. You could say that the passing of the civil rights act of 64, when it comes to voting rights, finalized what reconstruction policies started.

By the way, who controlled the south from the early 1800's until the late 80's early 90's, minus reconstruction? The democrats. What took place during those times? Slavery, dividing of a nation, jim crow laws/segregation all under the watchful eyes of democrats.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,026
32,883
1,743
oklahoma city
As for the civil rights act. It was the fifteenth amendment, passed by republicans at the end of the civil war, that gave blacks the right to vote amongst other rights. Because of this, we had the first elected black senators. When federal troops withdrew from the south and Democrats took control of the south again. They went to work putting state and local voting laws into place that took the right to vote away. You could say that the passing of the civil rights act of 64, when it comes to voting rights, finalized what reconstruction policies started.

By the way, who controlled the south from the early 1800's until the late 80's early 90's, minus reconstruction? The democrats. What took place during those times? Slavery, dividing of a nation, jim crow laws/segregation all under the watchful eyes of democrats.
How many centuries should one hold grudges for past behavior and also how many centuries should good past behavior be used to excuse current poor behavior?