Not sure you can see the file but here is an instance where they are coming to aid of someone who is not black.

Nice to see that

---

BLM has to be demonized, because it pushes for change. There is a segment of society that doesn't want change.

---

BLM is not about peaceful protest, it's about confrontation.  Blocking an Interstate highway is a criminal act, and not protected under Amendment I.

 

"...or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."

---

I agree with your whole post. Regarding the part in bold, I don't think that it's the topics that divide our country, it's the failure to address and discuss said topics in an honest and meaningful way. It's hard to come out and say some things because sometimes it needs to be said, but can be considered "rude" or "non-PC". When people don't agree one of the first defenses is to label the person speaking as "racist" or a "bigot" or a "homophobe", etc.


As far as the so-called "divide" on the MB I can only speak for myself. I personally have pretty thick skin and have been called much worse by much lesser people than what some on this board have thrown my way. Even though I disagree with several of the posters that regularly participate on this forum, I still respect them and their points-of-view. I would gladly tailgate or share a meal with any of them in person (even RJ, TJ or TAM) :thumbsup: .


Politics can be a tough issue to discuss whether it's related to law enforcement, racial issues, social issues, etc. People (myself included) sometimes get too emotionally involved. At the end of the day we are all in this together. What our country is really lacking right now is strong, tough leadership.

Just as I'm about to completely write you off as officially flying over the cuckoo's nest, you go and say something reasonable.

---

BLM is not about peaceful protest, it's about confrontation. Blocking an Interstate highway is a criminal act, and not protected under Amendment I.


"...or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."

I think Dr. King would disagree...


In curious about their idea that BLM are terrorists.


JIB says that most of them are terrorists, therefore the entire movement is.


So, I ask, what % of BLM do you all believe are terrorists? And what constitutes the actions that the percentage you describe as terrorists are common among the subset that you are claiming conduct terrorist acts?

---

MLK would disagree with what, the 1st Amendment?  Or that violence is okay if you call it a "protest"? 

 

Are BLM terrorists?  Let's ask the Department of Homeland Security:

 

Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

 

So, blocking an Interstate Highway is by definition a terrorist act. 

---

MLK would disagree with what, the 1st Amendment?  Or that violence is okay if you call it a "protest"? 

 

Are BLM terrorists?  Let's ask the Department of Homeland Security:

 

Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

 

So, blocking an Interstate Highway is by definition a terrorist act. 

 

Come on, admit it. You still have your powdered wig, don't you? You would have been a Tory, bemoaning those terrorists down at the Boston Harbor.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

So then, based on department of homeland security, Dr. King was a terrorist. You realize that, right? I believe it's, "A Letter from the Birmingham Jail" in which Dr. King discusses civil disobedience... you should read it... But be careful, it's terrorist propaganda.


By the way, homeland security is one governmental agency that needs to be dismantled ASAP.

---

Practitioners of civil disobedience know they are breaking the law and are willing to be jailed for their cause.  BLM doesn't know or care if they break the law because they have full cover from the Obama Administration. 

---

MLK would disagree with what, the 1st Amendment? Or that violence is okay if you call it a "protest"?


Are BLM terrorists? Let's ask the Department of Homeland Security:

Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.


So, blocking an Interstate Highway is by definition a terrorist act.

Honestly, based on your postings here, there's a good chance you would've labeled MLK a terrorist too. Back in the day, it would've been hard for you to talk directly with him so he could explain why he was doing what he was doing. Today, you have the privilege of reaching out, using various forms of social media, to the true leadership of BLM to find out what their motives are instead of regurgitating the info from the very establishment they are leading the charge against. That's what you would do if you wanted to form your own objective opinion, but alas it's not about that. I mean it's not like all other forms of protest have been invoked ad nauseum with little to no effect. People are obviously fed up for no reason...

---

Practitioners of civil disobedience know they are breaking the law and are willing to be jailed for their cause.  BLM doesn't know or care if they break the law because they have full cover from the Obama Administration. 

 

Legitimate Civil Disobedience is disobeying the unjust law, it's not starting a riot, looting the stores and burning down the neighborhood.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think Dr. King would disagree...


In curious about their idea that BLM are terrorists.


JIB says that most of them are terrorists, therefore the entire movement is.


So, I ask, what % of BLM do you all believe are terrorists? And what constitutes the actions that the percentage you describe as terrorists are common among the subset that you are claiming conduct terrorist acts?

Laughably, the all knowing JIB knows there is a small amount of bad cops and a large amount of terrorists in BLM, but he has absolutely no way to confirm. You want to see wild behavior? Tear down someone's belief system, expose the endocrination to be a fraud.

---

I posted the DHS definition of terrorism because theirs is the one that actually matters. 

 

As for MLK, I admire him a lot.  I don't think he would have any part of BLM were he alive today.  Something about content of character being more important than skin color.  That message is all but lost on today's activists. 

---

I posted the DHS definition of terrorism because theirs is the one that actually matters.


As for MLK, I admire him a lot. I don't think he would have any part of BLM were he alive today. Something about content of character being more important than skin color. That message is all but lost on today's activists.

Exactly, my point. BLM is not about one's skin color being more important. Trust he would be in lockstep with the movement.

---

Exactly, my point. BLM is not about one's skin color being more important. Trust he would be in lockstep with the movement.

 

They named it BLACK Lives Matter because it's NOT about skin color?  Somebody's got some 'splaining to do. 

---

They named it BLACK Lives Matter because it's NOT about skin color? Somebody's got some 'splaining to do.

Very quickly, historically in this country the lives of black people have not been valued at the level of everyone else's. The name refers to that historical treatment.

---

Like I said, skin color.  Some minorities are more equal than others.  This concept has nothing to do with Martin Luther King or any of his teachings. 

---

Like I said, skin color. Some minorities are more equal than others. This concept has nothing to do with Martin Luther King or any of his teachings.

Do you agree with my above statement?

---

Your statement has a very low semantic content.  As currently expressed, I do not agree with it.

---

Your statement has a very low semantic content. As currently expressed, I do not agree with it.

Totally accepted. Have you done any research on the topic? Are you familiar with Willie lynch?

---