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.
You have young kids taking a knee who do not understand WHY they are taking a knee. They are being indoctrinated by others.
Dumb people: kids taking a knee during the anthem or refusing to say the pledge are being indoctrinated and can't possibly understand what they are doing. Also, kids pledging allegiance and singing the anthem are respecting the flag, dead soldiers and America.
I saw on the news this morning that 80 people were arrested during the protest in St. Lous. The protests are in response to the acquittal of a white cop. I understand that people are pissed off and protesting is a way to get out that anger, but what do these people really hope to accomplish?
Do they really think the judge is going to take notice and say wow, we screwed up. "Sorry officer Jason Stockley, but I've decided to violate your Constitutional rights and put you back on trial! We made a mistake letting you go." The officer was acquitted not because of racism, but because the evidence against him was not enough to convince a jury of his peers.
I remember being pretty pissed off when OJ was acquitted. But I never had the inking of desire to get and march in anger, much less act like an idiot and get a criminal record because I was angry at a case that didn't even affect me personally. I just don't understand protesters. The system is not going to change unless people can sit down calmly and rationally seek to iron out solutions to social problems. Real solutions.
He was aquitted because the system is rigged. THAT is what we the people were protesting. If we the people didn't protest we'd all be saluting the Union Jack.
And OJ didn't represent a group of people who constantantly violate our rights and are not held accountable.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
We have a generation of Americans who were never taught that winning has consequences. In their bubble world at field day the 1st and last place people get the same trophy. In the real world winners make history. That's why so many people who disliked Trump didn't bother to vote, yet they think they can change things with protests. I didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary) but the reality is he is in control and is rewriting govt to his liking. The protest change nothing, they only energize people to vote GOP.
You just aren't paying attention. They want the broke justice system fixed.
So we fix the justice system by committing crimes and tying it up with more trials for people who have committed violent crimes against individuals? I gotcha. As usual, you're making a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
The 2nd amendment does not mention using violence against other citizens per say, but it does state the people should always have access to equal caliber/ grade firepower as the govt has, this was to be the main defense preventing tyranny...basically keeping the govt afraid of an equally armed public, that should the govt ever become tyrannical the people would have the right and duty to step in and shut them down, with violence if necessary.
Look at how the US gained independence too, it was not thru peaceful means in the slightest. I think many folks have largely forgotten, its not patriotic to be fully obedient and subservient to a tyrannical govt, its actually treasonous, if we see tyranny beginning or spreading, its our duty as US citizens to take action.
It says that we have the right to bear arms. The goal was to keep us from being thrown back into a dictatorship. If the military turned on citizens, then we could fight back. But this has not happened. People are taking 1-2 instances of something they disagree with and turning those into full on fights if they can. Tyranny isn't spreading. So trying to lean on the 2nd Amendment as to why people should have a "right" to harm innocent people is nonsense. There just isn't a way to make that connection in these circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
He was aquitted because the system is rigged. THAT is what we the people were protesting. If we the people didn't protest we'd all be saluting the Union Jack.
And OJ didn't represent a group of people who constantantly violate our rights and are not held accountable.
How do you KNOW that the system is rigged? Because people make that assumption? I see news articles about cops being fired or put in jail weekly. If the system were rigged, this wouldn't be happening. It happens that in this scenario the courts could not find enough evidence to charge him. People can disagree with that all day long. Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, and many others walked free. You didn't see riots and violent protests happening over those cases even though many were certain they were guilty. Why is that?
So we fix the justice system by committing crimes and tying it up with more trials for people who have committed violent crimes against individuals? I gotcha. As usual, you're making a lot of sense.
I would prefer that people listen to the complaints of others but if that is not going to happen, yes, make a mess of things.
I would prefer that people listen to the complaints of others but if that is not going to happen, yes, make a mess of things.
So then any time a group of people disagree with something that the majority deems acceptable and the smaller group doesn't get their way, you think that group should become violent?
This sounds a lot like the child who threw a temper tantrum when they didn't get what they wanted. You can be heard, but it doesn't mean that you will get your way.
We don't always get what we want. You can lobby for change but it takes time. It sounds like you aren't concerned with taking the time to do things but instead immediate results. A violent protest won't get you there. How have you not been able to figure that out yet?
So then any time a group of people disagree with something that the majority deems acceptable and the smaller group doesn't get their way, you think that group should become violent?
In whose opinion are they right? I think they're wrong. So between you and I, who is right? This is where the slippery slope begins.
Our society votes based on majority decision. Not what a small group of people want. For a protest to be successful, the protesters must gain majority opinion so that there is a large enough impact to force someone to make a change.
When you start violent behavior, you are doing exactly the opposite of what the original intention was. (Unless the intention was to be disruptive)
I tend to agree, honestly. Yes, I was disappointed in the outcome of the trial. And I'm all for bringing light to a situation via social media, peaceful protests at a park or in front of a municipal building. But what are liberals, BLM, and ANTIFA hoping to accomplish by blocking traffic?
Just like the KKK and White Nationalists in Virginia. Standing in formation with tiki torches, shouting "Jews will not replace us." What are they hoping to accomplish?
If you decide to run from a police officer , you are taking your own life. If you aim your car at a police officer you better duck when the bullets come through the windshield.
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.
