DiscussMormonism.com

Ajax, what happened on January 6, 2021 was an attempt to end Constitutional rule in favor of authoritarian one party rule. Everything you posted above is missing the central issue and what it means to dismiss the significance of that attempt.

You are a modern Tory.

Maybe I am in that I think King George had more respect for our God given rights to life, liberty, and property than the current tyrannical majority that rules the USA.

What the Republicans are not saying in their finger pointing and efforts to blame each other for this horrendous election result is that work and personal responsibility while noble, never have been winning issues in politics for them. You don't have to be a contributing member of society to get a vote. Promises of welfare handouts gives the left an enormous advantage right from the start. That's how the left gets away with running incompetent candidates like Biden or Fetterman or radical extremists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters. While promising to take money from working people and give it to people who won't work, never have worked, and never plan to work, has proven effective when it comes to winning elections, it's still unconstitutional. If they were still alive the founders would have started shooting over this a long time ago.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:16 pm

Maybe I am in that I think King George had more respect for our God given rights to life, liberty, and property than current tyrannical majority that rules the USA.

Well, George III did sign off on England’s Slave Trade Act of 1807, abolishing the practice quite a few decades before his American counterparts did.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:16 pm

Ajax, what happened on January 6, 2021 was an attempt to end Constitutional rule in favor of authoritarian one party rule. Everything you posted above is missing the central issue and what it means to dismiss the significance of that attempt.

You are a modern Tory.

Maybe I am in that I think King George had more respect for our God given rights to life, liberty, and property than current tyrannical majority that rules the USA.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:48 pm

The only police officer to die in the "deadly" Jan 6 protest was Officer Brian Sicknick and nobody knows exactly how he died. But they've admitted that it wasn't blunt force trauma from a fire extinguisher. The four other people who died were right wing Trump supporters, who according to the people on this board, deserved it. The idea that this was a pivotal insurrection/war in which the left took significant casualties property damage like the right did during the BLM summer of 2020 protests is just not true. And the Jan 6 protesters have been punished far more harshly than the BLM protesters for the same crimes thanks to our partisan political justice system.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You keep making claims about your opponents without any supporting evidence, only to be shot down again and again. As pointed out by Dr. Steuss, Doc cam, et al, many thousands of of BLM protesters who resorted to violence and vandalism were indeed prosecuted and harshly punished even by Democrat or liberal law enforcement personnel, as they should have been. But I am sure that you will continue to ignore that evidence and continue to repeatedly claim falsely that BLM protesters who broke the law were let off Scott free or treated more leniently than Jan 6 insurrectionists.

The BLM movement has a valid point to make, like it or not, and the vast majority of them protested peacefully, without violence or vandalism, and therefore deserve our respect. As previously discussed on another thread, one unfortunate mistake they made was not including the word "too" after the words "black lives matter", thus causing those inclined towards bigotry to incorrectly infer that the BLM movement was somehow about encouraging preferential treatment for non-whites, which was never their intent.

There were BLM protesters in my city too, but none of them, as far as I know, resorted to violence and vandalism, and I fully sympathize with the main point of their movement.

ETA to make my meaning clearer.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:12 am

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:48 pm

The only police officer to die in the "deadly" Jan 6 protest was Officer Brian Sicknick and nobody knows exactly how he died. But they've admitted that it wasn't blunt force trauma from a fire extinguisher. The four other people who died were right wing Trump supporters, who according to the people on this board, deserved it. The idea that this was a pivotal insurrection/war in which the left took significant casualties property damage like the right did during the BLM summer of 2020 protests is just not true. And the Jan 6 protesters have been punished far more harshly than the BLM protesters for the same crimes thanks to our partisan political justice system.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You keep making claims about your opponents without any supporting evidence, only to be shot down again and again. As pointed out by Dr. Steuss, Doc cam, et al, many thousands of of BLM protesters who resorted to violence and vandalism were indeed prosecuted and harshly punished even by Democrat or liberal law enforcement personnel, as they should have been. But I am sure that you will continue to ignore that evidence and continue to repeatedly claim falsely that BLM protesters who broke the law were treated more leniently than Jan 6 insurrectionists who did so or were let off Scott free.

The BLM movement has a valid point to make, like it or not, and the vast majority of them protested peacefully, without violence or vandalism, and therefore deserve our respect. As previously discussed on another thread, one unfortunate mistake they made was not including the word "too" after the words "black lives matter", thus causing those inclined towards bigotry to incorrectly infer that the BLM movement was somehow about encouraging preferential treatment for non-whites, which was never their intent.

There were BLM protesters in my city too, but none of them, as far as I know, resorted to violence and vandalism, and I fully sympathize with the main point of their movement.

RIght, so free speech and protesting are only legal when you agree with their reasons.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:06 pm

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:12 am

Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You keep making claims about your opponents without any supporting evidence, only to be shot down again and again. As pointed out by Dr. Steuss, Doc cam, et al, many thousands of of BLM protesters who resorted to violence and vandalism were indeed prosecuted and harshly punished even by Democrat or liberal law enforcement personnel, as they should have been. But I am sure that you will continue to ignore that evidence and continue to repeatedly claim falsely that BLM protesters who broke the law were treated more leniently than Jan 6 insurrectionists who did so or were let off Scott free.

The BLM movement has a valid point to make, like it or not, and the vast majority of them protested peacefully, without violence or vandalism, and therefore deserve our respect. As previously discussed on another thread, one unfortunate mistake they made was not including the word "too" after the words "black lives matter", thus causing those inclined towards bigotry to incorrectly infer that the BLM movement was somehow about encouraging preferential treatment for non-whites, which was never their intent.

There were BLM protesters in my city too, but none of them, as far as I know, resorted to violence and vandalism, and I fully sympathize with the main point of their movement.

RIght, so free speech and protesting are only legal when you agree with their reasons.

Notice Xanax skimmed down to the bottom of the post and only read the last half of the last sentence. That’s why his responses often seem trollish and incongruent with a good faith post.



- Doc

Is reducing the number of needless killings of Black men by the police a bad cause really?

I just don't get it. I mean, could we for one damn second step out of the stupidity of a binary quarrel between ideologues and just think about the virtue of having police kill fewer young Black men?

In the abstract, would that be a bad thing?

I can't think of how it would be a bad thing.

Instead, it would be a good thing to reduce the number of police killings of Black men. It would be better for the police.

Most police do not like killing people. What a bonus for them to find a way to kill fewer people!

Most people would be happier if the protective aspect of policing could be combined with the use of less violence in the protecting.

The use of violence does not make me feel safer, really. Not on the whole. Fewer killings of young Black men means a safer world.

So, what's all of this hysteria against BLM really about? I would argue that the needless killings of numerous young Black men could reasonably make the Black community feel like the lives of its people do not matter, and thus want to protest over that fact.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

Personally, I do not live in fear of the police, and that is because I am a middle-aged, middle-class white man. I wish everyone felt as secure as I do. Should they not? Shouldn't the only people who fear the police be the people who are committing crimes?

What does it say about our law enforcement culture that many, many innocent people are afraid of having anything to do with law enforcement, and that this is actually not irrational of them?

Even as a middle-class, middle-aged white man, I try to have as little to do with law enforcement as possible. I don't hate them or fear them. I am thankful that there are police, and I think they should be adequately funded, but I think it is much wiser to stay as far away from law enforcement as possible.

If the police wanted to interview me about someone, I would engage an attorney to speak through. Why? Because that is the safest and smartest thing to do. Good thing I know a lot of attorneys and have the money to pay them.

If the police wanted to interview me about someone, I would engage an attorney to speak through. Why? Because that is the safest and smartest thing to do.

The same way Michael Flynn should have done? Be thankful you're a registered Democrat and you don't have to fear the Department of Justice or the IRS digging for any little thing they might be able to get you on. If you want to talk about what will cause the end of our Republic, the partisan political Department of Injustice and the fact that any kind of discrimination imaginable is fair game for anyone with an (R) by their name, that will be a far bigger reason for civil war.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:39 pm

If the police wanted to interview me about someone, I would engage an attorney to speak through. Why? Because that is the safest and smartest thing to do.

The same way Michael Flynn should have done? Be thankful you're a registered Democrat and you don't have to fear the Department of Justice or the IRS digging for any little thing they might be able to get you on. If you want to talk about what will cause the end of our Republic, the partisan political Department of Injustice and the fact that any kind of discrimination imaginable is fair game for anyone with an (R) by their name, that will be a far bigger reason for civil war.

You mean the Department of "Injustice" that repeatedly blocked aspects of the Democrat-led and Democrat-backed Senate probe into Trump'?

Pretty cool that Trump managed to get a (D) back next to his name.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:39 pm

The same way Michael Flynn should have done? Be thankful you're a registered Democrat and you don't have to fear the Department of Justice or the IRS digging for any little thing they might be able to get you on. If you want to talk about what will cause the end of our Republic, the partisan political Department of Injustice and the fact that any kind of discrimination imaginable is fair game for anyone with an (R) by their name, that will be a far bigger reason for civil war.

For a reminder, I restate by way of quotations the following:

I just don't get it. I mean, could we for one damn second step out of the stupidity of a binary quarrel between ideologues and just think about the virtue of having police kill fewer young Black men?

I guess the answer from Hawkeye/Ajax is, "NO! I can't!"

Also, I am not a registered Democrat. I have no party affiliation.