ObamaTards Riot and Loot City

[CaptainObvious]

Rioting/shopping as opposed to ummm "white" collar crime. A man with a briefcase can steal a helluva lot more than a man with a gun.

And wow talk about all the blacks involved in "white" collar crime these days.

This is your defense? LOL

 

[userque]

You're not really close at all.

I believe he is saying that rioting doesn't solve the problem and is just adding another crime to the original crime.

When "the process" is biased and unfair, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible war, as was done by the original Americans against Great Britain.

When "the process" is perceived to be biased and unfair, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible war, as was done by the confederacy against the U.S.

When "the process" is biased, unfair, and also is killing minorities for decades or more, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible "war."

Now, in war, looting is also done by soldiers; and by the leaders of the winning nation via the peace treaty.

So, have you ever posted on ET about these other scenarios where protests were had?

 

[Tsing Tao]

You obviously didn't finish reading the article; and likely put into question your credibility going forward.

Note the quoted word, "classical." I challenge you to continue reading the article after the point you stopped reading it.

You are correct. I didn't read the whole article. I noted the following:

1. The article was psycho-babble that was describing why crowds riot
2. I don't care why crowds riot.
3. There is no reason to justify committing further violence and crimes to persons/businesses not related to the first crime in any way.

If this means I don't have credibility with you - a random poster who doesn't really participate in much of our conversation around here - then I guess I'll just have to find a way to live with that.

If you would like to summarize the article and bring out what presumed salient point you are trying to make, I would be happy to converse with you. But I'm not just going to read every link you post and try to glean what it is you are trying to tell me.

 

[Tsing Tao]

When "the process" is biased and unfair, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible war, as was done by the original Americans against Great Britain.

When "the process" is perceived to be biased and unfair, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible war, as was done by the confederacy against the U.S.

When "the process" is biased, unfair, and also is killing minorities for decades or more, then you may see protests, and possible violence, and possible destruction, and possible "war."

Now, in war, looting is also done by soldiers; and by the leaders of the winning nation via the peace treaty.

So, have you ever posted on ET about these other scenarios where protests were had?

Yes, Boston Tea Party stuff. I get it. There is a perceived wrongness out there that the rioting crowd is trying to correct by smashing cars, stealing electronics and generalized arson. Do your best to hurt your neighbor and his well being or economic livelihood. That'll show those pigs.

What else?

 

[exGOPer]

This is the exact same attitude about black people that makes white Cons go out and kill innocent people, keep up the stereotypes.

 

[userque]

You are correct. I didn't read the whole article. I noted the following:

1. The article was psycho-babble that was describing why crowds riot
2. I don't care why crowds riot.
3. There is no reason to justify committing further violence and crimes to persons/businesses not related to the first crime in any way.

If this means I don't have credibility with you - a random poster who doesn't really participate in much of our conversation around here - then I guess I'll just have to find a way to live with that.

If you would like to summarize the article and bring out what presumed salient point you are trying to make, I would be happy to converse with you. But I'm not just going to read every link you post and try to glean what it is you are trying to tell me.

Keep in mind the intent of my post. Someone asked "why looting?" I responded with a google search term and an example link.

I didn't proffer a particular link for discussion. You came to me. You read the article, almost, and then questioned me on it. I hadn't read it nor commented on it ... until you asked me about it.

So in this case, yes, you have to read the article. But normally, I agree with you about people debating via hyperlinks.

How often I visit here is irrelevant to the veracity of the discussion.

I'm sure you'll find answers to your questions via that Google search I mentioned. But if you have a question for me, and I'm interest in answering, by all means, feel free to present it. Hopefully discussion will make us both better people.

 

[userque]

Yes, Boston Tea Party stuff. I get it. There is a perceived wrongness out there that the rioting crowd is trying to correct by smashing cars, stealing electronics and generalized arson. Do your best to hurt your neighbor and his well being or economic livelihood. That'll show those pigs.

What else?

That's not what I said.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Keep in mind the intent of my post. Someone asked "why looting?" I responded with a google search term and an example link.

Wonderful. But we can all do google searches if we actually want to know the psychological theories behind why people loot. That's not the point of the discussion here.

I didn't proffer a particular link for discussion. You came to me. You read the article, almost, and then questioned me on it. I hadn't read it nor commented on it ... until you asked me about it.

So in this case, yes, you have to read the article. But normally, I agree with you about people debating via hyperlinks.

I came to you? You quoted my post and responded to it with a link and an article. You came to me, sir/madam. I just responded to your response. That's what got us here to this pithy back and forth.

How often I visit here is irrelevant to the veracity of the discussion.

It is very relevant if you're going to try to get me to see your point by questioning my "credibility with you". As if that matters one iota.

I'm sure you'll find answers to your questions via that Google search I mentioned. But if you have a question for me, and I'm interest in answering, by all means, feel free to present it. Hopefully discussion will make us both better people.

I'm always interested in discussion that makes us better people. I just don't believe that starts with a google search. It should come from the people involved in the conversation - not regurgitated google articles that originated with other people.

 

[userque]

Yes, Boston Tea Party stuff. I get it. There is a perceived wrongness out there that the rioting crowd is trying to correct by smashing cars, stealing electronics and generalized arson. Do your best to hurt your neighbor and his well being or economic livelihood. That'll show those pigs.

What else?

You never answered: So, have you ever posted on ET about these other scenarios where protests were had?

 

[Tsing Tao]

That's not what I said.

Then feel free to clarify and "speak" more clearly.