Ultra false equivalency. With bonus points.

Good to know you have no knowledge of Christianity or it's belief systems she claims falsely to follow.

He didn't use deadly force to protect property.

Put it another way: what has Rittenhouse done for MTGs constituents that would justify her spending time asking publicly for his blessing?
Surely there are people in her district more deserving than Rittenhouse.

That was his stated aim earlier in the night to protect property, or didn't you
Watch all the videos?

It's just political Click bait, she has no power to help her fellow Georgians so she is just trying to get as much free click bait as she can!

He used non deadly force to protect property. Then when he feared for his life (not when he feared damage to property) he used deadly force.

Even if you believe that the particular circumstances of the event led to a just verdict in Rittenhouse's case, I think one would have to be at the very least deluded to believe that Greene's statement of praise for Rittenhouse is not a call for others to take up arms and assassinate protesters.

Greene herself has called publicly for the murder of her political opponents and for advocates of vaccination mandates. How blind would one have to be to believe her singling out Rittenhouse (whom she also recommended for a congressional medal for "protecting the people of Kenosha") is not a call for combat and bloodshed?

Even if one believes that under the circumstances, Rittenhouse's actions were not illegal, the difference between that and calling them worthy of public adulation is huge, and yes, it's offensive.

Aside from all this, I believe even if you were a supporter of Greene, you would go along with this. She makes a concerted effort, after all, to be as offensive as possible to those whose deaths she publicly seeks. If you do not consider her remarks offensive, you might as well be accusing her of failure.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/banfie...use-questions/

The best part is, the comment was attributed to Boebert, not MTG.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...JREF_Forum_top

This place is a real think-tank of critical thought, I'll tell you.

Wait, how does praising someone for using lawful deadly force because they feared for their life from an attack encourage people to use unlawful deadly force against others they do not fear?

Again,. none of that is using deadly force to protect property.

Excuse me for mixing them up. They seem like peas in a pod. It's true that it seems Boebert has not publicly called for others to be assassinated, only praised those who do, but I was careless.

I still contend that there is a huge difference, and an important one, between believing that Rittenhouse's verdict was correct, and praising him publicly, and that Boebert's singling him out was offensive, and intentionally so.

He specifically stated the only reason he went to the event was to Protect Property, and he brought a gun. Didn't the Car lot owners buy insurance to protect their property, is Kyle and Insurance agent or a Police Officer ir just a Vigilante who got into more than he bargained for?

There is a difference between using deadly force to protect property, and using non deadly force to protect property that leads to an altercation where one uses deadly force to protect their life.

I agree. Rittenhouse was an idiot to go armed to the riots, and anyone who praises him for it is doubly an idiot, or worse.

I'm sorry his skirt was too short.

so much victim blaming

What is wrong with you leftist clowns, how could you get the blonde pile of **** confused with the brunette pile of ******

That is presumably the reason he was acquitted, but it does not mean what he did was good or praiseworthy. He took it upon himself to do what he did, and taking a loaded automatic weapon with him suggests that he was at least willing, if not eager, to kill. I consider this true even if it is also true that he was sincere in his intention, even if he succeeded in protecting property, even if his actions were technically legal, and even if the persons who threatened him were extremely stupid to do so. All this may be true, and yet one can also consider the whole incident to warrant no praise for any of the participants.

Wouldn't having a Camera instead of a gun have protected the property much better?
Why wasn't he documenting the Protests instead of waving a gun around in Public?

I have no opinion on that. My interest is limited to the implications he used deadly force to protect property.

Truth is he didn't protect the property he ran, he could have documented the destruction and who caused it, but he ran, after someone was shot, he didn't dial 911 and ask help he ran.
The victims are the ones who were shot and Injured because of someone untrained and irresponsible, who valued property over life.

Except for the part where he did not use deadly force to protect property. As you said, he ran.

The hard Truth is if he had stayed home people would still be Alive.

Again, I have no opinion about that. I'm only concerned about the argument he used deadly force to defend property.

Chainsaw my man, you are bobbing for reason, and you'll only get your face wet.

My take on wee Karl Scheissmaul, the Boy Brownshirt, is simpler, and based on firearms technology: An AR15 or a clone thereof is useless for any purpose* but shooting people. So says this gunsmith's son and plenty of people agree.



* Okay, you can take one to the range and turn money into smoke (as a poster here once put it) bing-banging at targets. Boring, wasteful, adolescent shooting. No wonder it appealed to the likes of Kerl Scheissimhosen.

I prefer a good six pound Canon but they are a little heavy to carry.
Or a Smitt Rubin.

... but excusable. They're much of a muchness... Marjorie Boebert-Cawthorn

The colour of their hair is unimportant.

Technically it would seem you are right, hence the controversial verdict. But one could also say that if he was on a mission to protect property, took a deadly weapon to that job, and ended up using it in connection with that job, it was an invitation to bloodshed that began with him.

I think he squeaked through a passive-aggressive loophole, creating a situation in which he could do what he did, and even if the verdict was necessary under the circumstances, I would still consider him blameworthy.

I'm not sure it is a loophole

I rather think it is, in the sense that by showing up with a gun, he was the author of an event for which he was then able to disclaim responsibility. Of course we can't know for sure how he thought or anticipated, but we do know he decided to go to a demonstration where mayhem could be expected, and brought an automatic weapon. I am guessing that had the event under question not occurred, he would have continued until something like it did, and the fact that he managed to get away with shooting 3 people owing to their intemperance before acting on his own counts as a loophole.

Sorry, I was a little pithy. I think the people who have worked to expand self defense law are content that the situation you described occurred.This is a feature to them, not a bug.

The Probable Consequences of this is protesters will Arm themselves better and shoot First least they be shot.
That's why most people with brains think Vigilantes are a bad Idea.

Well, we actually do know, but the jury were never allowed to see it.

The comment itself isn't offensive; the motive behind it is. It's just her contribution to the lionizing of Rittenhouse by the right wing as some kind of "patriot" hero. You know, like this from Tucker C:

"The picture that emerges is of a working-class kid who sincerely believes in America. His community falls apart, and he tries his best to do the right thing, at a time when almost no one else in the community is trying to do the right thing. But he does. And in return for that, the state, under political pressure, throws him in prison."

Rittenhouse is being used for political purposes all right...by the likes of TC, Boebert, and MTG who wants him to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. For what? Making a stupid decision as a minor to get a gun through illegal means and put himself where he had no business being.

Well, I can see your point about politicizing these cases...but this is also done frequently by the left. I think this is being blown out of proportion. Now, some of Boebert's other comments are simply ridiculous. Especially the elevator story.

Whataboutism #1


Almost all her comments are ridiculous and/or offensive. Especially the elevator story.

Like clockwork. Point out Dem hypocrisy, and the magic word comes out.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, both sides should avoid politicizing such cases"...we get this garbage. It's pathetic.

Boebert's a clown. You know this.

We certainly do get garbage. And it is whataboutism whether you like it or not.