gatomontes99

Uh, your video does not show that. The narrator denies what is right in front of him, but that does not mean ot did not happen. The video you linked clearly shows him getting lifted off the ground and pushed to the side. His right foot stays planted, but he is hit and does spin as a result. He is leaning forward on his right foot. He can't, from that position, bring his left leg back and lift his body. The muscles aren't built for that. Anyone that played sports can tell you that an off balance stance cannot perform athletic moves. The agent was nearly horizontal and on one foot, yet you contend he was able to launch his left side up and back while maintaining contact with the ground on his right side. That is physically impossible. He had to be hit. Speed is not important here. Force = mass x acceleration. The mass of that car was probably in the 3500 lb range and it accelerated to about 20 or 25 mph in less than 2 seconds. Combine that with the rigidity of the outter shell of the car and then concentrate that on a soft point on a human body and it can do damage. To say it was not going fast is immaterial. Internal bleeding does not have to be caused by massive trauma. How can you conceed that he got bruised if your entire argument is based on this idea that he did not get hit? And, BTW, what do you think a bruise is? You are flailing here. Now your argument is the wording was not precise? So???!! In 3 short paragraphs you go from the guy was not touched to he was touched but it was just a bruise to he may have been hit but he wasn't run over. Its like watching a one man debate. Stop clowning. Just admit that she was not wrong. It is not the worst thing you could do. It might even make you look reasonable.

Let's call this thread what it really is; TDS trying to rationalize a reason to hate killing a terrorist state to prevent nuclear war.

Stop clowning: Between these two angles, you can see him get hit on his left side with the driver's side of the car. He leans forward and stops his fall with his hand. He does not maintain separation from the car. The car hit him from the left knee up to the lower abdomen on the left side. The reports do not say where the internal bleeding was, but it was likely in the upper thigh to lower abdomen. In this video you can hear what is likely the impact and his involuntary, verbal response to the impact. Why can't you guys just operate in the world of reality. The primary reason she was let go was the ad campaign and her testimony about it. The secondary reasons are the distractions she created from probably boinking her colleague to being too quick to announce conclusions. There is nothing about DHS that is not credible. You just made that up because it fits the fantasy world you wish you lived in.

Tactical armor protects against bullets, not cars. Plus, the car hit him below the gear.

Your post above says the claims were unsubstantiated. You should look up what that means. Hint: unsubstantiated and credible are antonyms.

Dude, you got pwned. They interfered. Trump said they interfered. Your idioť said they didn't. You posted it thinking that was true. You LIED!

Zero releases, sorry. Still a huge win over the last admin: DHS: Once again, we have a record low number of encounters at the border and the 7th straight month of zero releases.

WebMD: Sometimes, internal bleeding may occur after a less severe trauma. As the bleeding continues, symptoms appear and steadily get worse. Symptoms depend on the type of trauma and what body part was involved. Only a fool thinks that an injury like internal bleeding presents in one way and is obvious from the moment of trauma.

No you didn't. You went straight to the personal attacks.

Translation: you don't want to believe it so you won't.

No you have not. That is not what I said. I said that impeding officers prevents them from picking up pedos, rapists and wife beaters. I even posted videos and news articles that backed up those claims that you call inane. Does anyone have a translation for this? I don't speak angry liberal. Again, another post of you calling me names trying to dsprove that you call me names.

Venom? Those are verifiable facts.

Comedy gold

Train wreck? 0 illegal border crossings for something like 8 months Crime down to record low levels. Murder at record low levels. Unemployment down Work force participation up Core costs down Oil proces down USA Men and Women Hockey beat the Socialist state of Canda Venezuela can't help Russia, Iran or China Iran has fallen Cuba will fall Russia has lost 3 allies China had their defense system decimated in Iran 3 million illegals deported or self deported Housing costs down Government Fraud is being exposed every where A real budget is all but passed What is the failure here exactly?

Why do you always leave out that the agent was hit and sustained internal bleeding?

See! You do it all the time. He came back with a reasoned, rational response and you jump straight to the ad hominem attacks.

I won't ever feel bad for being right. You did not even provide a single fact or opinion to oppose what I said. All you have proposed is belittlement and name calling. Still going with the calling me names to prove you don't call me names when you've lost I see. Good talk Russ.

Biden Justice Department: Press Release Two Iranian Nationals Charged for Cyber-Enabled Disinformation and Threat Campaign Designed to Influence the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election And FBI: August 19, 2024 Joint ODNI, FBI, and CISA Statement on Iranian Election Influence Efforts Apparently unhinged in liberal speak means well aligned with reality.

Do you think that if you commit to the fantasy that it will eventually come true? Yeah, one of those was from crackhobarbie, not you. Any other excuses?

Because you are using your prejudices to make assumptions that don't align with reality.

No. /thread

You said I said two specific things. I did not. You lied. Now that we've moved the goal posts, I can address that. Nothing you posted above was either braindead or specious. Every response I posted above was a direct response that was (and still is) backed by facts. Take, for example, my response to crackhobarbie. It is true that those that call themselves protestors were really trying to impede ice because they wanted to stop deportations. Do you have information that proves me wrong? No. Because that is definitively as true as the sun is hot and the sky is blue and water is wet. The double tap post was backed by reporting: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gk7eg83eno And the Jim Crow comment is spot on. It is hardly braindead or specious. Now, the real point of this exercise is you, isn't it? You got called out for jumping to name calling when you know you've lost. To prove me wrong, you called me braindead and specious while posting examples of solid analysis that you did not like. To sum it up, because you probably don't get it, you just resorted to name calling in an attempt to disprove that you resort to name calling. Question: how many hours did you spend combing through my post history to find such weak examples?

I missed the part where I said anyone on the left supported the Ayatollah or that not supporting ICE made you pro-pedo. You failed to prove your point. You failed miserably.

Aaron Spencer, dad who killed daughter’s alleged molester, wins Republican primary for Lonoke County Sheriff The back story is that some asshoòle raped Aaron's daughter. Aaron killed him, but not until after the asshòle made bail. Then Aaron ran for sheriff....AND WON! Aaron thinks his defense will win, but his defense is it is ok to kill a child rapist. That clearly is not the law. Nor should it be. So Aaron will be convicted and not be sheriff. The big statement here is that voters want action. What Aaron did was illegal and should be. But it got the job done. And voters wanted that.