Don't Ever Forget What Kamala Harris Did

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Bullshit.
A thug swallowed a bag of drugs and died. He's turned into a Saint, and (mainly white, middle class kids) riot for 200 nights.

I must have missed that incident. Do you have a link?

Here's an idea. Get off CNN and do some digwork.

George Floyd overdosed on fentanyl as he resisted arrest, cop claims

An attorney for Minneapolis officer Thomas Lane, who is charged in George Floyd's killing, claims the black man contributed to his own death because he overdosed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Hey Pknopp, if it is so bad for blacks in the U.S, why were they rioting in white Portland, yet Harlem was peaceful???

 

[hadit]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

 

[Flash]

Everybody is trying to cover it up but we can't forget that the Democrats stole the 2020 Presidential and the Georgia Senate elections by the scam of unverified mail in ballots in the swing Democrat controlled districts.

 

[pknopp]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

 

[MadDog]

Number of unarmed blacks shot dead by cops in 2015.........32
Number of unarmed blacks shot dead by cops in 2020..........10.
Wow, who was in power in 2015??

I believe you’re mistaken. Apparently the count for 2020 are considerably higher than that. And it will probably be higher than that eventually since death stats aren’t tabulated in real time. The lag can possibly be several months.

People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2024 | Statista

The trend of fatal police shootings in the U.S. seems to only be increasing each year, with 1,097 civilians, 225 of whom were Black, killed by police in 2022.

www.statista.com

I specifically mentioned unarmed blacks. It was 32 in 2015, and as of November 2020 it was around 10 in 2020..
More blacks die falling out of bed than being shot unarmed by cops.

Everybody is trying to cover it up but we can't forget that the Democrats stole the 2020 Presidential and the Georgia Senate elections by the scam of unverified mail in ballots in the swing Democrat controlled districts.

shouting doesn’t make you right. It just makes you look despirate.

And making a statement like that doesn’t make it true. It just shows you don’t want the facts to get in the way of your narrative.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Everybody is trying to cover it up but we can't forget that the Democrats stole the 2020 Presidential and the Georgia Senate elections by the scam of unverified mail in ballots in the swing Democrat controlled districts.

The refusal to allow an audit is an admission of guilt.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Number of unarmed blacks shot dead by cops in 2015.........32
Number of unarmed blacks shot dead by cops in 2020..........10.
Wow, who was in power in 2015??

I believe you’re mistaken. Apparently the count for 2020 are considerably higher than that. And it will probably be higher than that eventually since death stats aren’t tabulated in real time. The lag can possibly be several months.

People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2024 | Statista

The trend of fatal police shootings in the U.S. seems to only be increasing each year, with 1,097 civilians, 225 of whom were Black, killed by police in 2022.

www.statista.com

I specifically mentioned unarmed blacks. It was 32 in 2015, and as of November 2020 it was around 10 in 2020..
More blacks die falling out of bed than being shot unarmed by cops.

Everybody is trying to cover it up but we can't forget that the Democrats stole the 2020 Presidential and the Georgia Senate elections by the scam of unverified mail in ballots in the swing Democrat controlled districts.

shouting doesn’t make you right. It just makes you look despirate.

And making a statement like that doesn’t make it true. It just shows you don’t want the facts to get in the way of your narrative.

Oh how my lying eyes deceived me.

 

[MadDog]

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

So why didn't she bail out those who rioted in 2015-2016?
She was weaponising the BLM riots to overthrow Trump. Sedition, I bleieve it's called.

You obviously don’t know what sedition means.

I do know what sedition is----its filthy, bloody name is BLM

So what dictionary offers that as the definition of sedition? Or did you just make it up for another rant.

I just made it up, like you people describe what happened in Washington.

So tell me. What have I made up.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

Most hate crime is black on white.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

So why didn't she bail out those who rioted in 2015-2016?
She was weaponising the BLM riots to overthrow Trump. Sedition, I bleieve it's called.

You obviously don’t know what sedition means.

I do know what sedition is----its filthy, bloody name is BLM

So what dictionary offers that as the definition of sedition? Or did you just make it up for another rant.

I just made it up, like you people describe what happened in Washington.

So tell me. What have I made up.

That Stop the Steal is a domestic terror group.

 

[MadDog]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

Most hate crime is black on white.

A hate crime is one in which a person is targeted specifically BECAUSE, of his race, gender, religion, etc. so you’re says one black attacks another out of hatred of blacks. Pardon me but I have a hard time believing that. Perhaps you have a link.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

If Joe wanted to destroy, Trump's legacy, he could have encouraged a 2-3 day audit of votes in the contested States.
Thats what a real leader would do, But he didn't. Now we're stuck with 4 years of division and a cloud of doubt over the whole legitimacy over the POTUS

 

[MadDog]

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

So why didn't she bail out those who rioted in 2015-2016?
She was weaponising the BLM riots to overthrow Trump. Sedition, I bleieve it's called.

You obviously don’t know what sedition means.

I do know what sedition is----its filthy, bloody name is BLM

So what dictionary offers that as the definition of sedition? Or did you just make it up for another rant.

I just made it up, like you people describe what happened in Washington.

So tell me. What have I made up.

That Stop the Steal is a domestic terror group.

I have never said that. Fell free to check all my posts. You have just lied about me.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

Most hate crime is black on white.

A hate crime is one in which a person is targeted specifically BECAUSE, of his race, gender, religion, etc. so you’re says one black attacks another out of hatred of blacks. Pardon me but I have a hard time believing that. Perhaps you have a link.

Nope. I said black on white violence was more common than white on black.

 

[pknopp]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

Most hate crime is black on white.

I used to work with an older black man. He told me he was racist. I told him I found that to be counter productive and not helping.

He then told me about how it was his daughter than integrated the local school system. She was in elementary school. He would go to the school every day to have lunch with her because none of the other kids would and he would hear the names they called her.

He told me that was something he would never be able to get over. I understood.

Most hate crime has not been black on white. Some things which are crimes are not prosecuted.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Show me ONE video of white people sucker punching random blacks, or hitting them with bricks on the head, or stomping them.
For each one you show I will post 10 going the other way.

 

[pknopp]

If Joe wanted to destroy, Trump's legacy, he could have encouraged a 2-3 day audit of votes in the contested States.
Thats what a real leader would do, But he didn't. Now we're stuck with 4 years of division and a cloud of doubt over the whole legitimacy over the POTUS

Joe didn't have to do that, the courts did.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

Most hate crime is black on white.

I used to work with an older black man. He told me he was racist. I told him I found that to be counter productive and not helping.

He then told me about how it was his daughter than integrated the local school system. She was in elementary school. He would go to the school every day to have lunch with her because none of the other kids would and he would hear the names they called her.

He told me that was something he would never be able to get over. I understood.

Most hate crime has not been black on white. Some things which are crimes are not prosecuted.

Wow. Touching.
I've been sucker punched and beaten up by a gang of blacks and called racial slurs as it happened.
A close friend was raped by one.
Spare me.

 

[pknopp]

Do you have a receipt of her donation?
Because all that she did was support it with a word or two..

1. Do you support her support of the organization? or do you not think it's a big deal?
2. Would you support or not care if Trump supported an organization that tried to bail out these Capitol protesters?

Trump already said he would bail out any of his supporters that knock the crap out of Protesters at his rallies, so he can probably just bail out his Power Boys and not ask for donations.

It's one of the few things in her entire life that I support. You act like people should be embarrassed that she would support those who were arrested for protesting for a just, justice system. Hardly, the anger should be towards those who fight against that.

Curious, would you support Trump if he bailed out these Capitol rioters?

Here's your chance to be consistent.

No. You are unable to use basic common sense. I don't support what these people protested over so why would I support Trump bailing them out? I support what the others protested over.

Your ability to think is pretty lacking.

I can be consistent only if I support things I don't support? Does that really somehow make sense to you?

Protests are legal when they are peaceful. There’s nothing peaceful about thugs who steal from others and vandalize their property.
So you support criminal activity and thug-like behavior because they are pro left is that what you are saying? Yikes.

I'm not stuttering. I support what they were protesting. I understand that when peaceful protest is ignored, the next step is violent protest.

It worked.

Violent acts create a great deal of negative blowback. Non violent acts of civil disobedience will garner broader support in the long run.

People want people to behave so they can ignore them.

Define "behave". There is violent behavior and there is non-violent disobedient behavior. A sit-in at a lunch counter is non-violent civil disobedience. It gets the point across, cannot be ignored, but no one needs to be hurt and nothing needs to be destroyed. IOW, there are effective means of protest that do not involve violence, which only hardens opposition.

Are you denying that there was violence after the sit ins? The dogs and the water hoses didn't come out?

People tried to peacefully protest. Trump called them SOB's and said they should be fired. Pence turned his back on them. Reforms happened after the violence.

Of course there was violence, and who committed it, the protestors or those who reacted to them? See, that's how you gain sympathy for your cause, you don't do anything wrong, and when the reaction is over-reaction, people don't like it. And reforms DID happen, because people didn't like seeing non-violent people getting blasted with hoses or chased by dogs. Had the protestors gone in smashing windows, burning buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders, many would have found themselves at the end of a rope. Not today, though. Today they get encouraged by the authorities and left alone to do whatever they want.

60 years later and the protests were still over the same things. Enough.

Far from it. The protests of 60 years ago were about being legally forced to use separate facilities, about being legally forced into being second class citizens, about being legally kept out of jobs, made to ride in the back of the bus, etc. etc. The protests this year were about unequal treatment at the hands of the police. IOW, there's been a lot of progress made already, or do you honestly believe Obama would have had a prayer to become president in the 60's?

Obama forgot all about the works of those who came before him as president. He had the opportunity to transform the country and stayed on the sidelines.

He made a big deal about taking over the Eric Garner prosecution and then did nothing. He left it for Trump to deal with.

Screw Obama.

Okaaaaay, but that doesn't address what I said. You said the protests were about the same thing that they were 60 years ago and I pointed out that you are wrong. Are you going to admit that you are wrong or persist?

It's all the same. Racism.

Most hate crime is black on white.

I used to work with an older black man. He told me he was racist. I told him I found that to be counter productive and not helping.

He then told me about how it was his daughter than integrated the local school system. She was in elementary school. He would go to the school every day to have lunch with her because none of the other kids would and he would hear the names they called her.

He told me that was something he would never be able to get over. I understood.

Most hate crime has not been black on white. Some things which are crimes are not prosecuted.

Wow. Touching.
I've been sucker punched and beaten up by a gang of blacks and called racial slurs as it happened.
A close friend was raped by one.
Spare me.

No you weren't.