Now the yerapeeins want in on the fun.

---

Global movement lead by the organizations we just let gain power and influence. These groups should have been shut down years ago, instead they were supported by progressive millionaires and universities.

---

Not sure how you know everyone's voting intentions/history SC

I imagine many don't vote at all. Not exactly supporters of the establishment.

The left wants to take away peoples right to bear arms, which is our 2nd  amendment. 

The riots and attack on police and governments forcing police to stand down emphasize the 2nd amendment is more important than ever before.

That's a lie promoted by the right to incite fear. The left, as well as the majority of gun owners on both sides, favor reasonable gun registration and background check legislation.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm thoroughly impressed with the rioters' sense of compassion and community by utilizing face coverings in observance of pandemic protocols.

 LOL ..... Looting is not part of the Phase I reopening ?

---

I don't know about you guys, but I'm thoroughly impressed with the rioters' sense of compassion and community by utilizing face coverings in observance of pandemic protocols.

 LOL ..... Looting is not part of the Phase I reopening ?

Does anyone know Dr. Birx e-mail?

---

The left wants to take away peoples right to bear arms, which is our 2nd  amendment. 

The riots and attack on police and governments forcing police to stand down emphasize the 2nd amendment is more important than ever before.

That's a lie promoted by the right to incite fear. The left, as well as the majority of gun owners on both sides, favor reasonable gun registration and background check legislation.

So why do so many politicians on the Left use Australia as an example of what to do?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The first casualty of Civil War 2.0

Pretty sad to think that had the MN police followed policy, this Oakland policeman would still be alive.  Actions of bad police officers in MN directly attributed to the death of a good police officer.

---

That's a lie promoted by the right to incite fear. The left, as well as the majority of gun owners on both sides, favor reasonable gun registration and background check legislation.

So why do so many politicians on the Left use Australia as an example of what to do?

Because RJ's statement is laughably false.

---

The first casualty of Civil War 2.0

Pretty sad to think that had the MN police followed policy, this Oakland policeman would still be alive.  Actions of bad police officers in MN directly attributed to the death of a good police officer.

Oh bull [BLEEP].

---

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

He's using the excuse given by some conservatives that if blacks just followed the law, they wouldn't get shot. Unfortunately, this is the wrong time to pull that card, since everyone was in agreement the cop should get punished. But whatever.

---

I think it's important to recognize that the people we have seen on the streets of America (and the world) over the last few days and nights are not one homogenous group with the same goals and intentions. There are three, or maybe four, groups of people:

1. Peaceful protesters: it's important to lead with this because, although at times it may seem otherwise, this is by far the largest group. These people are taking to the streets to peacefully protest two things:
a) the event that triggered it all: George Floyd being callously murdered in the street by a white police officer, and the lack of immediate justice in the other 3 officers not being arrested yet.
b) how that event is part of a much larger thing: racial injustice in American society.

You don't have to agree with those things, I know most of you on here won't agree, but they are the reasons for the protests

As I said, this group is made up of by far the most people, but they get a disproportionately small amount of coverage from the media due to the age-old modus operandi: if it bleeds it leads. Rightly or wrongly, the violence, vandalism, looting, etc is always going to be shown first. But make no mistake, the majority of the people out there on the streets everyday, in American cities and other places across the world, want to peacefully protest an issue that is massively important to them. These people should be commended, in my eyes.

https://twitter.com/killerbeemma/status/...35716?s=20

2. Violent protesters. This is where the moral judgment becomes more complicated. These are people who absolutely believe the same things as the first group, but clearly feel their voices will not be heard unless they do something that makes the world sit up and take notice. This may be just a visceral, emotional reaction to the pain that is felt from the causes of this unrest. I personally do not believe in the use of violence to make a point, but it in no way takes away from the causes of that violence.

3. Agitators. These are people who want to use the situation to further a political cause or ideology they believe in. In some cases, racial injustice may be a part of that, but their overall aims go far beyond the original reasons why people are protesting. This group could include people from different sides of the left-right divide, but ironically they generally share one goal, to use moments of conflict to help them rip down the existing societal structure and replace it with their own version. Obviously, we need to be wary of these people.

4. Opportunists. People who may or may not be passionate about the cause, but primarily are interested in taking advantage of the unrest to benefit themselves in some way. The most common form of this is looting. Obviously this behavior should be condemned. However, it's still hugely important to look at the reasons why it is happening.

I think it's vital to look at the unrest in these terms for a few reasons:
1. To make sure the message of the masses is not lost by the actions of the few.
2. To honestly evaluate why each of these groups exists, why they are acting like they are, and what can be changed to avoid seeing this happen again. Again, I am not condoning the actions of violent protesters, agitators or opportunists, I am highlighting the need to identify why they act the way they do.

---

Pretty sad to think that had the MN police followed policy, this Oakland policeman would still be alive.  Actions of bad police officers in MN directly attributed to the death of a good police officer.

I know right? My cousin would still be alive if the damn Ford technicians didn't build the car that the drunk [BLEEP] was driving when he hit and killed him. Damn Ford techs.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I've seen more & more footage of protesters calling out/separating/engaging/handing over to police agitators and opportunists. One most notably in DC yesterday.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

I've seen more & more footage of protesters calling out/separating/engaging/handing over to police agitators and opportunists. One most notably in DC yesterday.

I hope it continues.

---

I've seen more & more footage of protesters calling out/separating/engaging/handing over to police agitators and opportunists. One most notably in DC yesterday.

I hope it continues.

Same. Protesters are already on edge as it is, add this to the list of things for which they're on the lookout.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

I think it's important to recognize that the people we have seen on the streets of America (and the world) over the last few days and nights are not one homogenous group with the same goals and intentions. There are three, or maybe four, groups of people:

1. Peaceful protesters: it's important to lead with this because, although at times it may seem otherwise, this is by far the largest group. These people are taking to the streets to peacefully protest two things:
a) the event that triggered it all: George Floyd being callously murdered in the street by a white police officer, and the lack of immediate justice in the other 3 officers not being arrested yet.
b) how that event is part of a much larger thing: racial injustice in American society.

You don't have to agree with those things, I know most of you on here won't agree, but they are the reasons for the protests

As I said, this group is made up of by far the most people, but they get a disproportionately small amount of coverage from the media due to the age-old modus operandi: if it bleeds it leads. Rightly or wrongly, the violence, vandalism, looting, etc is always going to be shown first. But make no mistake, the majority of the people out there on the streets everyday, in American cities and other places across the world, want to peacefully protest an issue that is massively important to them. These people should be commended, in my eyes.

https://twitter.com/killerbeemma/status/...35716?s=20

100% Agree.  Those who voice their opinion peacefully are to be commended.  They are exercising their God Given right to demonstrate.  Whether I agree or disagree with their message, peaceful expression is 100% the way to go.  

2. Violent protesters. This is where the moral judgment becomes more complicated. These are people who absolutely believe the same things as the first group, but clearly feel their voices will not be heard unless they do something that makes the world sit up and take notice. This may be just a visceral, emotional reaction to the pain that is felt from the causes of this unrest. I personally do not believe in the use of violence to make a point, but it in no way takes away from the causes of that violence.

100% Disagree.  The Moral Judgement is not complicated at all.  George Floyds death was morally wrong.  Why was it morally wrong?  Because he has the human right to life, and there was no justifiable reason to take his life.  Likewise other people have their rights to private property, safety etc.  You don't advocate for people to respect your rights by casually violating theirs.  That's not a coherent argument.  Even in the extreme case of an armed rebellion or revolution or war.  In that case you target the institution that you are trying to separate from to achieve a strategic purpose.  It's a lot different than just random senseless violence against innocent people.  

3. Agitators. These are people who want to use the situation to further a political cause or ideology they believe in. In some cases, racial injustice may be a part of that, but their overall aims go far beyond the original reasons why people are protesting. This group could include people from different sides of the left-right divide, but ironically they generally share one goal, to use moments of conflict to help them rip down the existing societal structure and replace it with their own version. Obviously, we need to be wary of these people.

100% Agree.  Group one had a chance for reasoned discourse and advancing the cause of common citizenship, empathy, fellowship etc.  Its said that there are so many obstructions to what could have been a moment of national unity.  

4. Opportunists. People who may or may not be passionate about the cause, but primarily are interested in taking advantage of the unrest to benefit themselves in some way. The most common form of this is looting. Obviously this behavior should be condemned. However, it's still hugely important to look at the reasons why it is happening.

We know why it's happening.  Free Stuff feels good. 

I think it's vital to look at the unrest in these terms for a few reasons:
1. To make sure the message of the masses is not lost by the actions of the few.
2. To honestly evaluate why each of these groups exists, why they are acting like they are, and what can be changed to avoid seeing this happen again. Again, I am not condoning the actions of violent protesters, agitators or opportunists, I am highlighting the need to identify why they act the way they do.

There are two branches of behavior.  Social, and anti-social.  By that i mean that on the one hand there are certain people who act in a way that fundamentally values the rights of others.  From that perspective there are a lot of people who can reasonably or even heatedly disagree, but have a discussion that respects the rights of everyone to express themselves.  That's part of the American Fabric.  We don't all have to agree, we just have to agree on the rules about how we interact with each other.  There will always be a myriad of topics to have constructive discourse on, some big and some small.  

The second branch is where the looters and the agitators come in.  Burning a police car isn't about having a national discussion promoting peace or understanding.  That's just wanton violence.  There's nothing about racial equality in stealing a big screen.  That's just about you taking stuff.  There will be myriad rationalizations for those actions either to advance a political agenda or to participate in the blanket of a larger cause, but in reality that's just about the base human desire to hurt or injur others for self gain. 

The role of the Police (ironically) is to protect Group 1 (And the citizens at large) from all the other interests so that conversations can be heard, however inflammatory, and the rights of everyone can be protected.

---

Minneapolis City Councilperson Jeremiah Ellison pledges support for ANTIFA.
Yes, he is the son of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Any questions why the city is being torched by ANTIFA while the cops run away?

---

Pretty sad to think that had the MN police followed policy, this Oakland policeman would still be alive.  Actions of bad police officers in MN directly attributed to the death of a good police officer.

I know right? My cousin would still be alive if the damn Ford technicians didn't build the car that the drunk [BLEEP] was driving when he hit and killed him. Damn Ford techs.

Ford Techs built the car under the existing (legal) regulations that were in place.  Given your logic, it should be legal for a police officer to kill a black man by kneeling on his neck to the point that the black victim can't breath anymore.  Personally, I don't think that should be legal.

---

What's the deal with protesters shutting down highways? Does anybody know the law that applies? Interstate Highways are closed to pedestrians, so..what's the legal guidance when a handful of protesters shut down a major highway? Is there some legal precedent that allows them to hold travellers hostage? If so, for how long? Do the travellers have any right to continue their journey?

And why isn't this clearly spelled out in a nation-wide situation where this is used as a political tactic? Is it legal? They arrested the tanker truck driver when he drove across the I-35 bridge, hitting nobody. But the cops allowed the protesters to drag the driver out of the cab and beat him up before they arrested him.

---

What's the deal with protesters shutting down highways?  Does anybody know the law that applies?  Interstate Highways are closed to pedestrians, so..what's the legal guidance when a handful of protesters shut down a major highway?  Is there some legal precedent that allows them to hold travellers hostage?  If so, for how long?  Do the travellers have any right to continue their journey?

And why isn't this clearly spelled out in a nation-wide situation where this is used as a political tactic?  Is it legal?  They arrested the tanker truck driver when he drove across the I-35 bridge, hitting nobody.  But the cops allowed the protesters to drag the driver out of the cab and beat him up before they arrested him.

Depends on how it is done. Standing on is illegal, but walking on the side is legal as long as a car broke down. If a car breakdowns and you stay until the tow truck driver gets the car off the highway, then it would be legal. If 1 car per lane breaks down, it is legal and would block the highway. If multiple cars broke down or had an accident, then you see how legally they could shut the highway down. Getting out and standing in the road I not legal.

In that situation, I'm not staying there and if they touch my car, I'm not waiting to see what they may do.

---

What's the deal with protesters shutting down highways?  Does anybody know the law that applies?  Interstate Highways are closed to pedestrians, so..what's the legal guidance when a handful of protesters shut down a major highway?  Is there some legal precedent that allows them to hold travellers hostage?  If so, for how long?  Do the travellers have any right to continue their journey?

And why isn't this clearly spelled out in a nation-wide situation where this is used as a political tactic?  Is it legal?  They arrested the tanker truck driver when he drove across the I-35 bridge, hitting nobody.  But the cops allowed the protesters to drag the driver out of the cab and beat him up before they arrested him.

PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER (SPOKEN)

I was dreaming in my dreaming
Of an aspect bright and fair
And my sleeping it was broken
But my dream it lingered near
In the form of shining valleys
Where the pure air recognized
And my senses newly opened
I awakened to the cry
That the people have the power
To redeem the work of fools
Upon the meek the graces shower
It' s decreed the people rule

The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power

Vengeful aspects became suspect
And bending low as if to hear
And the armies ceased advancing
Because the people had their ear

---