USA riots

[marks]

Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that.

Yes, a racist statement. And nonsensical. It's actually a "complex question" on a couple of levels, making it entirely void of meaning, except from the "racist" projection that is.

 

[bukka]

Lol, what does this mean?
And aren't you making a racist statement here?

One has to speak the truth to power, Renniks. People who believe themselves oppressed have the right to identify whom they think are being the oppressors, surely. If you deny civil rights to some citizens, those citizens can identify you as working for tyranny.

Are you advocating taking away of the right of assembly to seek to redress grievances from black organizations? You're probably doing so if you're equating lawful citizens assembled with criminals infiltrated in their midst seeking to commit various crimes. If you're that, eventually you'll be able to advocate the taking away of the right to keep and bear arms from other citizens as well. I support the Bill of Rights against all its enemies.

Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

 

[marks]

I cannot abandon simple logic, marks.

I'm not about to!



You aren't even arguing against my posts. You just write towards your agenda, no matter how transparent it is. And your agenda, as you yourself have said, it so show us conservatives how we don't follow Jesus, and to get us to repent.

Right?

Apparantly you like better the liberals who want to exploit a tragic situation for their own ends.

 

[bukka]

And . . . again . . . I'll say . . . I don't accuse lawful protesters, but not all protesters were lawful.

You've never said you thought otherwise.

I agree that lawful protest is protected and should be.

Can you agree that not all protesters are lawful, and that those protesters who break the law should be help accountable?

Yes, a racist statement. And nonsensical. It's actually a "complex question" on a couple of levels, making it entirely void of meaning, except from the "racist" projection that is.

You've abandoned simple logic, marks. Again, I'm only taking what you're saying to it's logical conclusion. At bottom, you're still defaming lawful citizens equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters. So I ask, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? This is another application of the logic you're using. I repeat, I'm being very logical here. I continue to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.

Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.

I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.

Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

 

[marks]

People who believe themselves oppressed have the right to identify whom they think are being the oppressors, surely.

So since you've asked that question to me . . . now you make out that I'm an oppressor of blacks?

Laughable!

 

[marks]

You've abandoned simple logic, marks. Again, I'm only taking what you're saying to it's logical conclusion. At bottom, you're still defaming lawful citizens equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters. So I ask, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? This is another application of the logic you're using. I repeat, I'm being very logical here. I continue to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.

Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.

I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.

Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

You ignore my replies and continue to write your nonsense.

Here's your latest addition . . .

I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.

Now I hate the bill of rights?

You are as disengenuous as BLM, whom you champion. But I hardly find that surprising.

 

[marks]

I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief;

Naturally they are not, but your rights END when they trample on others.

 

[bukka]

I'm not about to!



You aren't even arguing against my posts. You just write towards your agenda, no matter how transparent it is. And your agenda, as you yourself have said, it so show us conservatives how we don't follow Jesus, and to get us to repent.

Right?

Apparantly you like better the liberals who want to exploit a tragic situation for their own ends.

It's more complex than that, marks. I want the Bill of Rights for all Americans.

So since you've asked that question to me . . . now you make out that I'm an oppressor of blacks?

Laughable!

As long as you attack the constitutional right of assembly, you are, and this is not laughing matter. At a certain point you'll be attacking gospel teaching as well. Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

 

[marks]

As long as you attack the constitutional right of assembly,

As long as you insist on this straw man we'll keep going in circles.

 

[marks]

As long as you attack the constitutional right of assembly, you are, and this is not laughing matter.

Accusations of racism aren't going to get any further.

I don't care what color you are. Your rights end when you trample others.

 

[bukka]

Naturally they are not, but your rights END when they trample on others.

Again, you're equating lawful citizens assembling to seek to protest grievances with criminals that have infiltrated their ranks. This is dishonest now. You haven't addressed my arguments based upon the logic of your position.

Why do you hate so much? Why have you rejected Christ? At this point I see you don't seem to care much for Jesus' teaching of the love of others. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry; but why do you deny equity in law?

 

[bukka]

As long as you insist on this straw man we'll keep going in circles.

Accusations of racism aren't going to get any further.

I don't care what color you are. Your rights end when you trample others.

I deny the right of assembly to know one. Neither does BLM. Again, you're equating lawful citizens assembling to seek to protest grievances with criminals that have infiltrated their ranks. This is dishonest now. You haven't addressed my arguments based upon the logic of your position.

Why do you hate so much? Why have you rejected Christ? At this point I see you don't seem to care much for Jesus' teaching of the love of others. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry; but why do you deny equity in law?

 

[Renniks]

One has to speak the truth to power, Renniks. People who believe themselves oppressed have the right to identify whom they think are being the oppressors, surely. If you deny civil rights to some citizens, those citizens can identify you as working for tyranny.

Since the rest is just repeat repeat repeat... I'm only quoting this part.
First, white isn't a race., And you said a lot when you said " believe themselves oppressed" as opposed to actually being oppressed.
What civil rights are people with darker skin denied in America? Please answer instead of just repeating the same rhetoric.
What tyranny are darker residents under? Can they not vote? Can they not work anywhere they choose? Can they not eat at restaurants? I'm a bit confused as to what rights you're talking about.
BTW, " white" people can have a lot of African blood. They can be any number of different ethnicities. So, which " white" people are the oppressors? Or maybe you were referring to Asians or Hispanics or some other group as the oppressors?
I don't care about ethnicity. We are all Americans and all under the bill of rights. Applying it to only one group would certainly be wrong.

 

[marks]

Again, you're equating lawful citizens assembling to seek to protest grievances with criminals that have infiltrated their ranks. This is dishonest now. You haven't addressed my arguments based upon the logic of your position.

No . . . I'm saying that not all protesters are lawful, and they need to be held accountable.

Let's jump back a step . . .

Lawful protest good. Unlawful protest bad. BLM has the right to protest, but not the right to riot, steal, vandalize, and murder. Their rights end when that becomes what they are doing.

Now. Are you really going to try to convince me that no protesters committed crimes? When the protest turns to riot it is no longer lawful protest.

Aw, come on . . . all the protesters became violators in failing to disperse when lawfully ordered to, after the protests turned into riots.

Forget for a moment who did what to whom. After the riots were started, the assemblies became unlawful. But the protesters refused to obey lawful orders to disperse.

And again . . . I do not deny equity in law. Why do you keep making false accusations?

Curfews were established, and those curfews were violated by 1000's of protestors, providing the cover needed by the robbery crews. Not to mention whatever they wanted to do, now that, well, "we're already breaking the curfew . . . Might as well . . ."

Now I reject Jesus, now I hate others, What's next?

Ad hominems . . . the last resort of the empty handed.

Why don't you care about all those who have been hurt and suffered loss due to BLM's activities?

 

[bukka]

Since the rest is just repeat repeat repeat... I'm only quoting this part.
First, white isn't a race., And you said a lot when you said " believe themselves oppressed" as opposed to actually being oppressed.
What civil rights are people with darker skin denied in America? Please answer instead of just repeating the same rhetoric.
What tyranny are darker residents under? Can they not vote? Can they not work anywhere they choose? Can they not eat at restaurants? I'm a bit confused as to what rights you're talking about.
BTW, " white" people can have a lot of African blood. They can be any number of different ethnicities. So, which " white" people are the oppressors? Or maybe you were referring to Asians or Hispanics or some other group as the oppressors?
I don't care about ethnicity. We are all Americans and all under the bill of rights. Applying it to only one group would certainly be wrong.

I agree, Renniks that there is no race except the human race. That is another crux of the matter on this thread.

BLM is protesting the police murder of blacks. That and voter suppression are the two main reasons for its existence. That means civil rights in terms of police protection and law enforcement is one issue, the second issue is the right to vote or having one's voted counted as equal to that of every other citizen. No civil rights are denied, but they are being negated in many serious ways. Your other questions relate to this answer.

Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

 

[marks]

As long as you attack the constitutional right of assembly, you are, and this is not laughing matter.

Actually this IS laughable. Where have I attacked the constitutional right of assembly? This is your straw man fiction. That I oppress blacks? Yes. That IS laughable.

 

[marks]

the second issue is the right to vote or having one's voted counted as equal to that of every other citizen.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Do they give out "colored ballots" so that they are only counted as a half vote?

 

[bukka]

No . . . I'm saying that not all protesters are lawful, and they need to be held accountable.

Let's jump back a step . . .

Lawful protest good. Unlawful protest bad. BLM has the right to protest, but not the right to riot, steal, vandalize, and murder. Their rights end when that becomes what they are doing.

Now. Are you really going to try to convince me that no protesters committed crimes? When the protest turns to riot it is no longer lawful protest.

Aw, come on . . . all the protesters became violators in failing to disperse when lawfully ordered to, after the protests turned into riots.

Forget for a moment who did what to whom. After the riots were started, the assemblies became unlawful. But the protesters refused to obey lawful orders to disperse.

And again . . . I do not deny equity in law. Why do you keep making false accusations?

Curfews were established, and those curfews were violated by 1000's of protestors, providing the cover needed by the robbery crews. Not to mention whatever they wanted to do, now that, well, "we're already breaking the curfew . . . Might as well . . ."

Now I reject Jesus, now I hate others, What's next?

Ad hominems . . . the last resort of the empty handed.

Why don't you care about all those who have been hurt and suffered loss due to BLM's activities?

Again, marks, you're not addressing the main issues. I'm only taking what you're saying to it's logical conclusion. At bottom, you're still defaming lawful citizens equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters. So I ask, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? This is another application of the logic you're using. I repeat, I'm being very logical here. I continue to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.

Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.

I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.

Governments have the right to set curfews and to police protesters. I do not deny that. I do affirm that the right of assembly is constitutional and cannot be denied by law and that governments must make provision to allow the exercise of that right.

Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

 

[marks]

I agree, Renniks that there is no race except the human race. That is another crux of the matter on this thread.

BLM is protesting the police murder of blacks. That and voter suppression are the two main reasons for its existence. That means civil rights in terms of police protection and law enforcement is one issue, the second issue is the right to vote or having one's voted counted as equal to that of every other citizen. No civil rights are denied, but they are being negated in many serious ways. Your other questions relate to this answer.

Again, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.

You do realize, don't you, that the proportion of times force is used by the police is much lower against blacks than whites when computed on a "per crime" basis?

 

[bukka]

Actually this IS laughable. Where have I attacked the constitutional right of assembly? This is your straw man fiction. That I oppress blacks? Yes. That IS laughable.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Do they give out "colored ballots" so that they are only counted as a half vote?

You don't want to affirm the logical basis of your position. You don't want to admit that you've lost the argument?

Consider again the Golden Rule of Jesus and the equity in law that that teaching establishes for the benefit of humanity.