Black Lives Matter stop terrorizing our cities

[EvaPeron]

Hey, Black Lives Matter, stop terrorizing our cities | Fox News


It's ridiculous - plain and simple. These people need to be arrested for shutting down the roads. What about the people's lives that they are terrorizing and impacting. What gives them the right? All lives need to stand up and stop this ridiculous "thug" behavior.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Hey, Black Lives Matter, stop terrorizing our cities | Fox News


It's ridiculous - plain and simple. These people need to be arrested for shutting down the roads. What about the people's lives that they are terrorizing and impacting. What gives them the right? All lives need to stand up and stop this ridiculous "thug" behavior.

Yeah, since when should people have the right to assemble, the right to protest against what they believe is widespread and endemic injustice!

Yeah, just like you said in so many words, protesting IS terrorism!

*shakes head in disgust*

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Being made late to work sucks, but it isn't terrorism. Let's keep some perspective.

 

[faithful_servant]

Yeah, since when should people have the right to assemble, the right to protest against what they believe is widespread and endemic injustice!

Yeah, just like you said in so many words, protesting IS terrorism!

*shakes head in disgust*

That right gets brought to a screeching halt when it violates the law. You don't get to vandalize something by painting it with your slogans and then claim it's freedom of speech. You don't get to shut down a business by preventing people from accessing it with a line of protesters and claim it's free speech. As with ALL of our rights, there is a RESPONSIBILITY that comes with it.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That right gets brought to a screeching halt when it violates the law. You don't get to vandalize something by painting it with your slogans and then claim it's freedom of speech. You don't get to shut down a business by preventing people from accessing it with a line of protesters and claim it's free speech. As with ALL of our rights, there is a RESPONSIBILITY that comes with it.

The guy claimed it was terrorism - so I replied as I did.

That said, I agree that protests should have a permit as is required almost everywhere. BUT if the problem the protesters believe they see is so endemic, so entrenched among those they're protesting against, do you really expect they'd care about legal niceties like permits? I don't think the patriots of the Boston Tea Party - whose actions were in protest against not just their own taxes, but also the near-total LACK of taxes that the tea shippers were being charged (sound familiar?) - even if they'd been allowed to protest with a permit, really cared if a permit was required.

One more thing - it's been noted that twenty or thirty of the protesters were openly carrying assault-style rifles. Y'all on the Right SHOULD be noting the restraint the protesters (and the cops who were all too aware of those armed protesters) all showed while under attack. That, and it's a freaking miracle that because so many were armed, it didn't turn out to be much, much worse.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, since when should people have the right to assemble, the right to protest against what they believe is widespread and endemic injustice!

Yeah, just like you said in so many words, protesting IS terrorism!

*shakes head in disgust*

The 1st amendment doesn't protect illegal behavior.

 

[faithful_servant]

The guy claimed it was terrorism - so I replied as I did.

That said, I agree that protests should have a permit as is required almost everywhere. BUT if the problem the protesters believe they see is so endemic, so entrenched among those they're protesting against, do you really expect they'd care about legal niceties like permits? I don't think the patriots of the Boston Tea Party - whose actions were in protest against not just their own taxes, but also the near-total LACK of taxes that the tea shippers were being charged (sound familiar?) - even if they'd been allowed to protest with a permit, really cared if a permit was required.

One more thing - it's been noted that twenty or thirty of the protesters were openly carrying assault-style rifles. Y'all on the Right SHOULD be noting the restraint the protesters (and the cops who were all too aware of those armed protesters) all showed while under attack. That, and it's a freaking miracle that because so many were armed, it didn't turn out to be much, much worse.

I agree with you that it's not terrorism, but obstructing a public thoroughfare is illegal and as such should be addressed and those who are breaking the law prosecuted.

 

[apdst]

The guy claimed it was terrorism - so I replied as I did.

That said, I agree that protests should have a permit as is required almost everywhere. BUT if the problem the protesters believe they see is so endemic, so entrenched among those they're protesting against, do you really expect they'd care about legal niceties like permits? I don't think the patriots of the Boston Tea Party - whose actions were in protest against not just their own taxes, but also the near-total LACK of taxes that the tea shippers were being charged (sound familiar?) - even if they'd been allowed to protest with a permit, really cared if a permit was required.

One more thing - it's been noted that twenty or thirty of the protesters were openly carrying assault-style rifles. Y'all on the Right SHOULD be noting the restraint the protesters (and the cops who were all too aware of those armed protesters) all showed while under attack. That, and it's a freaking miracle that because so many were armed, it didn't turn out to be much, much worse.

It is terrorism. BLM is using and threatening to terrorize people when they say, "no justice, no peace", and, "goddamn white America".

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The 1st amendment doesn't protect illegal behavior.

That's in the court of law. But if you tick off too many people for far too long, they start to not give a tinker's damn about the law.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I agree with you that it's not terrorism, but obstructing a public thoroughfare is illegal and as such should be addressed and those who are breaking the law prosecuted.

I do wish the Right had been half so insistent about the "Rule of Law" during the Bush years as they are now....

 

[apdst]

That's in the court of law. But if you tick off too many people for far too long, they start to not give a tinker's damn about the law.

That makes them terrorists.

 

[apdst]

I do wish the Right had been half so insistent about the "Rule of Law" during the Bush years as they are now....

For instance?

 

[faithful_servant]

I do wish the Right had been half so insistent about the "Rule of Law" during the Bush years as they are now....

More diversion and distraction?? Care to address my point instead of trying to derail the discussion?? Is it OK for someone to abrogate their responsibility to obey the law when they engage in their 1st Amendment right to free speech??? C'mon Glen, it's a simple "Yes" or "No" question... Try out something new today and give us a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

 

[faithful_servant]

That makes them terrorists.

No, that makes them criminals...

 

[Chainsaw]

BLM are being played as useful idiot puppets, just like since LBJs Great Society.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Glen is right.....it is not terrorism, and the OP keyed in on the use of the word.

 

[blaxshep]

More diversion and distraction?? Care to address my point instead of trying to derail the discussion?? Is it OK for someone to abrogate their responsibility to obey the law when they engage in their 1st Amendment right to free speech??? C'mon Glen, it's a simple "Yes" or "No" question... Try out something new today and give us a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Dr. Martian Luther King would disagree.

 

[Chillfolks]

I got stuck in one of these protests Sunday. The police allowed the BLM to shut down the streets for about an hour. After that they politely helped the protesters off the street and into a park to clear the roads to traffic.

I did see a few small scuffles break out, but they seemed to involve folks long past sobriety.

It cost me way more at the restauRant to wait it out than I wanted to spend but hey it was fun to watch.

 

[Deuce]

But it's all too easy to only see the violence, and not address the motivation for it. It's especially easy if you attack the messenger.

When he was around, people called him a criminal and a thug, an inciter of violence.

Oh, you're inconvenienced on the way to work because of a protest? That's the goddamned point. People have been non-violently protesting police brutality for decades and **** hasn't changed. You want to stop the violence? Start having a serious conversation about the reason its happening. A riot is the language of the unheard. Start listening, dip****s.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Protesting in a peaceful manner even when its doing the act of blocking traffic isnt terrorism. Its peaceful civil disobedience

 

[apdst]

No, that makes them criminals...

Same difference.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That makes them terrorists.

Are you still claiming that the Dallas shooter was part of a "black terrorist group"? Just askin'....

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It is terrorism. BLM is using and threatening to terrorize people when they say, "no justice, no peace", and, "goddamn white America".

Oh, wow! Lookit that! WORDS are now instruments of terrorism!

I guess the First Amendment doesn't mean anything anymore, huh? Especially when your second quote (if it is a valid quote) would have come from an individual that in no way, shape, or form represents BLM as an organization.

But I get it - if just ONE idiot who supports BLM says that, then ALL of BLM must think that way, huh? BUT if just ONE Republican presidential candidate (who got more votes in the primary than any candidate ever before in the GOP primary) says something truly, truly idiotic, "That doesn't represent us!!!!"

Double standards, anyone?

 

[apdst]

Are you still claiming that the Dallas shooter was part of a "black terrorist group"? Just askin'....

He was inspired by BLM. He was on their side of the argument. How many BLM protesters were intentionally shot by Johnson? None, right? How many black officers were shot? Two hours before the first shot was fired Jeff Hood said, "goddamn white America". Johnson was definitely a BLM terrorist.

 

[apdst]

Oh, wow! Lookit that! WORDS are now instruments of terrorism!

I guess the First Amendment doesn't mean anything anymore, huh? Especially when your second quote (if it is a valid quote) would have come from an individual that in no way, shape, or form represents BLM as an organization.

But I get it - if just ONE idiot who supports BLM says that, then ALL of BLM must think that way, huh? BUT if just ONE Republican presidential candidate (who got more votes in the primary than any candidate ever before in the GOP primary) says something truly, truly idiotic, "That doesn't represent us!!!!"

Double standards, anyone?

What about the Confederate flag? Should Confederate symbolism remain in place?