The Democrat Party Should Be Dissolved

[AzogtheDefiler]

I have been. Look at all my posts.

I have that's why I said what I said. You have used not just several strawman arguments on me but have repeated some of them even AFTER I pointed out they were fallacious. You have reverted on several occasions to not arguing me but rather tried to use generalizations. Those are simply not honest arguments.

I disagree. The media and the gov't has painted all white people and police officers with the same brush. Talk about generalization.

Here you go again with not arguing me but arguing other people. Do you understand that???? I don't get it Azog, I really don't. Do you have even have a shred of self-reflection because at this point it is getting ridiculous?

What you call "strawman arguments" I call rational arguments. Self reflection? Spare me your holier than thou attitude, please.

 

[forkup]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

You can correct me if I'm wrong but when you argue for restricting the right to protest because of the potential for that right to lead to damages aren't you advocating for restricting the rights named in the constitution without them being abused? That's what prompted my first reply to your position. It seems to me you can not have it both ways. Either you believe there are limits on liberties as it pertains to cost. Or limits can only be imposed when it violates other laws.

If the former that opens up an entire array of interpretations on how to apply the constitution.
If the latter one has to accept that the rights written down in the constitution will lead to certain abuses and they have to be accepted as a cost.

I think I see what you are saying forkup
but no, I'm not saying to impose or enforce "more restrictions"
I am saying they already exist, and the point is to TEACH people
these laws, and let THEM understand and agree to police their own conduct
by voluntary compliance because THEY want to enforce the laws consistently.

I don't believe ADDING more laws is needed at all!
I'm saying if we taught the ones we already HAVE in the Bill of Rights,
then these laws would CHECK THEMSELVES.

Even the First Amendment, by itself, includes the right of the
people PEACEABLY to assembly. So abusing freedoms or rights to
DISRUPT the ability of people to assemble peaceably is ALREADY
violating the same First Amendment people cite to DEFEND their
rights of free speech and free exercise. I'm just saying we should
teach EVERYONE to respect the WHOLE of the law.
And STOP taking parts or rights "out of context" where those get abused.

As for any additional laws? I'd leave that to local districts
if the residents AGREE to implement their own neighborhood ordinances.
EX:
If you don't think pitbulls are safe around the schoolchildren, and you
vote on standards for screening and training both pets and their owners
before permitted certain dogs to live in that subdivision.
If you do or don't believe in legalizing marijuana, and you are willing
to pay for the added medical costs by having your own clinics and
hospital the residents agree to manage themselves so they can afford
the risks of drug use.
If you don't want to shut down businesses for the pandemic, and want
to pay for your own medical response, precautions and policy enforcement.
etc.

As long as people are SELF policing and self governing, if residents in a community
ALL AGREE to certain standards, they should be able to represent themselves.
As long as they take legal and financial responsibility.

In general, I believe that by teaching people the basic civil standards,
and the process for conflict resolution and democratic representation,
they should be able to manage their own policies and process.

In fact, I would rather see such districts get REWARDED for becoming self governing
by granting TAX BREAKS for citizens to invest in their own legal depts,
health care benefits and management, teachers/schools and police.
By giving an incentive for citizens to enforce laws themselves to
reduce crime, the money saved off costs of prosecution and incarceration
could fund schools and health care, while reducing taxes instead of raising them.

Just so I understand your position, you agree that blockades and compelling people to sign agreements in order to participate in protests are against the first amendment?

As to the rest, I admire your optimism but I'm afraid I'm more cynical when it comes to trusting the ability of people to police themself, no matter how much people are informed about the constitution. To put it bluntly, there's nothing in history to suggest that individual people are capable of recognizing the wiseness of working as a group without any form of coercion. At least not to the level required to run highly complex societies.

As a side note, this is way more fun than arguing fallacies as it requires me to actually think about my own position and I really thank you for that emilynghiem, it's kind of novel for me on here.

 

[forkup]

I have been. Look at all my posts.

I have that's why I said what I said. You have used not just several strawman arguments on me but have repeated some of them even AFTER I pointed out they were fallacious. You have reverted on several occasions to not arguing me but rather tried to use generalizations. Those are simply not honest arguments.

I disagree. The media and the gov't has painted all white people and police officers with the same brush. Talk about generalization.

Here you go again with not arguing me but arguing other people. Do you understand that???? I don't get it Azog, I really don't. Do you have even have a shred of self-reflection because at this point it is getting ridiculous?

What you call "strawman arguments" I call rational arguments. Self reflection? Spare me your holier than thou attitude, please.

Strawman arguments aren't rational arguments, mostly it's what people do when they can't come up with rational arguments. As to my holier than thou attitude. The one time I used one on here I did a mea culpa. In 2 posts I didn't deflect or change the subject and I sure as hell didn't repeat it. So I am "holier than thou" not that that is that much of an achievement at this point in time.

 

[emilynghiem]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

You can correct me if I'm wrong but when you argue for restricting the right to protest because of the potential for that right to lead to damages aren't you advocating for restricting the rights named in the constitution without them being abused? That's what prompted my first reply to your position. It seems to me you can not have it both ways. Either you believe there are limits on liberties as it pertains to cost. Or limits can only be imposed when it violates other laws.

If the former that opens up an entire array of interpretations on how to apply the constitution.
If the latter one has to accept that the rights written down in the constitution will lead to certain abuses and they have to be accepted as a cost.

I think I see what you are saying forkup
but no, I'm not saying to impose or enforce "more restrictions"
I am saying they already exist, and the point is to TEACH people
these laws, and let THEM understand and agree to police their own conduct
by voluntary compliance because THEY want to enforce the laws consistently.

I don't believe ADDING more laws is needed at all!
I'm saying if we taught the ones we already HAVE in the Bill of Rights,
then these laws would CHECK THEMSELVES.

Even the First Amendment, by itself, includes the right of the
people PEACEABLY to assembly. So abusing freedoms or rights to
DISRUPT the ability of people to assemble peaceably is ALREADY
violating the same First Amendment people cite to DEFEND their
rights of free speech and free exercise. I'm just saying we should
teach EVERYONE to respect the WHOLE of the law.
And STOP taking parts or rights "out of context" where those get abused.

As for any additional laws? I'd leave that to local districts
if the residents AGREE to implement their own neighborhood ordinances.
EX:
If you don't think pitbulls are safe around the schoolchildren, and you
vote on standards for screening and training both pets and their owners
before permitted certain dogs to live in that subdivision.
If you do or don't believe in legalizing marijuana, and you are willing
to pay for the added medical costs by having your own clinics and
hospital the residents agree to manage themselves so they can afford
the risks of drug use.
If you don't want to shut down businesses for the pandemic, and want
to pay for your own medical response, precautions and policy enforcement.
etc.

As long as people are SELF policing and self governing, if residents in a community
ALL AGREE to certain standards, they should be able to represent themselves.
As long as they take legal and financial responsibility.

In general, I believe that by teaching people the basic civil standards,
and the process for conflict resolution and democratic representation,
they should be able to manage their own policies and process.

In fact, I would rather see such districts get REWARDED for becoming self governing
by granting TAX BREAKS for citizens to invest in their own legal depts,
health care benefits and management, teachers/schools and police.
By giving an incentive for citizens to enforce laws themselves to
reduce crime, the money saved off costs of prosecution and incarceration
could fund schools and health care, while reducing taxes instead of raising them.

Just so I understand your position, you agree that blockades and compelling people to sign agreements in order to participate in protests are against the first amendment?

As to the rest, I admire your optimism but I'm afraid I'm more cynical when it comes to trusting the ability of people to police themself, no matter how much people are informed about the constitution. To put it bluntly, there's nothing in history to suggest that individual people are capable of recognizing the wiseness of working as a group without any form of coercion. At least not to the level required to run highly complex societies.

As a side note, this is way more fun than arguing fallacies as it requires me to actually think about my own position and I really thank you for that emilynghiem, it's kind of novel for me on here.

Dear forkup
For those who disagree, yes, because the people governed should consent.

However, if there are RESIDENTS and PROPERTY OWNERS who do not consent
to go without police access, arrangements should be set up to protect those people's rights.
^ This is where the conflict is coming from. ^
Reports are coming out that people are needing help and cannot get police response.

So the police or some other mediator should negotiate with the protesters
to make sure they are not obstructing, denying or disparaging rights of other citizens who have not broken any laws.

This is the equivalent of parking in a disabled lot to go to a protest.
If you are blocking access to someone else, you should still get a ticket or get towed.
Free speech does not give you a free ride to violate rights of other people.
If lots of protesters are going to block people into their houses,
the people need the opportunity to make arrangements in advance.

Normally, if people are going to lose their property, the govt
must give JUST compensation and conduct a process of obtaining consent.

Part of the laws is not to "deprive people of life, liberty or property"
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

So ESPECIALLY if protesters are trying to ENFORCE the laws regarding DUE PROCESS,
if the WHOLE POINT of the George Floyd protests and the subsequent protests
against police use of oppressive tactics is to DEFEND LIBERTY from "deprivation without due process"
THEN IF PEOPLE WANT TO ENFORCE LAWS THEMSELVES AS THEIR OWN POLICE
IT IS NATURAL LAW TO RESPECT THE SAME PRINCIPLE OF DUE PROCESS
AND NOT DEPRIVE OTHERS OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY EITHER!

again forkup this is not about introducing MORE laws, but
CONSISTENTLY enforcing the ones already contained within the same Bill of Rights.
By doing so, this ELIMINATES the need to add more restrictions
because people would ALREADY be avoiding any abuse or overreach.

AMENDMENT IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

See Also AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1:

. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[forkup]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

You can correct me if I'm wrong but when you argue for restricting the right to protest because of the potential for that right to lead to damages aren't you advocating for restricting the rights named in the constitution without them being abused? That's what prompted my first reply to your position. It seems to me you can not have it both ways. Either you believe there are limits on liberties as it pertains to cost. Or limits can only be imposed when it violates other laws.

If the former that opens up an entire array of interpretations on how to apply the constitution.
If the latter one has to accept that the rights written down in the constitution will lead to certain abuses and they have to be accepted as a cost.

I think I see what you are saying forkup
but no, I'm not saying to impose or enforce "more restrictions"
I am saying they already exist, and the point is to TEACH people
these laws, and let THEM understand and agree to police their own conduct
by voluntary compliance because THEY want to enforce the laws consistently.

I don't believe ADDING more laws is needed at all!
I'm saying if we taught the ones we already HAVE in the Bill of Rights,
then these laws would CHECK THEMSELVES.

Even the First Amendment, by itself, includes the right of the
people PEACEABLY to assembly. So abusing freedoms or rights to
DISRUPT the ability of people to assemble peaceably is ALREADY
violating the same First Amendment people cite to DEFEND their
rights of free speech and free exercise. I'm just saying we should
teach EVERYONE to respect the WHOLE of the law.
And STOP taking parts or rights "out of context" where those get abused.

As for any additional laws? I'd leave that to local districts
if the residents AGREE to implement their own neighborhood ordinances.
EX:
If you don't think pitbulls are safe around the schoolchildren, and you
vote on standards for screening and training both pets and their owners
before permitted certain dogs to live in that subdivision.
If you do or don't believe in legalizing marijuana, and you are willing
to pay for the added medical costs by having your own clinics and
hospital the residents agree to manage themselves so they can afford
the risks of drug use.
If you don't want to shut down businesses for the pandemic, and want
to pay for your own medical response, precautions and policy enforcement.
etc.

As long as people are SELF policing and self governing, if residents in a community
ALL AGREE to certain standards, they should be able to represent themselves.
As long as they take legal and financial responsibility.

In general, I believe that by teaching people the basic civil standards,
and the process for conflict resolution and democratic representation,
they should be able to manage their own policies and process.

In fact, I would rather see such districts get REWARDED for becoming self governing
by granting TAX BREAKS for citizens to invest in their own legal depts,
health care benefits and management, teachers/schools and police.
By giving an incentive for citizens to enforce laws themselves to
reduce crime, the money saved off costs of prosecution and incarceration
could fund schools and health care, while reducing taxes instead of raising them.

Just so I understand your position, you agree that blockades and compelling people to sign agreements in order to participate in protests are against the first amendment?

As to the rest, I admire your optimism but I'm afraid I'm more cynical when it comes to trusting the ability of people to police themself, no matter how much people are informed about the constitution. To put it bluntly, there's nothing in history to suggest that individual people are capable of recognizing the wiseness of working as a group without any form of coercion. At least not to the level required to run highly complex societies.

As a side note, this is way more fun than arguing fallacies as it requires me to actually think about my own position and I really thank you for that emilynghiem, it's kind of novel for me on here.

Dear forkup
For those who disagree, yes, because the people governed should consent.

However, if there are RESIDENTS and PROPERTY OWNERS who do not consent
to go without police access, arrangements should be set up to protect those people's rights.
^ This is where the conflict is coming from. ^
Reports are coming out that people are needing help and cannot get police response.

So the police or some other mediator should negotiate with the protesters
to make sure they are not obstructing, denying or disparaging rights of other citizens who have not broken any laws.

This is the equivalent of parking in a disabled lot to go to a protest.
If you are blocking access to someone else, you should still get a ticket or get towed.
Free speech does not give you a free ride to violate rights of other people.
If lots of protesters are going to block people into their houses,
the people need the opportunity to make arrangements in advance.

Normally, if people are going to lose their property, the govt
must give JUST compensation and conduct a process of obtaining consent.

Part of the laws is not to "deprive people of life, liberty or property"
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

So ESPECIALLY if protesters are trying to ENFORCE the laws regarding DUE PROCESS,
if the WHOLE POINT of the George Floyd protests and the subsequent protests
against police use of oppressive tactics is to DEFEND LIBERTY from "deprivation without due process"
THEN IF PEOPLE WANT TO ENFORCE LAWS THEMSELVES AS THEIR OWN POLICE
IT IS NATURAL LAW TO RESPECT THE SAME PRINCIPLE OF DUE PROCESS
AND NOT DEPRIVE OTHERS OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY EITHER!

again forkup this is not about introducing MORE laws, but
CONSISTENTLY enforcing the ones already contained within the same Bill of Rights.
By doing so, this ELIMINATES the need to add more restrictions
because people would ALREADY be avoiding any abuse or overreach.

AMENDMENT IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

See Also AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1:

. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The protesters themselves can not be required to be responsible for providing those rights to people. I'm not talking about that they should, because of course, they should, I'm talking about the constitutional requirement. Because in so requiring them, you would abridge their right to peacefully assemble. That I think is the core of this debate.

I'll put it in practical terms. If people can't have access to the police or fire department. It is the government's responsibility to provide it. You can not demand as a matter of practicality or law in my opinion, for a crowd of people to leave open access for police or fire department. Protesters of course don't have the right to actively hinder them either. Because then they would deprive the government of the ability to provide, other persons of life, liberty, or property.

Does that make sense.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

Our politicians emilynghiem will never have that kind of discussion I am afraid because of what I just got done saying that both parties are corrupt and neither are here to serve the people and follow the constitution.Only here to serve the interests of the corporations. There is no hope for the world as long as we have this corrupt two party system we have and are never able to get an independent in office that would follow the constitution.

I sincerely with all my heart hope you will bring that up as well and discuss it also in your online discussion and people can exchange their thoughts because it NEEDS to be addressed and talked about,it is not anywhere near as much talked about as it NEEDS to be here at USMB

Dear LA RAM FAN
If the Corporations are interfering that much,
then we should do what the Greens suggest and lobby the
AG and Secretary of State to revoke charters and licenses for
any Corporations that are "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is felony.

Along those strategic lines, I am planning to draft a petition
to the Texas Governor and Senators about revoking the
charter for the Texas Democratic Party, and requiring them
to refile as a Religious Organization. My argument is their political beliefs
such as believing that health care is a right, are the equivalent of a
political religion or creed when an entire group of members lives by that belief.
So it is unconstitutional for such a group to impose their beliefs through govt.
And unethical for them to SOLICIT donations by misrepresenting their beliefs
as "legal" to establish through govt in violation of the beliefs of other citizens
and taxpayers who suffer Discrimination by Creed, a civil rights violation
in addition to denial of equal Constitutional rights and protections.

I will work on this draft, as there are other Constitutionalists
and Conservatives, as well as Christians who support banning
parties altogether. I can offer that as a reason I would separate
parties from govt, and not allow them to legislate their beliefs.

That's how bad it is getting. That we might need to petition
states to start revoking charters if the corporate abuse
cannot be stopped any other way!

That’s a start,I just wish we could get all these corrupt politicians from BOTH parties out of office somehow and Get the election process the way it is suppose to where the people elect the president and put him in office.the reality is our presidents are SELECTED for us.whoever the elite wants in gets in.both parties are corrupt and that’s why things never change.

people always blame the president for everything which gets you nowhere.that is what the elite want is for everyone to blame the president but he is just their puppet doing their bidding so getting the president out of office never accomplishs anything.


In 92 when Clinton ran against Bush,the elite did not care if bush got re-elected or if clinton got in since they are both part of the establishment.they were both in favor of nafta which economists experts from around the country correctly warned would be devastating for America.

Like I said the elite did not care if Clinton or bush got in,just as long as one of them got in knowing they both would do their bidding for them. As long as Ross Perot who ran on the independent ticket did not get in they were happy.they did not want Perot in because he was AGAINST Nafta.perot was a true patriot who cared about his country

 

[playtime]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

Nope. Never said Holocaust denier. Another Leftist lie.

You did call me an anti-semist... at least twice so not a lie maybe an oversimplification. I apologize though.

If you believe that Israel is an apartheid state while the 50+ Islamist nations are victims then you're an antisemite.

Here you go putting words in my mouth again. I swear to god you have the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever see. First, you object to me saying that you called me a holocaust denier. Rightfully so by the way hence the apology. And in the very next post, you put words in my mouth. Azog do you ever stop to examine yourself?

Reiterate what you said then? I'll apologize if I am mistaken.

Ok, what I said is that I object to certain actions the state of Israel engages in. Which I then further specified as at the moment the annexation of the west-bank. Not once did I claim Israel is an apartheid state or for that matter all 50+ Islamist nations are victims.

My bad. If you were in their shoes and surrounded by enemies and vilified by most sans some in the US, what would you do? If Mexico did to the US what the Palestine territories have done to Israel, there would be no more Mexico. I believe Israel has been very tolerant. It is actually illegal for Jews to enter most Islamist countries.

I could just as easily claim the same for the Palestinians only they don't have the weaponry to respond as forcefully as Israel. "Violence begets violence" it's that simple. Palestinians fire a mortar, Israel caries out an airstrike. Israel bulldozes Palestinian settlements, a suicide bomber blows up a bus in Haifa.

What you call tolerance, the Palestinians would call oppression. What I would call an exaggerated response you would call self-defense. I'm afraid that if peace in the Middle East will ever ever be possible compromises will have to be made. At the moment and I would argue for at least the last 50 years compromise has NOT been the strong suit of either side. That is not antisemitism but a simple statement of fact.

i never did any of that - i have never even had a conversation or debate about israel with him.

he demeaned himself & his people just to score a troll. he used to have a signature that called out black people for using the 'racist card' unjustifiably. he's done the exact same thing using antisemitism.

#hypocrite

Nah he just called me out. I don't think it was about you this time.

playtime wants it to be about her because she failed as a human being. Her only job, housewife. FAIL!

i accept your surrender.

Funny as I never surrendered. Have another.

your non denial sure was.

i call that checkmate.

Non denial? Easy. Do you support BDS, yes or no?

lol ... deflection.

when you called me antisemitic - it had nothing to do with anything about israel or BDS. so yer 1+1 doesn't = 2.

deflection rejected due to FAIL!

Epic fail. You didn’t answer the question and you’re a Holocaust denier.

you're struggling.

when you called me that - it was based on nothing. you didn't know what my thoughts were & you demeaned yerself AND yer people.



deflection fail & no life preserver for you. you're not worth it.

Based on nothing? I have exposed you as a liar. You support the party of antisemitism and you are a Holocaust denier and a parasite.

lol - no, you actually didn't.

 

[playtime]

I have been. Look at all my posts.

I have that's why I said what I said. You have used not just several strawman arguments on me but have repeated some of them even AFTER I pointed out they were fallacious. You have reverted on several occasions to not arguing me but rather tried to use generalizations. Those are simply not honest arguments.

I disagree. The media and the gov't has painted all white people and police officers with the same brush. Talk about generalization.

Here you go again with not arguing me but arguing other people. Do you understand that???? I don't get it Azog, I really don't. Do you have even have a shred of self-reflection because at this point it is getting ridiculous?

being that is his M.O. - the answer is no.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

Our politicians emilynghiem will never have that kind of discussion I am afraid because of what I just got done saying that both parties are corrupt and neither are here to serve the people and follow the constitution.Only here to serve the interests of the corporations. There is no hope for the world as long as we have this corrupt two party system we have and are never able to get an independent in office that would follow the constitution.

I sincerely with all my heart hope you will bring that up as well and discuss it also in your online discussion and people can exchange their thoughts because it NEEDS to be addressed and talked about,it is not anywhere near as much talked about as it NEEDS to be here at USMB

Dear LA RAM FAN
If the Corporations are interfering that much,
then we should do what the Greens suggest and lobby the
AG and Secretary of State to revoke charters and licenses for
any Corporations that are "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is felony.

Along those strategic lines, I am planning to draft a petition
to the Texas Governor and Senators about revoking the
charter for the Texas Democratic Party, and requiring them
to refile as a Religious Organization. My argument is their political beliefs
such as believing that health care is a right, are the equivalent of a
political religion or creed when an entire group of members lives by that belief.
So it is unconstitutional for such a group to impose their beliefs through govt.
And unethical for them to SOLICIT donations by misrepresenting their beliefs
as "legal" to establish through govt in violation of the beliefs of other citizens
and taxpayers who suffer Discrimination by Creed, a civil rights violation
in addition to denial of equal Constitutional rights and protections.

I will work on this draft, as there are other Constitutionalists
and Conservatives, as well as Christians who support banning
parties altogether. I can offer that as a reason I would separate
parties from govt, and not allow them to legislate their beliefs.

That's how bad it is getting. That we might need to petition
states to start revoking charters if the corporate abuse
cannot be stopped any other way!

That’s a start,I just wish we could get all these corrupt politicians from BOTH parties out of office somehow and Get the election process the way it is suppose to where the people elect the president and put him in office.the reality is our presidents are SELECTED for us.whoever the elite wants in gets in.both parties are corrupt and that’s why things never change.

people always blame the president for everything which gets you nowhere.that is what the elite want is for everyone to blame the president but he is just their puppet doing their bidding so getting the president out of office never accomplishs anything.


In 92 when Clinton ran against Bush,the elite did not care if bush got re-elected or if clinton got in since they are both part of the establishment.they were both in favor of nafta which economists experts from around the country correctly warned would be devastating for America.

Like I said the elite did not care if Clinton or bush got in,just as long as one of them got in knowing they both would do their bidding for them. As long as Ross Perot who ran on the independent ticket did not get in they were happy.they did not want Perot in because he was AGAINST Nafta.perot was a true patriot who cared about his country

If that was the case, Jeb Bush would be the President right now. So your claim is just false. Try again.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

Our politicians emilynghiem will never have that kind of discussion I am afraid because of what I just got done saying that both parties are corrupt and neither are here to serve the people and follow the constitution.Only here to serve the interests of the corporations. There is no hope for the world as long as we have this corrupt two party system we have and are never able to get an independent in office that would follow the constitution.

I sincerely with all my heart hope you will bring that up as well and discuss it also in your online discussion and people can exchange their thoughts because it NEEDS to be addressed and talked about,it is not anywhere near as much talked about as it NEEDS to be here at USMB

Dear LA RAM FAN
If the Corporations are interfering that much,
then we should do what the Greens suggest and lobby the
AG and Secretary of State to revoke charters and licenses for
any Corporations that are "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is felony.

Along those strategic lines, I am planning to draft a petition
to the Texas Governor and Senators about revoking the
charter for the Texas Democratic Party, and requiring them
to refile as a Religious Organization. My argument is their political beliefs
such as believing that health care is a right, are the equivalent of a
political religion or creed when an entire group of members lives by that belief.
So it is unconstitutional for such a group to impose their beliefs through govt.
And unethical for them to SOLICIT donations by misrepresenting their beliefs
as "legal" to establish through govt in violation of the beliefs of other citizens
and taxpayers who suffer Discrimination by Creed, a civil rights violation
in addition to denial of equal Constitutional rights and protections.

I will work on this draft, as there are other Constitutionalists
and Conservatives, as well as Christians who support banning
parties altogether. I can offer that as a reason I would separate
parties from govt, and not allow them to legislate their beliefs.

That's how bad it is getting. That we might need to petition
states to start revoking charters if the corporate abuse
cannot be stopped any other way!

That’s a start,I just wish we could get all these corrupt politicians from BOTH parties out of office somehow and Get the election process the way it is suppose to where the people elect the president and put him in office.the reality is our presidents are SELECTED for us.whoever the elite wants in gets in.both parties are corrupt and that’s why things never change.

people always blame the president for everything which gets you nowhere.that is what the elite want is for everyone to blame the president but he is just their puppet doing their bidding so getting the president out of office never accomplishs anything.


In 92 when Clinton ran against Bush,the elite did not care if bush got re-elected or if clinton got in since they are both part of the establishment.they were both in favor of nafta which economists experts from around the country correctly warned would be devastating for America.

Like I said the elite did not care if Clinton or bush got in,just as long as one of them got in knowing they both would do their bidding for them. As long as Ross Perot who ran on the independent ticket did not get in they were happy.they did not want Perot in because he was AGAINST Nafta.perot was a true patriot who cared about his country

If that was the case, Jeb Bush would be the President right now. So your claim is just false. Try again.

Uh not false at all.obama is even more evil than bush so he was the perfect New puppet for them to Putin office to destroy america

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

Our politicians emilynghiem will never have that kind of discussion I am afraid because of what I just got done saying that both parties are corrupt and neither are here to serve the people and follow the constitution.Only here to serve the interests of the corporations. There is no hope for the world as long as we have this corrupt two party system we have and are never able to get an independent in office that would follow the constitution.

I sincerely with all my heart hope you will bring that up as well and discuss it also in your online discussion and people can exchange their thoughts because it NEEDS to be addressed and talked about,it is not anywhere near as much talked about as it NEEDS to be here at USMB

Dear LA RAM FAN
If the Corporations are interfering that much,
then we should do what the Greens suggest and lobby the
AG and Secretary of State to revoke charters and licenses for
any Corporations that are "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is felony.

Along those strategic lines, I am planning to draft a petition
to the Texas Governor and Senators about revoking the
charter for the Texas Democratic Party, and requiring them
to refile as a Religious Organization. My argument is their political beliefs
such as believing that health care is a right, are the equivalent of a
political religion or creed when an entire group of members lives by that belief.
So it is unconstitutional for such a group to impose their beliefs through govt.
And unethical for them to SOLICIT donations by misrepresenting their beliefs
as "legal" to establish through govt in violation of the beliefs of other citizens
and taxpayers who suffer Discrimination by Creed, a civil rights violation
in addition to denial of equal Constitutional rights and protections.

I will work on this draft, as there are other Constitutionalists
and Conservatives, as well as Christians who support banning
parties altogether. I can offer that as a reason I would separate
parties from govt, and not allow them to legislate their beliefs.

That's how bad it is getting. That we might need to petition
states to start revoking charters if the corporate abuse
cannot be stopped any other way!

That’s a start,I just wish we could get all these corrupt politicians from BOTH parties out of office somehow and Get the election process the way it is suppose to where the people elect the president and put him in office.the reality is our presidents are SELECTED for us.whoever the elite wants in gets in.both parties are corrupt and that’s why things never change.

people always blame the president for everything which gets you nowhere.that is what the elite want is for everyone to blame the president but he is just their puppet doing their bidding so getting the president out of office never accomplishs anything.


In 92 when Clinton ran against Bush,the elite did not care if bush got re-elected or if clinton got in since they are both part of the establishment.they were both in favor of nafta which economists experts from around the country correctly warned would be devastating for America.

Like I said the elite did not care if Clinton or bush got in,just as long as one of them got in knowing they both would do their bidding for them. As long as Ross Perot who ran on the independent ticket did not get in they were happy.they did not want Perot in because he was AGAINST Nafta.perot was a true patriot who cared about his country

If that was the case, Jeb Bush would be the President right now. So your claim is just false. Try again.

Uh not false at all.obama is even more evil than bush so he was the perfect New puppet for them to Putin office to destroy america

Rams suck.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

Israel's response to brutality and terror has been even greater brutality and terror. In they end, they've become just as brutal as the Pallestinians, if not more so. That so many of us who were intially sympathetic for their desire for a homeland, have been horrified at this transformation.

I'm not pretending to have answers for it, and I have several Isreali friends and have feared for particularly three friends who are long-time residents of Haifa. One friend left Israeli fearing for safety and security, and returned to her home in Washington DC, near LaFayette Park. She's now enjoying both covid19 lockdown, and the protests.

D

The Democrat Party has racist roots. They supported slavery, they created Jim Crow laws, they ran the KKK.....thier statues are being torn down all over the South, so why not tear apart the primary cause of racism in America?

DemocratIC and your just jealous because your party has already been destroyed by tRumplings

Creep, are you personally a democratic? Were your parents democratics? Do you only associate with people who are registered democratics? Is Rapey old Quid Pro Joe a proud democratic?

Are you dumb as a fucking brick?

Lol, nice try but all you're doing is showing off your poor grammar.

"Lol, nice try but all you're doing is showing off your poor grammar."

and it is republican/conservative policies that MADE his Gramma poor and KEEPS her poor!

Oh look, another Communist lacking even a 3rd grade education.

What a shock.

oh look

another moronicon who didn't see that it was a joke...

but I understand that the only thing you cons think is funny is violence and blood shed


you are, after all, human garbage

Tell me, from your perspective as an uneducated, drooling moron, do you believe "democratic party" to be grammatically correct?

Perhaps that ignorant sot Andrew Jackson failed to grasp why "Democratic Republican" was correct, but "democratic" is not? Just as you mouth breathing Marxists today fail to grasp it.

The USA is in chaos and flames because of bad grammar?

I thought it was because the Republican Party is fiscally irresponsible, and dangerous. And because 115,000 Americans have died by an irresponsible and incompetent President doesn't have the capability of organizing a cohesive response to the pandemic, or to the continuing brutality of the police departments against unarmed citizens.

How can we fix that bad grammar when the schools in the poor parts of town are so shitty? Maybe if Democrats had better schools they would have better grammar.

You are every bit as biased and stupid about the democrat party as the op is about the Republican Party being good Youboth are too brain dead to fee the facts that both parties Re corrupt and one in the same proof of that is both Clinton and bush were both in favor of nafta so the elite did not care which one got in,they only cared that independent Ross Perot did not get in cause he was against nafta not part of the establishment and Obama lied about everything he said he would do that he would reverse all the policys of bush when he got in but instead expanded them,yet same as the op always shows what a retard he is always blaming everything on the democrats,you do the same blaming everything on the republicans with the mindset the democrats can do no wrong,you guys are two peas in a pod.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

"Annexation"? If you had your choice of your children living in any mostly Muslim nation that surrounds Israel or Israel, which would you choose? You don't support Israel because they are Jews. I don't see people vilifying Iraq or Turkey for how they treat the Kurds or KSA for what is happening in Yemen. But Jews, yeah let's vilify them.

How convenient.

I wouldn't want my children living in any of these countries. Not because they're Arabs or Jews. But because both nations are prone to attacks and terrorism.

If you haven't seen anybody vilifying Iraq or Turkey over their killing of the Kurds, you really have not been paying attention. Obama went after Assad because of his gassing of the Kurds. Republicans refused to approve his actions. Trump was pilloried in the press for his decision to pull out of Syria and abandon the Kurds to Turkey.

General Mattis resigned as head of the NSA over that one. The left cheered his standing up for our allies. Republicans attacked him, mocked him, and said "good riddance".

hey genius,there was no evidenceAssad gassed the Kurds so stop embarrassing yourself with your blind loyalty to the dems already

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Why do Trumpsters try to make so many threads about ol' Mac?

Oh yeah. Because I so effectively expose them for what they are.

Good question,cause they don’t want to deal with the evidence is why.lol

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No

Dang Democrats!

This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.

Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'

Blacks... prone to violence, think they're still in the jungle, low IQ blacks.

How can you look at the world and not see that ALL ADVANCEMENTS came from Europe and America? Yeah, we're the superior race on the earth. All others developed because of whites

Look, he is actually intelligent and an actual person of color! How often does that happen?

“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!

MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.

Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare.

Valerie Jarrett.... Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)

I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.

The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?

Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.

Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.

Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!

I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations. Maybe you have some other mysterious way of defining the word but you never seem to say what it is.

Most intelligent people understand how stupid blacks are....average i.q. of 85.....being one you should know.

Come on people you blacks are better than this shit every fucking week....stand BEHIND your police, you do the crime you get locked up...you fuck with THE MAN, he has every right to beat the shit out of you, and your community standing behind you just shows what stupid, low life idiots you are!

Fuck off House Negro. Shine my boots bitch

Hasn't it been proven, in the last few days, that blacks are incapable of living in the environment of civilization? Send them back to Africa.

..just like Africa is the shithole of the world, the black US communities mirror that

You can take a negro out of the ghetto. But you can't take the ghetto out of the negro.

No quotes from me? Whats the matter Mac? You Leftist Loon.

Kind of a weird thing to feel jealous about?

Where do you get the feeling that I am "jealous"? You missed the meaning behind my post entirely.

Could be. I personally feel that using other people's posts in order to make a point is a good debating tactic, and providing you don't completely take it out of context an honest tactic.

His premise is that all who disagree with him are racist. So I asked him to point to one of my posts that is racist. I vehemently disagree with Macs views. Doesn’t make me a racist. It just makes me logical. This is why he dodges me. I do not fit his narrative.

His premise, how I see it at least, is that there are plenty of people who are racist on this board. And that all of them are supporting Trump. If he didn't include you that's a good thing. He didn't make the argument as far as I can see that being a Trump supporter means you're racist. Feel free to go through this OP and use Mac's words against him and prove me wrong?

Plenty of racists and antisemites here on the other side too.

Define those terms please and then back that up? Speaking for myself, for instance, I don't like what the State of Israel is doing. They are grabbing land in my opinion that they don't have a right to. I don't hate Jews at all, I have no prejudice against them whatsoever. I do have a strong opinion though on the legitimacy of some of the actions they take. Do you consider that being an anti-Semite and if so do you feel one can have an opinion on anyone else without being bigoted?

State of Israel? You mean the people as Israel is a Democracy. Your post is idiotic. 53+ mostly Islamic countries and the safest place for a Muslim woman is in Israel. Only reason Israel is vilified is because it is a Jewish State. No one gives a shit about Islamists exterminating the Kurds. Or those in Lebanon treating Palestinians worse than dirt. Israel is an easy target. Your opinion is based on ignorance so yes you’re an antisemite. Your statement is like me saying, I dont dislike blacks at all except for those inner city blacks. You’re either uneducated or you’re an antisemite. Pick one.

No, I mean the state of Israel as in the nation and it's leader who at this moment although only supported by a minority of the populace is moving to not just occupy but full annex the West Bank. By the way, Democratically elected governments are fully capable of doing immoral stuff if you want I'll give you a history lesson. You inferring from my statements that I don't like stuff what Israel is doing based on me having a problem with Jews is a leap, to say the least. I don't need to dislike the Jewish people in order to condemn the country they inhabit for annexing territory belonging to someone else. As a matter of fact, My mother-in-law was Jewish.

This brings me to this. It's fascinating to me to see the cognitive dissonance displayed here. You reply to a post in an effort to call someone on a perceived inability to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as a whole and at the same time are perfectly willing to condemn me as anti-Semitic because I distinguish between the actions of individuals and the group as whole.

Israel is a democracy. The people there have been under attack for decades. The land is theirs. Read about it. The fact that you side with terror regimes speaks volumes

You know for someone who doesn't like being painted a racist because they support the GOP ( a claim that was never made btw), you are very eager to paint other people in a certain way because they support other things. You are right this conversation speaks volumes about someone, just not convinced it's about me it speaks. "You don't support Israel's annexation of the West Bank therefor you support terrorist regimes." You are missing a few steps in your reasoning there don't you think?

It is the same reasoning that one bad cop does a dirty deed, so the radicals go and burn cities and hurt innocent people, then want all police banned. Seems that you are missing a few brain cells.

I'm missing a few brain cells? I see. Do you think these people are only protesting because of this one bad cop? I know to acknowledge reality is probably fatal for some people but let me enlighten you under the presumption that you are actually capable of understanding reality. These people are protesting LOTS of bad cops. You don't have to sit on somebody's neck for almost nine minutes to be a bad cop. You can be a bad cop when you stop black people for no apparent reason. Or you can have a bad justice system when it systematically pronounces harsher sentences for the same crimes when you're black. And yes you are a really bad cop when you kill unarmed people.

I already said how I feel about the protests (unwise) and made it absolutely clear that I don't condone looting or hurting people (arrest and prosecute them) as MOST of the people who actually did protest don't either.

If it wasn’t just the one bad cop then why weren’t they protesting before this? Why weren’t they protesting as 1000s were dying in Chicago? Do tell. You feel all whites are racist? Silence = Violence.

Lol NOT protesting before this? Civil rights movement - Wikipedia quite a few protests here.
protests here Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia ,here Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia here, The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray here, Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia oh and who can forget here, Rodney King - Wikipedia

How many more protests do you need?

Nothing like this. Don’t be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Azog I'm not the one claiming that protests against racial discrimination or against police brutality against blacks are a new phenomenon. You are quite funny I give you that.

This is new. Not since Rodney King has it been like this. So do you believe that silence is violence?

New means it never happened before. This is NOT new, not even close. As to silence is violence I understand the sentiment not sure I agree. It's not a new concept either.
“The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.”
Napoleon
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Not sure? Yes or no? If I choose to live my life and not opine, is that “violence”?

Nope. It also won't solve anything when you ignore problems. Why is it even relevant? I don't mind you deflecting like this but it is a bit random.

It’s not a deflection. These rallies are about guilt and not about substance.

Just because you ignore the substance doesn't mean it's not present. That is has substance is apparent from the fact that politicians on both sides are arguing for in some cases substantive measures in response to these protests. Something that wouldn't have happened without these protests.

I disagree. The protests will backfire. My wife was very sympathetic and now she has shifted the other way. I doubt She is the only one.

It's certain she's not the only one. On the other hand, it's also certain that these protests have made more people aware there is actually a problem. By the way, the reason your wife is losing sympathy for the protests is likely because you and the people on the right are highlighting the riots and stuff like "silence is violence" in a bid to claim these protests are "without substance". It's also again you ignoring that your assertions are demonstrably false. If you say the protests have no substance and I reply by pointing out that the protest has motivated substantive measures at no point is what your wife thinks relevant. Just like asking about 'silence is violence" after claiming something is new while at the same acknowledging it isn't, is relevant.

I have a basic problem. My problem is that I hate when people dodge questions, so I tend to answer every point a person makes individually, this is often used by people as a way to never ever take responsibility for what they say no matter how asinine. They just change the subject and I let their stupidity stand. You have done this now to many times.

Aware that entitled white kids are looting and burning under the guise of BLM. Got it.

Sure I get it. You made it absolutely clear that as long as you can claim that that's what it's about you can pretend that there is no substance. As I said dishonesty will allow you to do that.

I see what I see. I dont buy the fake outrage. These same people go home and feel better about themselves while not accomplishing anything. Silence is violence. LOL

You see what you want to see. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you can't understand that somebody could be outraged by this event or by what's happened to black people in the US since it's inception there is nothing I or anybody else can say to convince you. Silence might not be violence, but silence will for sure allow violence to continue, by all means, stick your head in the sand and pretend that every time something happens that causes protests like this it's "new" and "without substance" or "fueled by fake outrage".

OK

So what action items will you be embracing to change this? Do tell. You cannot force someone not to be racist. I am Jew and I cannot force you to see how stupid your views on Israel are. So stick your own head in the sand. Your little digs are laughable.

did you call him an anti semite & holocaust denier yet, per your M.O.?

He tried, more than once lol.

no doubt he did.

#pathetic #cowardly #can'tdebateworthadamn

I wouldn't go that far. The fact of the matter is that it's about par for the course of most people on this board, left or right. Setting up strawman arguments is something we all do sometimes either on purpose or inadvertently. In this case, it was on purpose of course but it is a debating tactic, not a very good one but still. I would and I have called Azog dishonest, that's about as far as I'd go.

Setting up straw men? So a black man resists arrest throws punches at the police, ends up getting shot, dies, then this gives the right to liberal/anarchists to riot and burn cities? Moderates are liberals too ashamed to admit they are liberals...just as stupid though.

Yes, that's a strawman because there are as far as I know exactly zero liberals that I know that have said anybody has the right to riot and burn cities. Feel free to give me an example of it but we both know you won't. That is in fact a strawman. See how that works?

There were some minority groups and even business owners
that would rather support the movement than protest the arson and looting:

âIt Was Something Bigger At Stake:â Lake Street Small Business Owners React To Destruction Of Their Shops During Protests Against Murder Of George Floyd

On stretches of the commercial throughway Lake Street in Minneapolis small businesses that were already struggling financially due to COVID-19 are now faced with the prospect of rebuilding from ashes.

www.forbes.com

Big Retailers Say They Don't Mind the Looting. It's Different for Small Businesses.

Small business owners who support #BlackLivesMatter have mixed feelings about the damage the riots may have to their livelihoods.

www.businessoffashion.com

Damaged Asian businesses show solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters

“EVERYTHING IN MY STORE WILL BE REPLACEABLE,” one shop owner wrote, “while lives are being senselessly lost, on a way too regular basis, is the way bigger issue.”

www.nbcnews.com

Similar to L.A. and the Rodney King riots, the police at similar sites
were ordered to stand down, and not risk lives to protect property.

This is indirectly sending the message that the arson, riots and looting are valid forms of protest.

NOTE: What I would do is order blockades.
And anyone wishing to participate in protests sign agreements to comply
with all laws and authority, not commit crimes or take any action to invoke arrest, or they are required to leave.
And publicly announce on the news, and through every party precinct, police station, and public school
and all media outreach, that anyone caught in violation will
be part of the group held responsible for paying back ALL COSTS of damage and repair.

If it takes ALL residents of each district SIGNING this agreement in advance to be responsible for costs of crime or damage in the process of protesting, then that would put responsibility on residents and taxpayers to decide if they want protests in their districts.

If protesters agree to the costs of security and police, then they can get permits.

But if it costs too much, and nobody accepts responsibility,
then that isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

You have free speech, but not the right to impose costs on other people unless they consent to sponsor your protests.

isn't FREE SPEECH because the costs exceed the liberty exercised.

This I find a particularly interesting assertion. You are saying that there's a certain cutoff point in cost vs liberty. Does that work with all liberties or just speech? For instance, guns. Is there also not a cost in owning guns, not just financially but also in lives that is many times higher than the costs incurred during these protest? Do you feel that liberty is no longer applicable because the costs involved? It's a bit off topic but giving you the full implications of the assertion might make you reconsider that statement.

Here we go, forkup Excellent!
THIS is where we need to be discussing the balance between rights
so nothing gets abused to disparage other rights and laws.
THANK YOU!
If only our Politicians were as astute and objective as you are,
that we could HAVE this intelligent discussion!!

1. YES the limits where no rights can be abused to DISPARAGE others
DOES apply to guns, free speech as well as free exercise of religion.

You CANNOT abuse any such rights or liberties where it VIOLATES A DIFFERENT LAW.

Examples:
a. People who believe in the CHOICE of sex with children cannot be banned from having beliefs in their HEADS.
But they cannot ACT on those beliefs, because it violates the rights of children not able to give consent.
It would violate laws of statutory rape.
b. Gun rights do not apply to abusing weapons to ROB others of their life, liberty or property.
In essence, that would VIOLATE other rights in the SAME Bill of Rights defending the
* right of persons to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of laws
c. Freedom of speech, or of the press, cannot be abused to violate OTHER laws against:
slander, libel, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, false advertising, etc.

2. To me, this is a NATURAL LAW. It is part of the dynamic of social contracts and law enforcement.
That if people want to defend rights, the "authority of law" to leverage and compel compliance
DEPENDS on the degree to which people are upholding the laws consistently.
Those who take VOWS or "sworn oaths" to uphold Constitutional laws
bear more collective authority and leverage to compel compliance from others.

RE: Where it is indirectly referenced in the laws
Amendment 9 alludes indirectly to the principle of not exercising or enforcing
one right to the point of disparaging other rights and laws under the same Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In general, it is more based on COMMON SENSE or
the GOLDEN RULE that if you want rights and protections enforced for you,
then it "makes sense" to respect the same for others.

I find people learn this by experience, similar to discovering that Christian faith in embodying the laws
and living by them "empowers" people to have greater support personally, in their relationships and lives.

We cannot "legislate" Christian faith any more than we can force Constitutional responsibility on people.
It has to be chosen and willfully executed, similar to police or military duty that people
have to believe in and choose to enforce.

Sadly forkup not enough people are being taught that embracing and enforcing Constitutional
laws empowers people to invoke equal authority as government.
This approach to self govt is more often DEMONIZED by liberals as oppressive,
instead of training more people to become equally empowered as citizens with authority to police our own govt by the laws.

Our politicians emilynghiem will never have that kind of discussion I am afraid because of what I just got done saying that both parties are corrupt and neither are here to serve the people and follow the constitution.Only here to serve the interests of the corporations. There is no hope for the world as long as we have this corrupt two party system we have and are never able to get an independent in office that would follow the constitution.

I sincerely with all my heart hope you will bring that up as well and discuss it also in your online discussion and people can exchange their thoughts because it NEEDS to be addressed and talked about,it is not anywhere near as much talked about as it NEEDS to be here at USMB

Dear LA RAM FAN
If the Corporations are interfering that much,
then we should do what the Greens suggest and lobby the
AG and Secretary of State to revoke charters and licenses for
any Corporations that are "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is felony.

Along those strategic lines, I am planning to draft a petition
to the Texas Governor and Senators about revoking the
charter for the Texas Democratic Party, and requiring them
to refile as a Religious Organization. My argument is their political beliefs
such as believing that health care is a right, are the equivalent of a
political religion or creed when an entire group of members lives by that belief.
So it is unconstitutional for such a group to impose their beliefs through govt.
And unethical for them to SOLICIT donations by misrepresenting their beliefs
as "legal" to establish through govt in violation of the beliefs of other citizens
and taxpayers who suffer Discrimination by Creed, a civil rights violation
in addition to denial of equal Constitutional rights and protections.

I will work on this draft, as there are other Constitutionalists
and Conservatives, as well as Christians who support banning
parties altogether. I can offer that as a reason I would separate
parties from govt, and not allow them to legislate their beliefs.

That's how bad it is getting. That we might need to petition
states to start revoking charters if the corporate abuse
cannot be stopped any other way!

That’s a start,I just wish we could get all these corrupt politicians from BOTH parties out of office somehow and Get the election process the way it is suppose to where the people elect the president and put him in office.the reality is our presidents are SELECTED for us.whoever the elite wants in gets in.both parties are corrupt and that’s why things never change.

people always blame the president for everything which gets you nowhere.that is what the elite want is for everyone to blame the president but he is just their puppet doing their bidding so getting the president out of office never accomplishs anything.


In 92 when Clinton ran against Bush,the elite did not care if bush got re-elected or if clinton got in since they are both part of the establishment.they were both in favor of nafta which economists experts from around the country correctly warned would be devastating for America.

Like I said the elite did not care if Clinton or bush got in,just as long as one of them got in knowing they both would do their bidding for them. As long as Ross Perot who ran on the independent ticket did not get in they were happy.they did not want Perot in because he was AGAINST Nafta.perot was a true patriot who cared about his country

If that was the case, Jeb Bush would be the President right now. So your claim is just false. Try again.

Uh not false at all.obama is even more evil than bush so he was the perfect New puppet for them to Putin office to destroy america

The People chose President Trump over the 15 other "establishment" Republicans, while the Lame Stream Media was telling US that Jeb Bush should be the candidate of choice. Try again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The People chose President Trump over the 15 other "establishment" Republicans, while the Lame Stream Media was telling US that Jeb Bush should be the candidate of choice. Try again.

Jeb! was the "designated loser." He would have ensured the election of Hillary, as planned.

 

[emilynghiem]

The protesters themselves can not be required to be responsible for providing those rights to people. I'm not talking about that they should, because of course, they should, I'm talking about the constitutional requirement. Because in so requiring them, you would abridge their right to peacefully assemble. That I think is the core of this debate.

I'll put it in practical terms. If people can't have access to the police or fire department. It is the government's responsibility to provide it. You can not demand as a matter of practicality or law in my opinion, for a crowd of people to leave open access for police or fire department. Protesters of course don't have the right to actively hinder them either. Because then they would deprive the government of the ability to provide, other persons of life, liberty, or property.

Does that make sense.

Yes basically it's
if you are NOT going to provide PART A (underlined)
then you should NOT BLOCK PART B (bold).

This is similar to the TWO PARTS of the First Amendment,
that govt can NEITHER "establish" or "prohibit."

It's not enough just to make sure Govt does not ESTABLISH religion
but can't PROHIBIT it either.

With people, we cannot PROHIBIT other people from accessing equal protections
of the laws and services they are entitled to OR WHICH THEY PAID FOR with taxes.

Now, if we are saying to these people, we have a CONFLICT with the service providers,
they would have to agree to accept an alternative, and not be forced to give that up
"just because OTHER people have a conflict".

This is what I mean by negotiating other arrangements in advance.

What I have read about online, is the govt is restoring access, and the
protestors are mainly protesting in the street which is a public area.

As long as they are not imposing involuntarily on neighbors and residents,
especially those paying taxes for security or other utilities and amenities,
that shouldn't cause any conflicts raising legal concerns if these aren't getting blocked.

Thanks forkup I think we both see the balance
here between not forcing too far on the citizens beyond what they are required legally
and not allowing abuses where their freedoms are abused to infringe unlawfully on others.

Again, like the First Amendment clause that has TWO SIDES to it,
the laws cannot be abused to go too far to one extreme or the other.

Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
There is freedom but it cannot be abused to infringe on the peace and security of others.
There is right to security, but it can't be imposed using such restrictions that it violates freedom without due process.

So there has to be an AGREEMENT between both freedom and peace
where the policy represents the consent of the people governed.

 

[forkup]

The protesters themselves can not be required to be responsible for providing those rights to people. I'm not talking about that they should, because of course, they should, I'm talking about the constitutional requirement. Because in so requiring them, you would abridge their right to peacefully assemble. That I think is the core of this debate.

I'll put it in practical terms. If people can't have access to the police or fire department. It is the government's responsibility to provide it. You can not demand as a matter of practicality or law in my opinion, for a crowd of people to leave open access for police or fire department. Protesters of course don't have the right to actively hinder them either. Because then they would deprive the government of the ability to provide, other persons of life, liberty, or property.

Does that make sense.

Yes basically it's
if you are NOT going to provide PART A (underlined)
then you should NOT BLOCK PART B (bold).

This is similar to the TWO PARTS of the First Amendment,
that govt can NEITHER "establish" or "prohibit."

It's not enough just to make sure Govt does not ESTABLISH religion
but can't PROHIBIT it either.

With people, we cannot PROHIBIT other people from accessing equal protections
of the laws and services they are entitled to OR WHICH THEY PAID FOR with taxes.

Now, if we are saying to these people, we have a CONFLICT with the service providers,
they would have to agree to accept an alternative, and not be forced to give that up
"just because OTHER people have a conflict".

This is what I mean by negotiating other arrangements in advance.

What I have read about online, is the govt is restoring access, and the
protestors are mainly protesting in the street which is a public area.

As long as they are not imposing involuntarily on neighbors and residents,
especially those paying taxes for security or other utilities and amenities,
that shouldn't cause any conflicts raising legal concerns if these aren't getting blocked.

Thanks forkup I think we both see the balance
here between not forcing too far on the citizens beyond what they are required legally
and not allowing abuses where their freedoms are abused to infringe unlawfully on others.

Again, like the First Amendment clause that has TWO SIDES to it,
the laws cannot be abused to go too far to one extreme or the other.

Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
There is freedom but it cannot be abused to infringe on the peace and security of others.
There is right to security, but it can't be imposed using such restrictions that it violates freedom without due process.

So there has to be an AGREEMENT between both freedom and peace
where the policy represents the consent of the people governed.

This is much more fun than actually having to fight another person in order for your actual arguments to be addressed. You can actually find common ground this way. Sad thing is that it has to end pretty fast this way. Anyway, I pushed the follow button and hope to see you around more.

 

[emilynghiem]

The protesters themselves can not be required to be responsible for providing those rights to people. I'm not talking about that they should, because of course, they should, I'm talking about the constitutional requirement. Because in so requiring them, you would abridge their right to peacefully assemble. That I think is the core of this debate.

I'll put it in practical terms. If people can't have access to the police or fire department. It is the government's responsibility to provide it. You can not demand as a matter of practicality or law in my opinion, for a crowd of people to leave open access for police or fire department. Protesters of course don't have the right to actively hinder them either. Because then they would deprive the government of the ability to provide, other persons of life, liberty, or property.

Does that make sense.

Yes basically it's
if you are NOT going to provide PART A (underlined)
then you should NOT BLOCK PART B (bold).

This is similar to the TWO PARTS of the First Amendment,
that govt can NEITHER "establish" or "prohibit."

It's not enough just to make sure Govt does not ESTABLISH religion
but can't PROHIBIT it either.

With people, we cannot PROHIBIT other people from accessing equal protections
of the laws and services they are entitled to OR WHICH THEY PAID FOR with taxes.

Now, if we are saying to these people, we have a CONFLICT with the service providers,
they would have to agree to accept an alternative, and not be forced to give that up
"just because OTHER people have a conflict".

This is what I mean by negotiating other arrangements in advance.

What I have read about online, is the govt is restoring access, and the
protestors are mainly protesting in the street which is a public area.

As long as they are not imposing involuntarily on neighbors and residents,
especially those paying taxes for security or other utilities and amenities,
that shouldn't cause any conflicts raising legal concerns if these aren't getting blocked.

Thanks forkup I think we both see the balance
here between not forcing too far on the citizens beyond what they are required legally
and not allowing abuses where their freedoms are abused to infringe unlawfully on others.

Again, like the First Amendment clause that has TWO SIDES to it,
the laws cannot be abused to go too far to one extreme or the other.

Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
There is freedom but it cannot be abused to infringe on the peace and security of others.
There is right to security, but it can't be imposed using such restrictions that it violates freedom without due process.

So there has to be an AGREEMENT between both freedom and peace
where the policy represents the consent of the people governed.

This is much more fun than actually having to fight another person in order for your actual arguments to be addressed. You can actually find common ground this way. Sad thing is that it has to end pretty fast this way. Anyway, I pushed the follow button and hope to see you around more.

Thanks forkup No problem
we can just clean up the other threads that get mucked up.
And by the time we do, we will have ironed out any common ground that is to be ironed out.
That is plenty of work to do, and will help the next time
we discuss this with others. Those points of agreement
act as magnet poles, to help align more people along paths toward solutions.
so it will get EASIER as the process goes!

If we can clean up here, then Facebook and Twitter
can follow. I hope to be able to present some consensus
position points to propose to various party chairs and leaders,
and urge that we put together conferences to resolve
disputed reports in the media, and start getting more
and more people on the same page. So we can focus
on common ground solutions! Thanks for your help !

 

[forkup]

The protesters themselves can not be required to be responsible for providing those rights to people. I'm not talking about that they should, because of course, they should, I'm talking about the constitutional requirement. Because in so requiring them, you would abridge their right to peacefully assemble. That I think is the core of this debate.

I'll put it in practical terms. If people can't have access to the police or fire department. It is the government's responsibility to provide it. You can not demand as a matter of practicality or law in my opinion, for a crowd of people to leave open access for police or fire department. Protesters of course don't have the right to actively hinder them either. Because then they would deprive the government of the ability to provide, other persons of life, liberty, or property.

Does that make sense.

Yes basically it's
if you are NOT going to provide PART A (underlined)
then you should NOT BLOCK PART B (bold).

This is similar to the TWO PARTS of the First Amendment,
that govt can NEITHER "establish" or "prohibit."

It's not enough just to make sure Govt does not ESTABLISH religion
but can't PROHIBIT it either.

With people, we cannot PROHIBIT other people from accessing equal protections
of the laws and services they are entitled to OR WHICH THEY PAID FOR with taxes.

Now, if we are saying to these people, we have a CONFLICT with the service providers,
they would have to agree to accept an alternative, and not be forced to give that up
"just because OTHER people have a conflict".

This is what I mean by negotiating other arrangements in advance.

What I have read about online, is the govt is restoring access, and the
protestors are mainly protesting in the street which is a public area.

As long as they are not imposing involuntarily on neighbors and residents,
especially those paying taxes for security or other utilities and amenities,
that shouldn't cause any conflicts raising legal concerns if these aren't getting blocked.

Thanks forkup I think we both see the balance
here between not forcing too far on the citizens beyond what they are required legally
and not allowing abuses where their freedoms are abused to infringe unlawfully on others.

Again, like the First Amendment clause that has TWO SIDES to it,
the laws cannot be abused to go too far to one extreme or the other.

Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
There is freedom but it cannot be abused to infringe on the peace and security of others.
There is right to security, but it can't be imposed using such restrictions that it violates freedom without due process.

So there has to be an AGREEMENT between both freedom and peace
where the policy represents the consent of the people governed.

This is much more fun than actually having to fight another person in order for your actual arguments to be addressed. You can actually find common ground this way. Sad thing is that it has to end pretty fast this way. Anyway, I pushed the follow button and hope to see you around more.

Thanks forkup No problem
we can just clean up the other threads that get mucked up.
And by the time we do, we will have ironed out any common ground that is to be ironed out.
That is plenty of work to do, and will help the next time
we discuss this with others. Those points of agreement
act as magnet poles, to help align more people along paths toward solutions.
so it will get EASIER as the process goes!

If we can clean up here, then Facebook and Twitter
can follow. I hope to be able to present some consensus
position points to propose to various party chairs and leaders,
and urge that we put together conferences to resolve
disputed reports in the media, and start getting more
and more people on the same page. So we can focus
on common ground solutions! Thanks for your help !

That's pretty ambitious but I'm willing to try.