Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorpika, Aug 1, 2020.
Thank you for being honest about how some of the modern left really feels.
Except in the cops case, you probably won't have to tell many of them twice thanks to their spineless mayors.
Actually helps the DC as they probably didn’t want to terminate all those union contracts and look like the bad guys. Since it’s mostly virtual they can hire private contractors.
i agree the highly unified George Floyd protests were entirely undercut by the violence.
But the problem in Charlottesville started with anti-Semitic Nazis chanting blood and soil, not when Antifa showed up.
And to me quantity if days is irrelevant for peaceful protest. For violent protest, one night of violence is too much.
I do not stand with the neo nation, white power crowd that marched in Chaottesville...but they had a RIGHT to assemble and a right to freedom of speech. Chanting is not violence no matter how foul or despicable the message. I do not agree with everything BLM stands for, but recognize their right to assemble, to protest peacefully and their right to free speech. When we start equating speech to violence then we cross a line that is dangerous and destructive and I would offer that we some of the problems today because that line is blurred for many people.
That's not a problem if you believe in the 1st Amendment. As morally repugnant as those chants might be, they are protected freedoms. Charlottesville didn't turn violent until the others showed up to confront the original protesters. Imagine if skinheads started showing up to BLM rallies and shouting them down. Probably wouldn't end well. That doesn't excuse the violence, of course.
Or is it that they explain exactly what they mean by defunding police and the GOP insists on misunderstanding the concept?
well....if there was ever a venue that needed mental health professionals it is the DNC convention.....so maybe I am on board with this after all.
It's dumb either way, only idiots believe in that
Maybe thats what you mean, but the rest of those wackos don't think as you and you know it
I guess the politicians don't understand either because for the most part nobody has jumped on board. If it was such a reasonable thing with no downsides, then why aren't they passing laws all over the country right now? At least in the blue states.
Because not everyone agrees with the idea?
There is a difference between disagreeing with an idea, and purposefully misstating the idea.
You can't really accuse people of purposefully misstating it when the idea itself is not coherently defined and the slogan leads to other conclusions. I am just saying someone should get it and so far I think I have only heard of Seattle pushing it and losing their policing in the process.
Why not just have the slogan be "Eliminate the Police"? I mean, if that's what they really meant?
Like I said. Some vague idea about magical civil servants who will not be armed but will do away with crime. We only need police to deal with the really really bad guys and of course they will know ahead of time whether to deploy the police or the magical civil servants to the scene of a crime. I love how the "activists" think crime will just disappear when there is a kinder, gentler approach to law enforcement and nobody is going to see it as an opportunity now that risk is reduced. Not to mention that budget cuts are going to cut into things like police training, which is deficient already and a huge part the problem. Can't see everyone jumping on board with that one.
Nobody rational thinks that. What people think is that police aren't equipped or trained for certain situations. Putting them in the middle of those situations can and often does make things worse. Specialization isn't a bad thing.
It's bad sloganeering, so we shouldn't be surprised by the bad faith and lack of intellectual honesty. Just call it funding (or refunding) the community.
Didn’t one of those very fine people in Charlottesville run down a crowd of people with his car?
How does England manage to survive without armed police?
Also, don’t the police repeatedly argue that they aren’t actually there to “protect and serve” or stop crimes from happening, but rather to respond after the fact?