muppy
-
Posts
15,351 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by muppy
-
-
1 hour ago, Capco said:
It's actually from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thank you for pointing that out I had no idea. Profound words spoken by a great man,
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Go develop your own contacts in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, DIA, and DoD and listen to them on the matter.
LOL touche'
-
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Yup.
link?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
The mistake you're laboring under is presuming those two extremes are different. They're not. They're both owned by the same big money groups.
does the US government agree with you on that?
-
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I dont think anyone would disagree what was said in that piece Mr Barr wrote. Since Antifa is the left wing side of the equation I hope the far extremist right side would be treated accordingly as well if proven involved. I wonder if that will happen too.
-
1 minute ago, Reality Check said:
False. Once labeled a terrorist organization, justice served will be under military jurisdiction per the Patriot Act. Military Intelligence has the jurisdiction now to act directly against them on US soil. No civilian court required. Once attributed as enemy combatants, you essentially have no rights and can be killed without due process regardless of where that individual stands on planet Earth. This is all a highly organized insurrection. Also, look up the Insurrection Act.
thank you for the answer. That IS very significant a designation then. Whoa. So its open season on anyone associated with this group in other words. I'll look into the insurrection act. I would think they'd have to have some degree of certainty of someones affiliation before the government being able to legally kill someone..........maybe not. Yikes.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
eradication works just fine for me...
so basically you don't know the answer to my question ........you're celebrating something you don't really understand what it even means?
-
14 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...ABOUT DAMN TIME......now some shock and awe military police intervention to "eradicate" the problem......
Trump announces US to designate Antifa as terrorist organization following violent protests
President Trump announced Sunday that the U.S. government will designate the far-left group Antifa as a designated terrorist organization.
This comes as Trump has blamed Antifa for riots taking place across the country in the aftermath George Floyd's death following an encounter in which was was pinned to the ground by Minneapolis police.
question: what does this designation mean in practical terms.....being designated as a terrorist organization allows the government to do what exactly...why is that designation significant?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
It’s beyond the other three cops. The protestors have complaints that transcend the Floyd incident. And the looters have nothing but crime and anarchy on the mind. This is an historic mess.
I was watching TV yesterday and I saw a protester with a sign which said "rioting is the language of the unheard". I thought that was profound I'd never heard it put quite that way before. Yes there are criminal elements exacerbating the situations for potential perceived political gains or losses. But ultimately the people whom are peacefully protesting in my view have legitiment beefs with the fact these kinds of scenarios happen over and over again to all races of people not just black and nothing seems to change in regarding to police brutality. and as you stated issues beyond Mr Floyds death. I concur. Ive said this issue is a human issue not solely a political one but they are intertwined. The divisiveness between the major political parties only makes finding a solution even that much harder.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Sig1Hunter said:
Oh Lord . Don’t open up that possibility!
if this Chauvin character is acquitted you think you've seen rioting now, just wait and see what that scenario brings. I shudder to think. The sad part is that I could see it happen. Nothing much surprises me anymore . It depends on the jury which makes any trial a crapshoot to be honest. Reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death will be a paramount to this guys defense and they will disparage the victim high and low. Its going to be ugly either way. Lord have mercy. I hope he doesn't get away with it my logical mind thiunks no way isnt he convicted but then I remember past trials and then Im not so sure :-(((((((
-
2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:
@MargaritaAny response to the pre-positioned pallets of bricks?
I agree with this clip "aint no construction going on around here" SMH I hope there are cameras showing just who delivered those bricks and they are promptly arrested. Outrageous.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
Not off topic, as I’d bet the same protesters would be sympathetic with the jailed, “ social justice” etc etc. Anyway, you didn’t answer my question and I’m not surprised
libs being sympathetic with felons has nothing to do with these protests im not required to reply to ridiculous off topic questions again I stand by my previous post
-
2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
good! We probably all should take more time with our family. Your last post before returning looked like a “I’m leaving this conversation because it’s beneath me.” Not a “I gotta go make waffles.” ?I don’t care who outnumbers who. If the majority is peaceful they’re doing a ***** job being the majority. Disassociate with the fanatics. Leave. Report the criminals to the police. Be peaceful. If I’m in a group of 25 people and 5 start burning ***** down me and 19 others either have to disavow that group (by leaving) and making it clear they’re not our group, or else we gotta stand there and watch it happen and all the sudden our group or 25 is the group who burns ***** down.
thats very fair guess what we can agree on something. Me personally wouldn't want to be near looters and would distance myself. Some of the crowd shots Ive seen the video focuses on the rabble predominately in smaller groups the peaceful protesters together but on the outer fringes away from the violence
-
2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
How is the bad cop different from any other jailed criminal ? You know, the felons that libs are so sympathetic with? That they want to restore voting rights to etc etc. They’re fine with uniting for bad whatever , so why is the bad cop not now one of them ?
ahem........protesters aren't protesting for criminal rights waaaay off topic
-
1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:
Yet it is just a very, very few bad cops (whose actions are denounced by all) that liberals and complicit media seize upon and paint all cops and all white folks as racists. These are actually very isolated incidents blown far out of proportion by media and protesters alike. But yes, it is just so easy to generalize against all law enforcement when the overwhelming percentage of them do a great job to keep us safe from the criminal element every day. How many of these “ protesters” sat idly by while the lives of millions were being upended by draconian lockdowns over a virus ? Probably very happy to collect their government handouts, but outraged over the action of a bad cop who was fired and already jailed for what he did. Are they now sympathetic with him because he wears a prisoner’s clothes and not a police uniform ? Is he now one of the “ good guys” ?
are they sympathetic with a bad cop....hmmmmmm Of course. We need MORE bad cops......BAD COP LOVERS UNITE
lol sorry had to snark that what the heck? Youre seriously asking that question? Broad stroke generalizations are wrong. Both sides.
1 minute ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:You seriously cannot be that ignorant.
you obviously "Feel" you are right......prove it. I'll wait.
-
11 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
I see your "I'm outtie" only lasted a couple hours.
I am saying that anyone associated with any protest that involves looting, rioting, assaulting peace officers, burning buildings to the ground, vandalizing, etc. Is staking their reputation and their opinion on those things as well... If you want to peacefully protest, go to peaceful protest- not a riot. If at the peaceful protest a riot breaks out among the majority of the protestors, leave because their agenda no-longer matches yours. It's quite simple. Anyone in the street partaking in criminal activity is a criminal. Period.
ahem I have a family which supercedes me posting here.
How do you know that the peaceful protesters dont outnumber the criminals? Im not buying it.
-
1 hour ago, whatdrought said:
This is your last post because you rolled in with a chip on your shoulder spouting non-sense, got slapped down with logic and reason and you can’t handle the heat. Fair thee well felecia.hmmmmm yeah you've got me..Ive definitely got a chip on my shoulder Im none at all happy with what our country is dealing with today I sympathize with the protesters as a person who has had my own child profiled by the police due to his skin color..all logic and reason seemingly all on your side Bravo youre a fooking hero patriot happy now? SMH
-
1 hour ago, bilzfancy said:
If the protesters stormed the barracade, they are no longer protesters but rioters and putting the life of the president and his family in danger, or are you ok with that?
come on fancy you posted something that I took issue with which was encouraging protesters to breach a barricade so they would be shot dead. No I dont advocate violence by the police with the mindset you seem to have by what you wrote.
-
1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:
1. What tweets? Remember, Margarita, we like to be specific in our answers as it alleviates any confusion.
2. Thank God
3. And what if they resist?
Honest dialogue is always welcome. However, if you prefer to twist things into what you want them to be, then maybe it should be your last post.
thank you for your post I had to make breakfast for my family sue me lol geesh
-
1 hour ago, whatdrought said:
Where is it being denounced? If there are any protestors who aren’t looting and burning, are they still going out to the protests that are now driven by looting and burning? If so, that’s their identity. You can’t say “we’re together, but only have of our group are anarchists.”You are labeling any protester as anarchist or criminal due to the majorities anger over a social injustice that has never been really fully addressed IMO.. the violence and destruction is being denounced in print and online by pundits, mayors of cities and many many people who sympathize with the frustration over police brutality. You as well as many others paint liberals, protesters, etc etc with such a broad brush ...generalizations are lazy and tired rhetoric its so easy to blame all as bad actors when a few radicals and criminals decide to take advantage of a bad situation making it worse
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:
Really reaching there. That is all you got after going on about people in this thread advocating violence against protesters?
BTW, I don't know how you missed the other questions I asked you; however, I will repost them:
(1) Show us where Trump advocated violence against protesters.
(2) As far as the criminals go, are you advocating that we just let them loot, vandalize, set fires, and assault people until they tire themselves out?
(3) If not, what would you do to stop them?
This is my last post for now rejoice and be glad lol.
1, His tweets
2. no
3. arrest them.
-
Just now, whatdrought said:
Where is it being denounced? If there are any protestors who aren’t looting and burning, are they still going out to the protests that are now driven by looting and burning? If so, that’s their identity. You can’t say “we’re together, but only have of our group are anarchists.”its being denounced by anyone with a non criminal mentality now YOU are being obtuse.
-
2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
I don’t need to know what every protestor is thinking to know that their entire movement is now defined by the looting and pillaging. Don’t be obtuse. If there are people who are honestly seeking to promote justice and stand up for the innocent, they aren’t being represented by the looters and burners and they need to renounce those actions. I have yet to see that.
As for the college HOF, someone else posted it.
you assume that looters and criminal actions aren't being renounced, especially by "liberals"....wrong. and I disagree with your generalized statement " know that their entire movement is now defined by the looting and pillaging." Wrong again.
1 minute ago, whatdrought said:
No you dipshit. We’re advocating violence against those burning and looting American cities to the ground.death penalty for looting....Gotcha.
-
Just now, billsfan1959 said:
As you stated, "...there is a difference between peaceful protesters and criminal behavior. HUGE difference..."
Peaceful protesters are protesters, criminals are criminals. Please show us one post where anyone advocated violence agains protesters (by your own definition). When you are done with that, then show us where Trump advocated violence against protesters.
As far as the criminals go, are you advocating that we just let them loot, vandalize, set fires, and assault people until they tire themselves out? If not, what would you do to stop them?
Please be specific. You have a tendency to make sweeping generalizations
bilzfancy "hoped" they would breach a barrier ...meaning there was no criminal activity happening at that point solely protest but he WANTED them to, wished they would.....why... so they'd be shot? SMH
Im not justifying squat
Liberal Protests
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
donald trump is president of not only his supporters but also protesters and those people whom are peacefully protesting. Why you would think it would be inappropriate for he to speak to THOSE people while at the same time condemning violence and the looters/criminals in their midst.