NYC white woman, 92, shoved to the ground by black male as he walks by.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

The same book doesn't exactly have very progressive views where slavery or women's rights are concerned.

Personally i don't see organized religious practice being relevant to what's transpiring right now.

I would say any God worth his salt is going to want to be having a few words with the twat that hurt that old lady nevermind the Police carrying out public executions or knocking poor old men unconscious.

a reply to: andy06shake

They followed set rules of engagement. If you want to argue those rules should change, then that’s up for debate. As for the old man being pushed, he should have moved when ordered to disperse. It was declared an unlawful assembly. And of course he wasn’t helped by the initial officers. That would be breaking the line of containment. Such actions would lead to future exploitation. IMO, those officers were charged for political purposes.

Why are you arguing? It seems you emotionally feel bothered, but the facts don’t back it up.

Just the idea of pointing out that the perp is black and the victim is white is more of a crime than the original sin. In fact some would love to hang you for pointing it out. Heck, google is demonetizing entire websites for pointing out the truth and allowing honest discussion.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
originally posted by: alldaylong
"Does that include a cop who pushes a 73 year old protestor to the ground ?"

The protestor that refused to leave after being told several times?
The protestor actively looking for a confrontation?

No..cuz he was a dumbass

Disagree (that it was ok to shove him - he was definitely a dumbass though)... they should have simply arrested him, not shoved him like that.

a reply to: ThouArtGod

The golden rule, or at least one of them, is that knocking pensioners to the floor, well that's bad, and a complete no'no whatever your profession is.

Im not arguing, FACT is they have been charged by there own kind and the law!

Now let's see them argue there way out of that predicament in a court of law.

Fact is they got caught beating up peaceful protestor pensioners on camera.

Fact is they then tried to hide or dismiss their actions by way of lies issued before the vid materialized.

Fact is they are up crap creek without a Police paddle. x

His life does NOT matter..

a reply to: LABTECH767

Of course I made a lengthy reply and it erased.
Bullet points-
I appreciate your opinion, and commend you for your willingness to engage.
I am against the current iteration of use of force.
I think most officers who are flagged by the public are (sadly) within their parameters. Some aren’t, and they are the rarity.
I am against no-knock warrants, etc., and hope changes are made.
I am against racism, but also am against using racism as a dog-whistle when things don’t go our way.


Le sigh. I swear my post (not pony) was articulate and had great points. Sorry.

Thank you for being an adult!

a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

I would argue that although it is necessary for I.d. Purposes, I hate the use in this context, because it is meant to drive a wedge between people. It works both ways, and whataboutism defeats the original argument of race not being the driving factor in the initial incident(s).

a reply to: tanstaafl

Again- it is a method that is trained and approved of. People exploit loopholes, and if rioters and bad actors know they can use women and old people to create gaps in the line, trust me, they will.

a reply to: andy06shake

Again- hyperbole. They didn’t beat up the man anymore than that animal beat up that woman. The difference is, the man put himself in an unlawful assembly in order to catch an elbow and be a martyr. Yes, I can assert that with confidence, as that is one form of civil disobedience.

Age is not an excuse for bad decisions. I mean, it’s used as one, but shouldn’t be.

a reply to: Spider879

I live by many credo’s, and my views on crime and punishment come from Robert Heinlen’s Starship Troopers. A good flogging would solve much of society’s ills

A. few bad cops go after the entire police force.

A few bad blanks, go after their culture.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

My grandma is approaching 90, if this happened to her i'd go homer simpson on his ass "why you little!!!"

The difference is homer stops choking bart.

Guys. Your ruining the ENTIRE WORLD by highlighting the colour of human skin.


Let that sink in.


You are perpetuating EXACTLY what is required.


YOU ARE THE PROBLEM NOT THE SKIN COLOUR!!!!

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

I would argue that although it is necessary for I.d. Purposes, I hate the use in this context, because it is meant to drive a wedge between people. It works both ways, and whataboutism defeats the original argument of race not being the driving factor in the initial incident(s).

I would have to disagree. Blacks commit most of the inner city violent crime and they get a pass. They say I am a racist when I play by their rules, their wedge? No, we need to point it out every time. Look at the white cop/black perp.. Its always a white cop. Not just a cop but a white cop.

No, we have to play by their rules they created or at least I will..

originally posted by: BastogneFoxHole

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

I would argue that although it is necessary for I.d. Purposes, I hate the use in this context, because it is meant to drive a wedge between people. It works both ways, and whataboutism defeats the original argument of race not being the driving factor in the initial incident(s).

I would have to disagree. Blacks commit most of the inner city violent crime and they get a pass. They say I am a racist when I play by their rules, their wedge? No, we need to point it out every time. Look at the white cop/black perp.. Its always a white cop. Not just a cop but a white cop.

No, we have to play by their rules they created or at least I will..

That's the media's rules pal and you just got sucked in by them 100.

a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

Your call. But from a person who KNOWS that all conservatives are painted horribly, I would argue that using their rules prevents us from changing the narrative.

originally posted by: and14263
Guys. Your ruining the ENTIRE WORLD by highlighting the colour of human skin.


Let that sink in.


You are perpetuating EXACTLY what is required.


YOU ARE THE PROBLEM NOT THE SKIN COLOUR!!!!

See this is exactly what I am saying. Pointing out that the perp was black and victim was white is worse than the crime it self. We are the problem, yet 99% of us would never do such a thing. No my misinformed ignorant fried, I am not the problem. A is A, 1+1 =2.

A black committed a crime against that white old lady because she was white. Hate crime is what is needed here if we are to play by the same rules.

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

Your call. But from a person who KNOWS that all conservatives are painted horribly, I would argue that using their rules prevents us from changing the narrative.

Hey, I am just one guy with one opinion but in the beginning all Jews were painted horribly too. Then they got free showers..

a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

Just as I would argue if a white person was accused, I ask you to prove to me that we know he was racist.

You can’t. Maybe he is. Or maybe he is ageist. Or a misogynist. Or just a psycho. We can’t have separate rules for different incidents. Either we use facts, or conjecture. And since I don’t want assumptions made about me, I argue we don’t make them about others. The only thing I would argue for, is the assumption of guilt. But even that is technically unfair.