What's the objective of the rioters?

rgambs

unsung said:

Talk to my neighbor and work it out.

Years pass and he is still doing it.
What now?

unsung

rgambs said:

unsung said:

Talk to my neighbor and work it out.

Years pass and he is still doing it.
What now?

You clearly don't know the history of how the blm forced ranchers out. It wasn't just grazing fees. Do some research. The feds never upheld their end of the bargain.

You ask me what I would do with my neighbor and you got my answer. We would work it out.

Comparing an abusive and omnipotent government to a neighbor is really dumb, it is apples and oranges. Ranchers have existed for centuries peacefully and actually are very friendly to one another.

This isn't about neighbors at all. Stop trying to use that comparison. Government is a disease, my neighbor isn't.

Go Beavers

The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.

Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.

Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.

Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?

What has happened that you see as terrorism? You do know the difference between protests, riots, civil disobedience, and terrorism, right?

Terrorism is defined as using violence to achieve political gains.

I'd say it fits like a glove.

Smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. And if that definition in your head fits all scenarios where violence is used, then why aren't you decrying all the terrorist acts that keep on taking place against minorities? Violence for the sake of racism would seem to qualify under your definition, no? I mean, beating up a Muslim or something seems to be a political statement too, and there are dozens of such attacks a year in America. All of those "terrorists" really didn't seem to concern you.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.

Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.

Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.

Total bullshit on the topic of abortion. And even if individually many are against abortion (and since we're just winging it here, most Libertarians I know aren't), they are also against government making that determination for the individual. Someone like Ron Paul may be morally and personally opposed to abortion, but he also wasn't going to mandate what a woman chooses to do with her body.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.

Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.

Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.

Total bullshit on the topic of abortion. And even if individually many are against abortion (and since we're just winging it here, most Libertarians I know aren't), they are also against government making that determination for the individual. Someone like Ron Paul may be morally and personally opposed to abortion, but he also wasn't going to mandate what a woman chooses to do with her body.

That's not what I recall about Ron Paul. I remember reading he wanted abortion illegal from his web page. Maybe unsung will chime in. It's just another example of libertarians wanting individualized government, not necessarily smaller.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.

Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.

Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.

Total bullshit on the topic of abortion. And even if individually many are against abortion (and since we're just winging it here, most Libertarians I know aren't), they are also against government making that determination for the individual. Someone like Ron Paul may be morally and personally opposed to abortion, but he also wasn't going to mandate what a woman chooses to do with her body.

That's not what I recall about Ron Paul. I remember reading he wanted abortion illegal from his web page. Maybe unsung will chime in. It's just another example of libertarians wanting individualized government, not necessarily smaller.

The stance was that in order to push for total liberty for all individuals you'd have to protect the most innocent of life to accomplish it.

I am paraphrasing. I'd have to go back and read his book Liberty Defined for the exact stance.

JC29856

Trump Sympathy 16 - the protests are turning some into supporting Trump

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?

What has happened that you see as terrorism? You do know the difference between protests, riots, civil disobedience, and terrorism, right?

Terrorism is defined as using violence to achieve political gains.

I'd say it fits like a glove.

Smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. And if that definition in your head fits all scenarios where violence is used, then why aren't you decrying all the terrorist acts that keep on taking place against minorities? Violence for the sake of racism would seem to qualify under your definition, no? I mean, beating up a Muslim or something seems to be a political statement too, and there are dozens of such attacks a year in America. All of those "terrorists" really didn't seem to concern you.

Smashing windows isn't violence? C'mon, it isn't Mother Goose story hour.

Go Beavers

And violence is also occupying buildings while armed.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

And violence is also occupying buildings while armed.

Arming themselves is not a violent action.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

And violence is also occupying buildings while armed.

Arming themselves is not a violent action.

Intimidation is a form of violence. It's saying "look what I have the potential to do to you".

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?

What has happened that you see as terrorism? You do know the difference between protests, riots, civil disobedience, and terrorism, right?

Terrorism is defined as using violence to achieve political gains.

I'd say it fits like a glove.

Smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. And if that definition in your head fits all scenarios where violence is used, then why aren't you decrying all the terrorist acts that keep on taking place against minorities? Violence for the sake of racism would seem to qualify under your definition, no? I mean, beating up a Muslim or something seems to be a political statement too, and there are dozens of such attacks a year in America. All of those "terrorists" really didn't seem to concern you.

Smashing windows isn't violence? C'mon, it isn't Mother Goose story hour.

No, smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. If you think smashing windows is terrorism, then wow, there are a whole lot of teenaged terrorists running around in the 'burbs, committing terrorist attacks on elementary schools and the like. They are making a terrorist statement against the education system I think.

PJfanwillneverleave1

I'm not even going to google this before I ask

Were there protests by violent, savage and stupid people when Obama or Clinton won?

unsung

No, people had to work.

vaggar99

unsung said:

What is the goal? To spread human waste? This type of person can't be negotiated with.

http://pamelageller.com/2016/11/democrat-defecates-public-on-trump-sign.html/

open protest is a pillar of democracy. it's amazing how so many people are outraged over something our founding fathers wrote directly into the constitution. Further it was emphasized extremely in the public school system while i was growing. and i grew up in a conservative state during the 80's and 90's.

That said, violence is not cool but inevitable when you have such emotionally charged group.

PJfanwillneverleave1

vaggar99 said:

unsung said:

What is the goal? To spread human waste? This type of person can't be negotiated with.

http://pamelageller.com/2016/11/democrat-defecates-public-on-trump-sign.html/

That said, violence is not cool but inevitable when you have such emotionally charged group.

No it is not inevitable.
Only Neanderthals act this way.
Your statement not only approves of these savage and moronic protests it also enables their stupid minds to continue their "civil disobedience" that some other people on here seem to think is ok.
Pearl Jam is pretty emotionally charged wouldn't you say? - violent too right?
These protesters need to be locked up and be spoon-fed some manners.

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I'm not even going to google this before I ask

Were there protests by violent, savage and stupid people when Obama or Clinton won?

Why would there have been (I mean, there were a few, but not like now)? When there is no reason for such protest, they don't happen. It's so odd that people are trying to act like Trump is business as usual, and all the dismay over his win is unjustified.