[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Berzerker]

Your argument is invalid because Black Lives Matter as a movement started when Obama was POTUS. So as much as you love to allege "hypocrisy"... there was none... people were out in the streets protesting in Ferguson in 2014 when Obama was POTUS, just like they are in 2020 when Ding Dong is POTUS. The Obama Presidency didn't get any pass from BLM for "partisan bias" reasons as you allege... so you're wrong yet again.

“While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure vice president Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out,” she added. - cofounder of BLM

Biden is the candidate most responsible for racist policies and their relationship to policing and criminalization and her enemy is Trump. Yeah, thats hypocritical.

 

[Sommerswerd]

“While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure vice president Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out,” she added. - cofounder of BLM

Biden is the candidate most responsible for racist policies and their relationship to policing and criminalization and her enemy is Trump. Yeah, thats hypocritical.

This post makes no sense whatsoever, from top to bottom. I mean the very first sentence of your post directly contradicts the point you are trying to make... I mean do you acknowledge that there is a police brutality/abuse problem, especially towards black Americans or not?... but whatever... tell me more about the Klan.

 

[Estebonrober]

“While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure vice president Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out,” she added. - cofounder of BLM

Biden is the candidate most responsible for racist policies and their relationship to policing and criminalization and her enemy is Trump. Yeah, thats hypocritical.

one side admits there is a problem the other says the protesters and their ilk are the problem. So. . .ffs @Berzerker if you can;t see al;l this police brutality as government over reach why even pretend to be libertarian?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/seven-reasons-police-brutality-is-systematic-not-anecdotal/

 

[innonimatu]

1. The FBI uses tweets to scare local law enforcement into thinking they will be defending themselves against extremists.

2. Anyone offering medical aid to the protesters is an extremist, as well as "lawyers" and bail funds.

2a. Hostile "lawyer" extremists includes non-lawyers and/or anyone who takes pictures or videos of police activity during counter-protests.
2b. Anyone wearing "generic clothing," covering their face, or wearing a backpack is also an extremist profile.
2c. Anyone who comes to pay bail or in general is near a police station when protesters are taken is the extremist profile for the bail fund type.​

3. White supremacist groups profiled by the FBI have been known to infiltrate protests posing as antifa false flags.​

So their tactics for dealing with the protests are kinda like counter-insurgency tactics for dealing with an occupied population. Can't wait to see the libertarians go on insisting the People are the enemy, not the beloved State!

Now replace "extremist" with "hate criminal" and think again before giving the state more power that it can use to arbitrarily persecute (or choose not to) people. I'll (seconf-hand) quote Richelieu to you:

...avec deux lignes de l'ecriture d'un homme on pouvoit faire le proces au plus innocent, parce qu'on pouvoit sur cette matiere ajuster si bien les affaires, que facilement on y pouvoit faire trouver ce qu'on voudroit.

quick translation:

...with a couple of lines from a man's hand we can prosecute the most innocent, because we can frame the issue as we please, such that we can find whatever we wish.

Moderator Action: Non English text requires an English language translation please. --LM

But you still don't get it, do you?

 

[Estebonrober]

Now replace "extremist" with "hate criminal" and think again before giving the state more power that it can use to arbitrarily persecute (or choose not to) people. I'll (seconf-hand) quote Richelieu to you:



But you still don't get it, do you?

You seem to think this makes a significant difference to those of the oppressed within this police state. Hate crimes are hardly the justice problem to get worried over while we have 1% of our population incarcerated at any given moment and 10% of our population with an incarceration record. . .Or just bugger off with this bullfeathers.

 

[Berzerker]

This post makes no sense whatsoever, from top to bottom. I mean the very first sentence of your post directly contradicts the point you are trying to make... I mean do you acknowledge that there is a police brutality/abuse problem, especially towards black Americans or not?... but whatever... tell me more about the Klan.

If the Klan burns down a black church when no one is home its a violent crime. Do you agree or not? The last sentence makes my point, a clear double standard based on partisan politics. Trump has to go, vote for Joe - we'll talk to him about all the black lives he ruined.

As for your question, yes. I've consistently argued the decades long drug war and militarization of the police is why and you damn well know it. But you guys dont want to hear that because you support the candidate most responsible for that happening.

one side admits there is a problem the other says the protesters and their ilk are the problem. So. . .ffs @Berzerker if you can;t see al;l this police brutality as government over reach why even pretend to be libertarian?

Regarding the protests, the rioters, looters and arsonists are the problem. They distract from the cause by using protesters to cover their crimes and that leads to aggressive cops and police brutality. Maybe thats the idea, provoking the cops to attack protesters. Your side admits there is a problem while supporting the candidate most responsible for it.

I think police brutality is acceptable to your side if it'll win you an election, why else exploit it against Trump in favor of Joe Biden. Of all the people to support while complaining about police brutality. I've been voting libertarian for 3 decades and we wouldn't have this problem if they ended Joe's drug war back then.

 

[Estebonrober]

If the Klan burns down a black church when no one is home its a violent crime. Do you agree or not? The last sentence makes my point, a clear double standard based on partisan politics. Trump has to go, vote for Joe - we'll talk to him about all the black lives he ruined.

As for your question, yes. I've consistently argued the decades long drug war and militarization of the police is why and you damn well know it. But you guys dont want to hear that because you support the candidate most responsible for that happening.



Regarding the protests, the rioters, looters and arsonists are the problem. They distract from the cause by using protesters to cover their crimes and that leads to aggressive cops and police brutality. Maybe thats the idea, provoking the cops to attack protesters. Your side admits there is a problem while supporting the candidate most responsible for it.

I think police brutality is acceptable to your side if it'll win you an election, why else exploit it against Trump in favor of Joe Biden. Of all the people to support while complaining about police brutality. I've been voting libertarian for 3 decades and we wouldn't have this problem if they ended Joe's drug war back then.

"My side" fork your "my side". I'm no big supporter of Joe Biden. I certainly do not make excuses for his past the way you are doing this administration's present.

 

[Crezth]

Now replace "extremist" with "hate criminal" and think again before giving the state more power that it can use to arbitrarily persecute (or choose not to) people. I'll (seconf-hand) quote Richelieu to you:

But you still don't get it, do you?

How is a hate speech law empowering the state to act arbitrarily? If a state is acting arbitrarily then doesn't it make no difference what the law is? You know you don't need cops blasting people down in the streets to make hate speech a chargeable offense right?

It's kind of crazy your takeaway here is that hate speech should be legal. That's nuts. A government elected on a platform of hate is encouraging its armed murder squads to roam the street and execute people with impunity, without any particular reference to speech, just a broad-strokes denial of the entire basis of civil rights, and your takeaway here is that hate speech should be legal. That anti-free speech positions, not hate, are what makes this possible. Amazing.

 

[innonimatu]

"Hate speech" is a recent, phony legal invention with the single purpose of allowing for more arbitrary action by those who hold executive power at any given moment against those who lack power.

What, you thought it was about defending the oppressed? Funny, how one at the same time protests the existence of police and calls for laws that must be enforced by someone... Funny how how that one persists in ignoring that public prosecutors are very much a political job, dependent on executive power. Who do you really serve, Crezth?

 

[Berzerker]

"My side" fork your "my side". I'm no big supporter of Joe Biden. I certainly do not make excuses for his past the way you are doing this administration's present.

But you will vote for him or would if you could, right? Look around, your side does support Biden and using Floyd to go after Trump. I know I've defended Trump when I see unfair or hypocritical criticism but your side cant make excuses for Joe's past because its so blatantly immoral, so mostly y'all ignore it. Look at the BLM cofounder's words, we'll talk to Joe but Trump's got to go. WTH happened to black lives matter? The White House matters more, and thats why we have this problem.

 

[Crezth]

"Hate speech" is a recent, phony legal invention with the single purpose of allowing for more arbitrary action by those who hold executive power at any given moment against those who lack power.

What, you thought it was about defending the oppressed? Funny, how one at the same time protests the existence of police and calls for laws that must be enforced by someone... Funny how how that one persists in ignoring that public prosecutors are very much a political job, dependent on executive power. Who do you really serve, Crezth?

This is now my all-time favorite post on this webzone.

 

[Estebonrober]

But you will vote for him or would if you could, right? Look around, your side does support Biden and using Floyd to go after Trump. I know I've defended Trump when I see unfair or hypocritical criticism but your side cant make excuses for Joe's past because its so blatantly immoral, so mostly y'all ignore it. Look at the BLM cofounder's words, we'll talk to Joe but Trump's got to go. WTH happened to black lives matter? The White House matters more, and thats why we have this problem.

Ok boomer, go back to the golf course.

 

[Estebonrober]

"Hate speech" is a recent, phony legal invention with the single purpose of allowing for more arbitrary action by those who hold executive power at any given moment against those who lack power.

What, you thought it was about defending the oppressed? Funny, how one at the same time protests the existence of police and calls for laws that must be enforced by someone... Funny how how that one persists in ignoring that public prosecutors are very much a political job, dependent on executive power. Who do you really serve, Crezth?

 

[Crezth]

I've been voting libertarian for 3 decades and we wouldn't have this problem if they ended Joe's drug war back then.

Don't wave your credentials at us, perhaps it's time you had them renewed. Nobody cares about Biden or the Democrats. Tear gas in Ferguson happened under Obama. We know this. BLM predates Trump. If you really stand for liberty you won't be wasting time trying to justify state troopers gunning down innocent bystanders and peaceful protesters and reporters in the streets.

 

[Berzerker]

Don't wave your credentials at us, perhaps it's time you had them renewed. Nobody cares about Biden or the Democrats. Tear gas in Ferguson happened under Obama. We know this. BLM predates Trump. If you really stand for liberty you won't be wasting time trying to justify state troopers gunning down innocent bystanders and peaceful protesters and reporters in the streets.

Its time people who think black lives matter prove it instead of pushing Joe Biden on us, ironically it was black voters who gave Joe his momentum. When have I justified gunning down innocent bystanders and peaceful protesters and reporters?

BLM didn't demand Obama resign, I'm not even sure they complained much when Holder exonerated the cop who killed Michael Brown. They certainly were not exploiting Ferguson to oust Obama and Biden. I cant believe you guys are trying to argue BLM treated Obama/Biden like Trump.

 

[Seon]

I mean, last I checked, Obama and Biden didn’t literally gun down BLM protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas for a photo op so they got that going in their favor at the very least

 

[Berzerker]

I mean, last I checked, Obama and Biden didn’t literally gun down BLM protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas for a photo op so they got that going in their favor at the very least

Is that when BLM decided to favor Biden over Trump? The number of unarmed black people killed by cops was higher under Obama.

 

[Crezth]

Its time people who think black lives matter prove it instead of pushing Joe Biden on us, ironically it was black voters who gave Joe his momentum.

Nobody's pushing Joe. BLM wants to defund the police. Biden wants to inject them with $300M. The only person making it a Red/Blue Dems vs Reps decision is you.

 

[Seon]

Before we go into quagmire or arguing over whatever, what exactly is your position re: BLM? That they should support Trump because he’s better than Obama?

 

[Lexicus]

Now replace "extremist" with "hate criminal" and think again before giving the state more power that it can use to arbitrarily persecute (or choose not to) people. I'll (seconf-hand) quote Richelieu to you:

Hate crime laws don't give the state power to arbitrarily prosecute anyone.