Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The gov. of Missouri declares a state of emergency - at a time when there is no crisis activity taking place. Law enforcement ramps up to do battle against prospective demonstrators. Right wing talk show hosts, authorities, and the confederate masses who follow them characterize those who rebel against police brutality as criminals.
Yet, Republican legislators can come out before the President's speech and speak in aggressive, hostile thinly-veiled threats, essentially calling on their minions in the general public to rebel and rise up if the President dares to refuse to be put in his place and refrain from engaging in lawful presidential governance.
The media reports this violent speech among right wing legislators and others as just ordinary public discourse while officials clamp down on black demonstrators and order them to be peaceful. This is just the age old double standard that so clearly defines white privilege.
White people do not have to march - they can conduct their rioting over the airwaves and on the web, and in the halls of congress. Evidently, they can show up at tea party rallies with guns and feel privileged and safe doing so without condemnation from media or intervention from law enforcement.
The gov. of Missouri declares a state of emergency - at a time when there is no crisis activity taking place. Law enforcement ramps up to do battle against prospective demonstrators. Right wing talk show hosts, authorities, and the confederate masses who follow them characterize those who rebel against police brutality as criminals.
Yet, Republican legislators can come out before the President's speech and speak in aggressive, hostile thinly-veiled threats, essentially calling on their minions in the general public to rebel and rise up if the President dares to refuse to be put in his place and refrain from engaging in lawful presidential governance.
The media reports this violent speech among right wing legislators and others as just ordinary public discourse while officials clamp down on black demonstrators and order them to be peaceful. This is just the age old double standard that so clearly defines white privilege.
White people do not have to march - they can conduct their rioting over the airwaves and on the web, and in the halls of congress. Evidently, they can show up at tea party rallies with guns and feel privileged and safe doing so without condemnation from media or intervention from law enforcement.
No one has the right to break the law.
So....IMO......no.......they do not have the right to riot.
It's amazing that you don't see a difference between one group PEACEFULLY having a rally and another group looting, burning and assaulting. Typical liberal, demonize any group you don't agree with and gloss over the actions of those you do, no matter how criminal.
You know why there isn't any police intervention at Tea Party rallies? Because they don't break the law. Amazing concept isn't it? Something completely outside the thought process of the typical liberal OWS supporter.
It's amazing that you don't see a difference between one group PEACEFULLY having a rally and another group looting, burning and assaulting. Typical liberal, demonize any group you don't agree with and gloss over the actions of those you do, no matter how criminal.
You know why there isn't any police intervention at Tea Party rallies? Because they don't break the law. Amazing concept isn't it? Something completely outside the thought process of the typical liberal OWS supporter.
What was the thread about? What does the title convey?
The title is asserting that one group, as evidenced by the tolerance shown in the media, appears to have the right to riot and use the language of rioting. The text of the thread asserts that a certain group is empowered by a means of rioting other than marching and engaging in what you refer to as looting, burning, and assaulting. However, if that same group chooses to speak of violence action (such as a Tom Coburn or a Ted Cruz or a Rush Limbaugh) then that group is not shamed and accused of criminality. So the rioting in the title is not a "literal".
The thread is substantively about the language of violence and inciting. Who is allowed to use that language and who is curtailed from using it? See the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
