• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Meanwhile Rittenhouse continues to show no signs of any remorse for the killing of human beings.
article said:
“I have really good lawyers who are taking care of that right now,” Rittenhouse said. “So I’m hoping one day there will be some — there will be accountability for their actions that they did.”
Yes, Kyle, you are the true victim in all this.

Anyone who reacts this way to killing in self defense is either a sociopath or wasn't really killing in self defense in the first place.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Meanwhile Rittenhouse continues to show no signs of any remorse for the killing of human beings.
article said:
“I have really good lawyers who are taking care of that right now,” Rittenhouse said. “So I’m hoping one day there will be some — there will be accountability for their actions that they did.”
Yes, Kyle, you are the true victim in all this.

Anyone who reacts this way to killing in self defense is either a sociopath or wasn't really killing in self defense in the first place.
That's been my worthless gut opinion most of this time. He doesn't seem right.
Mr Rittenhouse is still a teenager, which may help explain his cluelessness.
Was there testimony about him vomiting and going into shock after what happened? Or a Zimmerman-like I ain't done nothin' wrong reaction. This whole time, we heard how he went there to do good, but his reaction post the shooting weren't of a person that went there to do good. Even in his fake crying scene, it was about how he was in danger.

It could be teenaged dumbery, but my money is on sociopath. And you can take that diagnosis (and $5) to get an over-priced cup of burned roasted coffee at Starbucks.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Not guilty on all counts : NPR
Jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The jury was also asked to consider lesser versions of several counts, but were not swayed.
They should have gotten him on excessive force, even if not murder.

What was he doing with an AR-15-like rifle? Did he get a lot of practice with using that kind of gun? If he wanted to play vigilante, he could have brought along a baseball bat. A baseball bat?  Club (weapon)

Why was he alone? Why wasn't he part of some vigilante squad?
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Not guilty on all counts : NPR
Jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The jury was also asked to consider lesser versions of several counts, but were not swayed.
They should have gotten him on excessive force, even if not murder.

What was he doing with an AR-15-like rifle? Did he get a lot of practice with using that kind of gun? If he wanted to play vigilante, he could have brought along a baseball bat. A baseball bat?  Club (weapon)

Why was he alone? Why wasn't he part of some vigilante squad?
So, you clearly haven't even bothered to avail yourself of the basic facts.

And excessive force was not used.
 
Mr Rittenhouse is still a teenager, which may help explain his cluelessness.

I completely 100% agree with this. Being an older adult myself, I feel like explaining entitled thinking and recklessness to my younglings has sometimes been a battle: "No, you shouldn't be throwing the baby up and down, catching it in the kitchen above the hard ceramic tiles." ... I think it is entirely possible KR cannot fully appreciate things, but this gives rise to some other issues--(1) this is why teenagers shouldn't be running around with guns; (2) when young Black teens commit crimes, people claim that being tried as an adult is in their best interest. This could be true. I have no idea, but there is at least some consistency there, even if not in the verdict or in the expensive lawyers; (3) there seems to be a cultural response to KR morally supporting his recklessness and entitled thinking in such a way as to make remorse less likely and learning from these tragedies impossible.
 
Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Not guilty on all counts : NPR
Jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The jury was also asked to consider lesser versions of several counts, but were not swayed.
They should have gotten him on excessive force, even if not murder.

What was he doing with an AR-15-like rifle? Did he get a lot of practice with using that kind of gun? If he wanted to play vigilante, he could have brought along a baseball bat. A baseball bat?  Club (weapon)

Why was he alone? Why wasn't he part of some vigilante squad?

Why was it OK for the black Panthers to bring assault rifles and march into the capitol building? if it's OK fr them to bring assault rifles to a protest, you can't yell at Kyle for doing it. And if it's not OK for the Panthers to bring an assault rifle to a protest, then you have to yell at Kyle for doing it.

This keeps getting ignored. Which is it? Both are allowed or none?

Because I will admit that if the Black Panthers were assaulted by Proud Boys trying to take their guns and the Black Panthers shot them in self-defense, I have a feeling most of you guys would be saying, "Why'd those inbred moronic proud boys try to wrestle a gun from a protestor? Darwin award! Darwin award! They deserved it!"

Am I right or wrong here?

Also keep in mind Kyle showed incredible restraint. He calmly walked around with the AR and only shot people who attacked him. Once the threats were neutralized, he didn't shoot anymore and he kept walking. You can even see in the vide one guy puts his hands up and Kyle has his gun pointed at him and then Kyle lowers it and doesn't shoot him because he has his hands up. Kyle actually showed great gun training. The big issue is if you agree with bringing guns to a protest or not. It's either allowed for all protestors or none. You can't pick and choose and say, "It's ok for the Panthers to protest with assault rifles but not for Kyle to do it." This would be bias.
 
Why was it OK for the black Panthers to bring assault rifles and march into the capitol building?
Say what?!?

Are we talking about the USA Capitol Building? Any time in the 21st century?
And who said it was "OK"?

WTF?
Tom


Most people defend this and yell at the Republicans for passing gun control due to the Panthers doing this. But then those same people will say, "Why'd Kyle bring an assault rifle to a protest? He was asking for trouble!" See? It's hypocritical and very biased.

It works the other way, too. Those cheering Kyle for doing it condemn the Panthers for doing it. This is why this issue needs to be addressed.

I am honestly not sure how I feel about bring a rifle to a protest, regardless of who does it. I am still on the fence thinking about this issue.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Why was it OK for the black Panthers to bring assault rifles and march into the capitol building?
Say what?!?

Are we talking about the USA Capitol Building? Any time in the 21st century?
And who said it was "OK"?

WTF?
Tom


Most people defend this and yell at the Republicans for passing gun control due to the Panthers doing this. But then those same people will say, "Why'd Kyle bring an assault rifle to a protest? He was asking for trouble!" See? It's hypocritical and very biased.

It works the other way, too. Those cheering Kyle for doing it condemn the Panthers for doing it. This is why this issue needs to be addressed.

I am honestly not sure how I feel about bring a rifle to a protest, regardless of who does it. I am still on the fence thinking about this issue.
So, let's start at the beginning.
It was another century. ~50 years ago.

Can we agree upon at least this one fact?
Tom
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Why was it OK for the black Panthers to bring assault rifles and march into the capitol building?
Say what?!?

Are we talking about the USA Capitol Building? Any time in the 21st century?
And who said it was "OK"?

WTF?
Tom


Most people defend this and yell at the Republicans for passing gun control due to the Panthers doing this. But then those same people will say, "Why'd Kyle bring an assault rifle to a protest? He was asking for trouble!" See? It's hypocritical and very biased.

It works the other way, too. Those cheering Kyle for doing it condemn the Panthers for doing it. This is why this issue needs to be addressed.

I am honestly not sure how I feel about bring a rifle to a protest, regardless of who does it. I am still on the fence thinking about this issue.
Let us know if you find anyone here who cheered the Black Panthers at whatever event that was.

Until then your question of “why you guys can’t have it both ways” is a false accusation, yah?
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Most people defend this and yell at the Republicans for passing gun control due to the Panthers doing this. But then those same people will say, "Why'd Kyle bring an assault rifle to a protest? He was asking for trouble!" See? It's hypocritical and very biased.
Well that's complete bullshit. Most intelligent people don't compare something that happened 50 years ago to something that happened today without providing context.

It works the other way, too. Those cheering Kyle for doing it condemn the Panthers for doing it. This is why this issue needs to be addressed.
Both instance involve guns. That's where the similarity ends. Why don't you go into full absurdity mode and compare Rittenhouse to an armed gang that stormed a perfectly innocent beach in the Normandy in the early 40s?

I am honestly not sure how I feel about bring a rifle to a protest, regardless of who does it. I am still on the fence thinking about this issue.
It's simple. Don't fucking do it. The absolute best you can hope for is that every cop will pay extra special attention towards you. I'll leave it to your imagination what the worst outcome can be.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
So turning away from 50-year old whataboutism, it doesn’t deserve a single byte.

Rittenhouse said he was there to “provide medical care,” during which he was goung to put his big gun on the ground and hope no one takes it while he administers “care” that he is not qualified to give while violating curfew.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Most people defend this and yell at the Republicans for passing gun control due to the Panthers doing this.
Can you name one? I've never heard of such a thing.

Nobody I've ever known in my life has either defended this or "yelled" about gun control based on it.

Maybe you could use better sources of information about the USA and our history? That's what it looks like to me.
Tom
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Rittenhouse said he was there to “provide medical care,” during which he was goung to put his big gun on the ground and hope no one takes it while he administers “care” that he is not qualified to give while violating curfew.
I think that about sums it up. I wonder what the alleged adults in the situation were fucking thinking enabling Rittenhouse like that. I guarantee from the time he left the house to the time he killed two people he fantasied being the hero of his own story at least 287,659 times. It's what teenage boys do. It's fucking unbelievable an intelligent rational adult would think, "Yep, this will end well".
 
Why was it OK for the black Panthers to bring assault rifles and march into the capitol building?
Say what?!?

Are we talking about the USA Capitol Building? Any time in the 21st century?
And who said it was "OK"?

WTF?
Tom


Most people defend this and yell at the Republicans for passing gun control due to the Panthers doing this. But then those same people will say, "Why'd Kyle bring an assault rifle to a protest? He was asking for trouble!" See? It's hypocritical and very biased.

It works the other way, too. Those cheering Kyle for doing it condemn the Panthers for doing it. This is why this issue needs to be addressed.

I am honestly not sure how I feel about bring a rifle to a protest, regardless of who does it. I am still on the fence thinking about this issue.
Let us know if you find anyone here who cheered the Black Panthers at whatever event that was.

Until then your question of “why you guys can’t have it both ways” is a false accusation, yah?
So do you agree or disagree with the Panthers bringing assault rifles to the Capitol to protest?

You can say you're not sure if you want. But, I have a feeling a lot of you aren't answering because it will show your bias.
 
So turning away from 50-year old whataboutism, it doesn’t deserve a single byte.

Rittenhouse said he was there to “provide medical care,” during which he was goung to put his big gun on the ground and hope no one takes it while he administers “care” that he is not qualified to give while violating curfew.
The one guy he shot also had a gun (albeit concealed carry) but why did that guy bring a gun to the protest, too? I would imagine for defensive purposes, right? The only thing I can say is that Rittenhouse should've not been allowed to carry that rifle until he was 18. The way the law was written allowed underage kids those long guns for hunting purposes. But, if you are not in the woods clearly hunting deer or something, it should not be allowed. Rittenhouse clearly wasn't using it for the hunting game purposes.

However, in the very moment he was being attacked, it was self-defense in that moment, regardless of any of the other circumstances. it wasn't like Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people and charging towards them and then they tried to disarm him because they feared for their lives. That would be different. But, they were chasing Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse was running away and didn't even have his gun pointed at anyone and they were screaming, "Get that dude!!!" Trying to disarm a school shooter would be OK because people fear for their lives. But, someone just holding a gun and running away not pointing it it at anyone makes that person the victim. If Rittenhouse was standing there going, "I'm gonna kill all you!!! You better run!!" and then people charged him trying to disarm him, that would be OK.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
So do you agree or disagree with the Panthers bringing assault rifles to the Capitol to protest?

You can say you're not sure if you want. But, I have a feeling a lot of you aren't answering because it will show your bias.
Disagree vehemently!
I'm a patriot and I'm not OK with anyone violently assaulting the government of my country.
Especially when they're violently assaulting the basic functions of our presidential system.
Tom
 
So do you agree or disagree with the Panthers bringing assault rifles to the Capitol to protest?

If we are going to compare different events, it probably pays to look at more than one mere variable involved.

1. All of the persons involved brought legal weapons legally because the nature of the protest was over whether or not weapons should be open carry in the legislative body. That makes carrying a weapon openly a legal form of protest itself. Comparing that to public open carrying in DC Capitol (versus 1967 California), that may not be legally the same. Likewise, comparing to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was a child, not an adult, who is not thought to be able to fully comprehend the consequences of his actions and further he thought it was illegal and so did everyone else which is why he had someone else buy it.
2. Beforehand, Rittenhouse said he wanted to shoot looters. I am sure some of the Black Panther members, in particular later on in the party much after this wanted to also shoot people, but I don't have any of that documented. On the other hand, I don't think any of them said they wanted to shoot any of the legislators prior to legally entering the capitol in California.
3. The Black Panthers were allowed into the Capitol building in California by ALL police present and there was no issue with them being there legally. This is quite different than what happened in DC. Also in comparison to KR incidents...Yes, of course it was scary to some people. Compare that to Rittenhouse who was not legally out there because there was a curfew. Likewise KR went on to some other property than he was hired to protect where according to Wisconsin law, he would have no business to try to defend any property with arms...only the one where he was employed.

So...

Sorry I ruined your Black Panther Party.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
On the other hand, I don't think any of them said they wanted to shoot any of the legislators prior to legally entering the capitol in California.
3. The Black Panthers were allowed into the Capitol building in California by ALL police present and there was no issue with them being there legally.
Wait a minute.

Are we talking about the Capitol of my country, or some state I've never even visited?
So do you agree or disagree with the Panthers bringing assault rifles to the Capitol to protest?
Tell me what you meant by this.
Tom
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
On the other hand, I don't think any of them said they wanted to shoot any of the legislators prior to legally entering the capitol in California.
3. The Black Panthers were allowed into the Capitol building in California by ALL police present and there was no issue with them being there legally.
Wait a minute.

Are we talking about the Capitol of my country, or some state I've never even visited?
So do you agree or disagree with the Panthers bringing assault rifles to the Capitol to protest?
Tell me what you meant by this.
Tom
Think link Generation55 provided was to a google search involving the Black Panthers storming the California Capitol in 1967. Fun fact: nobody died either.

EDIT: I'm a little disappointed with Generation55's strawman argument. Most right wingers are currently sourcing FreedomNewstv (of all places) complaining about the New Black Panthers marching around Glynn County Courthouse. In fact, I half expected certain other members of this forum using this event to point out some imagined hypocrisy from the far left. It's almost as if the far right is expecting me to do their work for them., the lazy cunts
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Search-result links is an issue which reminds me of what someone I'll call FS liked to do: post links to search-engine results without posting what he wanted to read in those links. He did a lot of that, and I refused to visit those links.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
This is bizarre.

Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to "sprint" for Rittenhouse internship | Salon.com
"Now I do have some colleagues on the Hill who have, just like me, offered Kyle Rittenhouse an internship in their office," she told Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka, a former aide to Donald Trump, during a Tuesday interview. "And Madison Cawthorn, he said that he would arm wrestle me for this Kyle Rittenhouse internship. But Madison Cawthorn has some pretty big guns, and so I would like to challenge him to a sprint instead."

"Let's make this fair," she said of a race against Cawthorn, who uses a wheelchair.

"Allow me to arm wrestle him on your behalf," Gorka responded. "I love a good arm wrestle and I would be happy – Madison's a buddy – I'd be happy to arm wrestle him on your behalf."
noting
Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "On Newsmax, Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to a sprint, with the winner getting to have Kyle Rittenhouse as their intern (link)" / Twitter

So Lauren Boebert joins the club of right-wingers offering internships to KR.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
This is bizarre.

Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to "sprint" for Rittenhouse internship | Salon.com
"Now I do have some colleagues on the Hill who have, just like me, offered Kyle Rittenhouse an internship in their office," she told Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka, a former aide to Donald Trump, during a Tuesday interview. "And Madison Cawthorn, he said that he would arm wrestle me for this Kyle Rittenhouse internship. But Madison Cawthorn has some pretty big guns, and so I would like to challenge him to a sprint instead."

"Let's make this fair," she said of a race against Cawthorn, who uses a wheelchair.

"Allow me to arm wrestle him on your behalf," Gorka responded. "I love a good arm wrestle and I would be happy – Madison's a buddy – I'd be happy to arm wrestle him on your behalf."
noting
Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "On Newsmax, Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to a sprint, with the winner getting to have Kyle Rittenhouse as their intern (link)" / Twitter

So Lauren Boebert joins the club of right-wingers offering internships to KR.
She challenged a guy in a wheelchair to a sprint???
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member

Without supervision. Key phrase you left out. I fired my first gun when I was 12 and by the time I was 16 I think 4 or 5 different types of firearms. Never unsupervised. Having said that, I'm not sure if supervision would have made a difference in this instance because I'm not entirely certain the adults in Rittenhouse's life are responsible to use firearms either.
I know what you mean. Fired my first gun at 10, a Lee Enfield with a ferocious kick. My great uncle who served in North Africa and New Guinea was my supervisor. Kept drumming into my cousins and I all these rules that I can still remember 50 year later.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Perhaps someone can explain to me how Americans use the term racist or white supremacist.
Rittenhouse is called both yet looking at the reports he is white and he shot white people. How is that racist or makes him a white supremacist?
If I hang around the leadership of Hillsong and members of the Young Liberals, people could make the assumption that I am a Christian conservative.
By that reasoning I must be presumed to be an atheist. :ROFLMAO:
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
This is bizarre.

Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to "sprint" for Rittenhouse internship | Salon.com
"Now I do have some colleagues on the Hill who have, just like me, offered Kyle Rittenhouse an internship in their office," she told Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka, a former aide to Donald Trump, during a Tuesday interview. "And Madison Cawthorn, he said that he would arm wrestle me for this Kyle Rittenhouse internship. But Madison Cawthorn has some pretty big guns, and so I would like to challenge him to a sprint instead."

"Let's make this fair," she said of a race against Cawthorn, who uses a wheelchair.

"Allow me to arm wrestle him on your behalf," Gorka responded. "I love a good arm wrestle and I would be happy – Madison's a buddy – I'd be happy to arm wrestle him on your behalf."
noting
Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "On Newsmax, Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to a sprint, with the winner getting to have Kyle Rittenhouse as their intern (link)" / Twitter

So Lauren Boebert joins the club of right-wingers offering internships to KR.
She challenged a guy in a wheelchair to a sprint???
I think President Camacho would approve.

Idiocracy is coming sooner than anyone thought.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Rittenhouse said he was there to “provide medical care,” during which he was goung to put his big gun on the ground and hope no one takes it while he administers “care” that he is not qualified to give while violating curfew.
I think that about sums it up. I wonder what the alleged adults in the situation were fucking thinking enabling Rittenhouse like that. I guarantee from the time he left the house to the time he killed two people he fantasied being the hero of his own story at least 287,659 times. It's what teenage boys do. It's fucking unbelievable an intelligent rational adult would think, "Yep, this will end well".
Well, it seems Rittenhouse didn't play out any vigilante fantasies. He was attacked, and responded with a lot of restraint, only using his weapon when he was absolutly forced to.

On the other hand, Rosenbaum and Ziminski, two adults, decided to attack Rittenhouse. They were the ones being irresponsible.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
So, you clearly haven't even bothered to avail yourself of the basic facts.
What "basic facts"?
Like whether Rittenhouse came with other people, and what he was doing alone at that moment. Both basic facts covered in the trial.
And excessive force was not used.
What, in your mind, would have been excessive force?

If he had brought along a baseball bat, would that have been too little force?
What? No. Not sure what you think that questions gets at. Rittenhouse used a reasonable amount of force in a justified situation. You aren't allowed to randomly attack people, like Rosenbaum and Ziminski did. And if you make crazy threats about killing people, then chase that person and shoot randomly into the air and charge at a person, you are clearly acting in a manner that would make anyone fear for their life.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Well, it seems Rittenhouse didn't play out any vigilante fantasies. He was attacked, and responded with a lot of restraint, only using his weapon when he was absolutly forced to.
And the conditions that lead up to that? 17 year old kid wondering on his fucking own. With a gun. That was given. I'm sorry but that means something to me.
You aren't allowed to randomly attack people, like Rosenbaum and Ziminski did. And if you make crazy threats about killing people, then chase that person and shoot randomly into the air and charge at a person, you are clearly acting in a manner that would make anyone fear for their life.
I agree with all of that. Not everything that happened that day was on Rittenhouse. You seem to be under the delusion that Rittenhouse wanted to be the hero of his own story (which by the way you have no idea how many internet cunts are fantasising this event) and that there are no consequences.

I think you are lying when you allege Rittenhouse didn't walk into that situation being the hero of his own story. I suspect you think that.
 

blastula

Contributor
From the videos, it looks clear to me that the first shot was before his hand was near the gun. And, in fact, the medical examiner said the shot to the hand was the second shot, the kill shot was the third or fourth. The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

No--a groin shot is not going to be immediately disabling.

The shot fractured his pelvis, and he did fall face first.

And even if it is it takes time to evaluate whether someone is down. Firing another shot takes much less mental processing than evaluating whether the next shot is necessary. The reality is that you can end up with multiple shots fired into a target that is clearly down without any wrongdoing.

I don't care, still his responsibility.
 

blastula

Contributor
'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew
"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."
:lol:

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

At least, herding a person with a couple of trucks before shooting them did not qualify in another case.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yeah, this could lead to a bunch of KR "hero" wannabes, self-appointed armed citizens patrolling protests.
There have been armed people at protests well before Rittenhouse, on both sides.

Sure, but this could embolden more of that activity.

Wisconsin needs to change it's law--as it stands the prosecution had to prove it wasn't self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm inclined to think the jury actually got it right--while I don't think Rittenhouse wasn't acting in valid self defense whether that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Well, it seems Rittenhouse didn't play out any vigilante fantasies. He was attacked, and responded with a lot of restraint, only using his weapon when he was absolutly forced to.
And the conditions that lead up to that? 17 year old kid wondering on his fucking own. With a gun. That was given. I'm sorry but that means something to me.
He wasn't there alone. He was there with a group. He got separated from the group when the police blocked off one of the roads. These are just basic facts of the case.

When the encounter with Rosenbaum and Ziminski happened, he was running over to a part of the group with his friend to put out a fire with a fire extinguisher.





 
But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights.

This is a stupid straw man. It is incredibly dishonest.
BLM does not equal communist.
That’s just achingly stupid.

“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said, referring to BLM co-founder Alicia Garza.
“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk,” Cullors added in the interview with Jared Ball of The Real News Network.
While promoting her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” in 2018, Cullors described her introduction to and support for Marxist ideology."

I really feel like you guys aren't looking very far for your news. This has been well known to Republicans for years now. But every time we say they are a Marxist group, people laugh. Republicans didn't make up the BLM founding saying they are trained marxists. She said it straight out of her own mouth. So when Republicans say there is a Marxist agenda going on, they are right. It's just the facts.

Why do you think Republicans say that they support black lives, but they don't support Marxist BLM? It would basically be the equivalent of supporting white lives but not supporting the KKK and then people getting mad that you don't support the KKK when you claim to support white lives.

Marxism is a bankrupt economic system. Nobody can ever tell me how it works. I once asked someone, "I don't want to work. What happens to me in communism?" Person told me, "Someone will build you a house and you can sit inside and do nothing." "I asked, "Who's going to build me a house and why would they do that? Who's going to supply the power to it?" They had no response. The idea that in a system with no incentive to work people will still go around building houses for people is a huge fantasy. I had another discussion where I asked someone, :"What if I want a house by the beach?" Peron said, "Then you go live in a house by the beach." I asked, "How do we determine who gets the house? I wouldn't be the only person who wants to live by the beach." They had no response.
 
Last edited:
Marxism is a bankrupt economic system. Nobody can ever tell me how it works. I once asked someone, "I don't want to work. What happens to me in communism?" Person told me, "Someone will build you a house and [blah blah blah blah..... bunch of irrelevant stuff from a tangent]

Can you point to a specific place in Das Kapital where it says that they will build you a house because you are lazy?
 
Top Bottom