Another bad apple (George Floyd case)

#2,901
#2,901
Franklin Pierce said:
BET Founder Robert Johnson Calls for ‘$14 Trillion’ for Slavery Reparations

The founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), Robert Johnson says the recent riots prove that the U.S. needs to “go big” with a “$14 trillion” expenditure for slavery reparations as a way to address racial inequality in America.

Bobjohnson1-640x480.jpg


BET Founder Robert Johnson Calls for '$14 Trillion' for Slavery Reparations
Click to expand...

Lol...and I thought this dude was fairly sane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#2,903
#2,903
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#2,905
#2,905
VolStrom said:
Why not? If this happens there will be no more reason to riot or be pulled over for breaking the law. All things good in life will be restored. I say we do it.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good idea. It will end inequality and whatever it costs me I'm sure I can make back by buying up Nike and Gucci stock before the checks drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#2,906
#2,906
hndog609 said:
Rosie O'Donnel and Gal Gadot are both women but that doesn't make them particularly comparable to look at. I think that comparison is actually a better one than the current riots and BTP.

Comparing The Floyd Riots To The Boston Tea Party Insults Actual Patriots
Click to expand...

OK. He gave a bad reason as to why they are different. I shot it down. Saying they are different because they burn down buildings today is fine but saying one is justifiable and the other is not because of the differences in the amount of damage done is not a principled position. If it's OK for the BTP guys to destroy private property in protest, then it's OK for the looters today, and vice versa. My position is that it's not OK to destroy private property, so BTP and modern protesters are both misbehaving, IMO.

One difference is every single BTP protester was out to destroy private property. Only a fraction of today's protesters are out to destroy private property.
 
Last edited:
#2,909
#2,909
VolStrom said:
I love this guy. Finally a sheriff that tells it like it really is. Eff with the homeowner and he's going to kill yo ass.
Click to expand...
I'm not always a fan of his but he gets this one right. I said many of the exact same things to my wife at lunch
 
#2,910
#2,910
n_huffhines said:
I'm not saying that at all. I've been saying the opposite, that I disapprove of the destruction of private property.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask what you "approved" of I asked if burning down businesses and other forms of violent "protest" are any more valid than the example I cited for showing outrage over something against people/places that have nothing whatsoever to do with the original grievance.
 
#2,911
#2,911
n_huffhines said:
OK. He gave a bad reason as to why they are different. I shot it down. Saying they are different because they burn down buildings today is fine but saying one is justifiable and the other is not because of the differences in the amount of damage done is not a principled position. If it's OK for the BTP guys to destroy private property in protest, then it's OK for the looters today, and vice versa. My position is that it's not OK to destroy private property, so BTP and modern protesters are both misbehaving, IMO.

One difference is every single BTP protester was out to destroy private property. Only a fraction of today's protesters are out to destroy private property.
Click to expand...

The Sons of Liberty used the Boston Tea Party to send a targeted message to London. For the Crown-supported, monopolistic British East India Company that was the specific focus of the protest, the value of the destroyed tea amounts to $1.7 million today. Yet, protesters harmed no property within the city of Boston itself. The only item damaged was a single broken padlock onboard one of the ships, replaced the very next day by the patriots themselves. The sole injury that night was to John Crane, a member of the Sons of Liberty who was temporarily knocked unconscious when struck by a crate of tea. That cold night in December 1773, the Sons of Liberty did not seize or destroy the property of their countrymen. They didn’t threaten members of other local militia companies, rampage through the streets of Boston, or exploit the anger of the moment to burn down the homes or businesses of their neighbors. The Floyd protests, however, have already destroyed hundreds of buildings and led to the deaths of at least three people, including a slain police officer in Oakland.

At BEST a Gal Gadot/Rosie O'Donnell...and frankly that's giving it too much credit as a valid comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123, VolStrom and hog88
#2,914
#2,914
utvolpj said:
I'm not always a fan of his but he gets this one right. I said many of the exact same things to my wife at lunch
Click to expand...

Yep. Where the police have to practice restraint in the streets, when it comes to my house and family the 2nd amendment trumps the 1st.
 
#2,915
#2,915
hndog609 said:
I didn't ask what you "approved" of I asked if burning down businesses and other forms of violent "protest" are any more valid than the example I cited for showing outrage over something against people/places that have nothing whatsoever to do with the original grievance.
Click to expand...

Are you serious right now? You literally asked me if I think the destruction of private property is a "valid" form of protest. Saying that I don't approve means that I do not think it is valid. I do however recognize the incontrovertible truth that it is a form of protest.
 
#2,916
#2,916
hndog609 said:
The Sons of Liberty used the Boston Tea Party to send a targeted message to London. For the Crown-supported, monopolistic British East India Company that was the specific focus of the protest, the value of the destroyed tea amounts to $1.7 million today. Yet, protesters harmed no property within the city of Boston itself. The only item damaged was a single broken padlock onboard one of the ships, replaced the very next day by the patriots themselves. The sole injury that night was to John Crane, a member of the Sons of Liberty who was temporarily knocked unconscious when struck by a crate of tea. That cold night in December 1773, the Sons of Liberty did not seize or destroy the property of their countrymen. They didn’t threaten members of other local militia companies, rampage through the streets of Boston, or exploit the anger of the moment to burn down the homes or businesses of their neighbors. The Floyd protests, however, have already destroyed hundreds of buildings and led to the deaths of at least three people, including a slain police officer in Oakland.

At BEST a Gal Gadot/Rosie O'Donnell...and frankly that's giving it too much credit as a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't think you even know what the point is anymore.
 
#2,917
#2,917
n_huffhines said:
Are you serious right now? You literally asked me if I think the destruction of private property is a "valid" form of protest. Saying that I don't approve means that I do not think it is valid. I do however recognize the incontrovertible truth that it is a form of protest.
Click to expand...

Then what the hell have you been going back and forth with Hog about? For example:

n_huffhines said:
Sure. Just be a man and own it. It's really easy, repeat after me, "Violent protest is a form of protest"
Click to expand...
 
#2,918
#2,918
n_huffhines said:
Are you serious right now? You literally asked me if I think the destruction of private property is a "valid" form of protest. Saying that I don't approve means that I do not think it is valid. I do however recognize the incontrovertible truth that it is a form of protest.
Click to expand...

It's not a protest! It is THIEVES stealing other people's property and ARSON.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top