Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm

The first is accuracy, the second is relevance, a third is intent.  

what question are you answering?

BuckNaked » 15 Jan 2026, 4:02 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 4:02 pm

what question are you answering?

You're very high maintenance 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 4:27 pm

You're very high maintenance

I don’t see a question 

BuckNaked » 15 Jan 2026, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 4:30 pm

I don’t see a question

Post the first line of the post to which I was responding. 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 4:38 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 4:38 pm

Post the first line of the post to which I was responding.

There is noting to defend on the actual topic of the thread.  


no question 

BuckNaked » 15 Jan 2026, 4:51 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 4:51 pm

There is noting to defend on the actual topic of the thread.  

no question

Doesn't have to be.

The "h" is assumed.

It's @*
 

Huey » 14 Jan 2026, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 1:48 pm

ICE agent who shot Renee Good suffered internal bleeding, was hospitalized after she clipped him with car:

Neither point is crucial in determining whether this use of force was "objectively reasonable." Even if Good was simply trying to leave rather than trying to assault Ross, and regardless of whether the car made contact with him, it would have been reasonable for him to worry about his safety when the SUV began moving, since he had positioned himself (contrary to standard police training) in front of the vehicle. 


Ross quickly moved out of the way, the solution that the Justice Department recommends in situations like this. It's not clear whether he was still in the vehicle's path when he fired the first shot, which hit the lower left corner of the windshield. But he was clearly not in the SUV's path when he fired the second and third shots, which entered the car through the front window on the driver's side. When Tapper asked Noem about the justification for those shots, she noted that Ross was making a "split-second" decision, which might count in his favor even if that decision seems mistaken in retrospect.

That's assuming it made sense to think shooting Good was an effective way to neutralize the threat her car allegedly posed. The actual result was that the SUV careened down the street without guidance, stopping only after it crashed into a car parked on the left side. If anything, Ross aggravated any danger the car may have posed by killing the person who was steering it.

https://reason.com/2026/01/14/the-fbi-thinks-renee-goods-anti-ice-activism-is-relevant-in-deciding-whether-killing-her-was-justified/?utm_source=Reason+Magazine&utm_campaign=02dfa0edcc-reason_brand%7Cnew_at_reason%7C2026_01_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_31d7ef7f57-02dfa0edcc-587966116
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2026, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:12 pm

He got a bruise...

I was "clipped" by an SUV once...went to the hospital to confirm no fractures, and asked that the insured replace my trousers..

He was moving at considerably higher speed.

lying traitor *** bastard.

Applicants without law enforcement backgrounds are required to take an eight-week in-person course at ICE’s academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia, which includes courses in immigration law and handling a gun, as well as physical fitness tests. “They were using AI to scan résumés and found out a bunch of the people who were LEOs weren’t LEOs,” one of the officials said


ICE error meant some recruits were sent into field offices without proper training, sources say


https://share.google/IMv49CHDF1mpwNeEY0
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 7:57 pm

Applicants without law enforcement backgrounds are required to take an eight-week in-person course at ICE’s academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia, which includes courses in immigration law and handling a gun, as well as physical fitness tests. “They were using AI to scan résumés and found out a bunch of the people who were LEOs weren’t LEOs,” one of the officials said

ICE error meant some recruits were sent into field offices without proper training, sources say

https://share.google/IMv49CHDF1mpwNeEY0

Sources lie, like you ***.

murdock » 15 Jan 2026, 8:42 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 8:42 pm

Sources lie, like you ***.

On what do you rely to be such a dumb ****, Lard...

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 8:50 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 8:50 pm

On what do you rely to be such a dumb ****, Lard...

You're mothers hole! Surprisingly tight, for a *** whore!

murdock » 15 Jan 2026, 8:58 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 8:58 pm

You're mothers hole! Surprisingly tight, for a *** whore!

That was close, Lard...

Possessives and contractions can be tricky for the non-native speaker.


 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 5:37 pm

Neither point is crucial in determining whether this use of force was "objectively reasonable." Even if Good was simply trying to leave rather than trying to assault Ross, and regardless of whether the car made contact with him, it would have been reasonable for him to worry about his safety when the SUV began moving, since he had positioned himself (contrary to standard police training) in front of the vehicle. 

Ross quickly moved out of the way, the solution that the Justice Department recommends in situations like this. It's not clear whether he was still in the vehicle's path when he fired the first shot, which hit the lower left corner of the windshield. But he was clearly not in the SUV's path when he fired the second and third shots, which entered the car through the front window on the driver's side. When Tapper asked Noem about the justification for those shots, she noted that Ross was making a "split-second" decision, which might count in his favor even if that decision seems mistaken in retrospect.

That's assuming it made sense to think shooting Good was an effective way to neutralize the threat her car allegedly posed. The actual result was that the SUV careened down the street without guidance, stopping only after it crashed into a car parked on the left side. If anything, Ross aggravated any danger the car may have posed by killing the person who was steering it.

https://reason.com/2026/01/14/the-fbi-thinks-renee-goods-anti-ice-activism-is-relevant-in-deciding-whether-killing-her-was-justified/?utm_source=Reason+Magazine&utm_campaign=02dfa0edcc-reason_brand%7Cnew_at_reason%7C2026_01_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_31d7ef7f57-02dfa0edcc-587966116

I am glad you agree with the subject of thread,  the ICE agent was hit by the car.

Assh ole, WH by are you still spewing ****?

Huey » 16 Jan 2026, 6:05 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2026, 6:05 am

I am glad you agree with the subject of thread,  the ICE agent was hit by the car.

Assh ole, WH by are you still spewing ****?

Take the L, Bootspittle

Like a good authoritarian flunky...





 

Blackvegetable » 16 Jan 2026, 6:12 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2026, 6:12 am

Take the L, Bootspittle

Like a good authoritarian flunky...

there is no L to take, Assgole.  The thread is about proving the ICE agent was hit by Good contrary to left wing propaganda reports and mindless lefties repeating them.

Thanks for your support by Agreeing he was hit.  

PS.  Did you get another day of over 100 posts yesterday?  You aren’t n aon a roll, Asshole.

Huey » 16 Jan 2026, 6:15 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2026, 6:15 am

there is no L to take, Assgole.  The thread is about proving the ICE agent was hit by Good contrary to left wing propaganda reports and mindless lefties repeating them.

Thanks for your support by Agreeing he was hit.  

PS.  Did you get another day of over 100 posts yesterday?  You aren’t n aon a roll, Asshole.

No, assgole..

You are catapulting the propaganda, like a good little german.

Reason is a libertarian rag......when it **** down your neck, you know you've gone full Authoritarian. 
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jan 2026, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 5:37 pm

Neither point is crucial in determining whether this use of force was "objectively reasonable." Even if Good was simply trying to leave rather than trying to assault Ross, and regardless of whether the car made contact with him, it would have been reasonable for him to worry about his safety when the SUV began moving, since he had positioned himself (contrary to standard police training) in front of the vehicle. 

Ross quickly moved out of the way, the solution that the Justice Department recommends in situations like this. It's not clear whether he was still in the vehicle's path when he fired the first shot, which hit the lower left corner of the windshield. But he was clearly not in the SUV's path when he fired the second and third shots, which entered the car through the front window on the driver's side. When Tapper asked Noem about the justification for those shots, she noted that Ross was making a "split-second" decision, which might count in his favor even if that decision seems mistaken in retrospect.

That's assuming it made sense to think shooting Good was an effective way to neutralize the threat her car allegedly posed. The actual result was that the SUV careened down the street without guidance, stopping only after it crashed into a car parked on the left side. If anything, Ross aggravated any danger the car may have posed by killing the person who was steering it.

https://reason.com/2026/01/14/the-fbi-thinks-renee-goods-anti-ice-activism-is-relevant-in-deciding-whether-killing-her-was-justified/?utm_source=Reason+Magazine&utm_campaign=02dfa0edcc-reason_brand%7Cnew_at_reason%7C2026_01_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_31d7ef7f57-02dfa0edcc-587966116

The lesbian got what she deserved. And there will be more of you pathetic MoFo losers that will be getting the "Jab" from ICE. That stupid bitch was told to stop the vehicle and to get out. The **** drove from Colorado to participate in an attack on ICE agents. 

 
 

MR-7 » 16 Jan 2026, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2026, 6:57 am

The lesbian got 

That **** isn't worth reading. 

Blackvegetable » 16 Jan 2026, 6:59 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2026, 6:59 am

That **** isn't worth reading.

But you read it and replied....