Comments by "Peter Ford" (@peterford9369) on "'I don't respect him at all:' Taylor Greene rips Republican leader" video.

@dragonfly3816 Sounds like a medal for a murderer is what u want to? Greens nothing but a loud mouth work out queen that has 0 qualifications to be a law maker. She got elected by promising everything to the working stiffs and now fights against those same people with her trump kissing mouth. She's on an ego trip same as rump, and she's just a flake that will go stale with her on party soon enough. Lose cannons get discarded. The leaders of the party don't mind people like McConnell because though they're just as much creeps as Green, know when to shut up. She doesn't.
2
She wants the Republicans to be harder on other republicans that don't stand up for her when she acts like the turd that she is. So nice seeing them turn on each other. Listen to Walsh, When the Republicans take the house next year. Thats not a sure thing pal.
1
@dragonfly3816 I'd call him a citizen,if he'd have come to the protest to speak his piece. Like a man. I don't condone the burning or looting either. But then he was no better by using deadly force or bringing it with intent. It's the duty of the law to stand against looting and burning. Protest is an American right. Green is not supposed to do certain things she does, just because she is in a position too have a pulpit. She disrespect s her position and makes it a sham.
1
@dragonfly3816 I told you, I don't condone the destruction of personal property , city property, anything of the like. And those people should be dealt with accordingly ad well. Most people, even most protestors don't condone it. But that is up to the constituted legal system to deal with. Not vigilante law. But coming from the BLM side of it. What the hell happens when there are non violent, totally peaceful protests? NOTHING. Look what happens when highschool kids protest peacefully about shooters coming in to schools with assault rifles, semi automatic pistols, smoke bombs etc, and kill, kids. Nothing. The gun companies and the NRA do nothing to curb the bubble gum Despenser gun toss to anyone with the cash. As much killer ammo as they can buy. Extended round magazines, sold at gun shows. As a mater of fact, didint Rittenhouse have to go to his friends house to even get the weapon? I don't think it's his. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. He took it instead of a camera, where he could have truly been a hero and taken pictures of the exact people actually commiting the damages. But no. He wanted to play storm trooper and threaten people into submission at the point of the AR-15. And 2 people were killed. Killed by an immature Rambo wannabe.
1
@dragonfly3816 If tuff guy Kyle, hadn't had the weapon. He wouldn't have had gun balls, and would have never confronted anyone. And these ridiculous names they gave these people, is disgusting. They're making a stupid game, out of killings. And you , graciously going along with it, by repeating them, show u have 0 compassion for someone getting killed. And not just shot. Shot with jacketed ammunition. Which doesn't stop when it hits something it goes bouncing around. Possibly hitting someone else. But I guess in your eyes, that's too cool. Wish you were there, yelling, Go Kyle go. You the man. All he had to do was go there. Take a cell phone, call the cops to the area he saw bad stuff, and then he'd have been a good citizen. He instigated the situation, then when people responded to his actions, he shot them. And he felt like a big man. He's not, he's a punk wannabe
1
@dragonfly3816 Right, I don't remember my boy scout group leader promoting ,see a protest, grab your assault rifle and head on over. And I watched some of the trial. And no matter the outcome, because of the way the judge was behaving and the points they used to make him seem like a regular public spirited boyscout,ur words,,,My point as well as millions of others was, why did he just have to bring a weapon,,,and not just a simple pistol,,,a rifle created for military use with,,,rounds meant for deadly force. He's a 17 year old kid, with no real safty weapon training, wanting to play man. So, all the back and forth of the judge making light of the prosecution's points and not accepting some of the evidence because of technical reasons, the jury had to go by the legal aspects and not the common sense of his actions. You people and your constant craming the, your smothered by media influence,,,is getting old. I based my judgement on the part's of the trial I did see,and the common question. Why did he take the weapon there, were all the attacks on him, because he had it and used it as a threatening shield? Bottom line, if he hadn't had it, probably no one would have been killed and he wouldn't have been attacked at all.
1