BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

Black people have a fairly stark choice to make in a few weeks.

Vote for the party they have voted for for decades and get more of the same, except with less police in inner city neighbourhoods.

Or

Vote for the party that is going to help them achieve economic independence through business ownership, employment and opportunity, and receive extra protection from the KKK and more importantly from Anifa which has done more damage to their neighbourhoods than the KKK ever did.

What have they got to lose?

I'd fancy hearing your qualification for this staggering claim. I pray it is simply ignorance of who and what the KKK is. Bless your heart.

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

I'd fancy hearing your qualification for this staggering claim. I pray it is simply ignorance of who and what the KKK is. Bless your heart.

How many black owned businesses, black owned buildings, black held jobs have the KKK destroyed?

I blame Antifa but you could easily just say white "liberals" if you are more comfortable with that!!!

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

How many black owned businesses, black owned buildings, black held jobs have the KKK destroyed?

Alright, yeah, you have no idea. God bless.

Keep in mind I'm not going to sit here and lecture you on freely available information on the atrocities, lynchings, terrorism, and mass murders. That's your homework, not mine. It was you who made a comparative claim, so it is presumably your burden of proof to demonstrate the comparison you desire to make here. So you tell me what Antifa has done, and what the KKK has done, and explain to me how Antifa has done more harm than the KKK. You can start here (if you like), and go on comparing the damage Antifa has done and explain to me how its worse than race riots, carbombings, assassinations, lynchings, horseback arson, etc. etc. I'm happy to be corrected of course but I would expect to see how you hope to handle your comparison to each and all of these atrocious acts. Thanks.

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

Alright, yeah, you have no idea. God bless.

Keep in mind I'm not going to sit here and lecture you on freely available information on the atrocities, lynchings, terrorism, and mass murders. That's your homework, not mine. It was you who made a comparative claim, so it is presumably your burden of proof to demonstrate the comparison you desire to make here. So you tell me what Antifa has done, and what the KKK has done, and explain to me how Antifa has done more harm than the KKK. You can start here (if you like), and go on comparing the damage Antifa has done and explain to me how its worse than race riots, carbombings, assassinations, lynchings, horseback arson, etc. etc. I'm happy to be corrected of course but I would expect to see how you hope to handle your comparison to each and all of these atrocious acts. Thanks.

I'm talking about the choice Black people have today, the KKK are about as relevant to black people today as the Black and Tans are to us...bless your heart.

You have Kamala Harris one of the most senior leaders of the Left, encouraging her henchmen and women to bail out rioters and thugs so they can continue to damage, destroy black owned businesses, buildings and jobs....what is so wrong with protecting the black communities from this violence and destruction.

biko

Good thing then Trump is designating both Antifa and KKK terrorist groups.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Alright, yeah, you have no idea. God bless.

Keep in mind I'm not going to sit here and lecture you on freely available information on the atrocities, lynchings, terrorism, and mass murders. That's your homework, not mine. It was you who made a comparative claim, so it is presumably your burden of proof to demonstrate the comparison you desire to make here. So you tell me what Antifa has done, and what the KKK has done, and explain to me how Antifa has done more harm than the KKK. You can start here (if you like), and go on comparing the damage Antifa has done and explain to me how its worse than race riots, carbombings, assassinations, lynchings, horseback arson, etc. etc. I'm happy to be corrected of course but I would expect to see how you hope to handle your comparison to each and all of these atrocious acts. Thanks.

The poster stated that:

Vote for the party that is going to help them achieve economic independence through business ownership, employment and opportunity, and receive extra protection from the KKK and more importantly from Anifa which has done more damage to their neighbourhoods than the KKK ever did.

And very possibly that holds true for individual neighbourhoods - with some towns like Saint Paul, Minnesota and Kenosha ending up looking like war zones following the onslaught of riots, lootings and burnings of places of work and local services and shops. Was Antifa to blame? Whilst we don't have statistics who is exactly for what- they certainly appear to share some of the responsibility. As much as it would benefit the discussion to enter into a how high can we all pee up the wall contest - it remains its not a competition

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm talking about the choice Black people have today, the KKK are about as relevant to black people today as the Black and Tans are to us...bless your heart.

You have Kamala Harris one of the most senior leaders of the Left, encouraging her henchmen and women to bail out rioters and thugs so they can continue to damage, destroy black owned businesses, buildings and jobs....what is so wrong with protecting the black communities from this violence and destruction.

Very distorted viewpoint to suggest Kamala is some kingpin for rioting and violence.

Meanwhile we know Trump's jackboots smashed into peoples homes in DC because they chose to invite guests over who protested for BLM. We know he was abducting Americans off the street in unmarked rentals, we know they've been senselessly teargassing peaceful protesters, including many veterans. If the post was about the election you're in the wrong tree.

Overheal

Well color me shocked, the grand jury was on a leash from the start

https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1311078110616588288?s=20

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Very distorted viewpoint to suggest Kamala is some kingpin for rioting and violence.

Meanwhile we know Trump's jackboots smashed into peoples homes in DC because they chose to invite guests over who protested for BLM. We know he was abducting Americans off the street in unmarked rentals, we know they've been senselessly teargassing peaceful protesters, including many veterans. If the post was about the election you're in the wrong tree.

Id say that is distorted alright. And do you mean 'peaceful protests' like these?

Viewer discretion advised

https://youtu.be/V2igBlq0-Qo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2igBlq0-Qo

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Id say that is distorted alright. And do you mean 'peaceful protests' like these?

Viewer discretion advised

https://youtu.be/V2igBlq0-Qo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2igBlq0-Qo

This doesn't actually refute the claim you bolded from my quoted post but thanks.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

This doesn't actually refute the claim you bolded from my quoted post but thanks.

Well if you believe they are "peaceful protestors" then thats goes to fairyland

That teargas was used is without doubt. And from the online footage I've seen it's use was certainly warrented. Did some innocent parties get caught up in these situations. I'm sure they did.

But yeah surs its all big nasty trumps fault and the police and everyone else but them is all peaceful protestors right?

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Well if you believe they are "peaceful protestors: then thats fairyland

That teargas used is without doubt. And from the online footage I've seen it's use was certsinly warrented. Did some innocent parties get caught up in these situations. I'm sure they did.

But yeah surs its all big nasty trumps fault and the police and everyone else but them is all peaceful protestors right?

In that hedging response you merely agreed with my summation. Thanks.

I sure hope by "they" you are not conflating the protesters I am generally referencing with the rioters you are, above.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

In that hedging response you merely agreed with my summation. Thanks.

Do you really think so lol.

I think you may have missed the implied irony in the highlight ...

Love the footage of the one veteran btw. But hey sure the rioters were all peaceful protesting veterans or whatever as was implied

Your statement ...

We know he was abducting Americans off the street in unmarked rentals, we know they've been senselessly teargassing peaceful protesters, including many veterans. 

:rolleyes:

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Do you really think so lol.

I think you may have missed the implied irony in the highlight ...

Love the footage of the one veteran btw. But hey sure the rioters were all peaceful protesting veterans or whatever as was implied

Your statement ...



:rolleyes:

Keep digging that hole I guess.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/marine-corps-veteran-shot-with-rubber-bullets-by-police-at-protest-i-had-my-hands-up

There are, as I said, many examples of this administrations brutality against peaceful protesters, including veterans.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Keep digging that hole I guess https://www.foxnews.com/media/marine-corps-veteran-shot-with-rubber-bullets-by-police-at-protest-i-had-my-hands-up

There are, as I said, many examples of this administrations brutality against peaceful protesters, including veterans.

Nah that's the hole from moving your goalposts yet again.

From your additional link

The protest started peacefully, but became increasingly violent when some people started throwing bottles and other objects at officers....

Although curfews have been imposed in multiple cities in the U.S., some demonstrators continue to clash with police, setting cars of fire, vandalizing property and stealing goods. The fallout to this kind of disorder has caused peaceful protesters to be mixed up in the same category as those who are intentionally trying to cause harm and chaos.

So again not a 'peaceful protest by any means. And yes it is everyone's right to protest peacefully - and as clearly detailed previously - when things turn violent - the police will most likley intervene and yes some people not causing any problems will get caught up in that. Vets of all people should understand this better than most.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Nah that's the hole from moving your goalposts yet again.

From your additional link


So again not a 'peaceful protest by any means. And yes it is everyone's right to protest peacefully - and as clearly detailed previously - when things turn violent - the police will most likley intervene and yes some people not causing any problems will get caught up in that. Vets of all people should understand this better than most.

“Get caught up” in tear gassing and indiscriminate police violence is not an expectation, or a norm, for exercising your first amendment rights.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

“Get caught up” in tear gassing and indiscriminate police violence is not an expectation, or a norm, for exercising your first amendment rights.

It is unfortunately a possible consequence when engaging in protests with a propensity to disorder and violence as shown in your own links. And the subsequent reaction by police in those cases was certainly not 'indiscriminate' looking at the very real violent disorder of that rioting

And not just me saying that. From your own link

The fallout to this kind of disorder has caused peaceful protesters to be mixed up in the same category as those who are intentionally trying to cause harm and chaos

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

“Get caught up” in tear gassing and indiscriminate police violence is not an expectation, or a norm, for exercising your first amendment rights.

I find it curious that you decry the intrusion onto 1st Amendment rights to protest, but say nothing about those people disobeying curfew laws. Presumably, if they were peaceful protestors, they ought to obey a legal directive. Have your march during the day (when it will garner maximum visibility and participation anyway), then clear the streets and go home as directed.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I find it curious that you decry the intrusion onto 1st Amendment rights to protest, but say nothing about those people disobeying curfew laws. Presumably, if they were peaceful protestors, they ought to obey a legal directive. Have your march during the day (when it will garner maximum visibility and participation anyway), then clear the streets and go home as directed.

I’ve said a lot about curfew laws. And a lot of cities have rightly curtailed their application of curfews as they were a blanket precursor to widespread police violence. That old man shoved to the pavement who had his skull cracked open was “violating curfew” so let’s not pretend curfew laws are a great appeal to authority fallacy here.

Overheal

Nieomble72 wrote: »

Im curious, did you think it was acceptable for BT boyfriend to open fire through a door to "defend" his home?

1) Castle doctrine
2) Did he? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/27/ballistics-report-breonna-taylor-boyfriend-kenneth-walker-shot-louisville-cop/3554995001/

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

I’ve said a lot about curfew laws. And a lot of cities have rightly curtailed their application of curfews as they were a blanket precursor to widespread police violence. That old man shoved to the pavement who had his skull cracked open was “violating curfew” so let’s not pretend curfew laws are a great appeal to authority fallacy here.

Do you condone the actions of Kamala Harris encouraging her people to bail out violent rioters and thugs so they could go on inflicting more harm on people and their communities?

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

I’ve said a lot about curfew laws. And a lot of cities have rightly curtailed their application of curfews as they were a blanket precursor to widespread police violence. That old man shoved to the pavement who had his skull cracked open was “violating curfew” so let’s not pretend curfew laws are a great appeal to authority fallacy here.

You really have a hard on for 'sticking it to the cops'.

But going with your thoughs above, if people were obeying the curfew, the poor cops would have nobody to get violent with.

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you condone the actions of Kamala Harris encouraging her people to bail out violent rioters and thugs so they could go on inflicting more harm on people and their communities?

This never happened.

Overheal

Nieomble72 wrote: »

So you would agree then that this is a complete miscarrige of justice right here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/us/mark-patricia-mccloskey-charges.html

Upon the steel gate of there home being ripped down and the mob advancing on there house under ur doctrine would they have been entitled to open fire and defend there home?

Also

https://nypost.com/2020/07/10/white-lady-who-pulled-gun-on-black-woman-says-she-feared-for-her-life/

The castle doctrine covers this woman defending her vehicle, when it was attacked.


So im just trying to see if your use of the laws are racially motivated or do you apply them fairly? I already know the answers i just felt like catching you out.

You asked me about Kenneth Walker and now you’re jumping off your own topic.

Privately owned street owned privately by multiple homeowners from what I understand, meaning castle doctrine wouldn’t simply apply unless you were invading someone’s distinct personal property

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

This never happened.

https://www.google.ie/search?source=hp&ei=zYp0X7ngJ5uk1fAP8cGt8Ao&q=kamala+harris+encourages+people+to+bail+out+rioters&oq=kamala+harris+encourages+people+to+bail+out+rioters&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkwI6CAguELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BQguELEDOgsILhCxAxDHARCvAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6AgguOggILhDHARCjAjoICC4QsQMQkwI6AggAUMUBWJ9oYIVqaABwAHgAgAGwAYgB6RySAQQ0Ny40mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj5-uHXgJHsAhUbUhUIHfFgC64Q4dUDCAc&uact=5

You can chose which media outlet you wish.

It's hard to ask Kamala Harris this question as, despite running for the office of the Vice President she doesn't take questions.

Do you think it is a responsible act, bailing out violent rioters and thugs?

JJayoo

gozunda wrote: »

Id say that is distorted alright. And do you mean 'peaceful protests' like these?

Viewer discretion advised

https://youtu.be/V2igBlq0-Qo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2igBlq0-Qo

This is racist, you're racist everything is racist

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/search?source=hp&ei=zYp0X7ngJ5uk1fAP8cGt8Ao&q=kamala+harris+encourages+people+to+bail+out+rioters&oq=kamala+harris+encourages+people+to+bail+out+rioters&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkwI6CAguELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BQguELEDOgsILhCxAxDHARCvAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6AgguOggILhDHARCjAjoICC4QsQMQkwI6AggAUMUBWJ9oYIVqaABwAHgAgAGwAYgB6RySAQQ0Ny40mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj5-uHXgJHsAhUbUhUIHfFgC64Q4dUDCAc&uact=5

You can chose which media outlet you wish.

It's hard to ask Kamala Harris this question as, despite running for the office of the Vice President she doesn't take questions.

Do you think it is a responsible act, bailing out violent rioters and thugs?

first result

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

so it didn't happen.

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

first result

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

so it didn't happen.

How did I know you'd pick that one, so if I pick one will it be true?

Do you think this is one of the reasons why Kamala Harris won't take questions?

https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1267555018128965643?lang=en

Overheal

Nieomble72 wrote: »

Not at all i just wanted to highlight your racially motivated applications of laws in your points, my original question was just to lead into that.

You initially claimed there you were

"So im just trying to see if your use of the laws are racially motivated or do you apply them fairly?"

Now you are jumping over your own false front to admit you've already decided I am being racist. Which is ridiculous when all you've done is tried to equivocate two legal cases that are all but entirely unrelated: one is a no knock raid in Louisville, Kentucky involving police and exchange of weapons fire. The other is a civil unrest that involved semi-private property damage and brandishing of weapons, no invasion of a residence, and happened in St. Louis Missouri, where the statutory laws and jurisdictions are entirely different; these are state laws in play, not federal laws.

You cant evade that now its done ive clearly illustrated that, castle doctrine to you applies based on color of the persons skin whos trying to use it as shown by ur refusal to apply it to white people using it to defend themselves from BLM in the cases i highlighted.

So yeah if your gonna use this "Castle Doctrine" buzzwords use it fairly or you ll be called out on it.

Some really awful leaps in logic there. Not the least of which is implying that "Castle Doctrine" is a "buzzword." Suggesting that castle doctrine applies only to race is ridiculous. Your argument, not mine.

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

How did I know you'd pick that one, so if I pick one will it be true?

Do you think this is one of the reasons why Kamala Harris won't take questions?

https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1267555018128965643?lang=en

I'm still not seeing the evidence of your claim.

Silentcorner wrote:

Kamala Harris encouraging her people to bail out violent rioters and thugs so they could go on inflicting more harm on people and their communities