The Left At It Again

[*bfine32*]

(03-12-2016, 11:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: The best way to handle these protests is to ignore them.

But Drumpf never met a criticism that that he didn't want to ***** about and try to prove wrong.

No doubt. He should cancel a rally that these "protesters" planned to over take or something like that.  But we both know Trump would never do something like that because of the reasons you gave.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-12-2016, 09:38 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Bernie already gave his rioters a stamp of approval.

So Trump is supposed to publicly denounce non violent people who haven't attacked anyone at other candidates rallies, but Bernie is allowed to openly support a violent group of people?

I wonder what type of privilege that falls under?

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-12-2016, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The sad thing is that I am currently watching the Trump KC rally and it is continually being interrupted by those trying to use coercion to advance their political agendas (wish there was a word for that) and it occurred to me: Who is going to condemn this action:

POTUS?

Democratic Candidates?

Republican Candidates?

Liberal Media? 

90% of this forum?

I think Obama was trying to figure out which one reminded him of a younger self.

The dems are still lobbying for the "black" vote.  Though race is a social construct.

The pubs are trying to save face, I mean Trump has the GOP on it's head.

As to this forum, I am starting to see a change in some of the posters attitudes, sure there are some that will defend these actions no matter what, usually by bringing up history and a bunch of made up ideas, but there seems to be a shift of thinking.  There also seems to be new posters as well, which is a good thing.

[Belsnickel]

(03-12-2016, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The sad thing is that I am currently watching the Trump KC rally and it is continually being interrupted by those trying to use coercion to advance their political agendas (wish there was a word for that) and it occurred to me: Who is going to condemn this action:

POTUS?

Democratic Candidates?

Republican Candidates?

Liberal Media? 

90% of this forum?

Is interrupting dangerous to human life? Is simple assault? I condemn any behavior like this, it is unseemly. Its apples and oranges to what you are fishing for, though.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is interrupting dangerous to human life? Is simple assault? I condemn any behavior like this, it is unseemly. Its apples and oranges to what you are fishing for, though.

Yes coersion, incitement, and assault are dangerous to human life, probably more dangerous than occupying an empty building in the middle of nowhere. of course this is just my opinion you apparently find the former to be a bigger danger.

Folks call it apples to oranges to avoid looking like hypocrites. Personally I do not consider these "protests" to be acts of terror (yet), but there are other things that I didn't consider acts of terror either, but I was told I was wrong in that instance.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 10:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes coersion, incitement, and assault are dangerous to human life, probably more dangerous than occupying an empty building in the middle of nowhere with firearms and threatening to use them against those attempting to lawfully remove them. of course this is just my opinion you apparently find the former to be a bigger danger.

Folks call it apples to oranges to avoid looking like hypocrites. Personally I do not consider these "protests" to be acts of terror (yet), but there are other things that I didn't consider acts of terror either, but I was told I was wrong in that instance.

Fixed that for you. I consider threats with deadly weapons dangerous to human life. I don't consider coercion, incitement, or assault in general to be so as I can think of many instances where it is not. More so than when it is.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Fixed that for you. I consider threats with deadly weapons dangerous to human life. I don't consider coercion, incitement, or assault in general to be so as I can think of many instances where it is not. More so than when it is.

Oh, I too consider threats with deadly weapons dangerous. It's just that I find incitement in a crowded theather or folks trying to rush the stage when a political candidate is speaking to be dangerous as well. Matter of fact I find actions taking place in these crowded venues to be more dangerous than folks occupying an empty building 30 miles from nowhere.

Guess i focus more on what is happening, not what could happen. If I were to focus on what could happen I could easily see both ending in loss of life.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 10:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I too consider threats with deadly weapons dangerous. It's just that I find incitement in a crowded theather or folks trying to rush the stage when a political candidate is speaking to be dangerous as well. Matter of fact I find actions taking place in these crowded venues to be more dangerous than folks occupying an empty building 30 miles from nowhere.

Guess i focus more on what is happening, not what could happen. If I were to focus on what could happen I could easily see both ending in loss of life.

Personally, I haven't been paying much attention to what has been going on with the events involved in the election cycle. What snippets I have had have been contradictory. For example, people from the denomination to which I belong that were at the Trump rally saying the protestors were peaceful and it was the Trump supporters that got violent first. This is contradictory to other reports on my newsfeed, so I don't know what to truly take into account. Since everything has just been disgusting to me this election cycle, I don't bother reading much about any of it. In your KC comments, I took that to being people shouting to interrupt. If it was something different, I wouldn't know.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I haven't been paying much attention to what has been going on with the events involved in the election cycle. What snippets I have had have been contradictory. For example, people from the denomination to which I belong that were at the Trump rally saying the protestors were peaceful and it was the Trump supporters that got violent first. This is contradictory to other reports on my newsfeed, so I don't know what to truly take into account. Since everything has just been disgusting to me this election cycle, I don't bother reading much about any of it. In your KC comments, I took that to being people shouting to interrupt. If it was something different, I wouldn't know.

Protesting is one thing, but when you enter the Lion's Den don't act surprised if the Lion bites you. Once you enter a crowded facility and attempt to incite peacefullness is out the window; it matters little who has told you otherwise.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 10:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Protesting is one thing, but when you enter the Lion's Den don't act surprised if the Lion bites you. Once you enter a crowded facility and attempt to incite peacefullness is out the window; it matters little who has told you otherwise.

So, what was that one politician that shouted 'you lie' at the SOTU? Does he fall into this category as well?

I consider things like this rude, but I don't consider it dangerous based upon the information I have before me. Also, why do you say it was inciting? Were they trying to stir up violent or unlawful behavior?

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 10:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, why do you say it was inciting? Were they trying to stir up violent or unlawful behavior?

Because at least one person got worked into such a frenzy that he attempted to rush the stage.

As to your other "point": I have no issue with one politician calling another one a liar. What category are we talking about? And I also have no idea what incident you are talking about; as there has been many where one called another a liar..

[fredtoast]

(03-12-2016, 12:28 AM)Vlad Wrote: Mother effing liberal scum.  .  .  .  











The statement came hours after one of those supporters was arrested and charged after video surfaced showing a protester being sucker punched at a rally in North Carolina.

Also on Friday, a Breitbart reporter filed charges against Trump’s campaign manager, alleging that he grabbed her and bruised her as she attempted to ask a question.

Other altercations included a Secret Service agent allegedly choke-slamming a Time Magazine photographer in February, video capturing a black woman being repeatedly shoved and called “scum” in Kentucky, and a Black Lives Matter protester being tackled, punched, and kicked by rally attendees in Alabama.

So Trump's campaign manager is "mother effinbg liberal scum"?

And the Trump supporter who sucker punched a protestor is "mother effing liberal scum"?

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because at least one person got worked into such a frenzy that he attempted to rush the stage.

As to your other "point": I have no issue with one politician calling another one a liar. What category are we talking about? And I also have no idea what incident you are talking about; as there has been many where one called another a liar..

I feel there is more to this story that may help me understand what went on. The person that shouted was saying what? How did they cause someone to rush the stage? Was the person rushing in support of or in opposition to the disruptor?

To the other commentary there was the politician that interrupted the SOTU by shouting 'you lie' at the POTUS. The SOTU is a crowded event, would you say that person was 'inciting'? Just trying to get some clarification as to what goes from being rude to inciting in your opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 02:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I feel there is more to this story that may help me understand what went on. The person that shouted was saying what? How did they cause someone to rush the stage? Was the person rushing in support of or in opposition to the disruptor?

To the other commentary there was the politician that interrupted the SOTU by shouting 'you lie' at the POTUS. The SOTU is a crowded event, would you say that person was  'inciting'? Just trying to get some clarification as to what goes from being rude to inciting in your opinion.

Funny how sometimes we need more information even when we see it and other times we do not. 

I think I'll see if I can find that definition of Domestic terrorism folks were linking in another thread. just to make sure we are not being hypocritical, 

  

[GMDino]

(03-13-2016, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Funny how sometimes we need more information even when we see it and other times we do not. 

I think I'll see if I can find that definition of Domestic terrorism folks were linking in another thread. just to make sure we are not being hypocritical, 

  

I guess it would be funny if it weren't based on individual situations.

Sometimes it is very obvious...sometimes it is more convoluted.

Sometime people like playing the "poor me...I was right and no one agreed with me" card even when they were not.  It is a weird world.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 04:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess it would be funny if it weren't based on individual situations.

Sometimes it is very obvious...sometimes it is more convoluted.

Sometime people like playing the "poor me...I was right and no one agreed with me" card even when they were not.  It is a weird world.

I'm not sure with the "no one agreed with me" suggestion as nobody outside of a few left-leaning hypocrites in this forum were quick to label the occupation in Oregon terrorism; no one with any integrity did so.

Just like watching folks dance and try to split hairs to prove they are not hypocritical.  Do you happen to have that definition or Terrorism that "everyone" was linking in the Oregon thread? 

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Funny how sometimes we need more information even when we see it and other times we do not. 

I think I'll see if I can find that definition of Domestic terrorism folks were linking in another thread. just to make sure we are not being hypocritical,  

Feel free. It says a danger to human life. I'm just trying to understand how this situation would be such since you are comparing it to the Bundy incident in Oregon.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 04:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure with the "no one agreed with me" suggestion as nobody outside of a few left-leaning hypocrites in this forum were quick to label the occupation in Oregon terrorism; no one with any integrity did so.

Just like watching folks dance and try to split hairs to prove they are not hypocritical.  Do you happen to have that definition or Terrorism that "everyone" was linking in the Oregon thread? 

Now now, let's not start throwing personal insults around.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 04:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Feel free. It says a danger to human life. I'm just trying to understand how this situation would be such since you are comparing it to the Bundy incident in Oregon.

First of all: Where was the danger to human life in the Oregon standoff? You had a bunch of folks occupying an empty building in the middle of nowhere.

But in the protester's scenario you have people rushing the stage (I know more facts need) and you have people engaging in fights. 

Here's the latest on the Oregon standoff charges:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0WB2ZM

Click on the link, hit control f, type in terror and tell how many times it appears. You can then type in danger and tell me how many times it references the occupation being  danger to human life.

But this has gone on quite long enough. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. I'm going to build a table. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 04:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now now, let's not start throwing personal insults around.

Oh, I didn't name anyone, just an "if the shoe fits...."