BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Police Lieutenant Who Shot and Killed Ashli Babbitt

[progressive hunter]

Actually the constitution said they couldn't amend it to end slavery for at least two decades.

so it said it could be changed,, thanks for confirming it helped end the democrats slavery,,,

Think about it. They could fix anything in the constitution, including by adding the Bill of Rights.

But they couldn't touch slavery for at least 20 years.

If that's not protecting slavery, what would you call protecting something for 20 years.

youre leaving out the constitution wouldnt exist if they didnt allow that to be put in,,,

the people that later formed the democrat party wouldnt allow it,,

 

[progressive hunter]

When, then, is shooting warrented?

according to democrats that depends on the color of the skin of the person shooting and one getting shot

 

[meaner gene]

Think about it. They could fix anything in the constitution, including by adding the Bill of Rights.

But they couldn't touch slavery for at least 20 years.

If that's not protecting slavery, what would you call protecting something for 20 years.

youre leaving out the constitution wouldnt exist if they didnt allow that to be put in,,,

the people that later formed the democrat party wouldnt allow it,,

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

 

[meaner gene]

When, then, is shooting warrented?

according to democrats that depends on the color of the skin of the person shooting and one getting shot

Actually it's in depends on what is being protected.
Republicans believe in using deadly force to protect property (stuff)
Democrats believe it's only warranted to protect people (life and limb)

Republicans put their money over their fellow citizens.

 

[progressive hunter]

Think about it. They could fix anything in the constitution, including by adding the Bill of Rights.

But they couldn't touch slavery for at least 20 years.

If that's not protecting slavery, what would you call protecting something for 20 years.

youre leaving out the constitution wouldnt exist if they didnt allow that to be put in,,,

the people that later formed the democrat party wouldnt allow it,,

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

because that wasnt its intent,, most of the people that wrote it wanted to end slavery with it but due to a few future democrats they were forced to put that in to it but left an out at the soonest time possible,,,

a mind is a terrible thing to waste and yet you do it freely in public,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

When, then, is shooting warrented?

according to democrats that depends on the color of the skin of the person shooting and one getting shot

Actually it's in depends on what is being protected.
Republicans believe in using deadly force to protect property (stuff)
Democrats believe it's only warranted to protect people (life and limb)

Republicans put their money over their fellow citizens.

so democrats want to make theft legal,,, go figure,,

 

[meaner gene]

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

because that wasnt its intent,, most of the people that wrote it wanted to end slavery with it but due to a few future democrats they were forced to put that in to it but left an out at the soonest time possible,,,

a mind is a terrible thing to waste and yet you do it freely in public,,,

You said that the final agreement was to protect slavery. Even if over the objection of some of the framers, the final agreement was to protect slavery.

Why can't you acknowledge you already admitted it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

because that wasnt its intent,, most of the people that wrote it wanted to end slavery with it but due to a few future democrats they were forced to put that in to it but left an out at the soonest time possible,,,

a mind is a terrible thing to waste and yet you do it freely in public,,,

You said that the final agreement was to protect slavery. Even if over the objection of some of the framers, the final agreement was to protect slavery.

Why can't you acknowledge you already admitted it.

thats the spin you put on it when the facts are most wanted to end it and had to compromise or not achieve their goal,,

but they thought ahead and put an out in there to allow its end at a later date,,,

 

[meaner gene]

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

You said that the final agreement was to protect slavery. Even if over the objection of some of the framers, the final agreement was to protect slavery.

Why can't you acknowledge you already admitted it.

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

thats the spin you put on it when the facts are most wanted to end it and had to compromise or not achieve their goal,,

Just admit it, the great compromise, the 3/5ths compromise, and all the other compromises that went into enacting the constitution was to support slavery.
QED

 

[progressive hunter]

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

You said that the final agreement was to protect slavery. Even if over the objection of some of the framers, the final agreement was to protect slavery.

Why can't you acknowledge you already admitted it.

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

thats the spin you put on it when the facts are most wanted to end it and had to compromise or not achieve their goal,,

Just admit it, the great compromise, the 3/5ths compromise, and all the other compromises that went into enacting the constitution was to support slavery.
QED

cant admit to something that isnt true,,,

 

[meaner gene]

but they thought ahead and put an out in there to allow its end at a later date,,,

You have it backwards. They did not put a date to end slavery in the constitution. They said that no matter the will of the people, that slavery would be constitutionally protected for AT LEAST 20 years.

 

[progressive hunter]

but they thought ahead and put an out in there to allow its end at a later date,,,

You have it backwards. They did not put a date to end slavery in the constitution. They said that no matter the will of the people, that slavery would be constitutionally protected for AT LEAST 20 years.

I never said they gave a date to end slavery,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

You said that the final agreement was to protect slavery. Even if over the objection of some of the framers, the final agreement was to protect slavery.

Why can't you acknowledge you already admitted it.

Why did it take you so long to ADMIT that the original intent of the constitution was to protect slavery.

thats the spin you put on it when the facts are most wanted to end it and had to compromise or not achieve their goal,,

Just admit it, the great compromise, the 3/5ths compromise, and all the other compromises that went into enacting the constitution was to support slavery.
QED

No, they were compromises TO FORM A NATION rather than a bunch of scrabbling statelets like Europe has always been.

 

[meaner gene]

Just admit it, the great compromise, the 3/5ths compromise, and all the other compromises that went into enacting the constitution was to support slavery.
QED

cant admit to something that isnt true,,,

The Constitution and Slavery - Constitutional Rights Foundation


What are the 3 compromises over slavery?
The three major compromises were the Great Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Electoral College.

 

[bodecea]

The cop was doing his job.

murdering an unarmed women that wasnt threatening him???

The entire situation doesn't make sense to me. The woman was totally unarmed as were most of these people. A few had poles, bats and other things they literally picked up outside! So the media is trying to spin this as an attempt to overthrow the government? End democracy? Where were the real weapons?

So that right there is bullshit. But ITMT, here you have people whose emotions have gotten the better of them breaking through windows and locked doors, inside the Capitol while Congress is in session, AND with multitudes of armed police on the other side!

And the cop had no way of knowing who was on the other side of that door, what they were bringing or what they had and intended.

So yes,

1. It's a wonder a LOT more people weren't killed that day, and
2. Yes, this cop will be found not guilty of a crime.

But ITMT you can bet your sweet bippy that had this been an Antifa riot or some other connected to the Democrats, this officer's name would be splattered in every paper across the country!

She breached a barricade, and she was wearing a backpack.

Never have I seen a more justified and appropriate use of force.

The officer threatened use.
He waited until he couldn’t any more.
He fired the least amount necessary to control the situation.

Fuck you. What is wrong with you idiots? I agreed that the guy had no choice and was basically justified in shooting and that those people there made no real sense and had a confused mission and STILL you can't fucking READ and get it that I'm practically agreeing with you and still want to argue with me? IDIOT!

But you are also proving my point that these people were not there to "overthrow the government" or "destroy democracy," how could they? They were a handful of zealots without the sense to even cover their faces mostly wearing ordinary street clothes carry no real weapons to speak of, many of which were women and people not even in the physical condition to carry out an orchestrated fight!

It was nothing more than a protest that got out of hand because of too little security there to control the situation (Nancy Pelosi) egged on by a few deliberate agitators (Antifa and others)!

The question now is when will the impeachment hearings begin for Nancy Pelosi for her role in deliberately setting the stage to allow this debacle to happen?

Blame Pelosi is to blame the victim.

Terrrorists aren't victims.

 

[progressive hunter]

Just admit it, the great compromise, the 3/5ths compromise, and all the other compromises that went into enacting the constitution was to support slavery.
QED

cant admit to something that isnt true,,,

The Constitution and Slavery - Constitutional Rights Foundation


What are the 3 compromises over slavery?
The three major compromises were the Great Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Electoral College.

doesnt change the fact they intended to end slavery and that those who later became the democrat party tried like hell to preserve slavery,,,

 

[bodecea]

When, then, is shooting warrented?

according to democrats that depends on the color of the skin of the person shooting and one getting shot

Oh....it was a Democrat who started this thread about the color of the skin of the POLICE OFFICER?

 

[meaner gene]

The constantly changing argument

but they thought ahead and put an out in there to allow its end at a later date,,,

Yet any any other change except slavery was allowed to be changed immediately.

I never said they gave a date to end slavery,,

The constitution protected slavery for 20 years, or until amended AFTER 20 years.

 

[meaner gene]

No, they were compromises TO FORM A NATION rather than a bunch of scrabbling statelets like Europe has always been.

What's your problem? You just admitted the "compromise" was to support slavery.

 

[meaner gene]

doesnt change the fact they intended to end slavery...

WOW. Your argument is they intended to end slavery by giving it decades of constitutional protections.