- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 45,019
- Reaction score
- 16,428
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It’s a desecrated American flag for traitors.
It’s a desecrated American flag for traitors.That dude is lucky the cooler heads prevailed.
Awesome.
What's that stupid ****ing yellow flag, anyway?
This is to funny.Nice try but you failed.
The bills make no such distinction.
"Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets."
Maybe read before you comment
Sorry but words have meanings. I get that it’s complicated for you but Google can help you with the ones you are stuck on.If you don’t want to support political violence then denounce it. Don’t play these shitty little word games. Nobody is buying it.
The article uses both terms.This is to funny.
This is why you should probably read more than just the headline. Would save you the embarrassment.
I mean hell your own link proves you wrong. But then you would have had to actually read it to know that.
From you own link.
Republican-backed bill aimed at cracking down on protests by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters received final legislative approval on Wednesday.
Do you see the word rioters right there.
From the Oklahoma law text.
A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if:
1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot,
as defined Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death;
Sorry you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all
So you wanna play word games and split hairs over bullshit to defend political violence.This is to funny.
This is why you should probably read more than just the headline. Would save you the embarrassment.
I mean hell your own link proves you wrong. But then you would have had to actually read it to know that.
From you own link.
Republican-backed bill aimed at cracking down on protests by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters received final legislative approval on Wednesday.
Do you see the word rioters right there.
From the Oklahoma law text.
A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if:
1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot,
as defined Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death;
Sorry you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all
Wait you just got done saying the bill made no distinction. Now you admit your own link made that distinction and that was after you tried to pretend it was me that needed to read more before commenting. This must be rather embarrassing for you.The article uses both terms.
Understanding that a riot is not the same thing as a protest is not splitting hairs.So you wanna play word games and split hairs over bullshit to defend political violence.
Nice try but you failed.
The bills make no such distinction.
"Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets."
Maybe read before you comment
No, it dorsnt distinguish. It uses both terms.Wait you just got done saying the bill made no distinction. Now you admit your own link made that distinction and that was after you tried to pretend it was me that needed to read more before commenting. This must be rather embarrassing for you.
Like I said you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all.
Watching him whine about me needing to read more when it is obvious he didn’t read past the headline of his own link is rather hilarious.Sounds like editorial comment.
No, it dorsnt distinguish. It uses both terms.
For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
troll is strong with this one. You want to kill democrats, right?Lol. The OP is the froth. Im simply calling bullshit.
It’s the only way to get quality, overlapping legislation.I am sure you tell yourself that.
No, it dorsnt distinguish. It uses both terms.
For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
The problem is you are lying to yourself.It’s the only way to get quality, overlapping legislation.
You can’t post without accusing ‘others’ of lying.The problem is you are lying to yourself.
Like i said.The Oklahoma bill only uses riots and the Iowa bill clearly states that if it is a legal protest then there is no immunity.
Sorry but you are failing here.
From the Iowa bill.
.366A Immunity from civil liability for certain vehicle operators.
1. The driver of a vehicle who is exercising due care and who injures another person who
is participating in a protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly or who is engaging in disorderly conduct and is blocking traffic in a public street or highway shall be immune from civil liability for the injury caused by the driver of the vehicle.
2. The driver of a vehicle who injures another person who is participating in a protest,
demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly or who is engaging in disorderly conduct and is
blocking traffic in a public street or highway shall not be immune from civil liability if the
actions leading to the injury caused by the driver of a vehicle constitute reckless or willful
misconduct.
3. Subsection 1 shall not apply if the injured person participating in a protest or demonstration was doing so with a valid permit allowing persons to protest or demonstrate on the public .street or highway where the injury occurred.
Tell me are you even mad that your media lied to you like this and embarrassed you so
protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” (key word OR) engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.No, that's silly. Already discussed, and debunked by the article itself.Um yeah in Florida they are
Again that having your lies called out bothers you so is not my problem.You can’t post without accusing ‘others’ of lying.
That’s some QuaLIEty TDS you have.
And that explains the frequent failure of these events.Making people mad about what's going on is.
And we see that already Taco has backed down from his "drag all the illegals out of the U.S." stance. Now he's passionately saying that we DO need illegals. If they're farmers.
LOL.
Please.Says who?
It's the goal of any protest. Or at least any that are of value.Maybe that's your goal.
Watching him whine about me needing to read more when it is obvious he didn’t read past the headline of his own link is rather hilarious.
And again if it’s a legal protest there is no immunity. And short if after already being shown to not have a clue what you are talking about I am not taking your claims of what constitutes disorderly conduct with proof.Like i said.
"For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” (key word OR) engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
It's better to make people mad at what you are mad at. Not mad at the people protesting, when those protests turn into disruption, vandalism, etc.Making people mad about what's going on is.
And we see that already Taco has backed down from his "drag all the illegals out of the U.S." stance. Now he's passionately saying that we DO need illegals. If they're farmers.
LOL.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?