Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

                                       294482629_1001287433889746_3333984491933

 

 

 

 


What about when they threw the first boxes of tea?

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Did you actually just compare burning down a black neighborhood to the Boston tea party? 

Nope! Where did I say that?

Posted
4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Isn’t there enough disingenuous behavior here already?


I’m just trying to find the line between what damage to property is acceptable in a protest and what isn’t. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


I’m just trying to find the line between what damage to property is acceptable in a protest and what isn’t. 

Explain the thought process comparing the dumping of tea in a harbor to protest unfair taxation to breaking the window of a storefront (and taking a 65” flatscreen for oneself ) because a bad Cop somewhere killed a guy ? 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Explain the thought process comparing the dumping of tea in a harbor to protest unfair taxation to breaking the window of a storefront (and taking a 65” flatscreen for oneself ) because a bad Cop somewhere killed a guy ? 

I was directly responding to the post of throwing a brick, lighting a match, and taking down a statue.

 

All of those (I think it’s implied in the first two) are destruction of property and would amount to crimes if it wasn’t your property. 
 

I never mentioned, referred to, or responded to anything about burning down black neighborhoods or looting. I don’t appreciate words being put in my mouth, but I get that things can get heated in political discussions and we bring our own biases in, coloring the words we read.

 

I wanted to know if there was a line between types of property destruction or if it was simply the viewpoint or content of the speech of the person doing the destruction. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted (edited)

 

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I was directly responding to the post of throwing a brick, lighting a match, and taking down a statue.

 

All of those (I think it’s implied in the first two) are destruction of property and would amount to crimes if it wasn’t your property. 
 

I never mentioned, referred to, or responded to anything about burning down black neighborhoods or looting. I don’t appreciate words being put in my mouth, but I get that things can get heated in political discussions and we bring our own biases in, coloring the words we read.

 

I wanted to know if there was a line between types of property destruction or if it was simply the viewpoint or content of the speech of the person doing the destruction. 

 

well the line is if positive change resulted from the damage? one did and one did not imo. one was against a totalitarian enemy and one was against the very community and people that was claimed to be fought for.

 

so do you think black lives matter achieved a overall positive goal with the destruction caused?

 

Edited by Buffarukus
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

 

 

Today's Left, everyone.

 

These are the radicals that Joe Biden and Senate Democrats are too afraid of to condemn, so instead they remain silent and watch as these insane people endanger lives and attempt to destroy our country.

 

 

 

  • 2 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...