CHAZ Seattle Observations

[RocCityRoller]

So 'Lefty' Anarchists have secured a multi block Autonomous Zone in Seattle called CHAZ (Capital Hill Autonomous Zone)

 

A few observations.

 

Other than Karen, could the founders have found a more 'white' name than CHAZ? Solid way to honor Black Lives Matter.

 

1) The first thing CHAZ did was set up a barricade around its perimeter.

It's almost like the founders of CHAZ want to define its borders and place physical barriers to entry by 'undesirables'.

I thought borders, walls and barriers to entry were a bad thing.

According to lefties a few months ago physical barriers to state perimeters were dumb and forbidden.

 

2) CHAZ has guards armed with AR-15s.

Is the left pro 2nd amendment now?

I thought semi-automtic and automatic weapons were the provision of weirdos and 'racists' on the right.

I thought armed border guards were a no-no according to the left.

I thought armed police were a no-no.

 

3) CHAZ does identification checks at their 'border'.

I thought requiring IDs was 'racist'. Don't I recall the left fighting against needing ID to vote/ enter the country/ applying for benefits?

The thought among the left was that minorities are disadvantaged to voting due to ID requirements.

They would know since Democrats installed Jim Crow laws in the South to prevent minorities from voting from @1865 to @1950

 

So the lefty anarchists have set up an autonomous zone with a defined border marked by barricade, patrolled by armed guards with semi-automatic weapns, policed by armed guards with semi-automatic weapons, and requiring a valid ID to enter.

 

Once again without double standards the left would have none.

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by RocCityRoller

[Unforgiven]

16 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said:

So 'Lefty' Anarchists have secured a multi block Autonomous Zone in Seattle called CHAZ (Capital Hill Autonomous Zone)

 

A few observations.

 

Other than Karen, could the founders have found a more 'white' name than CHAZ? Solid way to honor Black Lives Matter.

 

1) The first thing CHAZ did was set up a barricade around its perimeter.

It's almost like the founders of CHAZ want to define its borders and place physical barriers to entry by 'undesirables'.

I thought borders, walls and barriers to entry were a bad thing.

According to lefties a few months ago physical barriers to state perimeters were dumb and forbidden.

 

2) CHAZ has guards armed with AR-15s.

Is the left pro 2nd amendment now?

I thought semi-automtic and automatic weapons were the provision of weirdos and 'racists' on the right.

I thought armed border guards were a no-no according to the left.

I thought armed police were a no-no.

 

3) CHAZ does identification checks at their 'border'.

I thought requiring IDs was 'racist'. Don't I recall the left fighting against needing ID to vote/ enter the country/ applying for benefits?

The thought among the left was that minorities are disadvantaged to voting due to ID requirements.

They would know since Democrats installed Jim Crow laws in the South to prevent minorities from voting from @1865 to @1950

 

So the lefty anarchists have set up an autonomous zone with a defined border marked by barricade, patrolled by armed guards with semi-automatic weapns, policed by armed guards with semi-automatic weapons, and requiring a valid ID to enter.

 

Once again without double standards the left would have none.

 

They are all hypocrites and cowards. So are our "leaders".

I now fully understand FTW.

[Gene Frenkle]

Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle’s protests, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

On Saturday, Fox apologized in an editor’s note posted to stories about CHAZ on its website, sayings its home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. The editor’s note also acknowledged the erroneous use of the Minnesota rioting photo to illustrate Seattle news. “Fox News regrets these errors,” the note stated.

 

The network’s misleading and faked images were published as the Capitol Hill zone — quickly labeled CHAZ — became a political flashpoint for conservatives nationally and a target of tweets by President Donald Trump, who has branded the demonstrators “domestic terrorists” and threatened federal action unless local officials “take back” the area.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/

Edited June 14, 2020 by Gene Frenkle

[4merper4mer]

5 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle’s protests, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

On Saturday, Fox apologized in an editor’s note posted to stories about CHAZ on its website, sayings its home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. The editor’s note also acknowledged the erroneous use of the Minnesota rioting photo to illustrate Seattle news. “Fox News regrets these errors,” the note stated.

 

The network’s misleading and faked images were published as the Capitol Hill zone — quickly labeled CHAZ — became a political flashpoint for conservatives nationally and a target of tweets by President Donald Trump, who has branded the demonstrators “domestic terrorists” and threatened federal action unless local officials “take back” the area.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/

It's not really there.

[Gene Frenkle]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

It's not really there.

 

It's like, all in your perception, man.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

It's like, all in your perception, man.

 

[RocCityRoller]

17 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

They are all hypocrites and cowards. So are our "leaders".

I now fully understand FTW.

 

IMO the left suffers from 'group think'. Group think is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation. (think like I do, speak like I do)

 

Schools and colleges are filled 85-90% with lefties. Students are not even exposed to classical liberal thought or any system of ideas counter to the modern left post-modernism and statism they are drilled with.

 

Adam Smith - not taught

John Locke and the Tabula Rasa (originally Aristotle) - definitely not taught

Anything Classical Liberal and advocating the power and rights of the individual - not taught

 

The problem with group think is extremism. Group think is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. Unchecked it leads to extremes in thought. When a group of people all think the same thing, a dynamic occurs that creates extremist thought. People in the group want to be most in line with the group dynamic, and edge toward the fringe of the original agreement. It is not enough to be 'x', they need to be the best 'x'.

 

This is happening in schools and colleges across the country. Many young adults are programmed to believe that going to college is the only way ahead. Once in college, no matter the degree, they are taught that they are elite, above reproach and filled with the post modernist and statist ideas espoused by their loser professors.

 

Once in the real world a person with 100k in debt, a worthless degree and a 4-8 yr indoctrination of elitism finds themself not worth so much in the job market.

 

'How can this be?' 'I am educated, I am elite.'

'If society doesn't need my 3.0 in a gender studies/ anthropology etc degree the system must be broken.'

[RocCityRoller]

36 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle’s protests, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

On Saturday, Fox apologized in an editor’s note posted to stories about CHAZ on its website, sayings its home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. The editor’s note also acknowledged the erroneous use of the Minnesota rioting photo to illustrate Seattle news. “Fox News regrets these errors,” the note stated.

 

The network’s misleading and faked images were published as the Capitol Hill zone — quickly labeled CHAZ — became a political flashpoint for conservatives nationally and a target of tweets by President Donald Trump, who has branded the demonstrators “domestic terrorists” and threatened federal action unless local officials “take back” the area.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/

 

Not sure how this supports or denounces what I said. Seems like BLM and CHAZ not 100% in alignment.

 

Either way not really the point.

 

Borders, armed guards and ID required is the point, by people who said this was backwards, wrong and 'racist' just a few months ago.

 

I support these measures 100%, for a legally recognized state.

When I want them I am labelled a racist, backwards, deplorable.

When the left does it, it's common sense.

 

Double standard.

Edited June 14, 2020 by RocCityRoller

[GregPersons]

4 hours ago, RocCityRoller said:

So 'Lefty' Anarchists have secured a multi block Autonomous Zone in Seattle called CHAZ (Capital Hill Autonomous Zone)

 

A few observations.

 

Other than Karen, could the founders have found a more 'white' name than CHAZ? Solid way to honor Black Lives Matter.

 

1) The first thing CHAZ did was set up a barricade around its perimeter.

It's almost like the founders of CHAZ want to define its borders and place physical barriers to entry by 'undesirables'.

I thought borders, walls and barriers to entry were a bad thing.

According to lefties a few months ago physical barriers to state perimeters were dumb and forbidden.

 

2) CHAZ has guards armed with AR-15s.

Is the left pro 2nd amendment now?

I thought semi-automtic and automatic weapons were the provision of weirdos and 'racists' on the right.

I thought armed border guards were a no-no according to the left.

I thought armed police were a no-no.

 

3) CHAZ does identification checks at their 'border'.

I thought requiring IDs was 'racist'. Don't I recall the left fighting against needing ID to vote/ enter the country/ applying for benefits?

The thought among the left was that minorities are disadvantaged to voting due to ID requirements.

They would know since Democrats installed Jim Crow laws in the South to prevent minorities from voting from @1865 to @1950

 

So the lefty anarchists have set up an autonomous zone with a defined border marked by barricade, patrolled by armed guards with semi-automatic weapns, policed by armed guards with semi-automatic weapons, and requiring a valid ID to enter.

 

Once again without double standards the left would have none.

 

 

I'm not an expert on the CHAZ situation, but I can answer some of your "lefties are hypocrites" accusations below in bold.

 

1) The first thing CHAZ did was set up a barricade around its perimeter.

It's almost like the founders of CHAZ want to define its borders and place physical barriers to entry by 'undesirables'.

I thought borders, walls and barriers to entry were a bad thing.

According to lefties a few months ago physical barriers to state perimeters were dumb and forbidden.  

This is an imaginary strawman argument. Left supports "open borders", not "no barriers." There's a difference. The CHAZ is an example of an open border.

 

2) CHAZ has guards armed with AR-15s.

Is the left pro 2nd amendment now?

I thought semi-automtic and automatic weapons were the provision of weirdos and 'racists' on the right.

I thought armed border guards were a no-no according to the left.

I thought armed police were a no-no.

The left has always been more pro-2nd amendment than the right. The left supports "regulated" arms. The right wants unfettered access. This is an example of "well regulated militia." 

Did you know it was the NRA that originally wanted gun control? This was in the 1960s after Black Panthers were photographed "storming" a capitol building with assault weapons. (Nobody was injured; it was performative, and enough to scare the sh!t out of White Americans)

 

3) CHAZ does identification checks at their 'border'.

I thought requiring IDs was 'racist'. Don't I recall the left fighting against needing ID to vote/ enter the country/ applying for benefits?

The thought among the left was that minorities are disadvantaged to voting due to ID requirements.

They would know since Democrats installed Jim Crow laws in the South to prevent minorities from voting from @1865 to @1950

 

Voting requirements are specifically there to disadvantage minorities. How you can bring this up in one line and Jim Crow in the next and not understand that is incredible.

Voting ought to be automatic enroll based on SSN, and ID shouldn't be necessary other than as one form of possible identity verification when casting a ballot.

Prior to the 1960s, the Democrat Party were the party of conservatism, and right-wing thinking. "Dixiecrats" became the "Republicans" after the Civil Rights Act. This is why it's always hysterical when modern Republicans try to claim Lincoln as one of their own. It's not the same party at all, ideologically.

Learn your country's history before speaking on it.

Edited June 14, 2020 by GregPersons

[GregPersons]

3 hours ago, RocCityRoller said:

 

Not sure how this supports or denounces what I said. Seems like BLM and CHAZ not 100% in alignment.

 

Either way not really the point.

 

Borders, armed guards and ID required is the point, by people who said this was backwards, wrong and 'racist' just a few months ago.

 

I support these measures 100%, for a legally recognized state.

When I want them I am labelled a racist, backwards, deplorable.

When the left does it, it's common sense.

 

Double standard.

 

 

Not really supporting/denouncing your position but to clarify about the Fox News photoshop, it's just worth considering that the media is actively manipulating opinions about this. It's not subtle.

 

 

 

As to your position, no leftist I know opposes "Borders, armed guards and ID" — however where you will find disagreement is on the usage of those tools. But when you state it like that, it does make it seem like the left is more unreasonable, so I get why you'd be less specific. 

 

The simple reality is that there just aren't that many "double standards" on the left. It's a pretty consistent standard! Peace, freedom, liberty and equality for all. 

 

The right likes to disagree with all of those standards but likes to claim the words as their own, because they do sound like good principles. And it's easy to say you're for "peace, freedom, liberty and equality for all" without actually living up to it, which, there's no examples of Republicans living up to those principles. You don't see a lot of Republicans crusading for peace or freedom or anything that is "for all."

Edited June 14, 2020 by GregPersons

[Reality Check]

2 hours ago, GregPersons said:

 

 

Not really supporting/denouncing your position but to clarify about the Fox News photoshop, it's just worth considering that the media is actively manipulating opinions about this. It's not subtle.

 

 

 

As to your position, no leftist I know opposes "Borders, armed guards and ID" — however where you will find disagreement is on the usage of those tools. But when you state it like that, it does make it seem like the left is more unreasonable, so I get why you'd be less specific. 

 

The simple reality is that there just aren't that many "double standards" on the left. It's a pretty consistent standard! Peace, freedom, liberty and equality for all. 

 

The right likes to disagree with all of those standards but likes to claim the words as their own, because they do sound like good principles. And it's easy to say you're for "peace, freedom, liberty and equality for all" without actually living up to it, which, there's no examples of Republicans living up to those principles. You don't see a lot of Republicans crusading for peace or freedom or anything that is "for all."

How is Chaz these days? Is it what you had hoped for? Also, what is your solution to black on black violence?

[GregPersons]

Just now, Reality Check said:

How is Chaz these days? Is it what you had hoped for? Also, what is your solution to black on black violence?

 

You'd know if you read the post you quoted. Also, here you go,

 

Also, what is your solution to white on black violence? Also, what is your definition of harassment? 

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, GregPersons said:

 

I'm not an expert on the CHAZ situation, but I can answer some of your "lefties are hypocrites" accusations below in bold.

 

1) The first thing CHAZ did was set up a barricade around its perimeter.

It's almost like the founders of CHAZ want to define its borders and place physical barriers to entry by 'undesirables'.

I thought borders, walls and barriers to entry were a bad thing.

According to lefties a few months ago physical barriers to state perimeters were dumb and forbidden.  

This is an imaginary strawman argument. Left supports "open borders", not "no barriers." There's a difference. The CHAZ is an example of an open border.

 

2) CHAZ has guards armed with AR-15s.

Is the left pro 2nd amendment now?

I thought semi-automtic and automatic weapons were the provision of weirdos and 'racists' on the right.

I thought armed border guards were a no-no according to the left.

I thought armed police were a no-no.

The left has always been more pro-2nd amendment than the right. The left supports "regulated" arms. The right wants unfettered access. This is an example of "well regulated militia." 

Did you know it was the NRA that originally wanted gun control? This was in the 1960s after Black Panthers were photographed "storming" a capitol building with assault weapons. (Nobody was injured; it was performative, and enough to scare the sh!t out of White Americans)

 

3) CHAZ does identification checks at their 'border'.

I thought requiring IDs was 'racist'. Don't I recall the left fighting against needing ID to vote/ enter the country/ applying for benefits?

The thought among the left was that minorities are disadvantaged to voting due to ID requirements.

They would know since Democrats installed Jim Crow laws in the South to prevent minorities from voting from @1865 to @1950

 

Voting requirements are specifically there to disadvantage minorities. How you can bring this up in one line and Jim Crow in the next and not understand that is incredible.

Voting ought to be automatic enroll based on SSN, and ID shouldn't be necessary other than as one form of possible identity verification when casting a ballot.

Prior to the 1960s, the Democrat Party were the party of conservatism, and right-wing thinking. "Dixiecrats" became the "Republicans" after the Civil Rights Act. This is why it's always hysterical when modern Republicans try to claim Lincoln as one of their own. It's not the same party at all, ideologically.

Learn your country's history before speaking on it.

wow. i knew you were out there but i didn't know just how delusional you were. i think you should seriously consider seeking help for the disconnect you have with the realities on the ground.

 

2 hours ago, GregPersons said:

... it's just worth considering that the media is actively manipulating opinions about this. It's not subtle. ...

 

yes, the media is actively manipulating opinion. is that a news flash of some sort?

[Reality Check]

8 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

You'd know if you read the post you quoted. Also, here you go,

 

Also, what is your solution to white on black violence? Also, what is your definition of harassment? 

Harassment on the PPP message board is about as real of a crime as Russian collusion. Are you saying that black on black violence is good as long as a white person doesn't do it? Do you support the abortion of black babies too?

[GregPersons]

Just now, Foxx said:

wow. i knew you were out there but i didn't know just how delusional you were. i think you should seriously consider seeking help for the disconnect you have with the realities on the ground.

 

yes, the media is actively manipulating opinion. is that a news flash of some sort?

 

Your first line answers your last question

Just now, Reality Check said:

Harassment on the PPP message board is about as real of a crime as Russian collusion. Are you saying that black on black violence is good as long as a white person doesn't do it? Do you support the abortion of black babies too?

 

What a series of stupid questions. Are you saying white on white violence is OK? What is your solution to white on white violence?

 

Abortion is best when you're involved. Any future sexual assault victims of yours would be well advised.

[Foxx]

also, i see where they have instituted reparations in CHAZ already. every white person there had to give one black person $10 before they left. 

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

also, i see where they have instituted reparations in CHAZ already. every white person there had to give one black person $10 before they left. 

 

The $10 bit was a fiction from a right-wing troll account that spread among dumbasses looking for things to confirm their own beliefs. Well done. 

 

You're much too clever to fall for manipulation........................................................

 

Quote

wow. i knew you were out there but i didn't know just how delusional you were. i think you should seriously consider seeking help for the disconnect you have with the realities on the ground.

 

yes, the media is actively manipulating opinion. is that a news flash of some sort?

 

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

Your first line answers your last question  ...

you're delusional on the news front too? mmmkay.

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

you're delusional on the news front too? mmmkay.

 

You just tried repeating this as fact. It literally states in his bio that he's a MAGA troll. You fell for it.... because.... you are too stupid.... to know.... that you are stupid.

 

If you weren't stupid.... you wouldn't try so hard... to insist on various fictions.... but.... that is what you are doing.... to maintain your delusion.... that you aren't stupid. Tried to speak slowly.

 

This is the account that popularized it, a MAGA influencer. The video comes from FromKalen, who is recipient of mysterious conservative funding (just like Daily Wire and all these other right-wing mouthpiece jokers -- literally a mind control conspiracy that only dumb people fall for, but, I've also seen dumb people for Scientology; dumb people gonna be dumb and believe the ***** they wanna believe) for Scriberr, which declares itself non-partisan but only perpetuates right-wing talking points.

 

 

OK? So when you go "HA! Media manipulation? You think I'd ever fall for that?" You... just.... DID.

 

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, GregPersons said:

 

The $10 bit was a fiction from a right-wing troll account that spread among dumbasses looking for things to confirm their own beliefs. Well done. 

 

You're much too clever to fall for manipulation........................................................

 

 

lemme guess... Snopes debunked it.

amirigggghhhhttttt???

 

you're an idiot.

 

https://twitter.com/DianeRMurray/status/1271799069170679808

 

[Reality Check]

6 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

Your first line answers your last question

 

What a series of stupid questions. Are you saying white on white violence is OK? What is your solution to white on white violence?

 

Abortion is best when you're involved. Any future sexual assault victims of yours would be well advised.

Violence isn't relevant to me. It is to you though. Your position is that black on black violence is good as long as a white person doesn't do it. You and many others are complete hypocrites on the subject. You also support black people killing their babies. Do you also support black people calling each other the N-word? You seem to support everything that is destroying the black community. You also fail to mention all the drugs pumped into the inner cities destroying black families. What is your % on being a racist yourself?

[GregPersons]

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Violence isn't relevant to me. It is to you though. Your position is that black on black violence is good as long as a white person doesn't do it. You and many others are complete hypocrites on the subject. You also support black people killing their babies. Do you also support black people calling each other the N-word? You seem to support everything that is destroying the black community. You also fail to mention all the drugs pumped into the inner cities destroying black families. What is your % on being a racist yourself?

 

What is your solution to white on white violence?

 

What is your solution to police violence?

 

Do you support white people using the N-word "since black people do it"?  Since you're not afraid of violence, why not make a point of putting your money where your mouth is?  Use that word in a video to help promote your business. It'd get people to see it.

Edited June 14, 2020 by GregPersons

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, GregPersons said:

 

What is your solution to white on white violence?

 

What is your solution to police violence?

You are good with violence from anybody but a white person. You are the racist apparently. 

[GregPersons]

Just now, Reality Check said:

You are good with violence from anybody but a white person. You are the racist apparently. 

 

Are you okay with violence as long as a white person is not the victim? 

Are you okay with violence as long as someone you know isn't the victim? 

 

To what degree are you okay with violence? Would you mind saying so on camera and also promote your business?

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

Are you okay with violence as long as a white person is not the victim? 

Are you okay with violence as long as someone you know isn't the victim? 

 

To what degree are you okay with violence? Would you mind saying so on camera and also promote your business?

obsess much?

[GregPersons]

Just now, Foxx said:

obsess much?

 

Check it out — Reality Check is following my every post with the same exact message, copy/pasted. I'm simply responding to him in kind. 

[Reality Check]

Just now, GregPersons said:

 

Are you okay with violence as long as a white person is not the victim? 

Are you okay with violence as long as someone you know isn't the victim? 

 

To what degree are you okay with violence? Would you mind saying so on camera and also promote your business?

You are fine with black people killing each other, aborting their babies, and calling each other the N-word. When did you become such a racist?

 

Violence isn't an issue for me. People crying about violence while committing violence is hypocrisy. That does bother me. If you can't defend yourself, stay home.

 

As for my business, that, like many things, is something that you know nothing about. If you support violence, just say so. Just don't give me the hypocritical race garbage with it.

1 minute ago, GregPersons said:

 

Check it out — Reality Check is following my every post with the same exact message, copy/pasted. I'm simply responding to him in kind. 

Wrong again. I actually care enough to type it out for you. You support violence in the black community as long as a white person doesn't do it.

[GregPersons]

Just now, Reality Check said:

You are fine with black people killing each other, aborting their babies, and calling each other the N-word. When did you become such a racist?

 

Violence isn't an issue for me. People crying about violence while committing violence is hypocrisy. That does bother me. If you can't defend yourself, stay home.

 

As for my business, that, like many things, is something that you know nothing about. If you support violence, just say so. Just don't give me the hypocritical race garbage with it.

 

Are you fine with white people killing each other?

When does violence matter to you? Does it matter if it affects someone you know? Or only you, personally? Is violence an issue if your mom is raped? What if she's raped by a white man? What are you doing about white on white rape?

 

Should you be able to say the N word since black people do it? I'm sure you feel like you do. So why not go ahead and do so on camera, and help us promote your business. Guarantee that'll make people interested. You'll probably get new customers who like you a lot, even.

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Wrong again. I actually care enough to type it out for you. You support violence in the black community as long as a white person doesn't do it.

 

Well that is maybe not surprising that you'd harass me in the stupidest way possible. Show me any post where I say I support that. Do you have a lot of imaginary friends? You seem pretty good at making up imaginary people. 

[RocCityRoller]

2 hours ago, GregPersons said:

 

I'm not an expert on the CHAZ situation, but I can answer some of your "lefties are hypocrites" accusations below in bold.

 

1) The first thing CHAZ did was set up a barricade around its perimeter.

It's almost like the founders of CHAZ want to define its borders and place physical barriers to entry by 'undesirables'.

I thought borders, walls and barriers to entry were a bad thing.

According to lefties a few months ago physical barriers to state perimeters were dumb and forbidden.  

This is an imaginary strawman argument. Left supports "open borders", not "no barriers." There's a difference. The CHAZ is an example of an open border.

 

2) CHAZ has guards armed with AR-15s.

Is the left pro 2nd amendment now?

I thought semi-automtic and automatic weapons were the provision of weirdos and 'racists' on the right.

I thought armed border guards were a no-no according to the left.

I thought armed police were a no-no.

The left has always been more pro-2nd amendment than the right. The left supports "regulated" arms. The right wants unfettered access. This is an example of "well regulated militia." 

Did you know it was the NRA that originally wanted gun control? This was in the 1960s after Black Panthers were photographed "storming" a capitol building with assault weapons. (Nobody was injured; it was performative, and enough to scare the sh!t out of White Americans)

 

3) CHAZ does identification checks at their 'border'.

I thought requiring IDs was 'racist'. Don't I recall the left fighting against needing ID to vote/ enter the country/ applying for benefits?

The thought among the left was that minorities are disadvantaged to voting due to ID requirements.

They would know since Democrats installed Jim Crow laws in the South to prevent minorities from voting from @1865 to @1950

 

Voting requirements are specifically there to disadvantage minorities. How you can bring this up in one line and Jim Crow in the next and not understand that is incredible.

Voting ought to be automatic enroll based on SSN, and ID shouldn't be necessary other than as one form of possible identity verification when casting a ballot.

Prior to the 1960s, the Democrat Party were the party of conservatism, and right-wing thinking. "Dixiecrats" became the "Republicans" after the Civil Rights Act. This is why it's always hysterical when modern Republicans try to claim Lincoln as one of their own. It's not the same party at all, ideologically.

Learn your country's history before speaking on it.

Nothing you posted here makes any sense. So I am going Socratic with you. You are free to reply to any of the posts I have replied to you in any number of topics.

You are mad at my 'straw man' arguments, but feel free to attack me with ad hominem arguments when it suits you.

 

1) What is an open border vs a non barrier? Please explain your definition.

I see barriers to entry to CHAZ, that is not inclusive.

 

2) What is the difference between 'regulated arms' vs 'unfettered access'? Who decides?

Just a week or so ago the left was anti-arms. Actually this has been hundreds of years long.

Why does the republic feel a need to bear arms? Will a militia stop anything?

Why would a citizen feel the need to bear arms?

 

That was the left argument until this week.

 

I find it funny that a defund the police supporter wants to see MS-13 and others out arm any semblance of police.

See other post since you seem confused.

 

If I may speak for 'the right' (and I don't) we want 'regulated access' to our borders

your 'borders' are made up.

 

3) proof of a SSID is ID.

The left feels minorities can not provide proper documentation.

This has been captured on 'joke' telecasts by late night talk show hosts for years,

otherwise an ID requirement would have passed long ago.

 

I think Black America was and is insulted by this, I'll let MLK speak for himself:

 

 

 

 

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, RocCityRoller said:

Nothing you posted here makes any sense. So I am going Socratic with you. You are free to reply to any of the posts I have replied to you in any number of topics.

You are mad at my 'straw man' arguments, but feel free to attack me with ad hominem arguments when it suits you.

 

1) What is an open border vs a non barrier? Please explain your definition.

I see barriers to entry to CHAZ, that is not inclusive.

 

Open border means people should be free to migrate wherever they choose.

 

Barrier is both physical and conceptual. There should be a regulated process of admission. For example, a murderer fleeing to another country, should be returned home to face justice. Otherwise, the migration should be free. 

 

Does this make sense?

 

1 minute ago, RocCityRoller said:

 

2) What is the difference between 'regulated arms' vs 'unfettered access'? Who decides?

Just a week or so ago the left was anti-arms. Actually this has been hundreds of years long.

Why does the republic feel a need to bear arms? Will a militia stop anything?

Why would a citizen feel the need to bear arms?

 

That was the left argument until this week.

 

I find it funny that a defund the police supporter wants to see MS-13 and others out arm any semblance of police.

See other post since you seem confused.

 

The left is pro-gun control. Not anti-guns. This is a common distortion by the right. The left's positions are consistently distorted (see Fox News, Daily Wire, etc) so the right has red meat. 

 

The left has not always been pro-gun control, either, and America has not always been so flooded with guns to the degree it is today. Again it's interesting to note that the first gun control legislation came from NRA's white members because of the Black Panthers owning guns.

 

Unclear where I said anything about MS-13 out-arming the police. However you are right to compare a gang to the police; they are both gangs. One has the law and the other doesn't. The group behavior is identical.

 

1 minute ago, RocCityRoller said:

If I may speak for 'the right' (and I don't) we want 'regulated access' to our borders

your 'borders' are made up.

 

3) proof of a SSID is ID.

The left feels minorities can not provide proper documentation.

This has been captured on 'joke' telecasts by late night talk show hosts for years,

otherwise an ID requirement would have passed long ago.

 

I think Black America was and is insulted by this, I'll let MLK speak for himself:

 

All "borders" are made up. They are all fictional, made real through enforcement. 

 

The documentation required of minorities -- as it has been since Jim Crow -- is used as a tool for oppression. This is what the left opposes.

 

Documentation as a general concept to prove ID is not opposed. The idea is that there are many forms of ID that can prove a person's identity; work stubs, for an example. If you can work in America, you should be able to vote. Do you disagree with that? Probably, based on your other positions, you do. That's where the disagreement on "borders" come in.

 

I find it shocking that you would post the quote from MLK and not see yourself, or at least, many of the PPP posters here who claim to be "not racist" in their hearts but find the idea of being "anti racist" in their words/actions to be either unnecessary or unthinkable.  That's who he is talking about... the bystanders. 

[Reality Check]

14 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

Are you fine with white people killing each other?

When does violence matter to you? Does it matter if it affects someone you know? Or only you, personally? Is violence an issue if your mom is raped? What if she's raped by a white man? What are you doing about white on white rape?

 

Should you be able to say the N word since black people do it? I'm sure you feel like you do. So why not go ahead and do so on camera, and help us promote your business. Guarantee that'll make people interested. You'll probably get new customers who like you a lot, even.

 

Well that is maybe not surprising that you'd harass me in the stupidest way possible. Show me any post where I say I support that. Do you have a lot of imaginary friends? You seem pretty good at making up imaginary people. 

Of course you support that. All you do is "white man bad", just like your friends with the "orange man bad" nonsense. The only racist here that I see on PPP is you. Your childish deflection won't change the fact that you are a hypocrite.

1 minute ago, GregPersons said:

 

Open border means people should be free to migrate wherever they choose.

 

Barrier is both physical and conceptual. There should be a regulated process of admission. For example, a murderer fleeing to another country, should be returned home to face justice. Otherwise, the migration should be free. 

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

The left is pro-gun control. Not anti-guns. This is a common distortion by the right. The left's positions are consistently distorted (see Fox News, Daily Wire, etc) so the right has red meat. 

 

The left has not always been pro-gun control, either, and America has not always been so flooded with guns to the degree it is today. Again it's interesting to note that the first gun control legislation came from NRA's white members because of the Black Panthers owning guns.

 

Unclear where I said anything about MS-13 out-arming the police. However you are right to compare a gang to the police; they are both gangs. One has the law and the other doesn't. The group behavior is identical.

 

 

All "borders" are made up. They are all fictional, made real through enforcement. 

 

The documentation required of minorities -- as it has been since Jim Crow -- is used as a tool for oppression. This is what the left opposes.

 

Documentation as a general concept to prove ID is not opposed. The idea is that there are many forms of ID that can prove a person's identity; work stubs, for an example. If you can work in America, you should be able to vote. Do you disagree with that? Probably, based on your other positions, you do. That's where the disagreement on "borders" come in.

 

I find it shocking that you would post the quote from MLK and not see yourself, or at least, many of the PPP posters here who claim to be "not racist" in their hearts but find the idea of being "anti racist" in their words/actions to be either unnecessary or unthinkable.  That's who he is talking about... the bystanders. 

Why can't you admit that you are a racist?

[Foxx]

riiiight. the left just want to control guns into nonexistence with all their, 'laws'.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Foxx

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

riiiight. the left just want to control guns into nonexistence with all their 'laws'.

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Of course you support that. All you do is "white man bad", just like your friends with the "orange man bad" nonsense. The only racist here that I see on PPP is you. Your childish deflection won't change the fact that you are a hypocrite.

Why can't you admit that you are a racist?

 

This is what I mean. You guys have to make up the opposition's positions in order to disagree with them. Go off! Use those imaginations, babies!

Edited June 14, 2020 by GregPersons

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, GregPersons said:

 

This is what I mean. You guys have to make up the opposition's positions in order to disagree with them. Go off!

lol. your are truly out there. who just made up the oppositions position?

 

holy schmoly, up is down, left is right, wet is dry in your ***** world, ain't it?

Edited June 14, 2020 by Foxx

[GregPersons]

Just now, Foxx said:

lol. your are truly out there. who just made up the oppositions position. 

 

holy schmoly, up is down, left is right, wet is dry in your ***** world, ain't it?

 

What did I make up? Right after I told you the left position on guns, you then insisted to me it was something different. Is that not what happened? It's on this page. You just have to scroll up.

[Reality Check]

11 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

This is what I mean. You guys have to make up the opposition's positions in order to disagree with them. Go off! Use those imaginations, babies!

The mistake that you compound is that you are saturating PPP with your own words. The more you post, the more transparent your agenda becomes. Your desire to pay posters to get them to send you videos of themselves saying what you want them to say is pretty creepy, and the more you push that idea, the more nefarious your intentions appear.

[GregPersons]

Just now, Reality Check said:

The mistake that you compound is that you are saturating PPP with your own words. The more you post, the more transparent your agenda becomes. Your desire to pay posters to get them to send you videos of themselves saying what you want them to say is pretty creepy, and the more you push that idea, the more nefarious your intentions appear.

 

You're really gelling into a version of my identity in your mind. Make the full guess! Let's see! I promised I will reveal myself with all 7 correct answers and there's even a few hints in that thread since I told one poster they guessed 1 right. 

[Reality Check]

5 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

You're really gelling into a version of my identity in your mind. Make the full guess! Let's see! I promised I will reveal myself with all 7 correct answers and there's even a few hints in that thread since I told one poster they guessed 1 right. 

Your identity is irrelevant. Your agenda is obvious.

[RocCityRoller]

You:

Barrier is both physical and conceptual. There should be a regulated process of admission. For example, a murderer fleeing to another country, should be returned home to face justice. Otherwise, the migration should be free. 

 

Me:

Does this apply to the US - Mexico border? What if the murderer flees over the desert? How do you determine this without an inspection?

How do you handle MS-13? Would a wall help?

 

PS:

I'm like Blues Clues to you against my own arguments with you, even though you went personal with me in other posts.

I literally gave you the other point and you were too dim to pick up on it (defund the police thread, Jeezus I literaly Bolded Baltimore)

I'll go Socratic or straw man with you until you prove worthy of further debate. You have bailed out of every other debate with me except for ad hominem attacks.

Sad what is taught in Lib Arts College 'degrees' these days. One would think 100k in debt would make you stronger.

Exposure to counter points would make you a stronger debater. You do have the energy, I will give you that.

 

1) CHAZ has barrier borders - this is a fact

2) CHAZ has armed guards - this is a fact

3) CHAZ checks for ID - this is a fact

 

Let's go further.

 

Will CHAZ allow a Planned Parenthood?

 

 

 

 

 

[Wacka]

Where is Janet Reno when you  need her?