BLM sues city of Seattle

[pknopp]

I don't recall any cities that were burned down. When I see a reply such as yours I understand you have no argument to make.

Maybe you are taking the phrase "burned down" too literally so you can land a blow after a series of miserably stupid comments here.

You can actually address my comments or do as was done. Simply make things up.

 

[badbob85037]

All I can really do is laugh at this.

BLM Sues City Of Seattle, Claims They Must Purchase Expensive Protective Gear To Exercise First Amendment Rights | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Police need to counter sue for damage due to injuries and destroyed property. But the city officials will give them twice as much as they ask for without going to court.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.

IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.

They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You can actually address my comments or do as was done. Simply make things up.

In your first post on the matter you claim the founding fathers intended that a radical Marxist
group of racially divisive thugs like BLM be able to attack Seattle and take over a large section of it
driving police out so they could end the nuclear family, among other demands.

That you think it's thwarting the will of the founders to battle BLM is a master stroke of idiocy.
Did you have a master stroke yourself? You'll never post something as stupid as that again though
I bet you keep trying.

 

[martybegan]

Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.

The key to any attempt to overthrow a corrupt government is to FOLLOW THROUGH with it, win, and thus not be considered traitors anymore.

They do not care what you consider them. Many considered the founders of the countries as traitors. The idea really isn't to "overthrow" either but to reform.

No, it's to overthrow in the guise of reform. The ones rioting are hard core Marxists.

And them caring or not is not material.

You just wish you had the balls to be one of them on the barricades.

 

[martybegan]

All I can really do is laugh at this.

BLM Sues City Of Seattle, Claims They Must Purchase Expensive Protective Gear To Exercise First Amendment Rights | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL

Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.

LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.

I mean what can you win from those with very little?

Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.

OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?

No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.

 

[pknopp]

Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.

IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.

They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.

People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.

 

[pknopp]

You can actually address my comments or do as was done. Simply make things up.

In your first post on the matter you claim the founding fathers intended that a radical Marxist
group of racially divisive thugs like BLM be able to attack Seattle and take over a large section of it
driving police out so they could end the nuclear family, among other demands.

I'm not interested in your hyperbole but that is exactly what the founders did. When the king wouldn't listen they threw the kings rule off.

 

[pknopp]

All I can really do is laugh at this.

BLM Sues City Of Seattle, Claims They Must Purchase Expensive Protective Gear To Exercise First Amendment Rights | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL

Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.

LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.

I mean what can you win from those with very little?

Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.

OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?

No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.

You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.

So when the president of the USA disagrees with you that's the time to pull out your guns and topple the
government? That's very smart What special insights to the founders you have.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.

IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.

They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.

People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.

Wrong... Defacing public property, Deystroying property, looting, assaulting and burning buildings to the ground are in NO WAY PEACEFUL.. Your attempt to deflect your violations of the US Constitution falls flat on its face.. The moment you stepped across the line from peaceful to violence you lost this battle.

 

[martybegan]

All I can really do is laugh at this.

BLM Sues City Of Seattle, Claims They Must Purchase Expensive Protective Gear To Exercise First Amendment Rights | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL

Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.

LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.

I mean what can you win from those with very little?

Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.

OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?

No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.

You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.

The right is to peacefully assemble to voice grievances against the government.

what is happening is not peaceful, it hides among the peaceful.

Stopping other citizens from their own freedom of movement is not peaceful. Destroying or damaging federal property is not peaceful. Assaulting officers with fireworks and laser pointers is not peaceful.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'm not interested in your hyperbole but that is exactly what the founders did. When the king wouldn't listen they threw the kings rule off.

You have over simplified and dumbed down things to a point where your comments are appropriate for The Onion or Babylon Bee. You're an absolute moron!

What percentage of the American populace, by the way, do you think agree with BLM and what they've
done in places like Seattle?

 

[pknopp]

People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.

So when the president of the USA disagrees with you that's the time to pull out your guns and topple the
government? That's very smart What special insights to the founders you have.

Yes, people can react in a violent manner when their rights are being violated. That is the system the founders set up. Why do I have to note this so many times?

 

[pknopp]

Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.

IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.

They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.

People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.

Wrong... Defacing public property, Deystroying property, looting, assaulting and burning buildings to the ground are in NO WAY PEACEFUL.. Your attempt to deflect your violations of the US Constitution falls flat on its face.. The moment you stepped across the line from peaceful to violence you lost this battle.

I didn't say that was peaceful. You simply can't be honest because you know you are losing and have this need to lash out.

 

[pknopp]

All I can really do is laugh at this.

BLM Sues City Of Seattle, Claims They Must Purchase Expensive Protective Gear To Exercise First Amendment Rights | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL

Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.

LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.

I mean what can you win from those with very little?

Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.

OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?

No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.

You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.

The right is to peacefully assemble to voice grievances against the government.

what is happening is not peaceful, it hides among the peaceful.

Stopping other citizens from their own freedom of movement is not peaceful. Destroying or damaging federal property is not peaceful. Assaulting officers with fireworks and laser pointers is not peaceful.

Did the founders get what they wanted through peaceful measures?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.

There is no constitutional right to riot and seize public property. Idiot!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.

IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.

They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.

People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.

Wrong... Defacing public property, Deystroying property, looting, assaulting and burning buildings to the ground are in NO WAY PEACEFUL.. Your attempt to deflect your violations of the US Constitution falls flat on its face.. The moment you stepped across the line from peaceful to violence you lost this battle.

I didn't say that was peaceful. You simply can't be honest because you know you are losing and have this need to lash out.

I pointed out your a liar... Because you are... That is not lashing out, its calling it what it is.. Go back to your safe space and let adults discuss this important question.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not interested in your hyperbole but that is exactly what the founders did. When the king wouldn't listen they threw the kings rule off.

You have over simplified and dumbed down things to a point where your comments are appropriate for The Onion or Babylon Bee. You're an absolute moron!

Are my statements simplified and dumbed down? Yeah, considering the audience.

What percentage of the American populace, by the way, do you think agree with BLM and what they've
done in places like Seattle?

The percent doesn't matter but it's more and more everyday.

Most view kneeling during anthem as acceptable form of protest - CBS News poll

Even those who do not support it are going to go along because they have too much to lose otherwise.

 

[pknopp]

You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.

There is no constitutional right to riot and seize public property. Idiot!

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

It's the very reason they included the 2nd Amendment.