RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226865]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you travel across state borders out of your normal residence, bring a weapon and claim to be defending you’re a vigilante.
Spin it as you see fit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't bring a weapon across state lines. The weapon was stored in his friend's house in Kenosha, not in his home in Illinois. And he legally possessed it at the time of the shooting. And he had a part time job as well as a friend and relatives in Kenosha so spent a lot of time there. It was not unusual or unexpected that he was in Kenosha.

You're the one doing all the spinning. I'm strictly speaking within the bounds of the law. It might be more accurate to say that you are lying. Not unusual for you to do.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1226869]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He didn't bring a weapon across state lines. The weapon was stored in his friend's house in Kenosha, not in his home in Illinois. And he legally possessed it at the time of the shooting.

You're the one doing all the spinning. I'm strictly speaking within the bounds of the law. It might be more accurate to say that you are lying. Not unusual for you to do.

he can’t stop
lying, because the truth doesn’t tell his story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226862]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

No, it sounds like I believe in the rule of law, not someone with a gun being judge and jury.
The difference is important
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You believe in rule of law ???????
Are #^&#^&#^&#^&ing brain dead ??????
Where is the “rule of law with all these cities being burnt to the ground ???????
This #^&#^&#^&#^&ing administration makes police & law enforcement STAND DOWN while these thugs loot & destroy businesses & cities.
You should do yourself a favor & eat some lead !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

You should do yourself a favor & eat some lead !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are a classless POS.

Maybe you should eat some lead - we'll find someone else to plow our streets.

Another low for this forum. John you should be proud.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You are a classless POS.

Maybe you should eat some lead - we'll find someone else to plow our streets.

Another low for this forum. John you should be proud.

Everything Pete has ever said, is OK with you. But you tattle about the conservatives. Politically selective outrage, is fake outrage.

John didn't do anything.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i agree with that preacher, i can’t see any devout christian voting democrat at the moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden and I do. I left the Rep. party a long time ago.

I prob. go to church more than 95% of the people who were ever registered on this forum (not that just going to church is definitive).

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Everything Pete has ever said, Has he ever said anything so vile as what RR says?is OK with you. But you tattle about the conservatives. Politically selective outrage[COLOR="Red"]How is this - go fu ck youself. , is fake outrage.

John didn't do anything.He lets it go on

nm

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Biden and I do. I left the Rep. party a long time ago.

I prob. go to church more than 95% of the people who were ever registered on this forum (not that just going to church is definitive).

Biden "calls" himself a devout Catholic. Saying that, and being one, aren't the same thing.

Many people who say they are Catholics, vote democrat. I'm talking about actual, true believers. Among that group, I don't see how they can vote democratic, abortion, casual sex, meaningless marriages, gender being a choice, tolerance of everything as long as it feels good.

I guess I should have said Catholics, not Christians, I don't know anything much about other religions. I can't see how anyone who is Catholic, could even think about voting for a democrat, unless all you care about is the environment I guess. The social policies embraced by the DNC today, aren't compatible with Catholicism, they just aren't.

And for sure I'm not saying Republicans are all good Catholics. I'm only talking about what each party currently believes.

Catholic catechism has "binding beliefs" and "non binding beliefs". Binding beliefs means what it says, you cannot be Catholic and not agree with the binding beliefs. Opposition to abortion is one of them.

It's very simple. Biden and Pelosi say they are Catholic on Sundays, because they want Catholic votes. Then Monday-Friday, they bash Catholicism. It's pretty phony when you think about it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

nm

I don't know what nm means.

He lets it go on. He also lets Pete say some pretty outrageous stuff, which interestingly doesn't bother you.

How come you only get offended when conservatives say offensive things?

[PaulS]

And I don't believe that anyone can support the R party based on their social policies that conflict w/the bible. The Ds have a big prob. when it comes to abortion (even though it is not mentioned ever in the Bible).

heal the sick - what is the R's policies? Did they support the ACA or offer up any alternatives?
don't close your heart against the poor - The R's policies are to cut social spending.
When Jesus talks about the difficulty of the rich getting into heaven and compares it to a camel going through an eye of a needle that show the Bible doesn't hold the rich in high regard. The Rs policies benefit the rich.

Neither party should/can claim they uphold the teachings of the Bible.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't know what nm means.

He lets it go on. He also lets Pete say some pretty outrageous stuff, which interestingly doesn't bother you.

How come you only get offended when conservatives say offensive things?

Do you want to hold up RR as a conservative?

Saying 'eat lead" is far different than anything else I have seen here.

I don't read every post but Pete seems to get far more than he dishes out.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Biden and I do. I left the Rep. party a long time ago.

I prob. go to church more than 95% of the people who were ever registered on this forum (not that just going to church is definitive).

You like Pedophilia as much as Biden & the Catholic Church ?
I was raised Catholic.
Turned my back on it years ago !
I don’t need to put my $ into the collection basket for them to cover up diddling boys, not to mention they are one of the biggest property owners in the world and happen to be tax exempt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you want to hold up RR as a conservative?

Saying 'eat lead" is far different than anything else I have seen here.

I don't read every post but Pete seems to get far more than he dishes out.

no, i don’t like what RR said and i think he should tone it down.

pete never ever stops dishing out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1226883]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You believe in rule of law ???????
Are #^&#^&#^&#^&ing brain dead ??????
Where is the “rule of law with all these cities being burnt to the ground ???????
This #^&#^&#^&#^&ing administration makes police & law enforcement STAND DOWN while these thugs loot & destroy businesses & cities.
You should do yourself a favor & eat some lead !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What city was burnt to the ground???
Are you referring to this?

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1226869]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He didn't bring a weapon across state lines. The weapon was stored in his friend's house in Kenosha, not in his home in Illinois. And he legally possessed it at the time of the shooting. And he had a part time job as well as a friend and relatives in Kenosha so spent a lot of time there. It was not unusual or unexpected that he was in Kenosha.

You're the one doing all the spinning. I'm strictly speaking within the bounds of the law. It might be more accurate to say that you are lying. Not unusual for you to do.

vig·i·lan·te
/ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/

noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden "calls" himself a devout Catholic. Saying that, and being one, aren't the same thing.

Many people who say they are Catholics, vote democrat. I'm talking about actual, true believers. Among that group, I don't see how they can vote democratic, abortion, casual sex, meaningless marriages, gender being a choice, tolerance of everything as long as it feels good.

I guess I should have said Catholics, not Christians, I don't know anything much about other religions. I can't see how anyone who is Catholic, could even think about voting for a democrat, unless all you care about is the environment I guess. The social policies embraced by the DNC today, aren't compatible with Catholicism, they just aren't.

And for sure I'm not saying Republicans are all good Catholics. I'm only talking about what each party currently believes.

Catholic catechism has "binding beliefs" and "non binding beliefs". Binding beliefs means what it says, you cannot be Catholic and not agree with the binding beliefs. Opposition to abortion is one of them.

It's very simple. Biden and Pelosi say they are Catholic on Sundays, because they want Catholic votes. Then Monday-Friday, they bash Catholicism. It's pretty phony when you think about it.

Last I knew we didn't have a state religion, in fact it was one of the things the founders were most adamant about.

I'd have to say Goldwater was correct when he said “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

[Jim in CT]

wdmso, the Women’s Health Protection was approved by 49 of 50 senate democrats ( Manchin voted no), and it allows for abortion up until birth.

So doesn’t this mean, since you say a baby is a human being after viability, that senate democrats voted to legalize infanticide in your eyes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wdmso, the Women’s Health Protection was approved by 49 of 50 senate democrats ( Manchin voted no), and it allows for abortion up until birth.

So doesn’t this mean, since you say a baby is a human being after viability, that senate democrats voted to in your eyes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

legalize infanticide



But endless defense of Tucker and the rest of the GOP

Like I’ve said you’ve been willingly radicalized

But but Joe manchin. But ignore and be dismissive of what liz and Kinzinger have said about the current situation in the GOP
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

legalize infanticide



But endless defense of Tucker and the rest of the GOP

Like I’ve said you’ve been willingly radicalized

But but Joe manchin. But ignore and be dismissive of what liz and Kinzinger have said about the current situation in the GOP
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is there anything i can do, to get you to answer the question?

You said you believe the unborn becomes a human at viability. Right?

Every senate democrat voted for a bill that allows abortion right up until
birth.

So using your definition, how would that fail to mean, that they passed a bill that allows what YOUR definition would say is murder?

Leave boe manchin and liz cheney and my radical views aside for one moment, and answer the question i asked?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

talking about actual, true believers. Among that group, I don't see how they can vote democratic, abortion, casual sex, meaningless marriages, gender being a choice, tolerance of everything as long as it feels good.

Wow freedoms for me not for thee unless you pray to my god and worship him with the same convictions I do if not . You’ll pay !

Sounds like ji·had
/jəˈhäd/

a struggle or fight against the enemies of Christianity in America

Code. Anyone I disagree with aka infidels
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226902]

Originally Posted by detbuch

vig·i·lan·te
/ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/

noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Self defense, and defense of private property is not vigilantism. And sometimes, somewhere, legal agencies are inadequate, or even corrupt, or even the problem.

Of course, there's the tried and true legal way--wait for the crime to be committed, then call the police. Works really well when you're being attacked.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

talking about actual, true believers. Among that group, I don't see how they can vote democratic, abortion, casual sex, meaningless marriages, gender being a choice, tolerance of everything as long as it feels good.

Wow freedoms for me not for thee unless you pray to my god and worship him with the same convictions I do if not . You’ll pay !

Sounds like ji·had
/jəˈhäd/

a struggle or fight against the enemies of Christianity in America

Code. Anyone I disagree with aka infidels
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what needs to happen, for you to
answer my question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1226909]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Self defense, and defense of private property is not vigilantism. And sometimes, somewhere, legal agencies are inadequate, or even corrupt, or even the problem.

Of course, there's the tried and true legal way--wait for the crime to be committed, then call the police. Works really well when you're being attacked.

BLM protesters were “rioters”

January 6th insurrectionists were “peaceful tourists”

Ashley Babbitt was a “martyr”

George Floyd was a “thug”

Kyle Rittenhouse was a “hero”

The common theme is always the same: vilify the oppressed, glorify the powerful
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226912]

Originally Posted by detbuch

BLM protesters were “rioters”

January 6th insurrectionists were “peaceful tourists”

Ashley Babbitt was a “martyr”

George Floyd was a “thug”

Kyle Rittenhouse was a “hero”

The common theme is always the same: vilify the oppressed, glorify the powerful
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Jan6 protesters, Ashley Babbitt, Kyle Rittenhouse, were powerful? Really? You're straining hard to create one of your conjectured lies here. But you're right, Floyd was a thug (who was transformed into a "martyr"). And was more of an oppressor, than an oppressed.

It's a common theme with you--create narratives that are not true--in other words, lying.

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1226914]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Jan6 protesters, Ashley Babbitt, Kyle Rittenhouse, were powerful? Really? You're straining hard to create one of your conjectured lies here. But you're right, Floyd was a thug (who was transformed into a "martyr"). And was more of an oppressor, than an oppressed.

It's a common theme with you--create narratives that are not true--in other words, lying.

The January 6th insurrectionists including Ashley Babbitt thought they had the right to destroy federal property and attack the government
Kyle Rittenhouse thought he had the right to enforce the law.

Why was there only minimal police presence on January 6th?
Do you think if Kyle Rittenhouse was black he would have walked away armed from an active crime scene

Millions of people protested for BLM without incident
Nothing within the law gives police the right to summarily execute anyone


Your narrative is far from true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226916]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The January 6th insurrectionists including Ashley Babbitt thought they had the right to destroy federal property and attack the government
Kyle Rittenhouse thought he had the right to enforce the law.

There you go mind reading again. Eh, probably making stuff up about what was in their minds rather than actually reading their minds. Or maybe just conjecturing, assuming, etc. . . . the regular stuff you do. Is there evidence that Babbit destroyed any property. There is video of her trying to stop someone from breaking out the glass window which she afterwards tried to go through when she was shot and killed.

And where is there evidence that Rittenhouse "enforced" the law.
He didn't commit any crime. He defended himself. Is that a from of "enforcing" the law?

Why was there only minimal police presence on January 6th?

Because Ashley Babbit was "powerful"?

Do you think if Kyle Rittenhouse was black he would have walked away armed from an active crime scene

Are you insinuating that blacks have never done so?
There were several armed people there witnessing the crime scene who walked away from it. Rittenhouse defended himself, which you seem to prefer that he had been unsuccessful in doing so. You keep trying to frame the event as he being the guilty purpetrator, and everyone else being the innocent victims. The results of the trial showed that you have it backwards.

Millions of people protested for BLM without incident

Uhh . . . OK. Didn't know that anyone was saying that that's not true.

Nothing within the law gives police the right to summarily execute anyone

Uhh . . . OK. Is there some disagreement about that here to which you are referring. George Floyd was not "summarily executed." He was killed while resisting arrest. The police officer was convicted and sentenced to jail.

Your narrative is far from true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another one of your just say so stuff. What narrative and what was false about it?

[wdmso]

This is how sad the GOP has become

With almost all of the votes counted in the crowded field, Mr. Edwards had 29,213 votes, or 33.5%, while Mr. Cawthorn had 27,664 votes, or 31.7%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

This is how sad the GOP has become. When Cawthorn with all his baggage and lies yet still got 27,664 votes..

With almost all of the votes counted in the crowded field, Mr. Edwards had 29,213 votes, or 33.5%, while Mr. Cawthorn had 27,664 votes, or 31.7%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is how sad the GOP has become. When Cawthorn with all his baggage and lies yet still got 27,664 votes..

With almost all of the votes counted in the crowded field, Mr. Edwards had 29,213 votes, or 33.5%, while Mr. Cawthorn had 27,664 votes, or 31.7%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for gods sake man, he lost the primary you’re upset that a terrible person almost won?

The GOP in NC fired him. You’re complaining he didn’t lose by a wider margin?

He was a terrible rep and they fired him. Good for them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You are a classless POS.

Maybe you should eat some lead - we'll find someone else to plow our streets.

Another low for this forum. John you should be proud.

I think he has already eaten lead as a child and in adulthood he has moved on to a lighter alternative, he loves his aluminum hats now.