Baltimore riots...and the Hypocrisy of right wingers

[BlindBoo]

A major tenet of right wing republicans is LESS governmental interference, especially from the federal government when it comes to local matters....
Yet, not one of these dingbats on this forum has the cojones to call out their fellow cretins for "blaming" Obama and the executive branch for not doing "something" (whatever that may be) regarding the Baltimore riots....

The Obama would give the rioters the space they need to destroy private property as well, so the point is moot.

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully, there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest.

Believing the meme "the Mayor wanted to give the looter space to destroy......", priceless.

See how the far left equates riots with protesting..

You got suckered into that meme didn't you?

Says the far left drone!

Going to condemn the riots?

Unequivocally I condemn them. Going to condemn that meme?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Obama would give the rioters the space they need to destroy private property as well, so the point is moot.

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully....

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

Glad to see you'll admit to that extra helping of kool aid.

UR loopy.

Says he who actually believe that in order for there to be peaceful protest, you have to give people room to destroy things.

 

[Rotagilla]

The Obama would give the rioters the space they need to destroy private property as well, so the point is moot.

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully....

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

 

[Kosh]

The Obama would give the rioters the space they need to destroy private property as well, so the point is moot.

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully, there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest.

Believing the meme "the Mayor wanted to give the looter space to destroy......", priceless.

See how the far left equates riots with protesting..

You got suckered into that meme didn't you?

Says the far left drone!

Going to condemn the riots?

Unequivocally I condemn them. Going to condemn that meme?

So when you going to stop pushing the far left religious mantra?

See they will post the words, but they do not believe what they post, the rest of this drones words will show that to the far left riots equals protests..

 

[BlindBoo]

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully....

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

Glad to see you'll admit to that extra helping of kool aid.

UR loopy.

Says he who actually believe that in order for there to be peaceful protest, you have to give people room to destroy things.

Nope that's what you say. I guess that's what being loopy is all about. Because we have the right to protest, the criminal element can take advantage of the space given to peaceful protesters.

 

[OKTexas]

The Obama would give the rioters the space they need to destroy private property as well, so the point is moot.

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully....

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

You don't make police stand and be assaulted and not allow them to protect themselves and arrest the felons attacking them, likewise you don't stand by and allow looters to destroy private property. Those who decided to break the law should have been pursued, arrested and jailed, if they resisted with violence they should have been met with equal or greater violence. We are either a nation of laws or do we enable violators of the law? You can't have it both ways.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

Glad to see you'll admit to that extra helping of kool aid.

UR loopy.

Says he who actually believe that in order for there to be peaceful protest, you have to give people room to destroy things.

Nope that's what you say.

No. Its what YOU said.

 

[BlindBoo]

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully....

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

 

[Rotagilla]

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

 

[BlindBoo]

Absolutely necessary in a free society. Unless you are willing to give up the right to protest peacefully....

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

You don't make police stand and be assaulted and not allow them to protect themselves and arrest the felons attacking them, likewise you don't stand by and allow looters to destroy private property. Those who decided to break the law should have been pursued, arrested and jailed, if they resisted with violence they should have been met with equal or greater violence. We are either a nation of laws or do we enable violators of the law? You can't have it both ways.

I think the police were out numbered to such an extent that they couldn't respond. After the National Guard deploys today I think it will be a different story tonight. I could be wrong.

 

[Kosh]

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

No that is part of the far left drone command structure, it is not unique to this one poster, as all far left drones on this board are like that..

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

LOL if you say so. But in reality, it isn't me playing word games with the Mayor words. I didn't misquote her.

 

[Kosh]

It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?
Had an extra helping of kool-aid this morning eh?

Yes as ......

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Which is probably why you cut out this part of my response.

"...there will always be a criminal element seeking wanton violence that will take advantage of the space given to peaceful protest."

Anyone believing the Mayor was intentionally giving these violent criminal space to destroy is just fucking loopy.

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

You don't make police stand and be assaulted and not allow them to protect themselves and arrest the felons attacking them, likewise you don't stand by and allow looters to destroy private property. Those who decided to break the law should have been pursued, arrested and jailed, if they resisted with violence they should have been met with equal or greater violence. We are either a nation of laws or do we enable violators of the law? You can't have it both ways.

I think the police were out numbered to such an extent that they couldn't respond. After the National Guard deploys today I think it will be a different story tonight. I could be wrong.

And you will be as usual..

 

[Kosh]

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

LOL if you say so. But in reality, it isn't me playing word games with the Mayor words. I didn't misquote her.

Yet you still see riots as the same as protesting..

 

[The Rabbi]

A major tenet of right wing republicans is LESS governmental interference, especially from the federal government when it comes to local matters....

Yet, not one of these dingbats on this forum has the cojones to call out their fellow cretins for "blaming" Obama and the executive branch for not doing "something" (whatever that may be) regarding the Baltimore riots....

Sorry but who's blaming Obama? Another made up red herring troll thread.
The libs are getting downright stupid here.

 

[BlindBoo]

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

LOL if you say so. But in reality, it isn't me playing word games with the Mayor words. I didn't misquote her.

Yet you still see riots as the same as protesting..

More outright lies. But I'm not really surprised by it, it really is all you've got isn't it?

 

[blackhawk]

And of course if there was a Republican President you on the left would not be blaming him for the riots or be claiming he should be doing more. The truth is the President any President should not involve themselves in local matters such as this other than to say we need to have a full and honest investigation to gather all the facts and determine what happened.

 

[Rotagilla]

Seriously, did you read the quote you just posted? Here's what you posted:

Here’s her full comment:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

LOL if you say so. But in reality, it isn't me playing word games with the Mayor words. I didn't misquote her.

no one "misquoted" her..She said what she said...on videotape..it can't be denied.

 

[nat4900]

Sorry but who's blaming Obama? Another made up red herring troll thread. The libs are getting downright stupid here.

Dingbat, there's at least 2 or 3 threads by your fellow nitwits who are "blaming" Obama.....

I'm waiting for ONE of your ilk to ALSO blame the republican governor of Maryland.....just ONE.

 

[BlindBoo]

Truly a Captain Obvious moment, for both of you.

Just like our right to bear arms can sometime result in some wacko shooting up a school full of children, so can our right to protest result in violent riots.

owning a gun and shooting up a school are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.
When one person shoots up a school you don't see thousands of others rushing to join in.

protesting legally and and rioting are two entirely different things and one does not cause or lead to the other.

Have the shooters taken advantage of the right to bear arms to purchase the weapons they used to kill with?

Did the rioter take advantage of the right to peaceful protest to start their destruction?

Oh..I see now..you just want to play word games and pose hypothetical questions about imaginary scenarios you invented in your own mind.

LOL if you say so. But in reality, it isn't me playing word games with the Mayor words. I didn't misquote her.

no one "misquoted" her..She said what she said...on videotape..it can't be denied.

I never accused you of saying "give the rioters the space they need to destroy private property" or

"It's is absolutely necessary to give people the room they need to destroy things, because without it there can be no peaceful protest?"

But somebody bought the meme hook line and sinker.