USA riots

[marks]

I've answered this question pages before. The BLM was not organized, marks, for that purpose in view. It is going against the grievances of police murder and voter suppression. Remember, it is not a Christian organization but supports the civil rights of the larger population of black Americans, and also the whites who've realized that police murder can someday come to them.

Again, no answer, just a dodge of the question.

BLM supports Planned Parenthood, and abortion rights in general. Planned Parenthood was instituted for the express purpose of killing black babies in order to reduce and even eliminate the black population. Margaret Sanger believed that if allowed to, the blacks would be the quickest to kill their children.

BLM supports the murder of black babies. Millions and millions have died!! Millions! But those black lives don't matter. Because they aren't politically expedient.

BLM receives the bulk of their money from groups committed to the dissolution of national borders, and in particular the destabilization of the United States.

But we will still protect the freedom of lawful assembly even for hypocrits. Even for those who will lie and twist and distort. Even for those who will exploit the very people whom they claim to represent.

 

[marks]

Since I've been flooded with postings meant to annoy me and to make answering difficult, I will wait to see if marks and Rennik can answer the following:

I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters.

So I asked these posters, 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 these posters are using. I have continued 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.

I THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME. THE LOGIC IS IRREFUTABLE AND SO THEY SEEK TO HARASS AND ANNOY ME AND AVOID ANY TYPE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION.

Again I ask, 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 keep just copy and pasting while ignoring answers. So what are you doing here?

Do you honestly think I hate the Bill of Rights? Why would you say that? Can you answer that?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The following article is from FOUR YEARS AGO!

Friday, 19 August 2016
Hacked Documents: Soros Funded Black Lives Matter
Written by C. Mitchell Shaw

When George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) was accused last year of funding Black Lives Matter (BLM), Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at OSF, flatly denied it and claimed it was a fantastic rumor. “I can’t really speculate on what leads to rumors, but it is wrong,” he said, “I don’t even know where one begins to reconstruct something like that.” Early this week, hackers published documents which show that two months before Zimmerman’s denial, the OSF board approved $650,000 to BLM.

DCLeaks.com — which claims to be run by the same hackers who leaked a trove of e-mails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — has published a 69-page report from OSF in which the Soros organization documents its plans to use the “unrest” following the death of Freddie Gray to “accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement.” The relevant portion of the report says:

The killing of Freddie Gray in April helped spawn weeks of peaceful protests by Baltimore residents and allies from the #BlackLivesMatter movement that were temporarily interrupted by a period of unrest that lasted less than 48 hours and resulted in some injuries and millions of dollars in property damage to neighborhood businesses. While many lamented the damage done, the overwhelming sentiment is that the uprising has catalyzed a paradigm shift in Baltimore that offers opportunities for major justice reforms.​

In particular, recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform. Building on our existing networks and programs, OSI-Baltimore will focus investments on: 1) creating a culture of accountability for policing in Baltimore, recognizing the pervasive racism, disrespect and lawlessness that gave rise to recent events; and 2) building the capacity of activists in Baltimore to demand and achieve immediate and long-term reforms.​

Let’s set aside for the moment that the report describes the looting, rioting, assaults, and arson which marked the very beginning of the “protests” over the death of Freddie Gray as “peaceful.” Soros and his ilk must live in the world of George Orwell's 1984 where war is peace and peace is war. As disconnected from reality as Soros and company may be, their agenda is clear: avoid the obvious and seize the “opportunity” to foment revolution. Later in that report, the allocation of nearly three-quarters of a million dollars was laid out in clear and plain language:

Recognizing the need for strategic assistance, the U.S. Programs Board approved $650,000 in Opportunities Fund support to invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.​

The decision to bankroll the subversive and violent anti-police organization was approved “per board consensus” and appears to have had as its goal the shifting of political power. Another leaked document covers a later board meeting and praises the success of the plan:

Leaders of #BlackLivesMatter and The Movement for Black Lives worked to influence candidate platforms during the 2016 primary season. This came alongside the recent acknowledgement by political strategists that African-American voters may be much more pivotal to the 2016 general election than previously forecasted.​

While BLM could have used that $650,000 to actually improve the lives of black residents of America’s inner cities by initiating job training, educational, and violence prevention programs, the money was used for its intended purpose: the fomenting of more “unrest” in the form of violent “protests” that were little more that staged riots. And it has been successful in shifting political power. It has also, undoubtedly, fomented the war on police, leading to the deaths of police officers and the black citizens they work to protect.

While inner-city “black America” continues to slide into the abyss, BLM and its sugar-daddy, George Soros, are continuing to use that social decline to reshape America.

Source: Hacked Documents: Soros Funded Black Lives Matter

 

[marks]

I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion.

Nonsense. You've turned them into something they are not. Whether deliberately or not I don't know. That why I asked to restate my view on this. Contrary to your words, it's not verbose at all.

We can all assemble in protest in this nation. All have that right equally.
The right to protest ends when someone uses it to try to take away someone else's rights, i.e. burning down their store after stealing all there stuff.
While much of the thievery, and arson, and killing, and vandalism was committed by non-protester opportunists, even so many protesters committed illegal acts also. And that ends the "lawful protest". After that it is unlawful assembly.
And BLM, who has put itself in the spotlight, is itself a racist group, who promotes immorality and murder, who promotes the destruction of vulnerable classes of people (babies, mentally ill, immature), who demonstrates by their words and actions that they are hypocritical, in that they focus on the small portion of crimes committed by one group while ignoring the vastly greater number of crimes committed by their own group.
If they were actually serious about saving black lives, they'd stop condoning abortion, and they start protesting the black people killed by blacks in their own disfuctional communities. And they would stop trying to blame others for problems, and would start teaching people to take responsibility for themselves.

Well, it's more than a sentence or two. But not too hard to master!

 

[bukka]

This posting still stands:

Since I've been flooded with postings meant to annoy me and to make answering difficult, I will wait to see if marks and Rennik can answer the following:

I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

So I asked these posters, 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 these posters are using. I have continued 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.

I THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME. THE LOGIC IS IRREFUTABLE AND SO THEY SEEK TO HARASS AND ANNOY ME AND AVOID ANY TYPE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION.

Again I ask, 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]

While BLM could have used that $650,000 to actually improve the lives of black residents of America’s inner cities by initiating job training, educational, and violence prevention programs, the money was used for its intended purpose: the fomenting of more “unrest” in the form of violent “protests” that were little more that staged riots. And it has been successful in shifting political power. It has also, undoubtedly, fomented the war on police, leading to the deaths of police officers and the black citizens they work to protect.

There you have it. They are not trying to build up, they are trying to tear down.

You know, if they were actually peaceable? I'd be marching with them! But not knowing who is involved!

 

[bukka]

There you have it. They are not trying to build up, they are trying to tear down.

You know, if they were actually peaceable? I'd be marching with them! But not knowing who is involved!

I suspect the source, but does that mean, marks, that you would turn a blind eye to police murder? Your statements don't make sense.

 

[Renniks]

THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME. THE LOGIC IS IRREFUTABLE AND SO THEY SEEK TO HARASS AND ANNOY ME AND AVOID ANY TYPE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION.

We have answered. We are not equating peaceful protests to violent protests. You just keep making that up. I don't see any gun rights advocates making their point by beating people up, looting, killing, defacing statues, veterans memorials, graves, and other sick behavior.

 

[marks]

I THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME.

Well, answering you IS getting a little boring. Since you don't acknowledge, and just repost the same meaningless rhetoric over and over.

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.

Angry about what? What I'm, well, angry, I don't know . . . but a grave wrong is being done here by a group of people who want to attack US society. They've taken a tragic situation, and exploited it to their own ends.

How are you thinking the Bill of Rights "are in the hands of a race different form myself"? What does that even mean? Other than to project a non-existent racism?

 

[marks]

does that mean, marks, that you would turn a blind eye to police murder?

What? Read my posts. Of course I don't. Do you turn blind eyes to murder? And why such a narrow focus? Why aren't you concerned over the hundreds of times as many murders committed by blacks?

 

[bukka]

We have answered. We are not equating peaceful protests to violent protests. You just keep making that up. I don't see any gun rights advocates making their point by beating people up, looting, killing, defacing statues, veterans memorials, graves, and other sick behavior.

Refuted already: I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

 

[marks]

I suspect the source,

Verify for yourself. This information is available from several sources. You really should know the real agenda of people that you support. Blindly supporting those who murder and steal and destroy and deface for reasons other than what they say isn't really a good idea in my opinion.

I suggest learning what these people are really about. Unless you already know. But it's not about obtaining a fair balance of civil rights. That's cover. Don't buy into it. You're being lied to.

 

[marks]

Refuted already: I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

I remember when I was a child, we had this thing we did. Someone would call another kid a name, and that kid would reply, "I know you are, but what am I?". So then the first kid would say something back . . . "You're an idiot" "I know you are but what am I?" "You're a Bozo!" "I know you are but what am I?" "You're getting repetitious." "I know you are but what am I?" And on and on it would go.

Let us put childish things away.

 

[bukka]

Well, answering you IS getting a little boring. Since you don't acknowledge, and just repost the same meaningless rhetoric over and over.

It's not meaningless. It's the Bill of Rights we should be all emphatic to support.

Angry about what? What I'm, well, angry, I don't know . . . but a grave wrong is being done here by a group of people who want to attack US society. They've taken a tragic situation, and exploited it to their own ends.

How are you thinking the Bill of Rights "are in the hands of a race different form myself"? What does that even mean? Other than to project a non-existent racism?

This has already been refuted: At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

I challenged you:

So I asked these posters, 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 these posters are using. I have continued 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.

But you ignored gun rights and persisted to attack freedom of assembly. So I challenged you:

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 agree with you in one point. All this posting is becoming a farce. I can understand your annoyance. I must do, though, what the Lord instructs me to do in respect to the justice he wishes to establish on Earth. And this justice includes those people who are the Samaritans, those who are considered unclean from birth.

 

[marks]

Refuted already: I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

Maybe you don't understand logic very well.

We saw three basic groups in action. Protesters who did not break the law. Protesters who did break the law. And lawbreakers who took advantage of the protests.

It's this group . . . Protesters who did break the law. You seem blind to their existence. But the right to protest ends when it is used to subvert the rights of others.

 

[bukka]

I remember when I was a child, we had this thing we did. Someone would call another kid a name, and that kid would reply, "I know you are, but what am I?". So then the first kid would say something back . . . "You're an idiot" "I know you are but what am I?" "You're a Bozo!" "I know you are but what am I?" "You're getting repetitious." "I know you are but what am I?" And on and on it would go.

Let us put childish things away.

I agree, marks. Defamation of whole classes of people are childish. Let's accord the Bill of Rights to all Americans.

 

[marks]

So I asked these posters, 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 these posters are using. I have continued 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.

No . . . I don't how person A responsible for the acts of person B. But when a gun owner commit a crime, then they should be accountable for it.

And when someone claims to protest to keep the right to own guns, but in reality, they don't care whether someone owns guns or not, I'm going to call them out for their hypocrisy.

WE keep the bill of rights. And we stop those who want to abuse it.

Plain. Simple.

 

[marks]

I agree, marks. Defamation of whole classes of people are childish. Let's accord the Bill of Rights to all Americans.

Done.

Already done a long time ago actually. So what's the problem?

 

[bukka]

Maybe you don't understand logic very well.

We saw three basic groups in action. Protesters who did not break the law. Protesters who did break the law. And lawbreakers who took advantage of the protests.

It's this group . . . Protesters who did break the law. You seem blind to their existence. But the right to protest ends when it is used to subvert the rights of others.

I do not accept this distinction, marks. There are either lawful citizens exercising their citizenship rights or criminals in respect to the right of assembly.

To test the distinction, let us both consider the right to keep and bear arms. Are we to accept lawful gun owners, lawful gun owners who commit crimes, and criminals who commit crimes in the course of that gun ownership. We can see from this that this distinction does not hold.

 

[bukka]

Done.

Already done a long time ago actually. So what's the problem?

See post #619.