so much for Biden’s plan to defeat Covid

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As the media you believe in would say, as reported today, Tim Scott is reportedly a Klansman
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete you got caught editing words to
make a republican look like he was saying something other than what he actually said.

you constantly reply to things no one ever said.

if your beliefs are so flimsy that you have to physically alter the words that someone else said before you can respond, what does that say about your beliefs?

Nothing good.

EVEN YOU know you couldn’t reply to what Cawthorn actually said. So you changed his words.

You’re a complete fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete you got caught editing words to
make a republican look like he was saying something other than what he actually said.

you constantly reply to things no one ever said.

if your beliefs are so flimsy that you have to physically alter the words that someone else said before you can respond, what does that say about your beliefs?

Nothing good.

EVEN YOU know you couldn’t reply to what Cawthorn actually said. So you changed his words.

You’re a complete fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again you claim baloney
The representative you claim to be an example of moral rectitude?
A typical example of the type of leader you glorify

Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.
Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again you claim baloney
The representative you claim to be an example of moral rectitude?
A typical example of the type of leader you glorify

Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.
Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sounds like he should run for president as a democrat...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again you claim baloney
The representative you claim to be an example of moral rectitude?
A typical example of the type of leader you glorify

Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.
Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i never came close to saying Cawthorn is a moral authority. i said, correctly, that you deceptively edited his comment.

if Cawthorn is such an idiot, why do you have to deceptively edit his words before you respond to them?

this isn’t about Cawthorn, it has nothing to do with him at all. it’s about you being a liar about what he said, trying to paint him as something he’s not. this is about you, not about him.

you’re having a rough month pete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i never came close to saying Cawthorn is a moral authority. i said, correctly, that you deceptively edited his comment.

if Cawthorn is such an idiot, why do you have to deceptively edit his words before you respond to them?

this isn’t about Cawthorn, it has nothing to do with him at all. it’s about you being a liar about what he said, trying to paint him as something he’s not. this is about you, not about him.

you’re having a rough month pete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t post every other word he said in his life either
Just what does being armed and dangerous have to do with morals?
Is that some special Catholic ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I didn’t post every other word he said in his life either
Just what does being armed and dangerous have to do with morals?
Is that some special Catholic ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The morality relates to the matter of to whom are you dangerous. Being armed is being dangerous. Police officers, military personnel, body guards, secret service, are armed and dangerous to the bad guys. Patriotic armed citizens are also dangerous to the bad guys.

Being moral is being on the side of the good guys, and being dangerous to the bad guys.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I didn’t post every other word he said in his life either
Just what does being armed and dangerous have to do with morals?
Is that some special Catholic ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

to you, being armed is inconsistent with being moral?

pete, slow down, take a few deep breaths.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Was Kyle hunting people?

A piece by Kurt Eichenwald

"Recently, I gave a deep dive why - based on the law & evidence presented at trial - the Rittenhouse verdict was correct, even though he's a miserable punk & the GOP celebration is obscene. Today, a new point: the case shows why open carry laws are a threat to this country as I wrote in the last thread, all that mattered in reaching the verdict was Rittenhouse's state of mind: did he believe he was in imminent threat of bodily harm. That's the law. The evidence supported his belief of that was reasonable. However, it *also* supported that his victims - Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz - could believe *Rittenhouse* posed an imminent threat of bodily harm *to them.* Eliminate Rosenbaum, because his case is more complex. No doubt, Huber & Grosskreutz were reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as an active shooter because, in fact, that is what he was. Rittenhouse's belief that he was in imminent threat did not change the fact that Huber and Grosskreutz looked at a guy firing a gun at people and concluded that he was randomly killing people. Huber hitting him with the skateboard is not only reasonable, it is exceptionally brave. Grosskreutz, the survivor, testified he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter and pointed a gun he was carrying at him, but was shot before he could shoot.

So *no one* thought they were committing a crime. They *all*were acting in self-defense. Yet it was Rittenhouse who lit the match by bringing an assault rifle with a bunch of thugs to a protest, and being allowed to stay there as an adjunct to law enforcement. But Rittenhouse had not committed a crime in doing so: Open carry with any type of legal gun is legal there. So, an assault rifle, marching down the street? The law says nothing.

There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy. And the GOPrs who are celebrating this are declaring that brave people who confront who they believe is an active shooter are scum if they have the "wrong" politics.
Those people should not have been there at all. But suppose their motives were pure, and they all had guns legally, and they were all there with concealed carry. What did they lose? The ability to act like tough guys. The ability to intimidate. And the likelihood that the gun would create a scenario where everyone can be shot, and no one committed a crime.

Many people object to concealed carry. If a state has carry laws, I prefer concealed. Open carry is an invitation to reckless faux tough-guys who think intimidating the unarmed makes them masculine, the Rittenhouse shooting is a tragedy in a lot of different ways. But don't miss where the focus should be: On the laws that allowed this to happen. And never forgive GOPrs who spit on those who tried to stop who they believed was an active shooter, simply because these GOPrs don't like the politics of the victims. Laughing about the death of those who believed they were risking their lives for others is sociopathic."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Was Kyle hunting people?

A piece by Kurt Eichenwald

"Recently, I gave a deep dive why - based on the law & evidence presented at trial - the Rittenhouse verdict was correct, even though he's a miserable punk & the GOP celebration is obscene. Today, a new point: the case shows why open carry laws are a threat to this country as I wrote in the last thread, all that mattered in reaching the verdict was Rittenhouse's state of mind: did he believe he was in imminent threat of bodily harm. That's the law. The evidence supported his belief of that was reasonable. However, it *also* supported that his victims - Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz - could believe *Rittenhouse* posed an imminent threat of bodily harm *to them.* Eliminate Rosenbaum, because his case is more complex. No doubt, Huber & Grosskreutz were reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as an active shooter because, in fact, that is what he was. Rittenhouse's belief that he was in imminent threat did not change the fact that Huber and Grosskreutz looked at a guy firing a gun at people and concluded that he was randomly killing people. Huber hitting him with the skateboard is not only reasonable, it is exceptionally brave. Grosskreutz, the survivor, testified he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter and pointed a gun he was carrying at him, but was shot before he could shoot.

So *no one* thought they were committing a crime. They *all*were acting in self-defense. Yet it was Rittenhouse who lit the match by bringing an assault rifle with a bunch of thugs to a protest, and being allowed to stay there as an adjunct to law enforcement. But Rittenhouse had not committed a crime in doing so: Open carry with any type of legal gun is legal there. So, an assault rifle, marching down the street? The law says nothing.

There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy. And the GOPrs who are celebrating this are declaring that brave people who confront who they believe is an active shooter are scum if they have the "wrong" politics.
Those people should not have been there at all. But suppose their motives were pure, and they all had guns legally, and they were all there with concealed carry. What did they lose? The ability to act like tough guys. The ability to intimidate. And the likelihood that the gun would create a scenario where everyone can be shot, and no one committed a crime.

Many people object to concealed carry. If a state has carry laws, I prefer concealed. Open carry is an invitation to reckless faux tough-guys who think intimidating the unarmed makes them masculine, the Rittenhouse shooting is a tragedy in a lot of different ways. But don't miss where the focus should be: On the laws that allowed this to happen. And never forgive GOPrs who spit on those who tried to stop who they believed was an active shooter, simply because these GOPrs don't like the politics of the victims. Laughing about the death of those who believed they were risking their lives for others is sociopathic."

There's a glaring problem, among the other glowing embers of problems, with this article. There were dozens of other open gun carriers branding their rifles milling in the crowd, even in the vicinity of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was the only one that was attacked. He used his gun to defend himself from Rosenbaum. If the only reason Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse was because he was openly carrying a rifle, how did he miss all the others whom he must have seen, and before he even saw Rittenhouse?

The author of your article is omitting other more important causal factors, which were pointed out in the trial, than the openly carried weapons.