Featured Time to end ALL protests?

No more hateful than the nonsense you and a handful of others spew about BLM. And from the comments that I've seen from several of ya who are diehard GOPers supporting that bigoted candidate for President, saying the GOP is filled with racists and the racially prejudiced might not be too far of a stretch.

Nice lie. You get that from Sean Hannity? Back in the 60s and 70s , white bigots use to try to make that same claim about the NAACP to paint it as a racist organization.

Why don't y'all try some new lies?.

Just another stupid attempt to cover up your lie. There are plenty of white people who understand why they say BLM. It's the folks whose hearts have been hardened who don't get it.

Now you let me know when you find that KKK group that's admitting black people and they are in agreement that Whites are superior to Blacks.

That you would even be trying to juxtapose the two groups speaks to your hearts condition.

 

BLM doesn't allow white members.

Are they racist now?

 

FYI "Baptist Believer" is... what's the preferred term... Very progressive.

You're right, Free Speech doesn't include blocking traffic and trespassing in the mall. BLM is coddled by police because they're black (and for fear of riots). But, maybe that'll come to an end with increasing outrage against BLM, a true hate group that chants for violence.

 

You previously arrested that BLM "gunned down police" and not you are stepping back and saying they "provoked this attack." Your video shows a group of demonstrators in Minnesota nearly a year ago chanting a despicable hate message. That was not occurring in Dallas. Moreover, your assertion is that they provoked someone to SHOOT INTO THEIR OWN RALLY. If they wanted people to kill police officers, there are ways to do it that don't require shooting into their own rally.

You said "he was seen pictured with them" and did not identify "them." There does not seem to be any connection between the shooter and BLM and he indeed stated that he had nothing to do with them. There may be a link with the Black Panthers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Black Panthers had anything to do with it... just like I don't think the U.S. Army Reserve had anything to do with his actions, even though he was a member.

 

That is a list of places where the state does not use the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in any official capacity and retailers that do not want to partake in trading items depicting the Battle Flag.

That is not banning. The flag is not illegal and you are free to purchase it with other sources or make your own without fear of prosecution.

 

He was apparently a member of the New Black Panther Party in Houston for about six months but kicked out because he didn't follow the "chain of command."

So that claim that he represented Black Panthers is highly questionable. Moreover, investigators are still sorting things out so it is a bit early to start pointing fingers at groups and persons who are allegedly responsible for his actions.

 

I'm not a fan of BLM either, but that doesn't mean I get to make up things about them.

So you support "racist police"?

If you are trying to convince me of something, you should not have invited that comparison. Most of my friends and extended family members who are racist are also zealous Tea Party people. I'm quite serious about that. While I am not aware of the Tea Party have any sort of stated racial agenda, the persons who make up the Tea Party - that I know - are often quite antagonistic toward persons of non-white backgrounds. They also commit violence with words, which is the step before committing violence with hands. Of course committing violence with words is rather common in politics... way too much of it across the political spectrum.

 

There are no quick fixes. Your solution is to restrict civil rights in the First Amendment. I think we need to tone down the rhetoric as a nation. Accusation filled rants and posts in the media inflame anger - which leads to violence - instead of finding a path forward.

I am opposed to requiring Christians to hire private security to voice their opinion in public. I guess that’s a simple disagreement.

Again, simple disagreement. I wonder how you would like it if the internet somehow charged $10 for every politically-oriented post you made to cover the cost of actions that someone undertook while being angered by one of your posts? I suspect you would not like it.

I am getting my info directly from conversation from eyewitnesses/participants in the Dallas rally, from historical documents written at the founding of the nation, the Constitution, and observations from more than 50 years of life on this planet. I’m not willing to toss those aside. I actually don’t get that much information from the talking heads on TV or from the 24-hour news channels. I watch an hour or so of those shows every couple of months.

I am not advocating non-peaceful protests. The Constitution recognizes a right to peaceably assemble, not to riot. We should police the non-peaceable assembly but not put restrictions on peaceable assembly. That’s the fundamental different between our views. You want to compromise the right to assemble and then impose stiff sentences on those who break the peace, while I want to preserve the right to assemble and impose sentences on those who break the peace.

I was not there, but my coworker told me that the BLM assembly in Dallas was not at all tense and want well led. Everyone - including the police - was in good spirits until the shooting began. The media who were on the scene live documented this. So your allegation that BLM assemblies cause high tension every time they meet is false.

So you don’t want me to take you seriously? Are you just posting nonsense for laughs and giggles?

 

I don't know what you mean. That is generally a label that is thrown around for good or ill, but doesn't seem to have a generally accepted meaning.

First and foremost, I am a disciple of Jesus. If you want to know where I stand politically, I usually fall in the political spectrum to be a bit to the right of center, although some of my political positions in this political climate may seem extreme because I hold to a strong view of the Bill of Rights.

My right wing friends often get upset because I hold to a strong originalist view of the First Amendment, including separation of church and state. My left wing friends often get upset because I hold to a strong originalist view of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is built upon the philosophical foundation built by the First, so you can't diminish one without diminishing the other - which seems to get everyone angry.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm upset. Moreover, I don't take any of this personally. While there are plenty of accusers who imagine they know me, they are entirely wrong in their assessments. It would be like getting upset because someone accused me of being a refrigerator. It just doesn't make any sense.

Your statement above is a perfect example.

I've pointed out that I am not a fan of BLM. I've also pointed out that I condemn violence. I've also pointed out that some in this thread have made errors of fact. I have also introduced information from someone who was at the Dallas event - which is confirmed by numerous media reports (and these things occurred just outside the studios of two Dallas television stations and was well covered).

My primary point in this thread was to counter your idea to abridge the civil rights enumerated in the First Amendment. I think I have done that. But because I have done that, you are now suggesting that I approve of hateful rhetoric.

Utter nonsense.

 

A true disciple of Jesus wouldn't suggest that I do. Just telling.

 

No. Please invest in a dictionary.

Utter - to express (oneself or itself), especially in words.
Udder - a mamma or mammary gland, especially when baggy and with more than one teat, as in cows.

"Utter nonsense" is incoherence and/or falsehood expressed in words.

 

I am not going to try to convince you of anything. You can hold to whatever false belief you want. The facts are the BLM started out calling for the death of cops. It happened at protest after protest. They have also publically justified looting and rioting. Of late however, it seems they want to try and clean up their image. I am sure there is a tactical engineering behind that.

It is too late for BLM. They have made their bed now they must lay in it. They are not to be trusted as reasonable and peaceful people. Ever.

 

I have only referred to the Dallas rally/protest, not BLM anywhere else.

I am not a supporter of BLM, although I am a support of "black lives" and I do think they "matter." But we get into trouble very quickly when we start putting qualifiers on which lives "matter."

 

The problem is they have identified themselves with the same group that does these things everywhere else.

 

Yep, a Trump voter.