After being physically attacked by 3 white protesters which he shot killing two Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges based on self-defence. By the left, he is being called a white supremacist and murderer while ignoring the wanton destruction of property and murders by activists.

With varying degrees of apoplexy, from President Biden on down, the party’s leaders and its allies emphasised their dismay with or rage at the decision by 12 of Mr Rittenhouse’s peers, after due deliberation, unanimously to find him not guilty of first-degree murder and lesser charges in the killings of two men and wounding of a third during the August 2020 riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Mr Biden, proving himself once again the consummate moral weakling, first declared his respect for the jury’s verdict, then pronounced himself — no doubt after consultation with his handlers — “angry and concerned.” While the follow-up statement paid lip service to the idea that a jury’s decision should be respected, the more striking message was that remarkable emotional response to its unanimous decision

shadowminister,

What on earth are you talking about. Biden's release said this:

"While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken."

Perfectly fine statement that you have tried to chop up to create something to support your agenda.

It is dishonest and unbecoming but not untypical where you are concerned.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/19/statement-by-president-biden/

I'm wondering whether he would have been acquitted in Australia. I don't know why he went to a protest in a town he doesn't live in, armed with a rifle, or why he went to the protest at all. He is a very lucky young man who, hopefully, has learned not to 'do it again'.

I also wonder what the verdict would have been had the dead people been black.

I don't really know enough about it, but the fact that it is Leftists making all the fuss about the verdict means that it was probably the right one.

SR,

You really need to put a sock in it. What I posted was a quote from an article, and secondly, the order in which it occurs is largely irrelevant.

As usual, your fatuous nitpicking is your substitution for reasoned debate and is typically dishonest.

I agree with gun safety advocate Ryan Busse a former
gun industry executive who said he feared Mr
Ritterhouse would become:

"Some heroic martyr" who made it "glamourous tp go
kill somebody with a rifle.

shadowminister,

"What I posted was a quote from an article"

What a typically lame excuse.

If you are going to quote from something the very least you could do is put up the quotation marks or even a link as well.

You really need to stop trying to pass this stuff off as your own.

Shame.

SR,

A bit of a pathetic apology after looking so stupid.

The issue is that the left whinge media are looking at massive lawsuits after branding this guy a racist and white supremacist.

Biden, fool and demagogue that he is, had previously rather incongruously called Rittenhouse a "white supremist". His statement following the trial needs to be seen in that light.

Rittenhouse will be held out as an exemplar of the right to self-defence. Equally, like Covington student Nick Sandmann, he will be held out as an example of those from a disfavoured group who the legacy media sought to destroy through lies and half-truths. Like Sandmann, Rittenhouse will start his adult life as a millionaire, curtesy of the lying 'progressive' media.

Foxy,
Don’t agree with people who can’t use English, there is no question of Rittenhouse being killed for his beliefs etc. which is the definition of a martyr.
Really, as an educated librarian you should have seen this.

General.
No one is making any reference to the facts that those killed and the wounded one were/are convicted criminals and the survivor was armed with a pistol, despite it being a criminal offence for a felon to possess a firearm.

The plea of self-defence was accepted by the jury, and lawyers are gearing up to sue the media for their usual prejudices and prejudging of the case.

President Biden should also be sued for his pre-trial 'white supremacist' comment.

Suck it up Lefties. There is still some justice in this world, despite your hatred, nastiness and pig-ignorance.

shadowminister,

What is most pathetic is assuming I was apologising to you in any describable fashion. I most certainly wasn't.

As to anyone suing anyone else this pathetic character likely has multiple civil lawsuits coming his way.

Steele,
Why is he a pathetic character?
And good luck with any law suits against him, I’ll bet he ends up with millions of dollars when he is finished with the Media and the “incumbent fool”.

Dear Steele,

Rittenhouse had no business owning or possessing his
Smith & Wesson M & P 15 or being in Kenosha that night.
A friend bought the gun which Rittenhouse paid for using
a government stimulus check because he was too young to
purchase an assault rifle. Rittenhouse put himself in
harm's way. He was the only one who pulled a trigger that
night. He also had a reputation for violence which the
judge ruled out.

Prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his closing argument
at Rittenhouse's murder trial:

"You can't claim self-defense for a danger that you create."

It turns out you can - in Wisconsin!

But as an article in The Washington points in its opinion
piece points out - being found not guilty on all 5 charges
does not mean he's morally innocent.

The guy showed no remorse for what he did. And he got
rewarded for it.

Not only is it pathetic. It's sick!

Foxy,
Why should the lad shew remorse, he performed a public service.
No comment on the wounded felon pointing an illegally held pistol at Rittenhouse with obvious intent to harm him?
The Prosecutor was a beauty, he picked up a gun in court, put it to his shoulder and aimed it with his finger on the trigger, and didn’t check to see if it was loaded,.
Now that’s demonstrating a regard for safety.

cont'd ...

The article in The Washington Post tells us that
Rittenhouse's behaviour was needlessly provocative.
He crossed state lines from his home in Illinois
and foolishly put himself in harm's way.

Rittenhouse was the only person to pull a trigger that night.
He broke dopwn sobbing during his testimony not because of
what he did but because he claimed he felt he was in danger
in a place where he should not have been in the first place.

The Post tells us not to under estimate the power of
Rittenhouse's tears or the audible sobbing of his mother in
the court room. It had an effect on the jury of 7 women and
5 men.

Also a series of decisions by Judge Bruce E. Schroeder tipped
the scales in Rittenhouse's favour. The Judge forbade the
prosecution from calling the men Rittenhouse shot as "victims."

The Post says that more significantly the Judge blocked
the prosecutors from introducing 3 pieces of evidence that
illustrated the trigger-happy defendent's propensity for
violence.

The jury should have been given the chance to decide for
themselves Rittenhouse's state of mind - which would have shown
he was looking for trouble.

The Judge also dismissed the 6th charge against Rittenhouse -
the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 -
which Rittenhouse was at the time of purchase.

The whole trial was a farce. Had Rittenhouse been black -
the verdict would have been entirely different. That is the sad
state of affairs in the "land of the free and the brave."

We should all be grateful we live in this country.

Foxy,
WOW1!
The continuation of your post breaks your record for unfounded assumptions; still I must admit that I seem to have read them before; do you ever do any original thinking?

"Rittenhouse was the only person to pull a trigger that night."

That is simply, laughably wrong. Wrong as in not even close to the truth. Wrong in the same way that saying the sun rises in the west is wrong. Wrong as in hiding the facts of the matter.

A 'protestor' (really they were arsonists and looters) named Ziminski fired the first shot while Rittenhouse was running away, making Rittenhouse think he was being targeted. Seconds later Rosenbaum caught him and tried to grab the gun.

So wrong.

Foxy also thinks the law was wrong to not allow supposed evidence of prior violent acts by Ritternhouse. I assume, because Foxy is strenuously even-handed, that she also thinks its wrong that evidence of previous sexual activity by a 'victim' can't be used in a rape trial.

I'm trying hard these days to not pile on with Foxy and SR when they make voluminous and egregious errors. So even though her posts on this are riddled with errors and half-truth as above, I'll leave it at that.

I don't know too much about the circumstances arising out of this unfortunate event - What I do know, if it were up to me Mr RITTENHOUSE wouldn't be permitted within a mile of an F/A for 'any' reason. The whole gun culture in the United States makes me despair singularly.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You.

As always, well said.

I watched hours of the trial on UTube and being posted here are media reports that are factually wrong. He was visiting his fathers home and initially protecting a friends car yard before being targeted by the Antifa thugs. He fired no shots at arsonists or looters except when they turned on him. I've watched the videos of the events shown in court and the Jury could see that his action was self defence. He handed himself into police and spent 82 days in prison, until a bond was paid for his release.

Foxy,
Are you going to ignore the points raised?
What don’t you understand about the ‘discuss’ in ‘discussion forum’ ?

There are two competing narratives in the Kyle
Rittenhouse case:

1) Kyle Rittenhouse being a victim who was attached.

2) Kyle Rittenhouse being a vigilante who provoked the
violence.

The jury bought the victim narrative.

Mr HUber, the father of one of the victims said:

"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians
can show up in any townw, incite violence and then use the
danger they've created to justify shooting people in the
street."

Kyle Rittenhouse's claim that he was "trying to help the
community" and that he "reacted to people attacking him."
does not make any sense.

Why did Kyle Rittenhouse break curfew in a city he did not
live in and "pretend to guard" people and property he was
not familiar with?

Foxy many of your claims are false.
Huber was not a victim, he in the case was an agressor, and had criminal record of chocking his brother and had a pistol. They were terrorising the community lighting businesses on fire.

Kyle did not provoke violence as you claim, he was giving first aid to those with burns as he was training as a paramedic.

You are listening to media that supports Antifa and the destruction of America and its Democratic systems. It was the Antifa terrorists burning down the businesses that were in town committing crimes.

Rittenhouse began his testimony by telling jurors he is studying nursing at Arizona State University. He testified that he had worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha, was part of a police explorer program and knows CPR and basic life support.

He lived in Antioch, Illinois, with his mother, and his father lived in Kenosha. He testified that he went into Kenosha on the morning of August 25 to clean up graffiti, and then again that night with a rifle and small medic kit and joined up with a group of armed people.
"I went down there to provide first aid," he said. He said he did not go there looking for trouble.

Rittenhouse told jurors that Rosenbaum threatened to kill him twice that night. In one instance, Rosenbaum screamed, "if I catch any of you f@@@ alone, I'll f@@@ kill you," according to Rittenhouse.

He was in the city where his father lives and runs a business, he was asked by his father to help.

Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender who spent 12 years in prison, barred from possessing a firearm. Rosenbaum anally raped children. Literally. 9 to 11 year-olds. You are glorifying a child rapist."

Huber was previously convicted of domestic abuse and disorderly conduct in 2018. He also spent time in prison in 2012 after assaulting choking his own brother.

Foxy the Assumptionist strikes again.

Complaints that the Judge erred in not allowing the prosecutor to describe the three shot as victims are not sound in law, they could not be described as ‘victims’ until the case was decided in their favour, and it wasn’t.

We shouldn't be too hard on Foxy. Unlike people like Paul and SR who wantonly misrepresent facts in an effort to support their ideology, Foxy is merely spectacularly naïve.

Foxy, over the years has shown that she really doesn't want to read widely to get the truth but instead looks for comfort to reinforce her prejudices. After all, who reads the Washington Post to try to get the truth on this? You may as well read the China Daily to find out what happened to Peng Shuai.

Foxy reads those who tell her what she wants to believe and then believes it. There are millions like her. Even after the Rittenhouse verdict came out there were still people who repeated the lies told such as the 'victims' were black.

Its a massive problem for this society. If you have millions of Foxys who think they are informed while being utter uninformed, you end up with an electorate that is easily manipulated.

You end up with Russian collusion hoaxes and stolen generation lies and climate catastrophism.

Foxy,

Much of the information you published is false.

KR did not cross the state line to go to the protest, as he was already in the state, and the breaking of curfew charge was dismissed because there was no actual curfew in place.

KR did not provoke the violence and even prosecution witnesses indicated that he made no aggressive moves. And the only people he shot were physically attacking him.

While I am not a fan of the gun laws in the US, his presence at the riot was not illegal in any way. The violence against him was real and unprovoked and given the history of murders by similar rioters potentially fatal.

KR is not a hero, but neither are those shot innocent victims

Shadowminister, A factual post on the case.

We can continue to argue this case and go around
in circles claiming all sorts of things.
It all depends on which narrative you believe
regarding Kyle Rittenhouse.

!) That he's a victim who was attacked.

2) Or a vigilante who put himself in harm's way.

The jury bought the victim narrative.

For me there's too many unanswered questions.

Sheriff David Beth declared the 7pm to 7 am curfew on
August 24th the day after a Kenosha police officer fired
7 shots at Jacob Blake leaving him paralyzed and setting off
protests, arson, and vandalism.

More than 250 arrests resulted. Only protesters had been
charged with curfew violations, many of them and their
supporters complained that none of the dozens of armed men
were ticketed.

Be that as it may - what I find troublesome is -

Why did Rittenhouse break curfew in a city he did not live
in and "pretend to guard" people and property he was not familiar with?

I simply don't buy his version of events.

I may well be "naive" but to me this entire business makes
no sense. And it does reflect the huge racial divide that
exists in America. Plus the added problem of guns.

Foxy,

"Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed to dismiss a curfew violation charge against Rittenhouse, ruling that prosecutors had failed to present any evidence a curfew was in place."

Therefore he didn't break curfew. Question answered. That rioters were arrested is a separate question.

Secondly, his reasons for being there are largely irrelevant. The rioters attacked and assaulted him unprovoked giving him a legitimate reason to defend himself.

As for his reasons, the rioters were burning and looting businesses in an area where some of his friends worked.

As for being vigilante, the broad definition would include your neighbourhood watch ie. broadly: a self-appointed doer of justice

Finally, one white man shooting 3 white attackers is a racial issue? Why?

Foxy,
Why do you say that Rittenhouse was defending property he was not familiar with?
It came out in evidence that his father has a car dealership in the area, surely he’d be familiar with his father’s business.
What evidence do you have that he was pretending to guard premises?/
The one that he wounded admitted in court that he was armed with a pistol and that he pointed it at Rittenhouse, thereby justifying his getting shot

Read/watch the evidence instead of relying on biased media, then admit that you were wrong.

Mike Rittenhouse, Kyle's father does not own a
car dealership in Kenosha. He has a record of
problems with alcohol and drugs, and of doing a
variety of jobs. The car dealership that Kyle
was supposedly "guarding" did not belong to his father.
And it's owners were of no relation to him.

Again - a vigilante who put himself in harm's way.
Which again sends a message that armed civilians can show up
in any town incite violence and then use the "danger" that
they created to justify shooting people in the street.

Video of the evening shows Rittenhouse putting out fires lighted by the looters and so-called protestors. I guess that stopping these people from destroying private property is a form of provocation...if you're completely clueless.

Video of the evening shows Rittenhouse running in the area of the violence calling out to people who might have needed first aid. A vigilante who wants to administer first aid? If you rooly trooly want it to be true, it is.

Foxy,

Do me a favour. In your very first post you asserted that the only shots fired were from Rittenhouse. Now that is patently false and the fact that at least one 'protestor' fired first is not in dispute. Its not part of competing narratives as you hope. Its an established fact.
So the favour? just admit that you at least got that wrong to demonstrate that you are capable of learning from the facts.

Foxy,
Seems that I got it wrong about the dealership, I was wrong.

Now it’s your turn.

Foxy,

There was no evidence that KR attempted at any point to "incite violence" and solid evidence that he tried to rescue people and property being violently attacked by the rioters.

It appears that your point of view is that:
1 Rioters should not be challenged in their destruction and murder
2 Simply standing in the way rioters is rightfully inciting them to violent assault you. (people have been viciously beaten for attempting to put out fires etc.)
3 Defending oneself against rioters is an offence.

This is a tweet I came across.

"I have watched the whole Rittenhouse case. The Jury found him not guilty.

I didn't know that Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.

I didn't know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.

I didn't know that Kyles Dad, Grandma and Friends all lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois.

I didn't know that Joseph Rosenbaum knocked him down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
I didn't know that Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.

I didn't know Gaige Grosskreutz, a felon in possession of firearm, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.

I also didn't know that in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).

I didn't know that Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.

I also didn't realize that Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted
child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater.

I didn't know that Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.

IF THE MEDIA DID THEIR JOB... we would ALL have known this!"

Even Foxy....perhaps.

Mike Cernovich responded...
"My mother-in-law is a normie Democrat, watches CNN and believes it.
Rittenhouse coverage was huge for her.
She can't believe how much CNN lied about the case. She's in actual shock.
Her awakening happened to millions."

But I know one who wasn't awakened.

Gentlemen,

This might help clarify things for you:

http://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defence-role-model/620715/

In what has been described as a "modern day lynching" three of the white good ole boys father and son Greg McMichael, 65, and Travis McMichael, 35, and their neighbour William "Roddie" Bryan 52, have been found guilty of the murder of black man Ahmaud Arbery who was gunned down whilst out jogging in his Georgia neighbourhood. In a vigilante act the three chased down the innocent Arbery in their pick-up trucks and then proceed to shoot Arbery in what they descried as an act of citizens arrest, in fact it was a murderous act against an innocent man. The three white men may have gotten away with deadly citizens arrest of an innocent black man in Georgia in 1961, but fortunately things have changed and all three were found guilty.

Some here want similar gun laws which would allow for free ranging vigilantes to roam at will, and take the law into their own hands. Australian must be ever on guard for those that seek this type of harm on our society.

Paul,
A great contribution, pity that it’s irrelevant.
Of course if the Greens ruled then this sort of thing would never happen, because it is Greens’ doctrine that one can never defend one’s self with a firearm, under their benign rule if one is about to be shot and one is fortunate enough to have a firearm then one must submit to being shot
‘Principle 7.
That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning possessing or USING a firearm “ (capitals added).
Now that makes sense does it not?

Foxy,
With that link you demonstrated just how out of touch you are.

Is Mise,

Understanding anything about me is beyond your
comprehension.

Foxy,
Don’t kid yourself, I progressed well beyond Psych.101.

What do you think of the Greens’ Principle 7 ?

Is Rittenhouse a hero?
Depends on the point of view, I’d say that he is.

Hitler was a hero as was Goering.

hi issy,

I take it you support vigilantism, and the good ole boys above were doing no more than their civic duty. I'm comfortable with Greens policy, such a policy would see Ahmaud Arbery and thousands of other Americans alive today, instead gun toting nutjobs are allowed to roam free killing at will.

Is Ian Turnbull who shot and killed environmental officer Glen Turner another folk hero who was only performing his civic duty.

Its all very sad. This could have been treated as a learning moment for the likes of Foxy. Large numbers seem to be learning just how much their favoured media lie to them and acting accordingly.

But the likes of Foxy have chosen a side and they don't really care that that side habitually lies to them. Indeed the likes of Foxy crave the lies, want to be lied to.

There's a revolution going on in media where the legacy media is loosing its ability to suppress the truth and control the narrative. Independent media is finding ways to get the truth out. New sites like substack are giving the truth an outlet. But the legacy media relies on the likes of Foxy, who merely want to be told comforting falsehoods, to continue their narrative.

Foxy could have learned how to break that mould. But, unsurprisingly, she chose otherwise.

Yes, sad. I used to hope she was better than that.

Paul thinks that three men using a gun to kill someone proves that we have to have laws to ban guns.

A few days ago a black supremist used a car to kill 6 and injury 40. So clearly we need laws to ban cars.

Yesterday, a man used a knife to severely injure someone in a road rage incident. So clearly we need laws to ban knives.

Last month a man used a pillow to kill a women in Britain. So clearly we need to ban all pillows.

Or we could act like adults and recognise that those who have nefarious intent will use whatever is available to achieve their aims.

Paul,
So you support Principle 7 of the NSW Greens and believe that no one should ever use a firearm for self defence.
Does this include a farmer who is threatened by a scrub bull?

Regarding Rittenhouse, watch the videos then get back to us.

Foxy,
How are you with Principle 7?

Gentlemen:

This may help you guys to come to grips.
It works in my Storytime Sessions:

FIVE LISSONS IN LIFE FROM DR SEUSS:

1) Today you are You, that is truer than true.
There is no one alive who is Truer than You.

2) Why fit in when you were born to stand out?

3) You have brains in your head. You have feet in
your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose.

4) Be who you are and say what you feel,
because those who mind don't matter
and those who matter don't mind.

5) Today I shall behave as if this day I will be remembered.

And a great big hug to you all.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,
So you read Dr Seuss; that figures.

Nothing to say on the Greens’ Principle 7?

Did you watch the Rittenburg videos?

Gentlemen,

The Washington Post is regarded as one of the leading
daily American newspapers. The Post has distinguished
itself through its political reporting. Here's a link
from the Post on Kyle Rittenhouse:

http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-opinion-not-innocent-shootings/

I rest my case.

Foxy,

Good on you for resting your case, any case that’s so feeble should be shown consideration and looked after.

Do you not think that Hitler and Goering were heroic in their day, I do.

Is Mise,

Hitler would starve in a canned food factory,
unable to open a tin with a bayonet.

As for Goering?

He believed in scaring people into doing what
he wanted.

"Whenever I hear the word culture,
I reach for my revolver."
(Hermann Goering).

Goering also said:

"First shoot, then interrogate - I will protect you."

You said you thought these men were heroes in their day?

Each to their own.

Is Mise,

Are you seeking heroism on this forum?

Foxy,
Hitler was decorated for bravery when he was a lowly Corporal in the German infantry in WW1, he was also wounded. He was a runner and carried messages to various parts of the front line, always in danger and frequently under fire; heroic in anyone’s book.
Goering was first an infantryman then became a pilot, he achieved Ace status and his claimed victories stood up very well underAllied scrutiny after the war.
He flew without a parachute as did most of the fighter pilots in WW1,

Both Hitler and Goering were brave men and they had proved it.

According to Foxy's link anyone going out to help the victims of the riot were foolish, as they were exposing themselves to brutal beatings and even murder at the hands of vengeful and armed rioters. If Kyle hadn't been armed he probably would have been killed.

What made KR a hero wasn't his shooting of violent rioters but rather the vitriolic and defamatory accusations levelled at him by the left whinge media, and the aggressive and unwarranted prosecution, and the complete failure to prosecute the rioter that pointed a pistol at KR.

If anything the blame should fall on the Mayor for stopping the police from doing their job.

In similar circumstances we are told by the Police and the Government to run from trouble, plainly this is what Rittenhouse did, it’s there on the videos exhibited in Court.
The video shews him being chased by rioters, falling down and being immediately and visciously attacked etc.
No wonder that the jury accepted his claim that he was in fear of his life.
Thankfully the media in this country is not so prone to outright lies and slander against someone on trial.
Perhaps ‘prone’ is the wrong word, fearful might be more apt; fearful of our tougher contempt laws and defamation laws.

A fine example of media bias has been the discussion about the Judge being hard on the Prosecutor, apparently when the Prosecutor attempted to introduce evidence that theJudge had ruled inadmissible, the Judge rebuked him and whilst so doing raised his voice. Tut!Tut!

Hi Foxy and Issy,

Issy, doesn't have time to read Dr Seuss, too busy reading Dr Goebbels. Seems Issy has become a big fan of Hitler and Goring?

Issy, the Greens policy is people should not use the lame excuse that they require a firearm, just in case they need it for so called self protection some time in the future.

Why does the Shooters and Hooters Party want criminals to be armed. Fearless leader stated in 2019 he opposed ALL gun laws.

Paul,
It is undeniable that Hitler and Goering were brave men, it is alsb undeniable that they were extremely evil and in Goerings case also corrupt; but only an ignorant fool would deny their personal bravery.

Greens’ Principle 7 also says that a firearm should never be used for self defence, do you agree with this?

Issy,

Most important thing first, the rains back, all okay down there?
True, Hitler won the Iron Cross, in the days when it meant something, and Goring was a flying ace, both in WWI.

Principle 7 of NSW Greens policy on Firearms reads;

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

That is a policy I totally agree with. What you believe is people should posses a firearm in advance on the pretext its only for self protection. The notion that one uses a firearm and then claims its is only for self protection is erroneous.

Now I've given you my thoughts on the subject, how about you comment on the rights and wrongs of the Ahmaud Arbery case, and the actions of the 'good ole boys'. Suppose we gave everyone the right to own a firearm on the proviso its only to be used for "self protection", on the surface it actually sounds good, how do you avoid vigilantism and unjustified homicides. The evidence from America is the "right to bear arms" as a universal concept rather than reducing unjustified homicides actually increases them by a very large margin. Ian Turnbull is a home grown example of a man, probably not a criminal, who felt he had the right to shoot someone on the grounds of protecting his property rights. When property rights are allowed to supersede human rights then you're on very shaky ground, Dodge City here we come!

BTW, Issy with firearms for self protection, the gun would need to be loaded at all times and in easy reach. It would not just be required in the home, but on your person at all times. AND its not just you on the bus with a loaded gun, never know when a murderous varmint is going to strike, all the other passengers have the same right, as does the driver. If some armed unsavoury critter should come on board with the intention of relieving the good folk of their valuables, do you believe the passengers should have the right to open up, all 50 of them, and the driver as well. In the supermarket where that annoying 'check-out-chick' works, should 97 year old grandpa be able to carry his loaded weapon just to teach here a lesson. should 5 year old 'Little Billy' be allowed to take his loaded weapon to school, just to teach the big bully from the third grade a lesson, next time he picks on him. one in all in, correct!

Paul,

Your rambling illogical diatribe does nothing for your anti-gun crusade and just makes you sound like a childish retard.

Paul,
The Arbery case was all wrong and was a blatant example of callous murder and the type of weapons used is completely irrelevant.
Back to Pr.7
A farmer’s wife alone on the property has the right to use a firearm to protect herself from intruders , the law says that she cannot own or possess a firearm for the purpose of self protection but if she possesses it for a legal reason, she may use it for self protection, the Greens, if they mean what they say in Pr.7 would require her to submit to theft, assault, rape or murder.
Now I don’t think for a moment that that is their intention which leads to the conclusion that those who wrote, adopted and promulgated Pr.7 were/are unthinking twits.

shadowminister,
Second that motion!

sm,

Your insults mean nothing, and I wasn't addressing you of the rabid right, who supports calls for violence in Melbourne from those of your ilk, fascists, neo-Nazis, racists and crazy anti-vaxxers like yourself.

Hi Paul,

Here's why the Rittenhouse case has provoked such
deeply held emotion:

http://bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59348734

It seems that the sort of mentality that we encountered
while living and working and travelling in the US for
close to ten years has certainly gotten worse especially
in "Middle America." We did not want to raise our
children in that sort of environment. However judging
from some of the posts here - it appears that this sort
of mentality also exists in this country as well.
Fortunately our population is smaller and hopefully there's less
of those kind of people here.

Foxy,
This sort of mentality certainly does exist in this country, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and in NSW the onus of proof is upon the prosecution to prove that if you act in self defence that you did not fear for your life.
The State must prove you guilty, you do not have to prove your innocence.

Have you looked at the videos yet?
Have you seen Rittenhouse attempt to flee?
Have you seen him stumble and fall?
Have you seen him bashed?

Do watch them and then come back and tell us how he would not fear for his life?

Issy

Can you tell us how would weapons for self defence work? Loaded guns lying around the house at the ready. Would folks carry weapons on their person in public? What percentage of the public would be armed?

Pauliar,

You moronic twat. This is a commentary on the US, not Aus.

I am none of the things you have called me and so I guess the truce is over.

The violent anti-vaxxers are from the unions or pedogreen/ labor ie your side of politics.

Pull your head out of your arse and pay attention.

Foxy, Your attitudes in the last post is irrational and emotional. Learn to be corrected by facts rather than hold to self pride by becoming like the American left, where facts do not matter.

Paul,
If living in the country then self defence can occur when out doing the odd job, like repairing a fence damaged by the passage of a scrub bull.
Whilst armed with the trusty rifle because one is hunting wild pigs then one is suddenly attacked by said scrub bull.
Should one use one’s rifle in self defence?
Or adhere to the Greens’ Pr.7?

Up in the house the wife has no trouble in reaching a firearm for selt defence, she unlocks her gun safe with lightening speed, ditto the seperate ammo box, loads and is ready to face any threat.
If the Greens had their way though she’d be slowed down a bit because they want combination locks in the bush and the ammo box in a seperate room.

Wonder what genius thought that up?

Having grown up and worked farms for 48 years of my life most of the use of guns were used on snakes around the home and wild dogs attacking stock. There is no other waty of stopping wild dogs in the act.

shonkyminister,

Your provocation cannot go unchallenged, you stuck your nose in when Is Mise raised a question concerning NSW Greens firearms policy I responded to Issy, you then referred to me as a "childish retard". Not content you then referred to me as "Pauliar, You moronic twat". I only responded to your provocation. WAR!

Here is a commentary from the New Yorker:

http://newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kylr-rittenhouse-american-vigilante

Sorry. I mistyped.

Here's the link again:

http://newyorker/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante

last try:

http://newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante

Foxy Very interesting, but have you watched the videos yet?

Issy, you haven't answered re; my concerns about self defence. After all you raised it in the first place, despite what some infantile closet Nazi has to say.

Paul,
And you haven’t answered mine re. Principle 7 of the Greens’.

The OP raised the question of self defence, the whole thing is about self defence.

Thank you Foxy, for finding the article from the New Yorker. I agree that he was reckless even going to the event. I just don't think that anyone loses their right to self defence, just because they were stupid.

In any case,the people who set a dumpster on fire and rolled it towards a service station are far more reckless. I hope they get charged.

That is a cop out Issy I answered your question on p7.

Principle 7 of NSW Greens policy on Firearms reads;

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

That is a policy I totally agree with. What you believe is people should posses a firearm in advance on the pretext its only for self protection. The notion that one uses a firearm and then claims its is only for self protection is erroneous.

For my trouble I copped a serve from sh!thouseminister, now how about you answer my question.

Hi Foxy,

This is what we should fear for our own country.

" But on August 25th, as the city braced for a third night of protests in the wake of Blake’s shooting, Mathewson, who is a private investigator, posted a call for “Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property.” He invited “patriots” to meet him at the courthouse at 6 p.m., to defend Kenosha from “evil thugs.”

Thanks for the link.

Compare the jury who cleared Rittenhouse with the ignorant Leftist thugs in Australia, who jailed an innocent George Pell for 400 days.

Toss in the sanctimonious fascism of cricket administrators who have ruined the career and private life of Tim Paine for something really petty and unremarked done four years ago, which has sweet FA to do with cricket or the hoi polloi and nothing-better-to-think about witchhunters.

Paul,
You didn’t answer the question at all; the question was about the particular part of Principle 7 which says a firearm should never be used for self protection.
If you agree with Pr. 7 in its entirety then you are trying to appear as moronic as the person/s who thought it up.

Foxy,
I just compared the New Yorker article with the videos and the article bears out Rittevnhouse’s claim to have acted in self defence.
Wheather he’s should have been there is irrelevant to this claim, the fact is that he was attacked and without provocation, that his first attacker was apparently of diminished responsibility is also irrelevant, there is no way that Rittenhouse could have known his attackers mental state.
Incidentally provocation is not usually considered justification for an illegal action

Gentlemen,

I have nothing more to say on this matter.

I expected for us to have our different opinions.
What I did not expect was to be attacked for mine.

That is unfortunate because it discourages me from
any further contributions on this subject.

I see no point in continuing to be part of this discussion.

I welcome disagreement - but certainly not personal insults.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for reading the link I cited.

I do fear for this sort of situation in our country.
Thankfully our gun laws are stronger - thus far
and hopefully will remain so.

Foxy,
You might like to know that open carry of long arms is not illegal under our laws and is necessary in some situations.

Twelve ordinary people had the intelligence and integrity to ignore the baying of the Leftist mob, the MSM's misreporting, the prosecution's misconduct, and acquitted Rittenhouse purely on evidence, as they are required to do by law.

No wonder the Loony Left is so upset

The United States has a deeply flawed political system
with an insane over-reaching extremist element and courts
that are completely loony.

And apparently loony jury’s, especially those that deliberate for three days before reaching a verdict; a verdict that some cannot understand despite all the evidence.

Not all the evidence was allowed to be presented.
The judge with a reputation for being consistently
on the side of the defense blocked relevant pieces
of evidence for the jury to assess for themselves.

The United States has a deeply flawed political system
Foxy,
Don't blame politics when morons with the help of the insane Left are getting power they can't control !
It's that system not the political one !

The media that falsely claimed that Rittenhouse's "victims" were black also failed to report that the driver who ploughed through a Christmas parade in Wisconsin, now charged with 6 counts of deliberate homicide, is a BLACK supporter of BLM, whose victims were all WHITE.

Another sign of crisis in the West has been the displaying of a painting depicting George Floyd as Jesus Christ - in a CATHOLIC university in Washington DC!

The above was supposed to be in Western Civilisation in Crisis, but both topics support the presence of a crisis.

Foxy
What relevant evidence was excluded?
The videos were shown in court, the jurors were able to see Rittenhouse running away from trouble, they were able to see him attacked again and again, perhaps they thought that if in the same situation that they may have feared for their lives.

If the judge erred then the State can appeal based on his bias, don’t think that they will.

So Issy, although I have answered your question re NSW Greens P7, your response is to say "If you agree with Pr. 7 in its entirety then you are trying to appear as moronic as the person/s who thought it up."

Again I say; That is a policy I totally agree with. What you believe is people should posses a firearm in advance on the pretext its only for self protection. The notion that one uses a firearm and then claims its is only for self protection is erroneous.

Now answer this; Can you tell us how would weapons for self defence work? Loaded guns lying around the house at the ready. Would folks carry weapons on their person in public? What percentage of the public would be armed?

Very simple questions, do you have the answers.

Hi Foxy,

Our gun laws are not as safe as we think. The pro gun lobby through their political arm take every opportunity to white ant our robust gun laws. The Shooters Party are radical right-wing, brothers in arms with One Nation. The front group SSAA is controlled and financed by the powerful far right American organisation the NRA.

Paul,
So you agree with the mad Greens that a firearm should never be used for self defence, the question then arises; why do you think that the courts have been wrong to accept the using of a firearm for such defence to have been lawful and theState, in some cases not even prosecuting?
http://www.watoday.com.au or Google “Elderly man who shot home intruder will not be charged”
Do you think that the old gent was not justified in protecting his sick wife?

Again you state that our gun laws are being watered down, how and when?

You also trot out your old furphy (polite name) that the SSAA is controlled by the US NRA, in all the times you’ve trotted out that rot you’ve been challenged to give evidence, so far you have failed to do so; I won’t hold my breath this time either.

So Issy you are embarrassed to give any details as to how allowing the ownership of a gun for no other reason than self defence would work. You refuse to answer because we both know that only a "Dodge City" environment would be the result. Armed citizens, vigilantes and accidental deaths of the innocent would far outweigh any so called justified self defence.

Was that you today, the masked man of Windang firing a riffle off in the main street? That's what a moronic gun policy results in, crazy nutjobs shooting at everything and everyone.

SSAA = American NRA. The Shooters and Hooters Party is in the pocket of foreign pro gun interests!

Paul,
You’re all BS, just give a reference to your ‘evidence’.

Would you have let the elderly man in WA be assaulted by those thugs that invaded his home and threatened the safety of his sick wife?
Or do you think that he had a right to protect her and that using a gun, given his age was justified?
Evidently the WA police thought so, why in your Green opinion were they wrong?

I don’t believe that the current gun laws are wrong, the restriction on possession for self defence is particularly good.
We’re it not for John Howard and his law drafters the SSAA would not have grown from some 40,000 members to the over 200,000 of today, we would not have the hundreds of gun clubs and the hundreds of pistol clubs that have sprung up since the introduction of the more stringent laws; nor would we now have more firearms in civilian hands than ever before.

Interesting comment from Prof. David Flint:

"What we have seen from the US media with the Rittenhouse case has been disgraceful. If they had done that in Australia, they would have been ruined by massive defamation payouts and worse, they would be behind bars".

Hi Issy,

I believe in non-violence, and the rule of law.

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

I'll accept there is some ambiguity with the wording, "or using a firearm". A police officer may in exceptional circumstances have reason to use a firearm, that's a given, and even that could extend to private security in very exceptional circumstances. The grey area is private citizens and the use of firearms, I have absolutely no problem with the words; "That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning or possessing a firearm." in the rear event that a private citizens life or the life of someone else's is in mortal danger the use of an available weapon to protect that life is reasonable. It would be difficult in a shock situation, given the proper storage of firearms and ammunition that quick access would be possible. Of course I'm not going to accept 'Dodge City' type laws as they have in parts of America, armed citizens acting as vigilantes or organising into private militia. Nor do I accept the use of a firearm to protect property, when a life is not in mortal danger. The three 'Good Ole Boys" in Georgia is a perfect example of lax gun laws and where they can lead.

I would be shocked should Australia ever take on Americas so call "right to bear arms", its original meaning has been bastardized to the point where too many innocent lives are being sacrificed in that country every year because of it.

BTW, I accept people should play baseball, but I don't accept people should carry a baseball bat in their car just in case they get into a road rage situation. My mate who carried a toy water pistol in his glove box to frighten those that 'pissed him off' when driving, he seen no harm in it.

Paul,
So in a few words you agree that the Greens’ Principle 7 is wrong to say that a firearm should never be used for self defence.
As to having a firearm available, many firearm owners can access their firearms in a surprisingly short time, they have safes with electronic recognition, so can be opened in seconds.
Then there is the case when a person is legally using a firearm and suddenly comes into mortal danger for example the sudden attack by a scrub bull.
That such bulls are a danger is borne out by the WA police issuing licences for powerful pistols to be carried by stockmen in parts of that State.

Just Google “Scrub bull Australia” for some graphic images of the most dangerous animal in the country.

This article identifies how some American Media misrepresent facts of crime.

"Darrell E. Brooks, a 39-year-old career criminal, killed six people and injured 62 more when he sped, zigzagging, through the City of Waukesha’s 58th Annual Christmas Parade.

It is unfathomable how someone could have such disdain for life, striking down the very young and the very old with no impulse to relent. And at a Christmas parade, of all places.

We do no honour to the slain by politicising such a horrendous event. On the other hand, it is equally dishonourable to them and their families for America’s national press to not tell the truth about what happened. Their deception demands a response.

In a tweet three days after the attack, the Washington Post wrote, “Here’s what we know so far on the sequence of events that led to the Waukesha tragedy caused by an SUV.”

Caused by an SUV?

After public backlash, the Washington Post eventually deleted their tweet. But the article still blames the car: “the SUV rammed through the parade participants,” it reads. The piece takes until the fifth paragraph to identify the murderous driver.

CNN is almost as guilty. What should be labelled a massacre — or at the very least, an attack — is dubbed in many of its headlines and captions a “parade crash” or an “incident”.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/congressman-jerry-nadler-calls-feds-go-after-rittenhouse-things-he-didnt-do-course?fbclid=IwAR2W0RPYBfs7GqtJixEQPtmBl8fzTGkH49BI47q_9y_Gr5plyeqQxPeZcUU

The insane Left cannot accept the jury decision.

Paul,
Your mate with the wares pistol put himself in harms way, had he pointed it at a policeman he could have been shot and having it for a purpose other than play makes it a pistol at law and he leaves himself open to charges of possessing an unregistered pistol and if he points it or waves it around, to the charge of brandishing a firearm, etc., etc.
Our firearm laws are very thorough.

Quote,"CNN was thrashed so severely on social media for deceptively blaming a car for the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre instead of the repeat felon that the outlet was forced to walk back its misleading headline.

Exactly a week after the tragedy in Waukesha, CNN duplicitously insinuated that a car was the cause of six deaths and 62 people being injured, including 18 children. The corporate media outlet crafted a tweet that read: "Waukesha will hold a moment of silence today, marking one week since a car drove through a city Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring scores of others."

They cannot bear to tell the truth, as it might offend the left.

New Zealand has lax gun laws as well even after the crackdown, one can buy a gun easily and NZ is hardly Dodge city and the availability of guns to criminals doesn't seem that much different than in Aus.

While I don't support the carrying of guns, it would appear likely that without a gun KR might not be alive today.

Paul,
‘Water” not “wares”, the dreaded auto correct struck again !

Hi Issy,
The mates water pistol wasn't loaded, does that count?

BTW; I'd lend ya my copy of 'Grumblebum' great spell checker you recommended, except its all in Swahili, would that help?

That old bloke you said was quick on opening his gun safe, what does he do then, hit the baddy over the head with his gun, under the law its not loaded, and the ammo is somewhere else.

You support "SELF PROTECTION" as a stand alone reason for gun ownership. Please explain how it would operate;

1 Would a loaded gun be in easy reach in the home?
2 Would a self protection weapon be carried in public, openly and/or concealed?
3 What type of guns would be allowed for self protection?
4 Who in the population would be eligable to have a gun for self protection?

The answer is; Dodge City here we come.

The fact is you wont answer those 4 simple questions because you would be a laughing stock!

Paul,
The questions don’t arise as I don’t support self protection as a reason for gun ownership.
Did you not read where I said that the current gun laws are OK and that the restriction on ownership for self protection is particularly good?

With fingerprint or facial recognition it takes less than a second to unlock a safe, if the ammo is in a locked receptacle within the safe (perfectly legal) it takes less than a second to unlock it as well, presuming a similar lock system.
So I’d say, with a bit of practice it should be possible to be loaded in less than 10 seconds of reaching the safe

Unloaded or not your mate would still be in trouble, another possible charge is “…being in possession of an implement capable of discharging a hurtful irritant, liquid or gas.”
Note the comma, that’s 3 hurtful things.

It’s not spell check that I need but to be able to turn the auto correct off, so far all attempts have failed.

Issy,

Good to see you agreeing with 99% of Greens Firearms Policy. Just as pleasing is your rejection of the moronic Dodge City policy of the moronic NSW Shooters and Hooters Party. Under their Action Plan, Point 5 reads;

"Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence."

What moron wrote that? Under this law a 5 year old could take a loaded gun to school for self-defence. A dotty old fool could carry a loaded concealed weapon into a supermarket. A mother with baby could take a loaded shot gun onto a bus. The possibilities are endless. Loaded guns lying around the house just in case they are needed for self-defence! Issy and you a founding member of the NSW Shooters and Hooters Party, rejecting such "brilliant" policy.

I would reckon Dodge City would be a lot safer place, particularly if you sided with the sheriff, than a number of suburbs in most of our capital, &/or large cities today.

I'm sure it was much safer than many areas of some major US cities today.

Paul,
You assume that the person who wrote the Shooters’ party policy would put as moronic an interpretation upon it as your good self.
The current firearms laws are doomed anyway as they contain the seeds of their own destruction.

A man with known associations with white supremacists takes a weapon (which he was not legally entitled to have) across State borders specifically to intimidate people he does not know in matters that do not concern him directly.

It was interesting to see that during his "meltdown" in the dock that he paused twice - once to look left at the jury and again to look right at the judge.
In any case he has become the pinup boy for extreme right-wing vigilantism that is bound to worsen and spread.

I'm waiting for the day that people start bringing guns to "freedom protests" in our capital cities.

Rache,
Could you give a reference to verify the claims in your first paragraph?

Dear Rache,

I hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime.
Although they're already throwing bottles at police
and urinating near war memorials.

Way to influence people?

Dear Rache,

I've given plenty of links in this discussion.
Anybody wanting further "references" can go
back and read the links. Although the links
are beyond some people's comprehension. Ignore
the request. Typical provocation bullying
tactics from someone just seeking to argue.

The only factual links is the UTube of trial itself, The media's reporting is based on deliberate misinformation. Forget Media links as they are false Rache obviously reads Left Wing Media rather than looking at the facts of the trial itself.

The Jury heard the facts of the trial, and despite the media reports found him not guilty on all counts. Those that want to persue guilt show their bigitory and irrationality.
.
Kyle's solicitors are chasing deliberate misinformation and defamation being posted in the Public Media. He has had to withdraw from his Nursing Course because of the threats by students there on his life, He was tried by the Media as guilty of murder before any virdict was given by the Jury.

Foxy
You did indeed give plenty of links, most of them useless, and it is up to the person making assertions to give links and thus backup, it is not up to a fellow traveller on the path of erroneousness to step in and try to muddy the trail.

Let Rache go astray on his own, you don’t need to shew him the way; now take your bat and ball and go home, as usual when faced with the reality of ‘foot in mouth’.

Is Mise,

We can't all be as flexible as you.
Not only foot in your mouth, but head up your ass.

Foxy,
Picqued ?

Is Mise,

Nah - you're still a dick.

It appears, "When you loose you abuse".

Josephus,

Dr Seuss knows many truths
He teaches us wordy pursuits
So we won't be seen as being obtuse
And know the difference between lose and loose.

Funny, I thought that Foxy had left this topic a couple of pages back.

Foxy,
But as you’re still with us, have no fear of protesters in Australia bringing firearms to protests, remember we have laws to stop that sort of thing.
Have you no confidence in our firearm laws?

Is Mise,

Just complying with your request for some
"original thoughts." Of course realizing
at the same time that you won't like them.
However, that's all right. Not everyone has
good taste.

H Foxy,

Did you notice I tied Issy in knots, yet again, over Shooters and Hooters policy on so called owning a gun for the sole purpose of self-defence. He claimed only a moron would agree with Greens policy, that self-defence was not a legitmete stand alone reason for owning a gun. When pressed he said he agreed self-defence only was unreasonable, then I pointed to the Shooters and Hooters moronic policy of self-defence being a sole reason to own a gun. He didn't like me calling them morons.

Anyone who does not agree with Shooters and Hooters policy that allows five year old children to take loaded guns to school for self-defence from teachers and bullies is a moron!

Issy, your claim that an Old Fart can retrieve and load a gun from a locked gun safe in 2 seconds. You are full of it

I don't just read left wing media, but also listen to squark-back radio, read the "free" press and even watch commentators like that bloated Sky-weasel Paul Murray who seems to be yanking the chain of many posters here.
The "leftist" tag is a typical label that the right wingers like him like to use as some sort of generic answer to all arguments and frankly just makes me laugh. It's the new version of Godwin's Law.

Nonsense comments above like justifying the killings because the victims were somehow of poor character themselves is just typically blaming the victim and as if Rittenhouse magically knew this in advance as was some sort of avenging angel.

The day after his trial a white man was freed after raping a minor but a black woman got 5 years for "illegal voting". People carrying assault rifles around in public isn't the problem there but just another symptom of a society in decline.

The last example of self-motivated and media fed armed vigilantism in this country was probably the Christchurch Mosque shooting.

Definition of self-delusion….Paul.

Rache,
How about those references to back up your claims.

Dear rache,

Well said!

And please don't give any references to this guy.
He's only going to call them useless no matter what
you provide. Explaining anything to him is beyond his
comprehension. And a waste of your time. He's someone
who thinks that Hitler and Goering were heroic in their
day.

Foxy,
Hitler and Goering were brave and heroic, there can be no doubt about those facts but you can’t see beyond your self fitted blinkers and your apparent lack of historical knowledge.
Hitler shewed bravery on an almost daily basis in WWI and was decorated for it, as a lowly Corporal he had no way of awarding medals to himself.
Goering was a fighter pilot, an ace, and anyone who went up in a fighter in that war was brave, especially as they didn’t have parachutes.

If you don’t think that they were brave perhaps you might tell us why?

Is Mise,

Hitler and Goering were not brave and heroic.
The facts indicate otherwise.
Hitler's image as a brave soldier is a myth. Nazi
propaganda. Hitler exaggerated his early role in
battle and that he was instead known as a
"rear area pig."

He was significantly distanced from his regiment's
front line troops and was despised by them.

New sources and archives have been discovered
and Dr Thomas Weber has written a book on Hitler's
First War claims. This information was recently
published by the BBC:

http://bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-scotland-10999181

As for Goering?

In my eyes the man was a coward. He took his own life rather
than face the consequences of his trial as a war criminal.

His may have displayed certain traits as a fighter pilot during
WWI but his legacy wipes that out. He left a legacy as one
of the primary architects of the muderous Third Reich Nazi
police state in Germany. He established the Gestapo Secret
political police and concentration camps for the "correction
treatment" of difficult opponents.

Heroic in his time? His legacy speaks for itself.

Is Mise,

I mistyped the link. Here it is again:

http://bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-10999181

Foxy,
I’ll look forward to the book, perhaps Hitler faked it all including being wounded and hospitalised, must’ve fooled the doctors as well.
Goering was all that you say he was, but whatever he did later does not alter his bravery in WW1 and remember that theAllies found his combat claims to be largely true.
They could find no falsification.

Why on earth are you still having typos?
Highlife the URL, copy and paste.

Is Mise,

You don't have to wait - the book "Hitler's First War"
by Thomas Weber is available from any good bookshop
or library. Alternatively it can be ordered for you.
It demystifies the myths of Hitler's "heroism."
Hitler spent most of his
time in relative safety and comfort. Not in the trenches.
He was between 3 and five k's - behind the front
lines. He was not in any danger. Contrary to what he
said in Mein Kampf - and what Nazi propaganda has implied.

In any case - what you choose to believe is not of my concern.
I am merely stating the facts - as have been researched and
supplied by Dr Weber.

As for Goering?
In my eyes that man was no hero.

I imagine that to you Stalin was also a hero.
History tells us otherwise on all counts

Foxy
So if Goering was not brave to risk his life in a WW1 fighter then what of all the other pilots, on both sides, who fought in that war?

Is Mise,

Were any of them tried for war crimes during
the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
and found guilty and sentenced to death?

Foxy,
The illogicality of your stance is beyond all comprehension.
Goering was brave in 1920 considering his exploits in WW1,so his exploits of 1914-18 remained just as brave in 1945.
I would argue that Starlin was a rave bloke as well, bravery has absolutely nothing to do with being good, the most evil person on Earth could be among the bravest.jj

Foxy,
Quote from Dr Weber on page one, referring to Hitler “Though he served bravely…”, my point exactly.
As for Goering he demonstrated bravery in his suicide, he voluntarily chose a relative slow and extremely painful death over the quick death by hanging, one can only surmise that he chose agony to frustrate his captors.
Look up death by cyanide.

Is Mise,

I cannot take you seriously.

I do not believe that you believe what you just posted.

Kindly don't address any more posts to me.

I won't be reading them.

You've lost all credibility.

Foxy,
I meant every word that I wrote, including the quote from the author that you recommended.
You must have a svelt figure if your waist is anything like your mind.

Foxy,
Although you won’t read this the quote above is from the review, not the book.

Hi Issy and Foxy,

Issy, Hitler also built the autobahns wasn't that fantastic! He was also responsible for million of deaths, one pales into insignificance against the other. autobahns are hardly worth mentioning.

Just in passing, was Churchill or MacArthur responsible for many less deaths than Hitler & Goering.

MacArthur's totally unnecessary invasion of the Philippines when it could have easily bean bypassed as was Rabaul, was nothing but a service to his vanity, killing way over a million.

Who was a brave hero, & who was a villain does look a bit like the victor writing the history.

Paul ,

And like the auto/obahnns, Hitler’s bravery has not disappeared because of his later evil.

Is Mise,
In case you're still interested and have finished glorifying Nazis -

As well as the killings Rittenhouse was facing illegal weapon charges.
Here's what he said before the trial -

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/19-year-old-charged-illegally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/

However he strangely changed parts of the story during the trial- obviously in order to avoid the illegal weapons charge, but it looks like his associate may not be so lucky. Time will tell.

In Wisconsin any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. However, due to twist there is the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns with barrels over a certain length so children ages 16 and 17 can "hunt".

Prior to 1987, Wisconsin banned children from possessing pistols. Four years later, the Governor signed another law extending the prohibition to ANY firearm or weapon generally but also allowed minors to possess long guns for hunting as long as the barrels were at least a certain length. They can be arrested for carrying brass knuckles but not an assault weapon.

Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, the Judge granted a defence motion to toss out the weapons charge on the basis of that legislative blunder.

It was illegal for Rittenhouse to own the gun in his own State but this time got away with carrying it another.

PS Are suicide bombers courageous and worthy of our admiration too?

Rachel,
It’s nice to see that you have seen reason and refuted your earlier claims.
No where did I glorify Nazis, I merely remarked on the bravery that two of them had shewn years before the advent of Nazism.
The past can affect the future but the future cannnot alter the past, to think so shews a closed and illogical mind.
As an example, Ned Kelly at the age of 11 or 12 years jumped into a creek to save a young boy from drowning.
For his bravery he was given an emerald green sash (which is now in the Benalla museum}, there is no way that Ned’s later life can detract from his bravery as a youngster.
Equally there is no way that it can be shewn that Rittenhouse did not fear for his life and consequently fired in self defence.

rache,
The ‘l’ above is the fault of auto correct !

Issy, you can't blame your support for the Nazi's on Auto Correct, AC is a lefty and only says good things about Joe, Karl and Vlad. You didn't answer about the Suicide Bombers, got to be a brave lad to blow yourself up. What ya reckon.

Paul,
Nothing brave about suicide bombers because they are assured of Paradise.
Basically I suppose that you could say that they do it for the cause but ultimately it’s a selfish, self-serving act to ensure that they will exist in a future full of happiness.

Ned risked his life, not for his own good but for the good of a little boy.

Hi Issy,

I've got a 15 year old grandson, no bs, do you think I should give him a pistol as an early Xmas present? Take it to school for show and shoot

Checked the latest news from America.

Paul,
No, that’d be breaking the law.
Are you referring to the coloured bloke that used a motor vehicle as a murder weapon?

Nah, I'm referring to the white kid who took his pistol to school and shot dead 4 classmates. It was an early Xmas present from Mum and Dad so practical a gift. Illegal, but only until the Shooters and Hooters Party gets elected, then it's Dodge City here we come, 5 year olds will have guns for self protection . If a 5 year old is attacked by a 7 year old bully in the school playground he should be able to use a gun for self protection. Agree?

Grow up Paul, and try and attain the mentality of a five year old.

Ok Issy, you have given up on self protection as a stand alone reason to own a firearm in Australia. You have embraced Greens policy on that, good to see. True some 15 year old kid in America was given an early Xmas present of a pistol from Mum and Dad, took it to school and shot dead 4 classmates etc. Shocking, sorry for the sting, but if you read Shooters policy it doesn't exclude 5 year olds, just the opposite, got to have policy, its got to have detail, otherwise you know what.

Paul,
I haven’t given up on protection as a stand alone reason for owning a firearm because I never embraced that policy, nor have I accepted Greens’ policy because it is utterly stupid. What I do accept and am thankful for is the current law.
The Shooters party policy to which you refer doesn’t need to go into minute detail regarding age as this is already covered by the law. So stop trying to be smart.
Personally I hope the authorities in the relevant State hit the parents really hard as contributors to the tragedy, I’ve just read some of it and it looks as if the school authorities also contributed a bit of negligence.
I’m all in favour of firearms being locked away.

Issy,

I'm not being smart, when any political party puts up policy it has to be watertight, otherwise detractors will shoot holes in it. Labor policy is always under attack on the score of credibility. I know you don't support gun toting 5 year olds, but read Shooters policy and it's just as open as Greens policy.

Ise Mise

Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist bomb-maker and even after his release from prison refused to denounce the use of violence as a political weapon.

Gandhi was a wife beater who was cruel to his children and had a "thing" for very young girls. He was also a strong supporter of Apartheid and despised blacks as being "lazy and indolent".

Yet we rightfully remember those two people for their achievements and not who they are as people. Some people make a positive contribution to society and others don't.

It's not who you are but the things that you do in life that matter.

Your Nazi heroes are and will always be remembered for what they did too. Hitler may have written poetry and been kind to puppies but who cares about that?

You seem a member of the Proud Boys spouting their propaganda or a contrarian troll.

Rittenhouse deliberately and provocatively put himself in a situation where lives would be threatened, including his own.

Foxy et al.

That both Hitler and Goering both received the iron cross for bravery was instrumental in giving them the influence they needed to rise to power. While neither were heroes nor deserving of any respect trying to airbrush this out of history does no one any favours.

As for mass murder, both were rank amateurs compared to Stalin who was a convicted bank robber before killing about 20m of his own countrymen prior to WW2 or Mao who killed about 50m in his cultural revolution.

rache,
Science fiction is often instructive and entertaining but Time Travel is the only way that the future can alter the past and that’s highly unlikely.
Anyone who stayed in action in WW1 was brave and there is no doubt that Hitler and Goering were brave in WW1.
The evil that they did later can in no way affect their deeds in that earlier war, only ignorant fools would think so

Whatever Rittenhouse may have done, short of an illegal action that threatened life, prior to his being attacked has no bearing on his defence of himself against unlawful attack, provocation is no excuse for attacking anyone.

shadowminister,

Everything in perspective:

http://abdn.ac.uk/news/3757/

Foxy,
Another interesting link, but all that it proves is that Hitler exaggerated his exploits ( a not uncommon thing) not that he was not personally brave; as I said before any soldiers that stayed at the front in WW1 were brave.

The Forums resident NAZI apologists shonkyminister, tells us Hitler and Goering were naughty boys, but not half as bad when compared to his sworn enemies Stalin and Mao. I've got news for you buddy boy, your pets were just as reprehensible and disgusting murdering bastards as all the other despots and tyrants the world has seen including Stalin and Mao. Your attempt to mitigate your boys crimes based on numbers don't wash, its not a cricket match where runs on the board is all that counts.

Paul,
Attitude and culture also count; in Australia the Japanese in WW2 are seen as the worst by many people but their crimes pale considerably when compared to the Germans.

Issy,

The Japanese considered Australians who surrendered to them in WWII as dishonourable cowards, not worthy of fair and honourable treatment. Were the Japanese correct in mistreating Australian POW's as they did, based on their code of military conduct?

Could you please explain the heroic acts of Hitler and Goering which made them "brave"? A soldier who attacks a machine gun nest with nothing more than his underpants on fire, is he brave, or a demented fool?

Paul,
Of course they were correct based on their code of military conduct; how could they have been wrong based on their code of conduct?
If you want to enter into discussion please be logical, remember the Japanese we’re not bound by the Geneva Convention, the Germans were.

If you read American history you’ll be aware that the Indians who defeated that fool Custer slit the stomachs of all the dead soldiers at the Little Bighorn but left Custers body untouched, they didn’t even scalp him.
Most Americans for years regarded the Indians as barbarous and thought that Custer’s body was unmutilated out of respect but the truth was that the Indians thought that a persons soul resided in the belly, so they slit the soldiers to let their souls get out and they left Custer untouched as a sign of their utter contempt for him, he was not worth anything.
No one can be blamed for adhering to their cultural beliefs, even though we disagree with them.
The Germans did not follow their culture which was basically the same as ours.

I’ve already explained that anyone who stayed in the trenches in WW1 was brave and that Goering, as a fighter pilot was a brave man and just like all the other fighter pilots he flew without a parachute.
Mind you the ‘chutes that were available left a bit to be desired.
The Allied pilots and the Germans had, as far as I can find out probably had limited access to ‘chutes but chose not to use them, the Americans were not supplied with them because their Government considered that some pilots might bail out rather than face the enemy.

Issy, I take it you give the thumbs up to Japanese mistreatment of Australian POW's, simply based on their code of military conduct. Germans who took part in the mass murder of Jews and others claimed the defence of following orders or government directives, were they also innocent of crimes. Under your logic they must be.

You didn't answer my question about the soldier attacking a machine gun nest with nothing more than his undies on fire. I want to know what constitutes brave in your opinion? You said Hitler was brave, how was he brave, many who served with him said he was a nut job, but not to his face, well not while he was Fuhrer at least.

I like yor Col Custard thing.

During his early life Stalin was a choirboy, poet and trainee priest.
Should we give him credit for his kinder past?

Also, perhaps the main reason for the Indians' contempt for Custer came from the military strategy he sometimes used against them. While he drew the braves away from their camps into battle he would send in other troops to take the unguarded women and children hostage and force an Indian surrender under the threat of their deaths.

Paul,
The only answer to your question must be that the Japanese were correct in their treatment of POWs BASED on their code of military conduct, based on our code it was wrong.
Following unlawful orders is never a defence for a soldier, that’s one of the first things that one learns when studying Military Law.
German soldiers who refused to obey illegal orders were simply transferred to other units, this came out at the Nuremberg trials,

rache,
Of course Stalin should be given credit for good things that he may have done, credit where credit is due and as I said, the future cannot alter the past.

Rache,

Stalin's kinder past? you must be kidding these are no evidence that he was anything but the psychopath he grew up to be.

"Stalin was of Georgian—not Russian—origin, and persistent rumours claim that he was Ossetian on the paternal side. He was the son of a poor cobbler in the provincial Georgian town of Gori in the Caucasus, then an imperial Russian colony. The drunken father savagely beat his son. Speaking only Georgian at home, Joseph learned Russian—which he always spoke with a guttural Georgian accent—while attending the church school at Gori (1888–94). He then moved to the Tiflis Theological Seminary, where he secretly read Karl Marx, the chief theoretician of international Communism, and other forbidden texts, being expelled in 1899 for revolutionary activity, according to the “legend”—or leaving because of ill health, according to his doting mother. The mother, a devout washerwoman, had dreamed of her son becoming a priest, but Joseph Dzhugashvili was more ruffianly than clerical in appearance and outlook. He was short, stocky, black-haired, fierce-eyed, with one arm longer than the other, his swarthy face scarred by smallpox contracted in infancy. Physically strong and endowed with prodigious willpower, he early learned to disguise his true feelings and to bide his time; in accordance with the Caucasian blood-feud tradition, he was implacable in plotting long-term revenge against those who offended him."

shonkyminister,

What are you trying to do, deflect the discussion away from your beloved folk hero's Hitler and Goering, and onto another mass murderer in the shape of the despised Stalin. Keep trying.

PaulNazi,

Don't be such a w@nker. You love the fuhrer and Stalin and all despots that kill millions.

The Gangreens love despots just see how they fawn over the Chinese killers.

Just stop posting crap.

shonky,

Anyone with half a brain can see you are a NAZI apologist doing your best to deflect criticism on this thread away from Hitler and Goering and onto another evil monster Stalin. A favourite tactic of the far right whenever the likes of Hitler is mentioned and the uncomfortable truths come out, DEFLTION through mitigation. You are a classic.

PaulNazi,

I am not trying to deflect from your mates Hilter etc, just pointing out that the communists were far worse even than the Nazis, even though there is not much difference between them and even you with half a brain should be able to see this. However, your terrible spelling shows that even your half brain is badly damaged.

Shonky,

Better to be a bad speller than a bad Nazi like you. Are you on the Fat George payroll, looks like it, its where you belong. Nothing like taking the piss out of a pompous arse such as yourself.

PaulNazi,

Better to be a bad nazi, than a good Nazi like you. You are such a fatuous butt muncher that beating you is as easy as beating an egg.

From the view of two News reporters
"Steven Crowder and his co-host Dave Landau sat down with Kyle Rittenhouse on Wednesday's show to discuss the Kyles murder trial.

Dave explained to Kyle that watching much of the trial was difficult and had changed his mind about the teenager. Steven interjected and told Dave to "come clean." "He thought you were what the media called you," Steven said with a smirk.

"To be honest," Dave explained, "I had listened to so much rhetoric on the news that said you [Rittenhouse] were a white supremacist." Dave went on to say that the media portrayed a view that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha in a MAGA hat to hunt people. But as the trial unfolded, it became apparent to him that Rittenhouse was nothing like what the media painted him to be.

Steven added that many Americans are still of the impression that Rittenhouse shot and killed two black men, but all three men were shot in self-defense and were caucasian. The clip ends with Steven asking Kyle which details from the trial were still misunderstood by the public."

There were embellishments on all sides
of the media. However, what should be concerning
is what the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse will
mean in the long run and what it may inspire.

We know that armed civilians are part of the American
political landscape. What some may take from this
verdict is that vigilante justice prevailed, and that's
a public safety concern.

Foxy,

The "embellishments" were outright lies or misinformation almost exclusively on the side against KR not on those supporting him.

Considering the rioters were armed and deliberately attacking people is more of a concern for public safety without whom there would not have been any need for KR to carry a weapon.

Shadowminister,

Once again we shall have to agree to disagree.
Kyle Rittenhouse was the one who pulled the
trigger.

foxy,

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your "facts".

KR while armed at no point behaved aggressively. The attack on him by the armed rioters was violent and unprovoked. The video footage of the incident was clear.

The question is whether if KR wasn't armed would he have survived the attack. Many others didn't.

Foxy
You’re so right, Rittenhouse pulled the trigger which he had every right to do, as he was in fear of his life.
Every Australian has the same right if in fear of his/her life, and thankfully in NSW the onus of proof is on the State, as it should be.

shadowminister,

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

Foxy,

I am happy to leave things here content that the facts support my view.

Agree Issy, but we have had a lot of trigger pullers not in fear of their life, the SSAA member John Edwards and the farmer Ian Turnbull to name but two.

Paul,
A lot is two ?

shadowminister,

"Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the
people who present them."

(Reginald Rose-
Twelve Angry Men).

Foxy,

What personality do the video cameras have?

That’l be an interesting answer, if you get one.

shadowminister,

The videos clearly show the great divide that
existed in Kenosha that night. They show how
Rittenhouse was treated by police. Had he
been a black man - it would have been an entirely
different story.

Cop out!!

Put the gun down.

Issy, name those private citizens on having a legal gun in easy reach have saved their own life in self defence. None of your gangsters and criminals please.

Foxy,

That is conjecture based on your biases.

KR after defending himself surrendered to the police voluntarily.

Paul,
The old gentleman in WA that I previously mentioned.

shadowminister,

Of course he did. He had nothing to fear.

Foxy,

What bollocks. A teenager that had fought off 3 armed attackers surrendered to police. Anyone that claims he had nothing to fear is a liar.

By doing the correct thing and not resisting arrest he made it less dangerous for himself but not by any means completely safe. More white people have been shot by police than black people, and most of those were resisting arrest.

shadowminister,

As I said previously - we will have to agree to
disagree on this one.

That's it Issy one un-name old bloke from WA. What's his name I'll look him up. I don't know who you are talking about.

Paul,
Then go back through the posts.
See Google, lots of cases in the USA.

Well Issy you have nothing to support gun ownership as a means of self defense. Some old bloke in WA, and Dodge City America .

Paul,
Well if you’d rather the old bloke in WA and his sick wife were killed, so be it.
But as I’ve pointed out numerous times I’m happy with the law as it is and I favour my trusty walking stick if I ever need to defend myself.

Hi Issy,

Its most pleasing to see you repudiate the ridiculous Shooters and Hooters Party firearms policy of self defence being a stand alone reason to own a gun. Just as pleasing is your agreement with the Greens firearms policy, well done Sunshine. BUT, don't go saying that down at Gunnie HQ, they'll brand you a "Marxist" and take you to the range and use you for target practice.

Foxy,

As I said before, I rely on facts, not prejudiced opinions or conjectures.

So nice of you shonky to start the day with a joke. How about another one like; I shonkyminister know what I'm talking about.

Pauliar,

Compared to a fwit like you anyone is a genius.

shadowminister,

To quote Arthur Conan Doyle:

"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

Because for every fact there is an infinity of
hypotheses.

In the Rittenhouse case the fact is that violence gives
some people a rush.

Violence is popular, that’s why there are so many films devoted to violence, especially gun violence; audiences lap it up.

Foxy,

All I hear from you is left whinge virtue signalling. Vacuous opinions that have no facts to support them.

What about the rioter that was pointing a pistol at KR? Is he blameless simply because he was shot first?

What about the many innocent people killed by thugs like them? On that you are silent.

So shonkyminister, like Brenton Tarrant before him, this Kyle Rittenhouse has become another one of your pin-up boys. Any crazy far right extremist you perceive as defending "white values", seems to be a hero of yours.

PaulNazi,

You can't shut up about your hero Brenton Tarrant, you clearly get a real hard-on thinking of him. How does this match your fetish for the two convicted Green paedophiles?

I guess that you hate Muslims and children.

shonky,

I'm not the one who said he went to Christchurch on some kind of pilgrimage, are you still there, are you banged up?

Paulnazi,

I'm not the green who claimed that paedophilia was acceptable or has a sexual fetish for bad boys.

No Green said that shonky, you are a liar.

Come, come, children.

Pauliar,

Suck on this: The Germans leading the way

https://newrepublic.com/article/120379/german-green-party-pedophilia-scandal

"It’s not every day that a major European political party has to apologize for having supported pedophilia, but two weeks ago, the German Green Party had to do just that. For the past year and a half, investigators commissioned by the party have been probing its past associations with pro-pedophilia groups, and their report has been shocking to many Germans. It found that the German “pedosexual movement,” which advocated the legalization of “consensual” sex between adults and children, found a surprisingly warm reception in the party in the 1980s."

shonky, scraping the bottom of the barrel now, quoting a neo-fascists publication, 'New Republic' about Germany 40 years ago. Something even they only refer to as a "warm reception". Since we are talking about the past, Germany and warm receptions, lets talk about the war service coward, and LIBERAL PARTY founder 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies and NAZI Germany. In 1938 Menzies made an offical 2 week visit to Nazi Germany, on his return Menzies sang the praises of both Hitler and National Socialism. At best Menzies was a fool, at worse in 1938 a closset NAZI. Menzies during the war wanted Australia to capitulate to the Japanese, with his infamous 'Brisbane Line'. John Howard, another dodger of military service, is a declared admirer of Menzies, Scott Morrison is an admirer of both Menzies and Howard, draw your own conclusions.

p.s. Menzies was most disappointed he didn't get to meet the Fuhrer in person, they could have discussed their mutual admiration for each other.

Paul broaden your reading habits, you only read Left wing propaganda and their interpretations. You are so limited in your World view, Quote the sources of your claims and the reason Menzies made these statements from the Writings of Menzies himself.

Paulnazi,

Thanks for acknowledging that international Greens have a history of perversion. Though the Australian Green paedophiles are much more recent.

Once again you are lying through your teeth. Menzies actively disliked the antisemitism of the nazis (similar to the greens today) and while he admired the way the national socialists had lifted the economy of Germany he thought Hitler was a warmonger

Paul,
Just out of curiosit, when and how did John Howard dodge military service?

Hi Issy,

In his university days Howard was a Young Liberal, rising to the position of federal president. Howard was both an advocate of Australia's involvementin the Vietnam War and conscription. For the entire period that young Australians were forced to fight and die in that unjust war, Howard was eligable for military service, yet failed to enlist, despite being so gung-ho about the war. In fact when his lack of intestinal fortitude got too much for him, Howard pissed off to London. Anything else you want to know

Paul,
Yes, as Howard was 25 when conscription for 20 year olds was introduced how was his position untenable?

Issy,

Wash your mouth out with soap! Did I say Little Johnny Howard avoided CONSCRIPTION, not in your life. Howard was gung-ho when it came to support for the Vietnam War, Little Johnny was well known for his student activity in that regard. Conscrption was for the unwilling, unprepared, communists and other low lives, not for our Johnny. I'm surprised that Little Johnny never volunteered, being the natural born leader, and a man of great courage, he could have formed the all volunteer Young Liberal Regiment with Colonel John Howard in command. with only his swagger stick under his arm, and dressed in his splendid uniform of green and gold tracky-dacks, Colonel John could have led his Liberal volunteers across the paddy fields, past the booby traps, and through the mine field, to attack the red devils at their heart! Gung-ho forever!

Paul,
You also assume that he was medically fit for military service, and what has his going overseas got to do with it when he couldn’t be conscripted?

Pauliar,

I cannot find any reference to JH supporting conscription, but in the 60s and 70s it was popularly supported:

"National service had not been a divisive political issue in the 1950s and did not generate immediate controversy when reintroduced in late 1964. In fact, a Gallup poll showed that 71 per cent were in favour of the scheme at that time and 25 per cent were against.22 Attitudes changed little after 29 April 1965 when Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies advised federal parliament that an infantry battalion would be deployed to South Vietnam for combat operations.23 The 1 RAR deployment was an all-volunteer force. The following month the Defence Act was amended to allow national servicemen to deploy overseas, with the first Holt Government deciding in March 1966 that ‘nashos’ would serve in South Vietnam from mid-1966. Support for national service was now 68 per cent in favour and 26 per cent against.24 By October 1970, 58 per cent still agreed with national service and 34 per cent were against with 8 per cent curiously undecided.25 In September 1971, 53 per cent of 16 to 20-year-olds supported the continuation of conscription with the proportion in favour increasing with the age of respondents.26 The notable difference was in attitudes to where national servicemen ought to be sent. In May 1965, 52 per cent were in favour of them being sent to Vietnam and 37 per cent wanted them to remain in Australia. "

and if 100 percent of people knew the real John Howard they would say, like Menzies before him, "he was a gutless warmonger".

If Hitler had won the war I'm sure he would have reinstalled Robert Menzies as PM, Hitler's very own Australian Vidkun Quisling.

Earlier this year I read David Kemp's book on Menzies, maybe I should read John Howard's as well.

Pauliar,

Once again you admit that you lied through your teeth you have nothing on Howard. So where are you dredging up this bullsh1t? The only reference I found was in the Stalinist propaganda rag the red flag.

Even though you jerk off to Hitler, you wouldn't be appointed in charge of propaganda because you are too stupid to lie convincingly.

Paul,
You obviously know very little about Quisling either.