XPost: alt.tv.daily-show, alt.tv.talkshows.late

Late-Night TV may never be the same.

HBO�s John Oliver, host of �Last Week Tonight,� is facing a new defamation lawsuit from health care executive Dr. Brian Morley who claims the comedian slurred him �for ratings and profits.�

In an April 2024 telecast, Oliver played an alleged audio clip of Morley at
an administrative hearing saying, �People have bowel movements every day
where they don�t completely clean themselves and we don�t fuss over [them]
too much. People are allowed to be dirty � You know, I would allow him to be
a little dirty for a couple of days.�

Oliver�s immediate on-air response: �F*** that doctor with a rusty canoe! I hope he gets tetanus of the balls.�

Morley�s lawyer claims the recording was altered by the program.

Suing comedians for telling the wrong jokes seems an uphill legal battle at best. The First Amendment allows for plenty of creative embellishments, although Oliver�s comments proved highly specific and potentially damaging to the doctor�s reputation.

The courts will have the final say on the matter.

Should Dr. Morley emerge victorious it could have a much larger impact. Yes, �Last Week Tonight� would take a sizable hit, but consider the big picture.

What if other satirical comics have to watch what they say moving forward?
Will they require fact-checkers on set? Should Stephen Colbert run his anti- Republican rants by CBS Legal before hitting the stage each night?

Comedians have considerable leeway when it comes to political satire as
opposed to everyday citizens. Those wide guardrails matter, allowing for satirists to skewer elected officials without fear of political
ramifications.

How far is too far, though? Thanks to the sorry state of modern late night
TV, the question matters more than ever.

The hosts in question, however, bend the truth so regularly it�s often unrecognizable. It�s not a bug but a feature. Yes, Legacy Media outlets warp reality in damning ways, too. The list of Fake News narratives continues to grow in the Age of Trump.

Colbert and co. often walk in lockstep with their journalist pals.

Look no further than the Russian Collusion Hoax�. Yes, the media fed that narrative beast for far too long, but late-night hosts parroted even the most extreme collusion talking points while assuming they had the goods on
President Donald Trump.

They didn�t.

CBS�s Colbert hit the lowest low when he called President Donald Trump
Vladimir Putin�s BLEEP holster. in one incendiary monologue. He also played
up the Fake News story known to many as the Trump �pee-pee tape.�

The litigious world leader could have had something to say about that.

Colbert and fellow far-Left host Jimmy Kimmel also defended President Joe
Biden from accusations, later confirmed, that he was suffering from dementia-like conditions during the 2024 presidential campaign. Both
comedians had seen Biden up close during separate fundraising events.

They must have witnessed his diminished state firsthand. They didn�t share
what they saw with their audiences, and Kimmel took that a step further. He used his �Jimmy Kimmel Live� bully pulpit to call anyone who said Biden froze up during his fundraising effort a liar.

The projection was strong that night.

Other hosts have taken the media�s warped baton and run with it. Take the
host of NBC�s �Late Night with Seth Meyers.� The �Saturday Night Live� alum skewered President Trump in 2017 for gutting the �Meals on Wheels� program.

Except Trump didn�t.

Meyers also played down the rampant violence spreading in Portland in 2020,
as did some press outlets, in ways that felt like propaganda, not satire. And he wasn�t alone.

Oliver also downplayed the ongoing violence swirling around parts of
Portland, serving up this epic distortion.

�Protests had been mostly peaceful there� it�s about one block that was actually starting to see fewer confrontations between protesters and police before federal agents moved in.�

Fake News? It�s beyond debate. But is it worth suing over? That�s where the conversation gets sticky.

What about late-night alum Amber Ruffin? She briefly hosted an ill-fated talk show on Peacock and has written for �Late Night with Seth Meyers.� Ruffin recently cited the serially debunked �Very Fine People� hoax anew during a late-night chat to smite President Trump.

Said hoax claims Trump praised Neo Nazis following a 2017 Charlottesville
rally which left one woman dead. The lie proved so brazen even Snopes called
it out (albeit several years after the lie gained cultural ground).

It�s not just late-night comedy, of course. Comedians use their considerable platforms to spread lies that could be seen as libelous.

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special �Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill.�

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, agreeing with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and they couldn�t pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

Burr picked up that false narrative, saying Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist.

�You gotta drop me off like two blocks away so my other racist friends don�t see my mommy drove me,� he cracked in the special, channeling Rittenhouse.

Comedians have more leeway when it comes to politicians, but no one elected Rittenhouse to elected office.

There�s a better solution here, one that doesn�t require legal challenges for First Amendment squabbles. A healthy, robust press would let viewers know
that much of what�s said on late-night TV just isn�t true.

Journalists routinely regurgitate late-night jokes. They do the same with �Saturday Night Live� skits. That�s all well and good, but that practice is hollow if it doesn�t include fact checking when appropriate.

If comedians knew they�ve be held accountable for twisting the truth into so many pretzels, they might crack smarter gags that actually speak truth to power.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.tv.daily-show, alt.tv.talkshows.late

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Late-Night TV may never be the same.

HBO’s John Oliver, host of LAST WEEK TONIGHT, is facing a new defamation lawsuit from health care executive Dr. Brian Morley who claims the comedian slurred him for ratings and profits.

In an April 2024 telecast, Oliver played an alleged audio clip of Morley at an administrative hearing saying, "People have bowel movements every day where they don't completely clean themselves and we don't fuss over [them] too much. People are allowed to be dirty ... You know, I would allow him to be
a little dirty for a couple of days."

Oliver's immediate on-air response: "F*** that doctor with a rusty canoe! I hope he gets tetanus of the balls."

Morley's lawyer claims the recording was altered by the program.

Suing comedians for telling the wrong jokes seems an uphill legal battle at best. The 1st Amendment allows for plenty of creative embellishments, although Oliver's comments proved highly specific and potentially damaging to

the doctor's reputation.

No shit. Altering a recording and presenting it as authentic-- if that's
really what happened-- goes way beyond comedic license. It's pretty much textbook defamation.

The courts will have the final say on the matter.

Should Dr. Morley emerge victorious it could have a much larger impact. Yes, LAST WEEK TONIGHT, would take a sizable hit, but consider the big picture.

What if other satirical comics have to watch what they say moving forward?

They won't have to watch what they say. As long as they don't manufacture fake recordings and pretend they're real, they'll be just fine.

CBS's Colbert hit the lowest low when he called President Donald Trump Vladimir Putin's BLEEP holster in one incendiary monologue.

And just like our late, unlamented Trotsky the Hutt, Colbert also exposed himself as a tremendous hypocrite: pretending to be an LGBTQ+I@*&^# ally while at the same time using accusations of gay sex as a slur and insult, as if it's something to be ashamed of.

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, agreeing with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Late-Night TV may never be the same.

HBO’s John Oliver, host of LAST WEEK TONIGHT, is facing a new defamation >> lawsuit from health care executive Dr. Brian Morley who claims the comedian >> slurred him for ratings and profits.

In an April 2024 telecast, Oliver played an alleged audio clip of Morley at >> an administrative hearing saying, "People have bowel movements every day
where they don't completely clean themselves and we don't fuss over [them] >> too much. People are allowed to be dirty ... You know, I would allow him to >> be
a little dirty for a couple of days."

Oliver's immediate on-air response: "F*** that doctor with a rusty canoe! I >> hope he gets tetanus of the balls."

Morley's lawyer claims the recording was altered by the program.

Suing comedians for telling the wrong jokes seems an uphill legal battle at >> best. The 1st Amendment allows for plenty of creative embellishments,
although Oliver's comments proved highly specific and potentially damaging to

the doctor's reputation.

No shit. Altering a recording and presenting it as authentic-- if that's >really what happened-- goes way beyond comedic license. It's pretty much >textbook defamation.

Which is why I would say it is almost certain it didn't happen. At
least not by Oliver or his people. Not knowing where the recording
came from I suppose it is possible some third party altered it before
Oliver and crew got it. Oliver has had plenty of practice with these
lawsuits so I'm certain they wouldn't do something that is so clearly
against the law.

The courts will have the final say on the matter.

Should Dr. Morley emerge victorious it could have a much larger impact. Yes, >> LAST WEEK TONIGHT, would take a sizable hit, but consider the big picture. >>
What if other satirical comics have to watch what they say moving forward?

They won't have to watch what they say. As long as they don't manufacture fake >recordings and pretend they're real, they'll be just fine.

snip

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, agreeing >> with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots >two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business. That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 >>>> fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots >>> two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's >being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically
because he went there because it involved blacks. After all it wasn't
his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 >>> fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots >> two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's being done by blacks?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots >>> two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.




--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.tv.daily-show, alt.tv.talkshows.late

On 4/8/2025 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Late-Night TV may never be the same.

HBO’s John Oliver, host of LAST WEEK TONIGHT, is facing a new defamation >> lawsuit from health care executive Dr. Brian Morley who claims the comedian >> slurred him for ratings and profits.

In an April 2024 telecast, Oliver played an alleged audio clip of Morley at >> an administrative hearing saying, "People have bowel movements every day
where they don't completely clean themselves and we don't fuss over [them] >> too much. People are allowed to be dirty ... You know, I would allow him to >> be
a little dirty for a couple of days."

Oliver's immediate on-air response: "F*** that doctor with a rusty canoe! I >> hope he gets tetanus of the balls."

Morley's lawyer claims the recording was altered by the program.

Suing comedians for telling the wrong jokes seems an uphill legal battle at >> best. The 1st Amendment allows for plenty of creative embellishments,
although Oliver's comments proved highly specific and potentially damaging to

the doctor's reputation.

No shit. Altering a recording and presenting it as authentic-- if that's really what happened-- goes way beyond comedic license. It's pretty much textbook defamation.

The courts will have the final say on the matter.

And we can hope they'll have a little more information than the above
article provides. E.g.:


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/02/john-oliver-defamation-lawsuit-healthcare

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 >>>>> fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>>>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's
being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically
because he went there because it involved blacks.

He went there because of the violence and looting. But apparently if blacks
are the ones doing it, you're now racist if you try to stop the
'reparations'.

After all it wasn't
his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

So? It was his country.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 >>>>> fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>>>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and burned just because the perps were white, anyway?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >>> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>>>>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and burned just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >>wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and >>>>> they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's
being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically
because he went there because it involved blacks. After all it wasn't
his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

For fuck's sake, shawn, we've been over this and over this. It was 20
miles away from where he lived.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly >>>>> protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if >>>> it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and burned >> just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were black. He went where the problem was.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly >>>>>> protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man. >>>>>>>>

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white >>>>>>>> guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the >>>>>>> business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites. >>>>
And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and >>>> burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were
black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the only issue was finding out its cause.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:14:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one

during a 2020

fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white

guy shoots

two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly >>>>> protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and

looting if it's

being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically >>>because he went there because it involved blacks. After all it wasn't
his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

For fuck's sake, shawn, we've been over this and over this. It was 20
miles away from where he lived.

While you may know everything about this case, I didn't. All I knew
was the guy traveled across state lines. Not whether he lived down the
street or a thousand miles away.

I posted quite a bit at the time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:14:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >>>wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist >>>>>> during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if it's
being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically >>because he went there because it involved blacks. After all it wasn't
his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

For fuck's sake, shawn, we've been over this and over this. It was 20
miles away from where he lived.

While you may know everything about this case, I didn't. All I knew
was the guy traveled across state lines. Not whether he lived down the
street or a thousand miles away.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 00:52:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:14:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one

during a 2020

fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white

guy shoots

two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly >>>>>> protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and

looting if it's

being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically >>>>because he went there because it involved blacks. After all it wasn't >>>>his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

For fuck's sake, shawn, we've been over this and over this. It was 20 >>>miles away from where he lived.

While you may know everything about this case, I didn't. All I knew
was the guy traveled across state lines. Not whether he lived down the >>street or a thousand miles away.

I posted quite a bit at the time.

I either ignored it (there was so much being posted at the time) or
forgot it in the intervening years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man. >>>>>>>>>

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white >>>>>>>>> guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the >>>>>>>> business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites. >>>>>

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites. >>>>>
And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and >>>>> burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were >>> black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the only issue was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism ...leaving only the question of whether HE was infected with it. And
that would depend, I assert, on WHY he felt drawn to enter the fray.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 00:52:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:14:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

shawn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:04:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill". >>>>>>>>>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one

during a 2020

fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, >>>>>>>>> agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left >>>>>>>>> insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white

guy shoots

two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming >>>>>>>> "raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly >>>>>>> protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and

looting if it's

being done by blacks?

No, it's an assumption that some made that he went there specifically >>>>> because he went there because it involved blacks. After all it wasn't >>>>> his property or even his town that he was supposedly protecting.

For fuck's sake, shawn, we've been over this and over this. It was 20
miles away from where he lived.

While you may know everything about this case, I didn't. All I knew
was the guy traveled across state lines. Not whether he lived down the
street or a thousand miles away.

I posted quite a bit at the time.

I either ignored it (there was so much being posted at the time) or
forgot it in the intervening years.

And I couldn’t see it because he has me blocked

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:09:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one >>>>>>>>>>> during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man. >>>>>>>>>>

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white
guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the >>>>>>>>> business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and >>>>>>>> looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites. >>>>>>

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and
burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were >>>> black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the only issue >> was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism

No, YOU start with that because, like most leftists, you think everything is racist.

...leaving only the question of whether HE was infected with it. And
that would depend, I assert, on WHY he felt drawn to enter the fray.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/8/2025 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:09:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one >>>>>>>>>>>> during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man. >>>>>>>>>>>

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white
guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and >>>>>>>>> looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and
burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this >>>>>> interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were
black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the only issue
was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism

No, YOU start with that because, like most leftists, you think everything is racist.

I don't know which is more puzzling, the idea that there's no such thing
as racism, or you telling me what I think.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 9, 2025 at 8:52:18 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:09:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one
during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims >>>>>>>>>>>>> were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white
guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and
looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and
burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this >>>>>>> interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were
black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the only issue
was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism

No, YOU start with that because, like most leftists, you think everything is
racist.

I don't know which is more puzzling, the idea that there's no such thing
as racism, or you telling me what I think.

I'm puzzled by you implicit claim that I've denied the existence of racism.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/9/2025 3:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2025 at 8:52:18 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:09:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one
during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims
were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white
guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and
looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and
burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this >>>>>>>> interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that summer were
black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went.

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the only issue
was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism >>>>

No, YOU start with that because, like most leftists, you think everything is
racist.

I don't know which is more puzzling, the idea that there's no such thing
as racism, or you telling me what I think.

I'm puzzled by you implicit claim that I've denied the existence of racism.

Umm, you said I mustn't "pre-suppose there was racism".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 9, 2025 at 1:51:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/9/2025 3:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2025 at 8:52:18 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:09:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"
<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one
during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims
were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white
guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines >>>>>>>>>>>>> to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and
looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and
burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this >>>>>>>>> interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that >>>>>>>> summer were
black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went. >>>>>>

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the >>>>>> only issue
was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism >>>>>

No, YOU start with that because, like most leftists, you think
everything is
racist.

I don't know which is more puzzling, the idea that there's no such thing >>> as racism, or you telling me what I think.

I'm puzzled by you implicit claim that I've denied the existence of racism.

Umm, you said I mustn't "pre-suppose there was racism".

There's a significant difference between saying "racism doesn't exist" and "racism doesn't exist everywhere".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/9/2025 5:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2025 at 1:51:41 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/9/2025 3:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2025 at 8:52:18 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 4/8/2025 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:09:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:58:43 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 12:13:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 4/8/2025 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/8/2025 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a
White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one
during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent,
agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims
were white and
they

couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white
guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"

Come again?

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines
to supposedly
protect a business.

And how was *that* racist?

That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.

So now it's racist to protect your property from vandalism and
looting if
it's
being done by blacks?

Of course it is, if you ignore it when it's being done by whites.

He obviously wasn't doing that because the ones he shot were whites.

And who the hell would sit back and let their property be looted and
burned
just because the perps were white, anyway?

The question of his racism is one of whether he sprang to this
interdiction because the alleged perps were black.

Or the only ones burning down cities across the nation that >>>>>>>>> summer were
black.
He went where the problem was.

But what determines his racism is the matter of *why* he went. >>>>>>>

Only if you pre-suppose there was racism no matter what and the >>>>>>> only issue
was
finding out its cause.

Yes, we start with a not-too-risky premise that indeed there IS racism

No, YOU start with that because, like most leftists, you think
everything is
racist.

I don't know which is more puzzling, the idea that there's no such thing >>>> as racism, or you telling me what I think.

I'm puzzled by you implicit claim that I've denied the existence of racism.

Umm, you said I mustn't "pre-suppose there was racism".

There's a significant difference between saying "racism doesn't exist" and "racism doesn't exist everywhere".

Throughout the U.S., there was -- and is -- racism. For a while, now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)