PSA For Progressives: A Vehicle Is A Weapon. Minneapolis Women Dead After Driving Towards ICE Agent

[Jersey Girl]

Kristi Noem: “We can't trust our government anymore.”

Bash: “You are the government.”

Noem: “Yes, that’s what I’m saying.”

I wish I was making this up.

I wish you were making it up, too. But all of this is coming out of one adminstration that has metastasized across the entire globe.

We're taking over Venezuala.
We're going to bomb Mexico on the ground.
We're going to "take" Greenland.

That woman was a professional agitator who ran over an ICE agent and dragged him down the street.

That's the short list of events over just a short period of days.

The man has no concept of the United States of America.
He has no concept of international relations.
He has no concept of the world as a whole.
He has no concept of international commerce.
He has no concept of the very words that come out of his mouth at any given time.
He has no concept of the existence of actual humans who hear his ravings.

He's gobbling up real estate for what reason? So he dies with the most marbles and calls it a win? From where, the grave?

I wonder if...Elon has the unredacted Epstein files. I wonder if Putin has them. Sure to heck someone (or multiple someones) has got a copy of them. I can only hope they release them at the opportune moment and wipe this guy off the page and out of our sight.

This guy isn't an orange clown. He's not a giant eye roll.

He's literally lethal.

Theory: This IS about the Epstein files.

[Gunnar]

Kristi Noem: “We can't trust our government anymore.”

Bash: “You are the government.”

Noem: “Yes, that’s what I’m saying.”

I wish I was making this up.

It seems to be getting more and more likely that Trump would really try to put the entire nation under martial law and cancel the next midterm election altogether if he perceived that was the only way he could retain his power and escape impeachment, conviction and eventual incarceration for the rest of his life. He already has seriously suggested the possibility of cancelling elections, though foolishly suggesting that Democrats might be who would try to do it, which makes not the slightest bit of sense.

[Dr. Shades]

Can someone (RI, Cam, Gunnar, Shades) take a look at this video that records what happened directly after the vehicle comes to a stop on the other side of the street from the driver's side and please tell me...what you think the officers are doing moving around the vehicle with what looks like bags? . . . Tell me what you see going on there.

I can't tell. They're bringing up medical kits, perhaps?

I’m not defending ICE. In fact, I’m not even talking about ICE at all.

I merely made a simple inquiry about the consistency of those who criticized Kyle Rittenhouse by saying “he shouldn’t have been there.”

What’s the answer to my inquiry? Try your hardest to use your words.

What is the similarity between the two situations?

The similarity is that both incidents resulted in loss of life.

Another similarity is that neither instances of loss of life would've happened if the agitator hadn't been there.

I'm wondering why the people on this board who rightly pointed out that the person in Incident A shouldn't have been there aren't also rightly pointing out that the person in Incident B shouldn't have been there, either.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why didn’t the woman have right to be there? Use your words.

[Equality]

Can someone (RI, Cam, Gunnar, Shades) take a look at this video that records what happened directly after the vehicle comes to a stop on the other side of the street from the driver's side and please tell me...what you think the officers are doing moving around the vehicle with what looks like bags? . . . Tell me what you see going on there.

I can't tell. They're bringing up medical kits, perhaps?

What is the similarity between the two situations?

The similarity is that both incidents resulted in loss of life.

Another similarity is that neither instances of loss of life would've happened if the agitator hadn't been there.

I'm wondering why the people on this board who rightly pointed out that the person in Incident A shouldn't have been there aren't also rightly pointing out that the person in Incident B shouldn't have been there, either.

One difference is that in the Rittenhouse case, he took an AR-15, traveled across state lines into a volatile situation, and chose to kill people with his weapon. Good lived in the neighborhood where she was murdered, had just dropped her 6-year-old off at school, and was unarmed when she was shot in the face three times.

It's true that one similarity is that the people who lost their lives would not have lost their lives if not for the agitators being where they should not be. In the case of Rittenhouse, he was an armed agitator who should have stayed home. In the case of Good, ICE agent Ross was an armed agitator who had no business being on that residential street in Minneapolis harassing unarmed US citizens in their neighborhood.

This is me rightfully pointing out that Person A (Rittenhouse) should not have been where he was and Person B (Ross) should not have been where he was.

[Hound of Heaven]

I can't tell. They're bringing up medical kits, perhaps?


The similarity is that both incidents resulted in loss of life.

Another similarity is that neither instances of loss of life would've happened if the agitator hadn't been there.

I'm wondering why the people on this board who rightly pointed out that the person in Incident A shouldn't have been there aren't also rightly pointing out that the person in Incident B shouldn't have been there, either.

One difference is that in the Rittenhouse case, he took an AR-15, traveled across state lines into a volatile situation, and chose to kill people with his weapon. Good lived in the neighborhood where she was murdered, had just dropped her 6-year-old off at school, and was unarmed when she was shot in the face three times.

It's true that one similarity is that the people who lost their lives would not have lost their lives if not for the agitators being where they should not be. In the case of Rittenhouse, he was an armed agitator who should have stayed home. In the case of Good, ICE agent Ross was an armed agitator who had no business being on that residential street in Minneapolis harassing unarmed US citizens in their neighborhood.

This is me rightfully pointing out that Person A (Rittenhouse) should not have been where he was and Person B (Ross) should not have been where he was.

What an idiot you are! She was armed with a weapon, it's called a vehicle, which is a weapon, ding dong!!

She made a choice to hit a human being with her weapon/vehicle, she didn't have to do that, but she did.

If two police officers knock on a door, then step back 20 feet, the homeowner comes out with a gun, he raises the gun and points it 30 feet to the left of the officers, he's not shooting at the officers, he's shooting 30 feet to the left the officers, would the officers be justified in shooting the homeowner? Can you or one of your progressive buddies answer honestly? I bet not!

[canpakes]

What is the similarity between the two situations?

The similarity is that both incidents resulted in loss of life.

Correct. Most murders/mansalughters result in a loss of life. I think that the rate is 100% or so.

Another similarity is that neither instances of loss of life would've happened if the agitator hadn't been there.

Who is the agitator? ICE approached Good’s Honda, which was parked on the street in her neighborhood when they rolled up.

What if you framed this in terms of who was doing the shooting?

• Rittenhouse should not have shot his victim,

• Ross should not have shot his victim.

As also pointed out by Equality … this seems consistent, yes?

Maybe the better approach is to ask about the outcome of the encounter.

I'm wondering why the people on this board who rightly pointed out that the person in Incident A shouldn't have been there aren't also rightly pointing out that the person in Incident B shouldn't have been there, either.

“Shouldn’t have been there” isn’t really the question. Just about every death at the hands of another individual can be labeled as an example of someone who ‘shouldn’t have been’ somewhere.

[canpakes]

If two police officers knock on a door, then step back 20 feet, the homeowner comes out with a gun, he raises the gun and points it 30 feet to the left of the officers, he's not shooting at the officers, he's shooting 30 feet to the left the officers, would the officers be justified in shooting the homeowner? Can you or one of your progressive buddies answer honestly? I bet not!

Good didn’t have a firearm. Your example is something that a ding dong would think up. “ ”

[Chap]

If two police officers knock on a door, then step back 20 feet, the homeowner comes out with a gun, he raises the gun and points it 30 feet to the left of the officers, he's not shooting at the officers, he's shooting 30 feet to the left the officers, would the officers be justified in shooting the homeowner? Can you or one of your progressive buddies answer honestly? I bet not!

Good didn’t have a firearm. Your example is something that a ding dong would think up.

Driving past somebody is not the same as shooting a gun past them. Once the car is past, no more danger (not that it seems from the video there ever was any). And yet the ICE agent fired two shots through the window of the side of her car, where he was standing.

I agree, the HoH post is simply a ridiculous comparison.

[canpakes]

Driving past somebody is not the same as shooting a gun past them. Once the car is past, no more danger (not that it seems from the video there ever was any). And yet the ICE agent fired two shots through the window of the side of her car, where he was standing.

Yep. Look how much he was in danger here as he stands off to the side of the vehicle and fires repeatedly into Good’s face.

I agree, the HoH post is simply a ridiculous comparison.

Just more crap propaganda from a MAGA apologist.