robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 4 hours ago, John Stone said: Although she has been made the scapegoat she is worthy of it. So unfit for the job - a disaster in front of a mic - the epitome of a dumb beotch trying to appear tough. Noem's trials will just be beginning if the Left takes the House. I don't believe a worthy scapegoat is actually a scapegoat. Scapegoats are by definition unworthy of the blame they are assgned. 3 hours ago, John Johnston said: What point? ICE is out of control? Everybody has been watching all this circus. The entire world has been watching Trumps revenge tour, ad infinitum. Some like LUser, like their BLINDERS. 1 Quote
Legato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 46 minutes ago, User said: Any point. Even now, ICE is not out of control. There are thousand of agents across the country daily doing their jobs and you don’t even notice. The issues are caused by the radical leftists you support unlawfully trying to interfere. Mistake on the downvote but can't correct. Sorry. 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said: It's self-explanatory.... Don't let your political bias cloud your view of what the fourth amendment is. Not really. See, the 4th amendment says a warrant must be issued for search and seizure...and warrants have been issued. So...your problem is? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Tactical armor protects against bullets, not cars. Plus, the car hit him below the gear. You apparently did NOT see the video which showed Ross standing TWO FEET away from the vehicle as it PASSED HIM. LMAO He was already severely injured for violating policy when he was dragged after putting his arm in the window of a moving vehicle. At least he was smart enough to learn that lesson and stay well away from Good's vehicle. Duh 2 hours ago, West said: They both actually have denied it. Gutter politics by sexually harassing leftists. Sad Can you READ? NOEM DID NOT DENY IT UNDER OATH. Duh 1 Quote
Legato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 3 minutes ago, Legato said: Mistake on the downvote but can't correct. Sorry. Scratch that. Quote
John Johnston Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, robosmith said: You apparently did NOT see the video which showed Ross standing TWO FEET away from the vehicle as it PASSED HIM. LMAO He was already severely injured for violating policy when he was dragged after putting his arm in the window of a moving vehicle. At least he was smart enough to learn that lesson and stay well away from Good's vehicle. Duh This is what happens when you hire the Proud Boys to be pretend policemen. Bad things are gona happen. Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Not really. See, the 4th amendment says a warrant must be issued for search and seizure...and warrants have been issued. So...your problem is? Stay focused and on task.... You asked what laws ICE has broken. There's your answers. Quote
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: 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. Ross was "injured" so badly he had to walk at e vigorous pace a block to the death site and then all the way back to his buddies. There is a clear video showing the two feet space between Ross' feet and the vehicle. He actually leaned into the vehicle to give the ILLUSION of being hit. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 hours ago, Hodad said: You don't need Twitter. I gave you a link to a very comprehensive frame-by-frame multi angle analysis. He leans in, pushes off and maintains separation. Again, low speed, low contact. Not even hard enough to knock him down on an icy street. 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. 2 hours ago, Hodad said: If you want to say that he may have been bruised, sure, maybe. 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? 2 hours ago, Hodad said: At any rate, it doesn't particularly matter. The point was that he clearly did NOT get run over. 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. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
gatomontes99 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 47 minutes ago, robosmith said: You apparently did NOT see the video which showed Ross standing TWO FEET away from the vehicle as it PASSED HIM. LMAO He was already severely injured for violating policy when he was dragged after putting his arm in the window of a moving vehicle. At least he was smart enough to learn that lesson and stay well away from Good's vehicle. Duh No video exists showing the car pass more than 2 feet away. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
gatomontes99 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 40 minutes ago, robosmith said: Ross was "injured" so badly he had to walk at e vigorous pace a block to the death site and then all the way back to his buddies. There is a clear video showing the two feet space between Ross' feet and the vehicle. He actually leaned into the vehicle to give the ILLUSION of being hit. Internal bleeding and other injuries don't always present immediately. Adrenaline tends to hide pain and small amounts of internal bleeding might not be apparent for days. The several minutes after the attack aren't enough to make a definitive determination. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
West Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 58 minutes ago, robosmith said: You apparently did NOT see the video which showed Ross standing TWO FEET away from the vehicle as it PASSED HIM. LMAO He was already severely injured for violating policy when he was dragged after putting his arm in the window of a moving vehicle. At least he was smart enough to learn that lesson and stay well away from Good's vehicle. Duh Can you READ? NOEM DID NOT DENY IT UNDER OATH. Duh So what? Why should she be subjected to sexual harassment by members of congress? Quote
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 18 minutes ago, West said: So what? Why should she be subjected to sexual harassment by members of congress? Because she's misbehaving ON THE JOB with a SUBORDINATE. That AFFECTS JOB PERFORMANCE. HR dept all over the nation get involved with that kind of misbehavior. Are you saying that doesn't happen in Canada? LMAO Quote
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said: Stay focused and on task.... You asked what laws ICE has broken. There's your answers. Ok so you accuse ICE of breaking the law...then cant name an instance when they've broken the law. You simply BS about the 4th amendment. Such nonsense. Edited March 6 by Nationalist Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
eyeball Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 17 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Why do you always leave out that the agent was hit and sustained internal bleeding? He actually got a bruise? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: 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. Oh, boy, armchair sports anatomy guy is here! You can make whatever excuses you want about what's "impossible" but it's a fact that he didn't really get hit. 5:30. Both angles synced up. His hands touch the car, but his body and legs do not. You can see quite a bit of daylight between them. Of course it's easier to understand in the video. He absolutely sweeps his left leg back before the vehicle could make contact. Your "deep expertise" on physiology aside, the camera didn't lie. You are watching a video frame-by-frame and dismissing what your lying eyes tell you because the Trump administration told a different story. That's some deep cult shit there. He contacted the car with his hands. If he did it hard enough he could have been bruised. That's my concession. And if you want to call a bruise "internal bleeding" you're just being deliberately dishonest. Nobody uses that description because it's reserved for a more serious condition. You're right though that she wasn't wrong. She was a deliberate liar. Over and over and over again. The difference between the two of you is that you won't get fired for it. Edited March 6 by Hodad Quote
West Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 30 minutes ago, robosmith said: Because she's misbehaving ON THE JOB with a SUBORDINATE. That AFFECTS JOB PERFORMANCE. HR dept all over the nation get involved with that kind of misbehavior. Are you saying that doesn't happen in Canada? LMAO The hearing had nothing to do with her sex life yet perverted Democrats decided to start malicious rumors about her sex life. 1 Quote
Hodad Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 minutes ago, West said: The hearing had nothing to do with her sex life yet perverted Democrats decided to start malicious rumors about her sex life. Ken Starr would like a word with you. Edited March 6 by Hodad 1 Quote
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 6 minutes ago, West said: The hearing had nothing to do with her sex life yet perverted Democrats decided to start malicious rumors about her sex life. YOU don't set the bounds of the hearing. Duh And Democrats didn't start "malicious rumors," that were common knowledge in Noem's office. Why do you keep LYING about what happened? Quote
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: You missed Hodad's comment.... 'This perverse incarnation of the Supreme Court' Yeah, it would help if he read the ruling too. Quote
Nationalist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 20 minutes ago, Hodad said: Oh, boy, armchair sports anatomy guy is here! You can make whatever excuses you want about what's "impossible" but it's a fact that he didn't really get hit. 5:30. Both angles synced up. His hands touch the car, but his body and legs do not. You can see quite a bit of daylight between them. Of course it's easier to understand in the video. He absolutely sweeps his left leg back before the vehicle could make contact. Your "deep expertise" on physiology aside, the camera didn't lie. You are watching a video frame-by-frame and dismissing what your lying eyes tell you because the Trump administration told a different story. That's some deep cult shit there. He contacted the car with his hands. If he did it hard enough he could have been bruised. That's my concession. And if you want to call a bruise "internal bleeding" you're just being deliberately dishonest. Nobody uses that description because it's reserved for a more serious condition. You're right though that she wasn't wrong. She was a deliberate liar. Over and over and over again. The difference between the two of you is that you won't get fired for it. Lesson: if you drive a car at an officer of the law, you're liable to get shot. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 4 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Lesson: if you drive a car at an officer of the law, you're liable to get shot. And when the officer is violating dept POLICY he is likely to get fired, if not indicted, unless he works for a corrupt boss who works for corrupt Trump. Quote
West Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 15 minutes ago, robosmith said: YOU don't set the bounds of the hearing. Duh And Democrats didn't start "malicious rumors," that were common knowledge in Noem's office. Why do you keep LYING about what happened? In Canada if you start a malicious rumor about your collegue you'll likely face disciplinary action. I imagine its similar in the US Quote
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 5 minutes ago, robosmith said: And when the officer is violating dept POLICY he is likely to get fired, if not indicted, unless he works for a corrupt boss who works for corrupt Trump. Once again, what policy? You make the claim and never back it up. Even if he did violate policy, it doesn’t then mean he has to lay down and die. Quote
robosmith Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 5 minutes ago, West said: In Canada if you start a malicious rumor about your collegue you'll likely face disciplinary action. And if it's not just a rumor, but TRUE, then what? 5 minutes ago, West said: I imagine its similar in the US I KNOW that Noem could have just said NO if that was the truth, but you don't understand why she did NOT. LMAO YOU'RE in a corner and just FLAILING. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.