Search results

Do you want to live in a country without civil rights. Do you still want your guns, your vote, etc. I don't think you would.

That has been answered already in my summary argumentation: 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...

That doesn't explain the protests against police murder, Stranger. If the cops were law abiding, why all the protests and rioting?

BLM was only involved initially concerning police murder. I've already made this position clear in my summary argument: 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...

But the issue regarding BLM is police murder, marks. That is not in keeping with the OP.

You don't want to say that, marks, do you. You denied this in my summary argument: 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...

The protests and riots would never have happened if the police departments hadn't cleaned up their act. This problem has been going on for at least 25 years, as I remember.

There will also be more police murder, maybe of whites as well as blacks. I would pity the poor white being in the wrong area at the wrong time and being murdered by the police. But accidental homicides tend to be forgiven by many juries, sadly. They don't want to sent a policeman into a...

Perhaps that's Trump's goal and that of his supporters. It'll will be a bit harder to take the guns away, I think.

My summary posts still stands. There has been no disproving of the logic of the arguments. The only argument given me is the defamation of people exercising their constitutional right to assemble seeking redress of grievances. They defame all people exercising this right as criminals. But...

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...

Disprove it Renniks. Please make your case. The logic of the argument is airtight. Simply put, you cannot.

I do not accept as real any of these assertions, marks. I could ask you to prove these assertions. But proof of these assertions must be backed up by evidence gathered by all news organizations, not only those sources that are specifically hostile to BLM's constitutional right of assembly.

I agree, marks. We're getting to the crux of the issue.

See post #619.

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...

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

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

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...

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.