(03-18-2021 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 08:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html

Well, speaking of Portland (and elsewhere) rioting, those seem not to have made the list in the NYT. So, as it so often does, it depends on the definitions used. Apparently for the NYT list, rioting, arson, burning businesses, and attacking cops does not constitute an "attack on America". But I never said "only attacks on america as defined by some think tank" count. I guess that is now your positiion.

Legit straw man. Nice one.

Straw man? I think the straw man accusation is YOUR straw man - a way to derail and redirect the discussion. Absolutely the data you quote depends on definitions - who made that judgement?

Quote:What I have said, and will say, is that violence as promoted by BLM and Antifa is way more prevalent that any supposed threat from some organization I never heard of of until you brought it up. What I have said, and will say, it that those organizations have much more influence on leftist America than the one(s) you bring up have on right wing America.

The fact that you had never heard of QAnon makes me think that the news sources that you peruse are not quite as across-the-political-spectrum as you might think.

CNN, ABC, Fox for 90%, with CNN the heaviest. Qanon, like the modern KKK and the American nazi Party, is way overblown in terms of its influence on the GOP and its impact on everyday americans. BLM, on the other hand, is minimized by the MSM and you.

Quote:

Where you and I primarily differ is your defense of those organizations via the "tiny minority" claim. I don't see a tiny minority in hundreds of "protests" including varying amount of violence, and thousands of businesses coerced, and lots of Congressional support, all based on claim(s) which do not logically hold water. I see lip service toward condemning violence, wink, wink, nudge, nudge from the people in power in power of the party you support.

Congressional support of violence? Can you provide a link?

Sure. You could just use Googe, but here are a couple:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...d-killing/

"Mentions of “Black lives matter” on social media are highly correlated with party affiliation. A majority (76%) of Democrats in the current Congress have used the phrase “Black lives matter” or the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag on social media dating back to 2015, with roughly half of these members mentioning the phrase for the first time during this three-week period. In contrast, very few currently serving Republicans (10%) have explicitly mentioned “Black lives matter” on social media in the last five years – either before or after George Floyd’s killing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...story.html

Pretty much any member of the "Squad" would do.

Quote:Of course, politicians on both sides can be hypocrites - I just see no evidence that it is EQUAL.

Do you really hold to the belief that police departments are hiring racists and then backing them when they commit murders they FEEL entitled to commit because of their uniform? It does not have to be yes or no - feel free to explain.

No.

[i]No, you won't explain, or no, you don't agree with the protesters?

No... I don't agree with the protesters.

Quote:Then what are the protests about?

I'm not sure. You definitely read A LOT more about these continuing protests than I do...

(03-18-2021 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 11:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.

So no prominent leftists are actually saying that the violence is somewhat justified... but OO and #'s just KNOW that that's how they really feel inside? How do they know?

Quote:An example to me of the above on here is the conversation about the Fed's reaction to the Portland riots. We had some platitudes about people 'being brought to justice', but the clear focus from the left during that whole discussion (that went on for weeks) was on the actions both before and in response to the riots by the police/Trump/Feds that JUSTIFIED a response and how it was ultimately THEIR fault...


ETA... 93 I didn't mean to imply that you weren't serious about the issue... or that your perspective had no value... I only meant to imply that your 'ASK' for links to such comments was sort of like me asking you to link to a quote of Trump saying 'I hate brown people'. I seriously doubt you have that... Instead, you'd link me to something that you believe IMPLIED that... but you couldn't point me to anything that explained how building a border wall impacts 'brown' citizens here legally... and thus demonstrates racism as opposed to border enforcement... or how having local authorities who pick up people committing crimes who are here illegally and informing immigration of that is 'racist', as opposed to border enforcement.

I guess I'd like them to link something that implies that prominent Democrats are OK with extremist violence from the left.

Quote:Sanctuary cities by definition are an act of defiance of Federal immigration law... but you won't find a lot of smart leftists or Democrat politicians saying that they don't support immigration laws. They will instead say that their actions are JUSTIFIED because of the actions of the Feds

I think there's a wide chasm between saying that prominent Democrats are OK with violence versus saying that they are OK with sanctuary cities. Plenty of conservatives were OK with the Bundy family refusing orders to vacate federal land. I would guess that only a fraction of those conservatives were OK with the Bundy family using violence to achieve their goals.

Seattle and Portland, run by democrats, have pretty much allowed violence to run amok for months in their cities.
Democrat leaders were slow to condemn that violence.
Those things speak volumes.

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 11:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.

So no prominent leftists are actually saying that the violence is somewhat justified... but OO and #'s just KNOW that that's how they really feel inside? How do they know?

1. Kamala Harris contributes to bail protestors and rioters from jail. And she encourages followers to do the same.

2. CNN's Chris Cuomo: "Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful."

3. MSNBC's Velshi: "This mostly a protest" (video of massive fire raging behind him)

4. August 26: Pics of massive fires on MSNBC, chyron touting "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests"

5. Democratic National Convention Refused To Condemn Riots.....
Democrats went through their entire online convention without condemning the epidemic of left-wing violence that engulfed the nation in the preceding months.

6. The New York Times’ architect of the “1619 Project,” Nikole Hannah-Jones, explicitly rejected the idea that destroying property fits the definition of “violence.”

“Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,”

Response from the anchor: "great point you make"

7. Don Lemon: “Our country was started because, the Boston tea party. Rioting. So do not get it twisted and think this is something that has never happened before and this is so terrible and these savages and all of that. This is how this country was started” –@DonLemon on @CNN 11:53 PM ET.

8. CNN Chris Cizilla: Trump's efforts to label what is happening in major cities as "riots" speaks at least somewhat to his desperation, politically speaking, at the moment

9. MSNBS’s Joy Reid: BLM Riots Are Really Just Undercover White Nationalists Causing Trouble

10. Huffington Post Releases Video Outlining ‘How Riots Built America’

11. NBC instructs news to describe Minneapolis as protests, not riots. This will guide our reporting in MN. “While the situation on the ground in Minneapolis is fluid, and there has been violence, it is most accurate at this time to describe what is happening there as "protests"--not riots.”

12. Seattle Mayor: On twitter: “Seattle is fine. Don’t be so afraid of democracy.”

13. Pelosi responding to item of rioters tearing down statue of Columbus: ‘People Will Do What They Do’

14. Rolling Stone Re-Publishes Article to ‘Rethink Property Destruction’

15. Slate: Riots Are A ‘Proportionate Response’

16. Mother Jones: ‘Riots Aren’t Irrational’

17. Vox: Woke Riots Are Scary But Productive. Capitol Riots Were Devastating

18. AOC: The Whole Point of Protesting Is to Make People Uncomfortable

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess I'd like them to link something that implies that prominent Democrats are OK with extremist violence from the left.

How long do you have?

Numbers gave a single example.... there are MANY MANY MANY of them.

(03-18-2021 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Seattle and Portland, run by democrats, have pretty much allowed violence to run amok for months in their cities.
Democrat leaders were slow to condemn that violence.
Those things speak volumes.

Quote:

Quote:Sanctuary cities by definition are an act of defiance of Federal immigration law... but you won't find a lot of smart leftists or Democrat politicians saying that they don't support immigration laws. They will instead say that their actions are JUSTIFIED because of the actions of the Feds

I think there's a wide chasm between saying that prominent Democrats are OK with violence versus saying that they are OK with sanctuary cities. Plenty of conservatives were OK with the Bundy family refusing orders to vacate federal land. I would guess that only a fraction of those conservatives were OK with the Bundy family using violence to achieve their goals.

Gee 93, I really thought we were above this.

The issue was 'supporting police', not 'supporting violence'. By not doing much of anything to give the police the authority to address the violence, they were not supporting the police. By creating sanctuary cities, they are directly working AGAINST police... and creating/encouraging the very 'shadow communities' where these people are INCREDIBLY victimized, including human trafficking and exploitation.... which makes police jobs even harder.

SO I directly gave you comments that did just what I said... they IMPLIED exactly what I said... but you won't see them (except the fringe, stupid or as an 'unartful slip') say 'they don't support police. Instead of denying that sanctuary cities directly work against enforcement of federal law, you simply moved the goal posts and 'implied' that I had said that Democrats supported violence.

Same story with the DC rioters. If they were protesting at some sort of a barrier and the police abandoned the barrier giving them closer access to the objects of their protest (Congress), then I don't see that they broke ANY laws. Even using fire extinguishers during a protest is a petty crime. Pepper spray? Breaking windows or locks on doors? That's a problem and those people need to be prosecuted. All of the 'sitting at other people's desks' crap? Unless they broke a lock to do so, the media and left's response to all that was ridiculous... and COMPLETELY inconsistent with the reaction to people who broke windows and locks and STOLE property (of MEANINGFUL value) in Portland. I don't know about you and your job, but if I leave patient information in my unlocked office and or not in a locked drawer or on an unlocked computer, The person who FINDS it gets a slap on the wrist for trespass and a reward and I get fined and fired. Capitol police SHOT AND KILLED a woman guilty of trespass and relatively petty vandalism (a door or window). Had Police in Portland SHOT AND KILLED a looter, where because of the incindiaries used, the threat of fire and death was VERY real, the left and media would have lost their minds at the police... but they SUPPORT the capitol police?

Perspectives on the same issue as far as I'm concerned...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...d-protests

The uncomfortable truth is that, sometimes, violence is the only answer left

A riot is the language of the unheard
When you are oppressed there is no acceptable way to fight against your oppression. You get branded “unpatriotic” for peacefully taking a knee to protest against police brutality. You get vilified for using boycotts as a non-violent tool of resistance. You get called “THUGS” when, after the murder of yet another unarmed black man by the police, you protest in the streets.

But if violent unrest isn’t the answer then what is? How exactly do you go about ending police brutality and systemic racism in America? Should protesters go home and write sternly worded letters to their representative?

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online...es-matter/

I'll let the lawyers explain this, but it seems to me the author is complaining that liability for foreseeable violence could hurt the ability of BLM to protest.

(03-18-2021 03:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:How exactly do you go about ending police brutality and systemic racism in America?

Hmm, you open your eyes and see that they have pretty much ended?

(03-18-2021 03:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 03:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:How exactly do you go about ending police brutality and systemic racism in America?

Hmm, you open your eyes and see that they have pretty much ended?

It seems to me that that the BLM narrative is built pretty much on happening in the 50's and before.

(03-18-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Bluntly speaking, I live in the deep heart of progressive Texas. You speak about QAnon and use it as an exemplar an order of magnitude more than any other politically minded person I have come across in the last four years..... which.... in my neighborhood and circles is rather surprising.

And I live in the heart of rural, red-state Texas - 82% Trump in 2020. Yet I have never heard of Qanan until it came up here, nor have I ever seen or heard of a KKK member here, and everybody seems to get along. We have elected black and appointed black officials here. The black percentage of the population is growing, as people move here for a safe life for the families.

(03-18-2021 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 11:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.

So no prominent leftists are actually saying that the violence is somewhat justified... but OO and #'s just KNOW that that's how they really feel inside? How do they know?

1. Kamala Harris contributes to bail protestors and rioters from jail. And she encourages followers to do the same.

2. CNN's Chris Cuomo: "Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful."

3. MSNBC's Velshi: "This mostly a protest" (video of massive fire raging behind him)

4. August 26: Pics of massive fires on MSNBC, chyron touting "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests"

5. Democratic National Convention Refused To Condemn Riots.....
Democrats went through their entire online convention without condemning the epidemic of left-wing violence that engulfed the nation in the preceding months.

6. The New York Times’ architect of the “1619 Project,” Nikole Hannah-Jones, explicitly rejected the idea that destroying property fits the definition of “violence.”

“Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,”

Response from the anchor: "great point you make"

7. Don Lemon: “Our country was started because, the Boston tea party. Rioting. So do not get it twisted and think this is something that has never happened before and this is so terrible and these savages and all of that. This is how this country was started” –@DonLemon on @CNN 11:53 PM ET.

8. CNN Chris Cizilla: Trump's efforts to label what is happening in major cities as "riots" speaks at least somewhat to his desperation, politically speaking, at the moment

9. MSNBS’s Joy Reid: BLM Riots Are Really Just Undercover White Nationalists Causing Trouble

10. Huffington Post Releases Video Outlining ‘How Riots Built America’

11. NBC instructs news to describe Minneapolis as protests, not riots. This will guide our reporting in MN. “While the situation on the ground in Minneapolis is fluid, and there has been violence, it is most accurate at this time to describe what is happening there as "protests"--not riots.”

12. Seattle Mayor: On twitter: “Seattle is fine. Don’t be so afraid of democracy.”

13. Pelosi responding to item of rioters tearing down statue of Columbus: ‘People Will Do What They Do’

14. Rolling Stone Re-Publishes Article to ‘Rethink Property Destruction’

15. Slate: Riots Are A ‘Proportionate Response’

16. Mother Jones: ‘Riots Aren’t Irrational’

17. Vox: Woke Riots Are Scary But Productive. Capitol Riots Were Devastating

18. AOC: The Whole Point of Protesting Is to Make People Uncomfortable

1) Did Kamala Harris bail out protesters involved in violent acts? Did she specifically call for her followers to do the same? I guess I'd like some insight into who she donated to and who she was looking to bail out. If she was bailing out those who were arrested for violent acts then I think that sucks.

5) https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factc...SKBN2712ZA

13) Tearing down a statue of Columbus is not violence.

18) It doesn't seem that AOC is saying anything about violence based on your one-liner.

All your other examples are from the media and you guys are very clear on just how extreme they are in their opinions. Plus they (like all news media) push inflammatory opinions for clickbait. These examples are not considered "prominent Democrats" in my eyes.

(03-18-2021 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='17335000' dateline='1616087827']
[quote='Rice93' pid='17334861' dateline='1616084618']

Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.


1. Kamala Harris contributes to bail protestors and rioters from jail. And she encourages followers to do the same.

[quote}

Looks like she didn't contribute but she did put out a tweet in support of the MFF.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris...ters-bail/

Quote:Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country’s cash-bail system by paying detainees’ criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case — or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest — they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states:

We’ve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge — and we won’t now. […]

We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment:

BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color)

Those experiencing homelessness

People arrested who live in Minnesota

Those who have been detained while fighting for justice

Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it.

(03-18-2021 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  13) Tearing down a statue of Columbus is not violence.

I guess it is not violence against persons, unless one has to contend with people who think the public property should not be destroyed. I guess the same principle would be that carrying a lectern through Congress is not violence, or that kicking in a door (to Congress or a drug store) is not violence.

(03-18-2021 05:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='17335000' dateline='1616087827']
[quote='Rice93' pid='17334861' dateline='1616084618']

Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.


1. Kamala Harris contributes to bail protestors and rioters from jail. And she encourages followers to do the same.

[quote}

Looks like she didn't contribute but she did put out a tweet in support of the MFF.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris...ters-bail/

Quote:Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country’s cash-bail system by paying detainees’ criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case — or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest — they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states:

We’ve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge — and we won’t now. […]

We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment:

BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color)

Those experiencing homelessness

People arrested who live in Minnesota

Those who have been detained while fighting for justice

Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it.

Dance all you want -- the simple fact is that she sought people to bail out arrestees during the protests and riots.

Now you are spouting the crapola line about the injustice of bail as your stop gap. Fun, fun, fun.

I would hazard a guess, based partly on your protestations, that most arrested were *not* arrested for 'protesting' activities --- remember per you 'way more protesters than rioters'.

I would also hazard a guess that most whom were arrested were arrested for 'more than protesting' --- if the target were mere protesters the count would be in the hundreds of thousands as opposed ten thousand or so by my guess.

And I am glad that you find respite in 'the sad people who suffer the injustice of bail.' If that is your defense of those actions, I suggest you join the booster club for the LA DA or the SF DA who follow that schtick --- read up on whom *they* release on a constant basis. Or perhaps join the booster club of the Portland area DA who ran nothing more than a catch and release circle job for 7 months.

The simple fact exists that Kamala urged people to help with bail for those whom were arrested during the rioting; and most arrested during those times and in Minneapolis werent arrested on 'violating curfew', and 'loitering' type offenses that you seem to believe. But please keep beating that drum that no progressives ever downplayed the riotous behavior. Good grief.

Im also enthralled by your apparent viewpoint that property damage isnt violence. Seems to be a parroting of one of the schtick points above. Glad to know. Hey, 93, tell me what car you drive, and where you live. Remember that property damage isnt violence in your estimation if I read you correctly on that.

(03-18-2021 07:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  13) Tearing down a statue of Columbus is not violence.

I guess it is not violence against persons, unless one has to contend with people who think the public property should not be destroyed. I guess the same principle would be that carrying a lectern through Congress is not violence, or that kicking in a door (to Congress or a drug store) is not violence.

Correct. Carrying a lectern through the Capitol is not violence.

(03-18-2021 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='17335000' dateline='1616087827']
[quote='Rice93' pid='17334861' dateline='1616084618']

Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.


1. Kamala Harris contributes to bail protestors and rioters from jail. And she encourages followers to do the same.

[quote}

Looks like she didn't contribute but she did put out a tweet in support of the MFF.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris...ters-bail/

Quote:Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country’s cash-bail system by paying detainees’ criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case — or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest — they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states:

We’ve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge — and we won’t now. […]

We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment:

BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color)

Those experiencing homelessness

People arrested who live in Minnesota

Those who have been detained while fighting for justice

Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it.

Dance all you want -- the simple fact is that she sought people to bail out arrestees during the protests and riots.

Well... you said that she contributed which she didn't. It seems that many people (especially the "woke") were contributing to that organization during this time. I think it's a stretch to say that her tweet was somehow advocating violence... I would have taken it as helping people who may have been wrongly arrested. You can believe what you want to believe about her motivations. Again... I find it a stretch.

Quote:Now you are spouting the crapola line about the injustice of bail as your stop gap. Fun, fun, fun.

No... I had no idea what the MPP was and I assumed that others on here didn't either. So I just cut/pasted some background on them.

Quote:I would hazard a guess, based partly on your protestations, that most arrested were *not* arrested for 'protesting' activities --- remember per you 'way more protesters than rioters'.

I have no idea what they were arrested for. My guess would be refusing to disperse or something like that? My guess is the majority of them were nonviolent. This is just a guess based on no data, mind you.

Quote:I would also hazard a guess that most whom were arrested were arrested for 'more than protesting' --- if the target were mere protesters the count would be in the hundreds of thousands as opposed ten thousand or so by my guess.

We're both guessing about stuff. I would guess 10,000s were not arrested for violence.

Quote:And I am glad that you find respite in 'the sad people who suffer the injustice of bail.' If that is your defense of those actions, I suggest you join the booster club for the LA DA or the SF DA who follow that schtick --- read up on whom *they* release on a constant basis. Or perhaps join the booster club of the Portland area DA who ran nothing more than a catch and release circle job for 7 months.

Again... not a defense. Just trying to provide a bit of background. I have literally no opinion about bail.

Quote:The simple fact exists that Kamala urged people to help with bail for those whom were arrested during the rioting; and most arrested during those times and in Minneapolis werent arrested on 'violating curfew', and 'loitering' type offenses that you seem to believe. But please keep beating that drum that no progressives ever downplayed the riotous behavior. Good grief.

It would be interesting to know what the majority of those were arrested for. If it was for things like refusing to disperse/curfew violations then I think advocating for donations isn't as big a deal as you are making it.

Quote:Im also enthralled by your apparent viewpoint that property damage isnt violence. Seems to be a parroting of one of the schtick points above. Glad to know.

To the bold... really? This is controversial?

To the italics... huh?

Quote:Hey, 93, tell me what car you drive, and where you live. Remember that property damage isnt violence in your estimation if I read you correctly on that.

So if neighborhood kids take a baseball bat to a your mailbox that sits on the street would you say that they committed violence against you? Really?

(03-18-2021 08:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 01:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='17335000' dateline='1616087827']
[quote='Rice93' pid='17334861' dateline='1616084618']

Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.


1. Kamala Harris contributes to bail protestors and rioters from jail. And she encourages followers to do the same.

[quote}

Looks like she didn't contribute but she did put out a tweet in support of the MFF.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris...ters-bail/

Quote:Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country’s cash-bail system by paying detainees’ criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case — or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest — they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states:

We’ve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge — and we won’t now. […]

We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment:

BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color)

Those experiencing homelessness

People arrested who live in Minnesota

Those who have been detained while fighting for justice

Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it.

Dance all you want -- the simple fact is that she sought people to bail out arrestees during the protests and riots.

Well... you said that she contributed which she didn't. It seems that many people (especially the "woke") were contributing to that organization during this time. I think it's a stretch to say that her tweet was somehow advocating violence... I would have taken it as helping people who may have been wrongly arrested. You can believe what you want to believe about her motivations. Again... I find it a stretch.

Quote:Now you are spouting the crapola line about the injustice of bail as your stop gap. Fun, fun, fun.

No... I had no idea what the MPP was and I assumed that others on here didn't either. So I just cut/pasted some background on them.

Quote:I would hazard a guess, based partly on your protestations, that most arrested were *not* arrested for 'protesting' activities --- remember per you 'way more protesters than rioters'.

I have no idea what they were arrested for. My guess would be refusing to disperse or something like that? My guess is the majority of them were nonviolent. This is just a guess based on no data, mind you.

Quote:I would also hazard a guess that most whom were arrested were arrested for 'more than protesting' --- if the target were mere protesters the count would be in the hundreds of thousands as opposed ten thousand or so by my guess.

We're both guessing about stuff. I would guess 10,000s were not arrested for violence.

Quote:And I am glad that you find respite in 'the sad people who suffer the injustice of bail.' If that is your defense of those actions, I suggest you join the booster club for the LA DA or the SF DA who follow that schtick --- read up on whom *they* release on a constant basis. Or perhaps join the booster club of the Portland area DA who ran nothing more than a catch and release circle job for 7 months.

Again... not a defense. Just trying to provide a bit of background. I have literally no opinion about bail.

Quote:The simple fact exists that Kamala urged people to help with bail for those whom were arrested during the rioting; and most arrested during those times and in Minneapolis werent arrested on 'violating curfew', and 'loitering' type offenses that you seem to believe. But please keep beating that drum that no progressives ever downplayed the riotous behavior. Good grief.

It would be interesting to know what the majority of those were arrested for. If it was for things like refusing to disperse/curfew violations then I think advocating for donations isn't as big a deal as you are making it.

Quote:Im also enthralled by your apparent viewpoint that property damage isnt violence. Seems to be a parroting of one of the schtick points above. Glad to know.

To the bold... really? This is controversial?

To the italics... huh?

Quote:Hey, 93, tell me what car you drive, and where you live. Remember that property damage isnt violence in your estimation if I read you correctly on that.

So if neighborhood kids take a baseball bat to a your mailbox that sits on the street would you say that they committed violence against you? Really?

I would say it is an act of violence. Like I did above.

Please stop adding words and strawmen. Good grief.

Someone slashes my tire, yes, that act is one of destruction; one of violence. It is a highly violent act. What part of using a baseball bat on something do you not consider a 'violent' act?

Lets do some basic 'dictionarying', shall we?

violent -- adjective
using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Again what part of using a baseball bat on a mailbox do you find non-violent?

I'm not going to argue with you 93. You're a smart guy and you KNOW that you're dancing on the head of a pin.

It would be funny but for the fact that Democrats and the media (including you) have levied VASTLY greater accusations on Republicans on vastly less evidence... even outright lies on occasions. SOMETIMES the 'consequences of an election' are that hypocrisies of the 'victors' are laid bare.

(03-18-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  13) Tearing down a statue of Columbus is not violence.

I guess it is not violence against persons, unless one has to contend with people who think the public property should not be destroyed. I guess the same principle would be that carrying a lectern through Congress is not violence, or that kicking in a door (to Congress or a drug store) is not violence.

Correct. Carrying a lectern through the Capitol is not violence.

So, it would appear the vast majority of the Capitol "protesters" were nonviolent - that is, peaceful protesters - only a tiny minority were violent or rioters.

(03-18-2021 10:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  13) Tearing down a statue of Columbus is not violence.

I guess it is not violence against persons, unless one has to contend with people who think the public property should not be destroyed. I guess the same principle would be that carrying a lectern through Congress is not violence, or that kicking in a door (to Congress or a drug store) is not violence.

Correct. Carrying a lectern through the Capitol is not violence.

So, it would appear the vast majority of the Capitol "protesters" were nonviolent - that is, peaceful protesters - only a tiny minority were violent or rioters.

Apparently, according to 93's definition, no one around where Ashli Babbit was shot and killed was 'violent.' That is, excepting the cop that shot her.

By the way, i love the 93 redefinition of violence, and now where he restates all of our statements of violence as 'violence against persons'. I would note for his sake we are using the *word* 'violence', *not* the phrase 'violence against people' that he seemingly keeps explicitly morphing our comments into.

Kind of slick there, pardner.

(03-18-2021 10:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 07:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  13) Tearing down a statue of Columbus is not violence.

I guess it is not violence against persons, unless one has to contend with people who think the public property should not be destroyed. I guess the same principle would be that carrying a lectern through Congress is not violence, or that kicking in a door (to Congress or a drug store) is not violence.

Correct. Carrying a lectern through the Capitol is not violence.

So, it would appear the vast majority of the Capitol "protesters" were nonviolent - that is, peaceful protesters - only a tiny minority were violent or rioters.

But still, with only a very tiny minority that it is still an 'insurrection' in the progressive mind. Now that we have removed actions against property as violence in that definition, when you remove so many actions and so many people, how do you say 'insurrection' with a straight face?

An 'insurrection' of, perhaps, 40 people at that point? Uhhhh........