• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pgwenthold said:
Earlier this week, you whined about posters who said they wouldn't mourn if someone died of natural causes.

Now you are defending someone who is praising a person who killed others.

We all know tour duplicity, but at some point, you may see it yourself.
Click to expand...

Ultra false equivalency. With bonus points.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't find her comment offensive at all. I don't want to get too far into the Rittenhouse case, but he was found not guilty of all charges. And a Christian saying "God bless him" is really no big deal.

Certainly there is plenty of legitimate criticism to lob at her, but this isn't one of those cases, imo.
Click to expand...

Good to know you have no knowledge of Christianity or it's belief systems she claims falsely to follow.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Were you there the Law does not allow for deadly force to be used to Protect Property the fact he was found not Guilty in Criminal Court only means the Prosecution wasn't able to prove it wasn't self defense. A Jury in a Civil Lawsuit isn't held to such High standards and might find him responsible based on the same evidence and Ruin his life forever with q multimillion dollar verdict.
Either way he wasn't there to protect Life just Property.
Sad state of affairs when that becomes the values of Christians.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

Crazy Chainsaw said:
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!
Click to expand...

bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13665828&postcount=2429#JREF_Forum_top

This place is a real think-tank of critical thought, I'll tell you.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Warp12 said:
The best part is, the comment was attributed to Boebert, not MTG.

This place is a real think-tank of critical thought, I'll tell you.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Again,. none of that is using deadly force to protect property.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom