USA riots

[marks]

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

The childishness I'm referring to is the endless repetition of statements that don't even really say anything, posted without regard to what they are purported to respond to, while actually not engaging in the conversation.

This copy and paste rhetoric.

 

[bukka]

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.

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

 

[marks]

See post #619.

That doesn't address this.

The Bill of Rights is Already for all US citizens. That's already a fact. So if that's what you are protesting for, you can go home now.

 

[marks]

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

Yep. BLM is an hypocritical organization. Or the leadership is. However you want to put it.

Do you condemn the acts of violence done by these so-called protesters? The ones with signs? The ones coordinated by BLM? Do you?

Do you condem the acts for murder formally condoned by BLM? That those live Don't matter? Do you condemn this?

 

[Renniks]

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.

Well now you are just lying... and doing exactly what you accused us of.

 

[bukka]

Yep. BLM is an hypocritical organization. Or the leadership is. However you want to put it.

Do you condemn the acts of violence done by these so-called protesters? The ones with signs? The ones coordinated by BLM? Do you?

Do you condem the acts for murder formally condoned by BLM? That those live Don't matter? Do you condemn this?

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.

 

[bukka]

Well now you are just lying... and doing exactly what you accused us of.

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

 

[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.

 

[historyb]

Well folks we have a member of BLM/Antifa here trying to do the same stuff that they are ding on the street - Terrorism. Right now his pet group Antifa/BLM have taken over 6 blocks in Seattle and are armed, they declared Independence from the USA. These are terrorist just like ISIS and the Taliban. Hopefully the army can get a hold of these terrorist. This is what the groups want to do, they hate free speech and the United States and they all want to kill and rape you all.

 

[marks]

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.

What does that mean? "I won't believe it unless all the TV shows are saying it!" It doesn't take much scanning the news to see video of protests going wrong.

Sources hostile to BLM's right of assembly? Who is that? Back that up.

 

[marks]

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.

You can read some of this from themselves on their own website, in condoning the murder of black babies, by means of abortion. Do you approve of killing black babies? BLM does!

 

[marks]

Well folks we have a member of BLM/Antifa here trying to do the same stuff that they are ding on the street - Terrorism. Right now his pet group Antifa/BLM have taken over 6 blocks in Seattle and are armed, they declared Independence from the USA. These are terrorist just like ISIS and the Taliban. Hopefully the army can get a hold of these terrorist. This is what the groups want to do, they hate free speech and the United States and they all want to kill and rape you all.

@bukka is only trying to do what BLM does. Make a phony narrative and try to gaslight by sheer repetition.

 

[Giuliano]

All true, I think.

But this is what I'm finding, or rather, not finding in the narrative . . . a repudiation of the rioting and vandalism and thefts. The tea party people stood against it. BLM uses it.

I didn't bookmark the links to the articles; but in some places, there were protesters who stopped the vandalism. I doubt BLM actively supports it since they risk arrest and prison time if they do. They would also risk loss of support within the black community itself which doesn't want to see where they live get even more violent and with fewer businesses.

I think most of the bad behavior is by angry people willing to take advantage of a chaotic situation; and if neither the police nor the protesters stop them, it encourages more bad behavior.

 

[bukka]

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 yet, when criminals use guns to commit crimes, they do not ask that America be disarmed. Not much consistency here.

 

[marks]

I didn't bookmark the links to the articles; but in some places, there were protesters who stopped the vandalism. I doubt BLM actively supports it since they risk arrest and prison time if they do. They would also risk loss of support within the black community itself which doesn't want to see where they live get even more violent and with fewer businesses.

I think most of the bad behavior is by angry people willing to take advantage of a chaotic situation; and if neither the police nor the protesters stop them, it encourages more bad behavior.

I saw that too, where protesters actively were against the rioting. But I also saw protesters rioting as well.

And the graffiti? All over the place. Protesters. Vandals.

And what I saw on video was protesters REVELING in the mayhem! The guy holding his sign, "Next we're coming to the suburbs!" right after they trashed a mall.

Trying to instill fear, in other words, terrorism.

 

[marks]

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 yet, when criminals use guns to commit crimes, they do not ask that America be disarmed. Not much consistency here.

Again and again . . . who here is saying no one should have the right to assemble?

That's a Straw Man. You can knock him down with a feather. But so what?

But you want to support a group that condones murder. I don't do that. That's not love.

 

[Giuliano]

Well folks we have a member of BLM/Antifa here trying to do the same stuff that they are ding on the street - Terrorism. Right now his pet group Antifa/BLM have taken over 6 blocks in Seattle and are armed, they declared Independence from the USA. These are terrorist just like ISIS and the Taliban. Hopefully the army can get a hold of these terrorist. This is what the groups want to do, they hate free speech and the United States and they all want to kill and rape you all.

Maybe Trump could call out the army, go the martial law route and suspend all civil liberties, and then declare himself dictator for life. Would that make you feel safe? Or would it make the protesters even angrier?

 

[bukka]

Maybe Trump could call out the army, go the martial law route and suspend all civil liberties, and then declare himself dictator for life. Would that make you feel safe? Or would it make the protesters even angrier?

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.

 

[Giuliano]

I saw that too, where protesters actively were against the rioting. But I also saw protesters rioting as well.

And the graffiti? All over the place. Protesters. Vandals.

It's going to vary. I can guarantee however that the more oppressive and unreasonable the police look, the angrier protesters will be -- and the more vandalism we'll see.

 

[Josho]

Maybe Trump could call out the army, go the martial law route and suspend all civil liberties, and then declare himself dictator for life. Would that make you feel safe? Or would it make the protesters even angrier?

Well if he lives to 100, that will give him 27 more years as POTUS, if he lives to 110, 37 years.