Liberal Protests

[billsfan1959]

3 minutes ago, Margarita said:

baloney. and Yes there is a difference between peaceful protesters and criminal behavior. HUGE difference but those non rubber bullets would be flying regardless at everyone there wouldnt they......

 

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

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Margarita said:

delusional thinking here again THANK YOU for speaking for the "they" you have not the slightest clue about. So many Solomons in here. lol 

 

 

I’m pretty sure the “they” he was referring to in his second paragraph were the same people in his first paragraph that he knows. ?

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, Margarita said:

Thank you for beong the voice of americans everywhere SMH ...just because you can lecture someone on a message board doesnt mean you are absolutely correct. How in hell do you know what every protester is thinking? THAT to me is idiotic

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. 

[KD in CA]

18 hours ago, Foxx said:

so... 

 

https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1266445008066002945

 

 

So by posting that you're basically announcing you support the Klan, right?

[muppy]

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

[whatdrought]

29 minutes ago, Margarita said:

some of the posters here (you) are advocating violence against protesters, Trumps tweets regarding this situation have made this situation worse. A voice of rationality was needed instead he like yourself seemingly is advocating violence. Insinuating that these protests are there as anti trump in hopes of hurting him nature vs anti police brutality.

 

Im not so naive as to think everyone protesting is solely due to the death of a black man at the hands of a bad white cop but   reading this thread makes me think the politicalization of this protest in some way supercedes its original cause. And I dont agree.

No you dipshit. We’re advocating violence against those burning and looting American cities to the ground. 

[muppy]

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.

[whatdrought]

Just now, Margarita said:

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.

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.”

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Margarita said:

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

 

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?

 

 

[muppy]

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.

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, Margarita said:

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.

death penalty for looting....Gotcha.

Renounced?  What trains a dog better?  Wagging your finger and saying “bad dog” or whacking him in the nose with a rolled up newsy?  

[muppy]

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.

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

its being denounced by anyone with a non criminal mentality now YOU are being obtuse.

Great! So now any protestors left are criminals. Any protest that composed of rioting, looting, theft, vandalism, attacking bystanders, burning building and cars, etc etc. is criminal and needs to be stopped with the full weight of the law and if they refuse to disperse/they attempt to cause physical harm to the lawmen, they should be shot dead in the streets. 
 

Protests without criminal activity are absolutely fine by me and I encourage them to continue. 

 

[KD in CA]

20 hours ago, Wacka said:

The wrote guy breaking windows was Amtifa. They are anarchists/cpmmunists and just want to foment unrest.  

 

This one is a perfect storm of lots of groups doing what comes naturally:

 

--anarchists taking an excuse to do their thing

--establishment left priming the pump to hurt Trump while continuing to hide Early Stage Joe

--ordinary people bored out of their minds from the lockdown taking the excuse to get out and scream and yell

--usual scumbags taking the opportunity to loot

--rich, white snowflakes who haven't had much to be 'outraged' over recently (other than someone not wearing a mask to the supermarket), can now cry on facebook over all the 'injustice'

 

 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Margarita said:

This is my last post for now rejoice and be glad lol.

 

1, His tweets

2. no

3. arrest them.

 

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.

[bilzfancy]

34 minutes ago, Margarita said:

here's one. I doubt those protesting were thereto loot the white house SMH

 

 

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?

[Chef Jim]

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Great! So now any protestors left are criminals. Any protest that composed of rioting, looting, theft, vandalism, attacking bystanders, burning building and cars, etc etc. is criminal and needs to be stopped with the full weight of the law and if they refuse to disperse/they attempt to cause physical harm to the lawmen, they should be shot dead in the streets. 
 

Protests without criminal activity are absolutely fine by me and I encourage them to continue. 

 

Shot dead?  No!  But cracking skulls?  You bet. 

 

 

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Can anyone possibly take the latest display of social unrest seriously when the ‘outraged, oppressed and aggrieved’ are making a statement by looting a case of bud light from the corner convenience store.? Way to stick it to The Man! 

 

It really shows how irrational its gotten when you're not even paying for the beer and you still get Bud Light.

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Shot dead?  No!  But cracking skulls?  You bet. 

 

 

Absolutely shot dead. If they resist and pose a direct threat to the lives of law enforcement? Yes. 
 

And in case you’re wondering if it could get that bad, check out Oakland, where a fed was killed last night. 

[bilzfancy]

38 minutes ago, bdutton said:

 

Yes... Trump tweeted something that he (nor any president) should ever tweet about shooting looters.

 

What is now common knowledge about the 'protesters' are that the vast majority are not there to protest.  Minnesota governor has stated that 80 of those arrested were from out of state.  These are agitators/anarchists/criminals that want nothing more than to burn *****, steal *****, and otherwise cause chaos, and when the Minnesota National Guard start shooting them they will conveniently say 'see!  Trump instigated this violence!'.  We will watch as CNN/ABS/NBC/NPR all give these criminals a voice to support the anti Trump narrative.

 

Anything to get *not Trump* elected.

 

Actually he did tweet about shooting looters.  Stupid thing to tweet but in the end he's right and the left will use that to further an agenda that breeds more violence and chaos.

Actually Trump never said shoot the looters, what he tweeted was once the looting starts, so does the shooting, meaning, the next step was people shooting as in one person in Minneapolis was shot and killed and 8 were shot and killed in Nashville

[whatdrought]

13 minutes ago, Margarita said:

This is my last post for now rejoice and be glad lol.

 

1, His tweets

2. no

3. arrest them.

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. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

Absolutely shot dead. If they resist and pose a direct threat to the lives of law enforcement? Yes. 
 

And in case you’re wondering if it could get that bad, check out Oakland, where a fed was killed last night. 

So you’re for shooting dead unarmed violent protesters?  You don’t see this as extreme?  Well of course you don’t. 

[3rdnlng]

I saw a picture this morning, don't remember where, but it was supposedly a group of black shop owners standing guard in front of their businesses. They had automatic weapons. Questions to be asked are: Do you think they had rubber bullets in their weapons? Do they have the right to use deadly force to protect their property? 

[billsfan1959]

Federal Protective Services officer shot and killed in Oakland, FBI says

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-protests-riots-federal-officer-killed-loot-15305272.php

 

I wonder how much outrage will be expressed over this. Oh well, he was in the law enforcement arena, so he was probably a racist anyway....

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

So you’re for shooting dead unarmed violent protesters?  You don’t see this as extreme?  Well of course you don’t. 

Let’s work on a couple things here: 

 

1- they’re not protestors when they begin engaging in criminal activity such as theft, vandalism, assault, etc. They’re criminals and anarchists. I appreciate their right to rebel against authority, but as with every revolution, the authority is expected and in their rights to use whatever means necessary to squash it- if they’re able.  
 

2- unarmed does not mean ***** when we’re talking about 200 to 1 numbers.  As with any situation involving law enforcement, a criminal refusing to listen to the law officers and approaching the officers with intent to do harm, deadly action is the officers right when it’s the last choice. 
 

3- they literally killed a federal agent in Oakland last night. In the middle of the ***** street.  
 

4- yes, under the circumstances wherein the men and women sent to stop the criminal rioting are in direct fear of their lives, I 100% respect and encourage the use of deadly force when no other option is present. 
 

5- extreme would be a logical person not understanding that and instead believing that our enforcement officers should be sent like sheep to the wolves. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by whatdrought

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I saw a picture this morning, don't remember where, but it was supposedly a group of black shop owners standing guard in front of their businesses. They had automatic weapons. Questions to be asked are: Do you think they had rubber bullets in their weapons? Do they have the right to use deadly force to protect their property? 

No they do not. 

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

So you’re for shooting dead unarmed violent protesters?  You don’t see this as extreme?  Well of course you don’t. 

The question to be considered is what is considered armed? We know guns are considered as being armed. What about knives? Molotov Cocktails? Cement blocks being thrown through windows to gain access? Ramming someone with a vehicle? 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, whatdrought said:

Let’s work on a couple things here: 

 

1- they’re not protestors when they begin engaging in criminal activity such as theft, vandalism, assault, etc. They’re criminals and anarchists. I appreciate their right to rebel against authority, but as with every revolution, the authority is expected and in their rights to use whatever means necessary to squash it- if they’re able.  
 

2- unarmed does not mean ***** when we’re talking about 200 to 1 numbers.  As with any situation involving law enforcement, a criminal refusing to listen to the law officers and approaching the officers with intent to do harm, deadly action is the officers right when it’s the last choice. 
 

3- they literally killed a federal agent in Oakland last night. In the middle of the ***** street.  
 

4- yes, under the circumstances wherein the men and women sent to stop the criminal rioting are in direct fear of their lives, I 100% respect and encourage the use of deadly force when no other option is present. 

I disagree. There are many non-lethal means to disperse violent crowds. 

[whatdrought]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

I disagree. There are many non-lethal means to disperse violent crowds. 

Tell that to the widow of the FBI agent killed on the streets of Oakland last night. 
 

I have made it abundantly clear that deadly force should be the last option for the protection of the men and women sent to end the riot. Clearly the opposition is not against deadly force. 

[Boatdrinks]

51 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...when you listen to spew like this from a skank in charge of the nation's "shooting gallery", you know what you're up against..............

Chicago mayor tells Trump 'F-U' after tweet about Minneapolis looting

By Louis Casiano | Fox News

 

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot blasted President Trump and invoked an expletive Friday in response to his tweets after three days of protests in Minneapolis, Minn., when he called the protesters "THUGS" and tweeted that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

“Donald Trump’s comment last night was profoundly dangerous,” Lightfoot said Friday during a news conference to discuss plans to reopen the city. “And we must stand firm in solidarity and say this is totally unacceptable no matter who is the speaker."

“He wants to show failures on the part of Democratic local leaders, to throw red meat to his base," she added, according to WGN9. "His goal is to polarize, to destabilize local government and inflame racist urges. We can absolutely not let him prevail. And I will code what I really want to say to Donald Trump. It’s two words. It begins with F and it ends with U.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-mayor-f-u-trump-george-floyd-minneapolis-looting-tweet

 

 

She oozes scum. Remember her proclamation to those who dare stand too close to each other ? They will be jailed! Meanwhile, actual criminals locked up in her city’s jail were set free. Now she’s supporting rioters and looters while spewing racist garbage. 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The question to be considered is what is considered armed? We know guns are considered as being armed. What about knives? Molotov Cocktails? Cement blocks being thrown through windows to gain access? Ramming someone with a vehicle? 

Now it’s being threatened with bodily harm. Which is it. Protecting their business or their lives?

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Now it’s being threatened with bodily harm. Which is it. Protecting their business or their lives?

I think he was engaging a separate post of yours, unrelated to the businessmen conversation. 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Tell that to the widow of the FBI agent killed on the streets of Oakland last night. 
 

I have made it abundantly clear that deadly force should be the last option for the protection of the men and women sent to end the riot. Clearly the opposition is not against deadly force. 

Good luck with the long term ramifications of law enforcement going in guns a blazin. 

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

I think he was engaging a separate post of yours, unrelated to the businessmen conversation. 

No I don’t think he was. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Now it’s being threatened with bodily harm. Which is it. Protecting their business or their lives?

Do you really think in reality that you can separate the two? 

[whatdrought]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Good luck with the long term ramifications of law enforcement going in guns a blazin. 

You’re completely ignoring the context of what I said in order to push your idea of what I said. 
 

The. Last. Option. 
 

I clearly do not want to see them shooting people dead from 50 yards to end the riot. But I also don’t want to see our LEO’s muzzled to the point that they are in danger and unable to counter deadly force with deadly force. Furthermore, these deadly riots won’t be squashed unless the police are allowed to stand their ground up to the point of meeting deadly force with deadly force.

 

You’ve gone out of your way to ignore the fact that an FBI agent was murdered by your so-called “protestors” last night... do you think the moment before he was shot to death that he had the right to end the life of those trying to end his? Answer this question. 

[Needle]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

And you are all part of the culture and therefore play a role in determining the outcome. Strange how libs, trumpers, minorities, professional agitators, all demand to be heard and demand their rights and freedoms. Complaints that someone else is stopping their right to freedom. I HAVE  THE RIGHT TO DO THIS, OR SAY THIS ETC. THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED ETC

Most of us were born with one mouth and 2 ears. They should be used in that proportion if you want to change the situation.

I'm sorry but I'm not a part of that culture and I don't accept any responsibility either. I'm 40 years old and have never been arrested or even close to it. I came from a blue collar upbringing and have had a job since I was 15. I am a Marine Corps vet, small business owner, and father of three. I try to be the best I can for my family. 

 

Who should I be listening to with my ears?

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Do you really think in reality that you can separate the two? 

Absolutely!  And in a court of law you better be dammed ready to. If you shoot someone in your home or place of business you better have some damn good proof your life was in danger. 

[Chef Jim]

16 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

You’re completely ignoring the context of what I said in order to push your idea of what I said. 
 

The. Last. Option. 
 

I clearly do not want to see them shooting people dead from 50 yards to end the riot. But I also don’t want to see our LEO’s muzzled to the point that they are in danger and unable to counter deadly force with deadly force. Furthermore, these deadly riots won’t be squashed unless the police are allowed to stand their ground up to the point of meeting deadly force with deadly force.

 

You’ve gone out of your way to ignore the fact that an FBI agent was murdered by your so-called “protestors” last night... do you think the moment before he was shot to death that he had the right to end the life of those trying to end his? Answer this question. 

Again you shoot dead unarmed violent protesters (and a vast majority of them are unarmed) it’s not going to end well.  That’s a damn slippery slope. 
 

And regarding your FBI agent comment. I won’t address it at this point until you come back with some facts in the case because you obviously don’t have them. 

[njbuff]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

Chicago mayor tells Trump 'F-U' after tweet about Minneapolis looting

 

“He wants to show failures on the part of Democratic local leaders, to throw red meat to his base," she added, according to WGN9. "His goal is to polarize, to destabilize local government and inflame racist urges. We can absolutely not let him prevail. And I will code what I really want to say to Donald Trump. It’s two words. It begins with F and it ends with U.”

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-mayor-f-u-trump-george-floyd-minneapolis-looting-tweet

 

I think shes starting to like him

 

What do you expect from an ugly-azz Brillo-haired lesbian.

[Buffalo_Gal]