Obama will impose martial law they said, he'll impose a military dictatorship they said...

[El OchoCinco]

No, I argued that they had a Constitutional right to attend church. I didn't say they had any rights to get their hair cut, and the discussion wasn't about firing rubber bullets. I argued they should be able to go to church. That is all I said.

I also defend the people's right to assemble now, even with the curfew. I am consistent and will always try to be.

What I said in this thread was "Don't be surprised if you stand in front of marching police and get hit with a rubber bullet if you resist dispersing." I have always said that if you believe a police officer is being unjust you should still follow the officer or risk physical harm - fight it over later legally. I can show you multiple examples if you wish where I said this.

Both of my comments apply equally to people who have the right to go to church AND those who have the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Your comments on those who I mentioned going to church were markedly different in tone than your views on the protesters. Some of them (not all) as a reminder:







Ah. Inconvenience is not enough of a reason to claim your constitutional rights are being violated. People could watch mass online? They can protest online, too. They can have online speeches. Its the exact same thing. Just a different tone from you.



Right. Stay the fuck home for 3-4 weeks, that is all. But this doesn't apply to protesters.

You are guilty of the exact same hypocrisy you are accusing Captain Obvious of possessing. You might be worse because you're pretending you are holier than he is. Incidentally, I agree with your side in regards to his comments - he is being inconsistent.

Protest is an immediate reaction to a government action.

It is a part of the constitution and was put in the FIRST AMENDMENT.

If you do not go to Church one week after skipping most of the year, are your inherent rights really being trashed. If the government can outlaw all protests except on their terms then it renders protest moot. The government telling to stay out of a church a few weeks for health reasons is different but you are not intellectual enough to see that.

The order to keep people out of CHURCH is NOT ILLEGAL....YOUR SUPEREME COURT SAID SO.

KILLING by COPS in an unjustified manner IS ILLEGAL but in many of THESE cases, cops get off.

HUGE DIFFERENCE anyone can see.

Therefore your argument is moot because the Governor's action was deemed LEGAL.

Police action to murder should not be LEGAL.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Protest is an immediate reaction to a government action.

It is a part of the constitution and was put in the FIRST AMENDMENT.

If you do not go to Church one week after skipping most of the year, are your inherent rights really being trashed. If the government can outlaw all protests except on their terms then it renders protest moot. The government telling to stay out of a church a few weeks for health reasons is different but you are not intellectual enough to see that.

The order to keep people out of CHURCH is NOT ILLEGAL....YOUR SUPEREME COURT SAID SO.

KILLING by COPS in an unjustified manner IS ILLEGAL but in many of THESE cases, cops get off.

HUGE DIFFERENCE anyone can see.

Therefore your argument is moot because the Governor's action was deemed LEGAL.

Police action to murder should not be LEGAL.

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm pointing out your blatant hypocrisy between the BLM protesters going out when told not to and the Covid protesters going out to when told not to. There is no difference and yet you acted completely different in both situations.

And a protest doesn't have to be an immediate response to a government action. It can be all sorts of things not related to government.

 

[CaptainObvious]

No, I argued that they had a Constitutional right to attend church. I didn't say they had any rights to get their hair cut, and the discussion wasn't about firing rubber bullets. I argued they should be able to go to church. That is all I said.

I also defend the people's right to assemble now, even with the curfew. I am consistent and will always try to be.

What I said in this thread was "Don't be surprised if you stand in front of marching police and get hit with a rubber bullet if you resist dispersing." I have always said that if you believe a police officer is being unjust you should still follow the officer or risk physical harm - fight it over later legally. I can show you multiple examples if you wish where I said this.

Both of my comments apply equally to people who have the right to go to church AND those who have the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Your comments on those who I mentioned going to church were markedly different in tone than your views on the protesters. Some of them (not all) as a reminder:







Ah. Inconvenience is not enough of a reason to claim your constitutional rights are being violated. People could watch mass online? They can protest online, too. They can have online speeches. Its the exact same thing. Just a different tone from you.



Right. Stay the fuck home for 3-4 weeks, that is all. But this doesn't apply to protesters.

You are guilty of the exact same hypocrisy you are accusing Captain Obvious of possessing. You might be worse because you're pretending you are holier than he is. Incidentally, I agree with your side in regards to his comments - he is being inconsistent.

Inconsistent? Now I hate you. Okay, in the heat of message board battle there may be conflicting statements made, and/or misunderstandings. Terribly difficult to debate via message boards vs. real conversation which is why we fight so much IMO. Anyway, if you would take the time to point out the inconsistencies and I will acknowledge them or offer clarification.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Fox 11 Los Angeles was broadcasting live as a couple of looters approached a liquor store in the Van Nuys neighborhood of LA, only to encounter the store's owners toting rifles and standing firm. A standoff ensued until the police showed up.

And when the police did finally arrive on the scene, they immediately ran and pinned the store owners, who are Black, against the wall. Throughout the incident Fox 11 reporterChristina Gonzalez, and several other bystanders, yelled at the police in an attempt to correct the mistake.

During the ensuing chaos, the looters ran off in the other direction.

Unbelievable.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Inconsistent? Now I hate you. Okay, in the heat of message board battle there may be conflicting statements made, and/or misunderstandings. Terribly difficult to debate via message boards vs. real conversation which is why we fight so much IMO. Anyway, if you would take the time to point out the inconsistencies and I will acknowledge them or offer clarification.

I know you will. That's why I don't have a problem pointing out when I feel you are not being consistent. I know you'll admit you probably made a bad call. I would too if you pointed it out to me. It is human to make an error of judgment and we should all embrace when we make an error and concede a point. That doesn't mean we are losers or our team sucks or some random shit.

Please, point out when I am mistaken - I will concede the point if you find I am not consistent or correct a misstatement. I've seen GWB do this too.

Folks that lean left on this forum will fight tooth and nail to not admit being in error, even when they blatantly are. They can never concede a point and every attack is the enemy at the gates. This is how you know they aren't interested in honest debate for the betterment of...well, anything. They're just here to fight.

Where I believe you were inconsistent is in the same manner Ocho is. You applied the standards to the protest against Covid lockdown unequally to the protesters for the Floyd death.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm pointing out your blatant hypocrisy between the BLM protesters going out when told not to and the Covid protesters going out to when told not to. There is no difference and yet you acted completely different in both situations.

And a protest doesn't have to be an immediate response to a government action. It can be all sorts of things not related to government.

What about protestors....who are not all BLM...you are labelling them to narrow your argument... what about them protesting during the day when there was no curfew....

they are not told not to so your argument fails easily.

We showed pics of daylight abuses of police....so no curfew issue.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I know you will. That's why I don't have a problem pointing out when I feel you are not being consistent. I know you'll admit you probably made a bad call. I would too if you pointed it out to me. It is human to make an error of judgment and we should all embrace when we make an error and concede a point. That doesn't mean we are losers or our team sucks or some random shit.

Please, point out when I am mistaken - I will concede the point if you find I am not consistent or correct a misstatement. I've seen GWB do this too.

Folks that lean left on this forum will fight tooth and nail to not admit being in error, even when they blatantly are. They can never concede a point and every attack is the enemy at the gates. This is how you know they aren't interested in honest debate for the betterment of...well, anything. They're just here to fight.

Where I believe you were inconsistent is in the same manner Ocho is. You applied the standards to the protest against Covid lockdown unequally to the protesters for the Floyd death.

Could you be a bit more specific? No need for every post, but more details.

 

[Tsing Tao]

What about protestors....who are not all BLM...you are labelling them to narrow your argument... what about them protesting during the day when there was no curfew....

they are not told not to so your argument fails easily.

We showed pics of daylight abuses of police....so no curfew issue.

How does my argument fail miserably when I am saying they have the right to protest without police disturbance as long as it is peaceful? What part of my argument fails here?

 

[El OchoCinco]

How does my argument fail miserably when I am saying they have the right to protest without police disturbance as long as it is peaceful? What part of my argument fails here?

because peaceful protestors during the day were attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets....

 

[El OchoCinco]

Peaceful armed protest in MI...no tear gas or bullets.

peaceful protest in many cities during the day with no curfew and.....tear gas and bullets..