• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU and activists say North Carolina anti-riot, looting bill is 'racist' and 'anti-BLM'

pamak said:
Your point is stupid. Strangers are killed and harmed by the hyudreds every day from all sorts of crime from DUI to murders, THis does not make it personal for those who live far away and do not even know the name of the victim, and it makes no sense to argue that such crimes should elicit from those people the same type of reaction that a crime directed at their civil rights would elicit.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.
 
pamak said:
Only a person who is only interested in defending the Capitol storming criminals would mention such allegations. When we had not just allegations but PROOF that Boogaloo extremists were embedded in the BLM protests and were killing police officers you did not choose to spread those FACTS!

Hypocrite!
Click to expand...
LOL, you don't get to chose what I post. The boogaloo events were just being charged when that thread was ongoing.

As for the allegations, that's something the commission should look at.

Drop the name calling, we are all adults, yeah?
 
SheWolf said:
Schmidt has previously said his office won’t prosecute people on a riot accusation alone. Prosecutors will proceed with a riot case only if it includes an accompanying allegation of specific property damage or use of force.

It seems reasonable. I didn’t not think every single person at the Jan 6th rally should be charged for just being there either. If the trespassed, beat officers, had weapons, acted violent, they should be charged. I consider that entire group a ****ing mob, but I understand it’s not realistic to charge all the with a crime for simply being a vulgar group of assholes. Committing an actual crime most occur in order to be charged, otherwise, it’s protected speech.
Click to expand...
On the Portland situation, the violence has been ongoing for months, if they are there, its by choice and they know what the protest turns into after dark. They know because it was happening for months on end.
 
SheWolf said:
Why were the cases dropped? Were they charged with rioting because they illegally organized and broke curfew? If they were legit rioting, they should be charged with it, but if they were peaceful and others were rioting, they shouldn’t be charged with rioting. Why were the cases dropped against them? The DA didn’t say he would refuse to prosecute violent legitimate rioters.
Click to expand...
All the same, there were violent charges he didn't prosecute. Facts over rhetoric.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL, you don't get to chose what I post. The boogaloo events were just being charged when that thread was ongoing.

As for the allegations, that's something the commission should look at.

Drop the name calling, we are all adults, yeah?
Click to expand...

I don't get to chose what you post, but I get to chose the comments I make about the hypcrisy of your posts.
 
OpportunityCost said:
On the Portland situation, the violence has been ongoing for months, if they are there, its by choice and they know what the protest turns into after dark. They know because it was happening for months on end.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in collective guilt for any group of people. Only violent rioters should be charged with actual rioting.
 
Luce said:
Nope. Go right ahead. You just do your thing.
Click to expand...
A dumb non-sequitur non-answer to a serious question in a debate forum. That's great, you doing "your thing".
 
Maidenrules29 said:
A dumb non-sequitur non-answer to a serious question in a debate forum. That's great, you doing "your thing".
Click to expand...

No, by all means, clamp down as hard as you can.

I have a whole mess of popcorn.
 
pamak said:
Your point is stupid. Strangers are killed and harmed by the hyudreds every day from all sorts of crime from DUI to murders, THis does not make it personal for those who live far away and do not even know the name of the victim, and it makes no sense to argue that such crimes should elicit from those people the same type of reaction that a crime directed at their civil rights would elicit.
Click to expand...
What hypothetical murders directed at someone's civil rights are you talking about?
 
Nickyjo said:
I read their statement, as should you. It seems, if I understand correctly, that their concern is that the proposed law would allow charging people who organize a demonstration but who did not commit or advocate violence with a crime. That seems a very defensive position. It conforms to my experience in organizing back in the day, when crazies we hadn’t invited showed up to do damage.
Click to expand...
The main thing lost here is that nowadays, when so many protests and marches have turned violent, it should be the responsibility of the protest organizers to take all the steps necessary to make sure their protest stays peaceful. If we keep seeing these things get out of hand then there will be cries to end the right to assemble and protest for the "common good"
 
SheWolf said:
I don’t believe in collective guilt for any group of people. Only violent rioters should be charged with actual rioting.
Click to expand...
LOL okay. If you really believe protesters are there after curfew engaging in peaceful activity you are fooling yourself, you aren't fooling me.
 
pamak said:
I don't get to chose what you post, but I get to chose the comments I make about the hypcrisy of your posts.
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't understand. Call my posts hypocritical should you chose to do so. Do not call me a hypocrite. Same as I call your posts shit, but I don't call you shit.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL okay. If you really believe protesters are there after curfew engaging in peaceful activity you are fooling yourself, you aren't fooling me.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the definition of peaceful? Breaking a curfew is not an act of violence, so people simply guilty of breaking a curfew shouldn’t be charged with rioting. Destroying private property and punching a cop are far more serious crimes.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe you don't understand. Call my posts hypocritical should you chose to do so. Do not call me a hypocrite. Same as I call your posts shit, but I don't call you shit.
Click to expand...

If a post is hypocritical that reflects on the person who writes it too!
 
Maidenrules29 said:
What hypothetical murders directed at someone's civil rights are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Read again what I said. I will rephrase it to see if it will help:

Every f***r on January 6th, tried to invalidate MY family's vote. So, their action is affecting MY family's rights and it is much more personal than the crime a looter or murderer commits against an unknown to me person. So, the idea that people should react the same at every type of crime does not hold water.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
The main thing lost here is that nowadays, when so many protests and marches have turned violent, it should be the responsibility of the protest organizers to take all the steps necessary to make sure their protest stays peaceful. If we keep seeing these things get out of hand then there will be cries to end the right to assemble and protest for the "common good"
Click to expand...
Again, based on my experience in organizing and participating in such things, there is little that organizers can do when the crazies show up at an event. The cops generally understand that say, the Proud Boys or Antifa folks who show up after an event is publicized, often at the end, are out of control of the organizers. Back in the day, Cesar Chavez went on a prolonged fast when Chicano militant types rejected his non-violent approach, and I assume that MLK used the force of his personality and preaching to deal with blacks and white radicals who advocated violence, but those types of charismatic leaders are rare.
 
pamak said:
If a post is hypocritical that reflects on the person who writes it too!
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Your posts are stupid as **** half the time, I'm not allowed to call you a stupid ****.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Irrelevant. Your posts are stupid as **** half the time, I'm not allowed to call you a stupid ****.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what I said since your posts are f****g hypocritical but I refrained from calling you a f***g hypocrite

I guess tone matters too. The "F bomb" always makes things sound more hostile
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
Irrelevant to what I said since your posts are f****g hypocritical but I refrained from calling you a f***g hypocrite

I guess tone matters too. The "F bomb" always makes things sound more hostile
Click to expand...
pamak said:
Only a person who is only interested in defending the Capitol storming criminals would mention such allegations. When we had not just allegations but PROOF that Boogaloo extremists were embedded in the BLM protests and were killing police officers you did not choose to spread those FACTS!

Hypocrite!
Click to expand...

Nice lie. Is that all your credibility is worth? Just own it next time.
 
COTO said:
I'm personally convinced that protests are worthless for changing people's hearts and minds, hence I question the wisdom of attending one whether it's peaceful or not. But if I was to attend a protest, and it turned violent--even 5% violent--I'd be hightailing it out of there. Violence of any kind is a recipe for chaos.

Nobody knows exactly who are the ones perpetrating the violence, inciting the violence, cheering on the violence, trying to stop the violence, obstructing efforts to stop the violence, simply watching the violence, and so forth. If I'm participating in the protest, then I'm a part of a mob whether I like it or not. I've "inherited", in a sense, a share of the collective actions of the mob, even if those actions don't sync with my intentions.

Hence if I get arrested, or tear gassed, or mistakenly attacked by my own side, despite having done nothing myself, I'm nevertheless deserving of the punishment. I've put myself in a situation I saw was becoming chaotic and hostile, and I took no steps to extricate myself. In some cases I'd go even further to say: I put myself in a situation that I reasonably ought to have known would become chaotic and hostile, and I deserve what I get even if I do eventually take steps to extricate myself.

Consequently, if these tougher punishments for looting and rioting make people more leery about participating in protests that predictably elicit this kind of behaviour--even if only from a guilty minority--I don't see this as a bad thing. If you want the strength and protection of the mob, you accept responsibility for the actions of the mob. If you can't stomach that, find another way to address the problem.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is all I need to do to silence a movement is break a few windows at one of their gatherings.

At least some of the incidents at BLM protests were actually right wing guys pretending to be protesters and inciting. We know because they got arrested a couple of times.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Hypocrite is directed at a person. Just stop.
Click to expand...

When you stop showing hypocrisy and reveal the time you chose to call out a crime in the republican side without inserting distracting"nuances"
So, you claim in this thread that you have called out a crime in the Republican side

OpportunityCost said:
Really. So you think I need to call out every single crime in the Republican side of the fence before I can call out any violence on the Democrat side of the aisle?

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

If I really need to tell you that I don't support hunting down cops, you aren't worth talking to.
Click to expand...

What I have seen is that when you were given the opportunity to call out a crime in the republican side, you made comments spreading conspiracy rumors that were designed to shift the blame to "suspects" like the FBI

OpportunityCost said:
So, now your claim shifts. But you keep trying to apply it to all Republicans.

BTW, your little "GET USED TO IT" is using Trump as an excuse for your shitty behavior. Trump does control your behavior, you are just unwilling to examine that.

Looked at legally, its not an insurrection because people involved are not being charged accordingly. I'm certainly not saying Antifa or the FBI attacked the Capitol building but what I will say is one of the most vocal people arrested who was clearly inciting for more damage was an Antifa member. But he was let go on his own recognizance. There are some rumors flying around that the FBI was amongst the leadership that organized the rally. That's very different from saying they attacked the Capitol building, but you aren't interested in nuance are you? Gets in the way of those stereotypes for political advantage doesn't it?
Click to expand...

So, again show me the time you chose to talk about "nuances" with respect to violence during the BLM protests which included cases of police officers murdered by Boogaloo right wing extremists. If you can do it, I will change the wording that you do not like. If you cannot, it will remain!

There will be no farther post by me in this thread until you produce the evidence of your sincere desire to call out a crime regardless of whether it is on the republican or the democratic side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom