# BLM protestors shot



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

http://www.startribune.com/several-people-were-shot-near-black-lives-matter-protest-site/353121881/



> Five protesters were shot late Monday night near the Black Lives Matter encampment at the Fourth Precinct police station in north Minneapolis, according to police.
> Those who were shot sustained non-life-threatening injuries, said police spokesman John Elder in a statement.
> Miski Noor, a media contact for Black Lives Matter, said âa group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights.â
> One of the three counterdemonstrators wore a mask, said Dana Jaehnert, who had been at the protest site since early evening.
> When about a dozen protesters attempted to herd the group away from the area, Noor said, they âopened fire on about six protesters,â hitting five of them. Jaehnert said she heard four gunshots.


Who was it here who said they had never heard of white supremacists being a problem? And why did I keep harping on about them? Maybe it is time for the anti-BLM people to dial back the rhetoric because it is obviously leading to violence......


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

When you get one group of racist thugs mixing with another group of racist thugs, you are likely to get some violence.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.startribune.com/several-people-were-shot-near-black-lives-matter-protest-site/353121881/
> 
> 
> 
> Who was it here who said they had never heard of white supremacists being a problem? And why did I keep harping on about them? Maybe it is time for the anti-BLM people to dial back the rhetoric because it is obviously leading to violence......


There's idiots in every group
One racist group shot at another racist group and that's not good of course.
I wonder what provoked it?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

You will have to explain to me how a group protesting the shooting death of a young man at the hands of the police is racist. You guys didn't read the article at all did you?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> You will have to explain to me how a group protesting the shooting death of a young man at the hands of the police is racist. You guys didn't read the article at all did you?


 
When they don't protest the thousands of young black men being killed by other young black men, but, can only muster up a protest when the one doing the killing is white (or "blue"). BLM, the very name is racist.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

As unsavory as white supremacists are, they had the right to counterprotest, just as much right to be there as the BLM group. 

"attempted to herd the group away" was not a good move.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> When they don't protest the thousands of young black men being killed by other young black men, but, can only muster up a protest when the one doing the killing is white (or "blue"). BLM, the very name is racist.


So black lives matter is racist now. Because what Black lives don't matter? Oh wait that was a thread here. Never mind.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> So black lives matter is racist now. Because what Black lives don't matter? Oh wait that was a thread here. Never mind.


They must not in Chicago ?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> As unsavory as white supremacists are, they had the right to counterprotest, just as much right to be there as the BLM group.
> 
> "attempted to herd the group away" was not a good move.


Maybe they were concerned since they were armed that violence might break out? Do you really think it is appropriate for white supremacists to show up at something like that armed? Would you not be a little concerned if you were one of the BLM protesters? I would. If they are willing to shoot up a Church full of black people why not a few so called "thugs". 

And seriously if y'all don't see the utter irony here slapping you in the face you have to be blind.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> So black lives matter is racist now. Because what Black lives don't matter? Oh wait that was a thread here. Never mind.


 
When people are shouted down, for implying that all lives matter, by BLM, I would say that their racism is clear.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> When people are shouted down, for implying that all lives matter, by BLM, I would say that their racism is clear.


You can't convince a hater that their pet project is racist
They refuse to see the truth, just keep blasting their message of hatred


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

What does the police investigation say?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

These quotes from the story concern me about the details of the events. Counter protests are legal. Both sides have a right to protest. Why should one group be able to "herd" the other? 4 to 1 odds; might be self defence when all the details come out. How about we wait before we condemn. 

"Jie Wronski-Riley said angry protesters moved the men away from the encampment at the police station."

"Dozens of protesters"

"Herd the group away"

That said, IF the white thugs just shot into the crowd, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. But if the BLM protesters physically assaulted the white thugs, they to should be prosecuted. Time will tell.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Maybe they were concerned since they were armed that violence might break out? Do you really think it is appropriate for white supremacists to show up at something like that armed? Would you not be a little concerned if you were one of the BLM protesters? I would. If they are willing to shoot up a Church full of black people why not a few so called "thugs".
> 
> And seriously if y'all don't see the utter irony here slapping you in the face you have to be blind.


And you don't care that BLM burned down Ferguson, vandals and thieves and you defend them
That's real bright


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> When they don't protest the thousands of young black men being killed by other young black men, but, can only muster up a protest when the one doing the killing is white (or "blue"). BLM, the very name is racist.


I could overlook that. If those bad seeds could only kill each other off without collateral damage. 

It's the fact that BLM won't devote one iota of effort into all the children who are innocent victims of bad behavior of people around them, that's where I lose all respect. Those little lives cut short are the ones that should matter the most. And then there's the fact that BLM doesn't distinguish between self-induced incidents like Brown or Garner, and "never should have happened" incidents like Gray or Scott. It is racist to automatically assume the worst every single time a black person dies in a police interaction without taking the circumstances into account. 

But they do have the right to protest, they just need to remember that others do too.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

no really said:


> What does the police investigation say?


It just happened late last night so it will be a few days I am sure.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> It just happened late last night so it will be a few days I am sure.


Guess I'll wait than, two bad actors in one place who knows what went on.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

no really said:


> What does the police investigation say?


What?
Wait for evidence?
Not our local haters, that's the rule for you and me, not them


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

And now it's time for the my media predictions....

MSNBC
"Raging white supremacists open fire on Black Lives Matter."

FOXNews
"Raging Black Lives Matter protesters try to bully counter protesters; shots fired."


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Maybe they were concerned since they were armed that violence might break out? .


Then they should have called the police!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> What?
> Wait for evidence?
> Not our local haters, that's the rule for you and me, not them



You know I would put you on ignore if you weren't so stinking hilarious! Oh no we never see a rush to judgement from you. ound:


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> You will have to explain to me how a group protesting the shooting death of a young man at the hands of the police is racist. You guys didn't read the article at all did you?


Why are they protesting when the investigation isn't yet complete? What if he was in fact the person who assaulted the victim and then interfered with the paramedics trying to help the victim?

Does the victim's life not matter?

Better they wait until the investigation is complete and *then* if it is found the cops were in the wrong they can protest, for then there would actually be something to protest about... no?

And the white supremacists had just as much right to be there, the BLM protesters had no right to try herd them away, their "peaceful" protest stopped being peaceful at that point.

I am sickened that people were shot, but yes, I agree that both groups are racist.

All lives matter.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Maybe they were concerned since they were armed that violence might break out? Do you really think it is appropriate for white supremacists to show up at something like that armed? Would you not be a little concerned if you were one of the BLM protesters? I would. If they are willing to shoot up a Church full of black people why not a few so called "thugs".
> 
> And seriously if y'all don't see the utter irony here slapping you in the face you have to be blind.


It doesn't matter what I think is "appropriate", both groups were exercising their constitutional rights. I don't believe in the cause of either one, but I do believe in their rights. 

If we are going to judge the white supremacists at this counterprotest by what the murderer did in the SC church, by following that logic we'd also have to judge the BLM people at that protest for the looting and burning of Ferguson, and the shooting of the LEOs there. It's a slippery slope, ain't it?

Heck yes I would be concerned if I was one of the BLM protesters and armed counter protesters showed up. And because of that concern, I sure wouldn't attempt to "herd" them anywhere! I would stick to chanting and sign waving and try to drown them out. That's the "appropriate" thing to do. 

I really hope there is video of this one.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> When they don't protest the thousands of young black men being killed by other young black men, but, can only muster up a protest when the one doing the killing is white (or "blue"). BLM, the very name is racist.





Patchouli said:


> So black lives matter is racist now. Because what Black lives don't matter? Oh wait that was a thread here. Never mind.


How can anyone *NOT* see the inherent racism where a group of people protest the killing of one of their own *ONLY* because the killer is *NOT*,but they don't say *SQUAT* when the killer *IS*???

I'll now sit back and wait for the MAMMOTH thread drift that is sure to come...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Investigations generaly exonerate cops even when it is obvious to everyone they shouldn't be so I don't blame them for not waiting until the review is done. 

Trying to herd away the counter protesters probably was not the best of ideas. And I agree anyone has the right to protest no matter how vile their words may be. But the real question you are missing here is why did they show up at that protest armed? I think they were there hoping to shoot someone.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Investigations generaly exonerate cops even when it is obvious to everyone they shouldn't be so I don't blame them for not waiting until the review is done.
> 
> Trying to herd away the counter protesters probably was not the best of ideas. And I agree anyone has the right to protest no matter how vile their words may be. But the real question you are missing here is why did they show up at that protest armed? I think they were there hoping to shoot someone.


How about they were prepared to if they were herded or pushed aside ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> There's idiots in every group
> One racist group shot at another racist group and that's not good of course.
> I wonder what provoked it?


Something about a dozen or so hate filled protestors "herding" three peaceful counter protestors..... I have to wonder what the herding involved? Cattle prods? Guns? Knives? Fists? :shrug:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

hippygirl said:


> How can anyone *NOT* see the inherent racism where a group of people protest the killing of one of their own *ONLY* because the killer is *NOT*,but they don't say *SQUAT* when the killer *IS*???
> 
> I'll now sit back and wait for the MAMMOTH thread drift that is sure to come...


This is a really in-depth answer to your question. If you are genuinely looking for an answer it's here. 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/black-lives-matter-loury-mcwhorter/409117/


> Over the years, John McWhorter, a linguistics scholar at Columbia University, and Glenn Loury, a Brown University economist, have conducted a series of thoughtful public conversations about U.S. politics with a focus on race and black identity. Their latest discussion concerns the Black Lives Matter movement. Should its activists protest police killings of black people or _all_ killings of black people? Before I offer a perspective, hereâs a slightly condensed transcript of their exchange:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

TripleD said:


> How about they were prepared to if they were herded or pushed aside ?


So the appropriate reaction to someone pushing you is shooting them?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> So black lives matter is racist now. Because what Black lives don't matter?


 It IS and always WAS~!!!!!


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> So the appropriate reaction to someone pushing you is shooting them?


If it's dozens against three. That's for me to say when....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Doubt this should never have been going on in the first place. Just another racist day in the live of the blm thats all. Time to take Action on that bunch of thugs


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

TripleD said:


> If it's dozens against three. That's for me to say when....


This is one of those dichotomies I don't get. Life is so precious to you and yet so cheap. Threaten you and you are cool with shooting someone. These people wildly fired into a crowd while running down the street. They weren't chased.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> This is one of those dichotomies I don't get. Life is so precious to you and yet so cheap. Threaten you and you are cool with shooting someone. These people wildly fired into a crowd while running down the street. They weren't chased.


I wouldn't put myself into a spot like that. Yes you threaten me with violence or death one of us has seen a bad day.....Not chest thumping on the internet , I just live that way.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> So the appropriate reaction to someone pushing you is shooting them?


That works for me. I'm in no condition to be wrestling on the ground with anyone.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*A protester who gave his name as Big Don Carlito says demonstrations no longer have anything to do with the Clark family.*
So there you have it. It IS a racist gang of thugs and blm members are there to just CAUSE TROUBLE.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It seems it only takes a couple bad apples in any group to make a whole lot of bad PR for others.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

BLM didn't come off as peaceful at Dartmouth, they need to roll it back. I can't find a video that isn't filled with profanities. So I will leave up to those who wish to check it out.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> So the appropriate reaction to someone pushing you is shooting them?


Depending on circumstances, definitely!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> This is one of those dichotomies I don't get. Life is so precious to you and yet so cheap. Threaten you and you are cool with shooting someone. These people wildly fired into a crowd while running down the street. They weren't chased.


It boils down to when you believe your life is in danger. Five or six white hooligans might easily believe their lives were in danger if 40 black people were pushing them away and calling them names and making threats. Do you think the BLM crowd was asking them nicely to leave? By law they were not required to leave unless told to by authorities.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

It's funny to me how you guys spin things. The white supremacists go armed to a BLM rally and you come up with every possible excuse to justify their shooting into a crowd. And yet if it had been 4 black protesters at a KKK rally you'd be saying well they should have known better than to go there. Or they must have gone looking for a fight. I don't think you really comprehend how obvious your bias is just from reading your posts in various threads.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> It's funny to me how you guys spin things. The white supremacists go armed to a BLM rally and you come up with every possible excuse to justify their shooting into a crowd. And yet if it had been 4 black protesters at a KKK rally you'd be saying well they should have known better than to go there. Or they must have gone looking for a fight. I don't think you really comprehend how obvious your bias is just from reading your posts in various threads.


I disagree. Bad apples are bad apples and while I certainly no fan of the Clan, I certainly don't feel it makes all white people bad either.

Does that mean I believe that BLM rally attendees deserve to be shot? Absolutely not but then again, if you wish to convince folks that all of any group should not be judged by the actions of a few, you have to be prepared to accept the concept that the actions of a few in any group may not reflect the actions of all.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I disagree. Bad apples are bad apples and while I certainly no fan of the Clan, I certainly don't feel it makes all white people bad either.
> 
> Does that mean I believe that BLM rally attendees deserve to be shot? Absolutely not but then again, if you wish to convince folks that all of any group should not be judged by the actions of a few, you have to be prepared to accept the concept that the actions of a few in any group may not reflect the actions of all.


I didn't actually have you in mind when I posted that.  I was aiming more for the ones who started all the BLM demonizing threads. They claimed they were all "bad apples" and that their rhetoric was inflaming all the cop shootings. The cop shootings all turned out to either be self inflicted or non-BLM related. If they catch the white supremacists it will be interesting to see what wound them up to go counter protest.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> It's funny to me how you guys spin things. The white supremacists go armed to a BLM rally and you come up with every possible excuse to justify their shooting into a crowd. And yet if it had been 4 black protesters at a KKK rally you'd be saying well they should have known better than to go there. Or they must have gone looking for a fight. I don't think you really comprehend how obvious your bias is just from reading your posts in various threads.


I think you have just as much or more bias showing. You automatically think BLM is the "good guys" and could have done nothing wrong, but some of us don't agree with that opinion so we're the ones biased?? Pot meet kettle. 

It wasn't a "rally" it was a protest. On public property. A rally is often a private event on private property. 

We don't really know what happened yet. It is easy to assume the white supremacists came looking for trouble and found it, but we just don't know that for sure at this point. And since we strive for equal rights, we don't want to assign blame or innocence based on the race of the parties, do we?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> It's funny to me how you guys spin things. The white supremacists go armed to a BLM rally and you come up with every possible excuse to justify their shooting into a crowd. And yet if it had been 4 black protesters at a KKK rally you'd be saying well they should have known better than to go there. Or they must have gone looking for a fight. I don't think you really comprehend how obvious your bias is just from reading your posts in various threads.


Generalizations suck!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> So black lives matter is racist *now*. Because what Black lives don't matter? Oh wait that was a thread here. Never mind.


It's always been racist, otherwise they would just be "Lives Matter"


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> I think you have just as much or more bias showing. You automatically think BLM is the "good guys" and could have done nothing wrong, but some of us don't agree with that opinion so we're the ones biased?? Pot meet kettle.
> 
> It wasn't a "rally" it was a protest. On public property. A rally is often a private event on private property.
> 
> We don't really know what happened yet. It is easy to assume the white supremacists came looking for trouble and found it, but we just don't know that for sure at this point. And since we strive for equal rights, we don't want to assign blame or innocence based on the race of the parties, do we?



Really? Try reading my posts. 



Patchouli said:


> Investigations generaly exonerate cops even when it is obvious to everyone they shouldn't be so I don't blame them for not waiting until the review is done.
> 
> *Trying to herd away the counter protesters probably was not the best of ideas. And I agree anyone has the right to protest no matter how vile their words may be.* But the real question you are missing here is why did they show up at that protest armed? I think they were there hoping to shoot someone.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Generalizations suck!


Would you like a link to the threads? I will be happy to give them to you.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Would you like a link to the threads? I will be happy to give them to you.


I would not. I read a few back then. But you in your general statement included a lot of people that did not support the stance you are attributing to all. Therefore I stand by my statement that I borrowed and possibly paraphrased from another poster. Generalizations suck!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I didn't actually have you in mind when I posted that.  I was aiming more for the ones who started all the BLM demonizing threads. They claimed they were all "bad apples" and that their rhetoric was inflaming all the cop shootings. The cop shootings all turned out to either be self inflicted or non-BLM related. If they catch the white supremacists it will be interesting to see what wound them up to go counter protest.


None of them were influenced by BLM or Obama?
You'll need to provide a link stating that none of them were influenced by BLM, Obama, Sharpton, Or the Ferguson debacle.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

This tells a slightly different version of events, and the only ones using the term "white supremacist" are BLM spokes people and the NAACP.

http://www.startribune.com/police-s...t-blm-protest-outside-4th-precinct/353154811/

Everyone should unwad their panties until there's a thorough investigation, and stop relying on one sided hype


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

There are videos made by white supremacists who were going to this protest armed and with no purpose other than to create a situation just like this. With the ban on language here I can't post a link. Shouldn't be too hard to find it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> There are videos made by white supremacists who were going to this protest armed and with no purpose other than to create a situation just like this. With the ban on language here I can't post a link. Shouldn't be too hard to find it.


Darn the luck, can't post a link :rotfl:
Of course you aren't bothered a bit by BLM chanting to kill cops, Black Panthers and Louis Farrakhan encouraging people to kill some whites and "cracker babies"
Of course not, because you hate who you hate and everybody else is just fine.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I have been following this whole idiotic thing since the beginning because I used to live in the Twin Cities. 

The OP heard that some protesters were shot and immediately assumed that the shooters must be at fault. Let's look at what we actually know. Three counter protesters showed up at the protest, as they have peacefully have for at least a week. They have as much right to be there as the protesters. At least several dozen of the protesters "herded" them away. The counter protesters opened fire on the protesters that were herding them away. 

If the counter protesters were there to make trouble then why did it take a week before trouble occurred? Who actually initiated the trouble?

The counter protesters were labeled white supremacists by a leader of BLM. We don't know that but it plays well in the media.

Three counter protesters against several dozen protesters with over a hundred protesters on hand sounds like the 3 were seriously outnumbered and could easily be in fear for their life or great bodily harm. Isn't this the definition for self defense? 

I don't know what happened and neither does any other poster on this forum. 

I am of the opinion that the most logical scenario is where BLM forced a confrontation to revive waning media attention and some of them got shot in the process. The leaders of BLM deserved to be shot but I bet they let others get shot instead of themselves.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This tells a slightly different version of events, and the only ones using the term "white supremacist" are BLM spokes people and the NAACP.
> 
> http://www.startribune.com/police-s...t-blm-protest-outside-4th-precinct/353154811/
> 
> Everyone should unwad their panties until there's a thorough investigation, and stop relying on one sided hype


Do they riot\protest every single night? :huh:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nimrod said:


> I have been following this whole idiotic thing since the beginning because I used to live in the Twin Cities.
> 
> The OP heard that some protesters were shot and immediately assumed that the shooters must be at fault. Let's look at what we actually know. Three counter protesters showed up at the protest, as they have peacefully have for at least a week. They have as much right to be there as the protesters. At least several dozen of the protesters "herded" them away. The counter protesters opened fire on the protesters that were herding them away.
> 
> ...


According to the article, one of the "white supremacists" was Hispanic
Starting to doubt a lot of this story


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

It is almost like we should take what he media says, and what we hear on the interwebs, with a grain of salt. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> There are *videos made by white supremacists* who were going to this protest armed and with no purpose other than to create a situation just like this. With the ban on language here I can't post a link. Shouldn't be too hard to find it.


There are also videos of BLM suggesting illegal acts directed towards the police, but that really has little to do with one particular shooting.

Unless the "white supremacist" shooters are the *same ones* in the video, it's meaningless


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> According to the article, one of the "white supremacists" was Hispanic
> Starting to doubt a lot of this story


Don't worry, the media will be along quickly to fix that and re-label him a "white hispanic."


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

From BFF's link
Brown said that someone in the crowd pointed the men out as suspected agitators and the crowd started *to chase* them away, heading north on Morgan Avenue.

&#8220;I am obviously appalled that white supremacists would open fire on *nonviolent, peaceful protesters,*&#8221; said Nekima Levy-Pounds, president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, who returned to the site after the shootings.

Lots to come out on this


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.startribune.com/several-people-were-shot-near-black-lives-matter-protest-site/353121881/
> 
> 
> 
> Who was it here who said they had never heard of white supremacists being a problem? And why did I keep harping on about them? Maybe it is time for the anti-BLM people to dial back the rhetoric because it is obviously leading to violence......



Oh please...spew some more garbage. Star Tribune? Liberal PC rag says they are? Who says they are "white supremacists" other than the Black Lives Matter bunch? Seriously? 

So what this skewed article says to me is that some anti protesters were attacked by th unwashed filthy blm protesters and defended themselves. Then they took off because in this PC crazy "black people are always right" world they wouldn't get a fair shake...and because they left, now people can call them whatever they want. 

See how that works.. Screw Black Flies Matter... I'm just wondering why it took so long to fight back.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TraderBob said:


> Oh please...spew some more garbage. Star Tribune? Liberal PC rag says they are? Who says they are "white supremacists" other than the Black Lives Matter bunch? Seriously?
> 
> So what this skewed article says to me is that some anti protesters were attacked by th unwashed filthy blm protesters and defended themselves. Then they took off because in this PC crazy "black people are always right" world they wouldn't get a fair shake...and because they left, now people can call them whatever they want.
> 
> See how that works.. Screw Black Flies Matter... I'm just wondering why it took so long to fight back.


Well, the article says two of the protesters were firing guns. That's not good.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Well, the article says two of the protesters were firing guns. That's not good.



let's see the opposing view, from the right wingers now:

5 Black Lives Matter protesters shot AFTER REPEATEDLY beating white videographers, one who was carrying a Black Lives Matter sign.


http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/5-blac...ting-white-videographers/#LuDozQs1wOpTVCDV.99


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Well, the article says two of the protesters were firing guns. That's not good.


Yes, While they were being chased by the BLM group (as stated by the BLM group).

We have one side of the story, let's wait and see what the facts are.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> It's funny to me how you guys spin things. The white supremacists go armed to a BLM rally and you come up with every possible excuse to justify their shooting into a crowd. And yet if it had been 4 black protesters at a KKK rally you'd be saying well they should have known better than to go there. Or they must have gone looking for a fight. I don't think you really comprehend how obvious your bias is just from reading your posts in various threads.


Your super powers of knowing what another will say, or what they are thinking is absolutely amazing.

You should take that show on the road.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"Black lives matter!" shouted the Black man.
"White lives matter!" shouted the racist.

When two people see the same thing, they often see two very different things. 

Those that promote the agenda of BLM, saw a group of people trying to get the message out that this country doesn't value them and they are mistreated at every turn, were exercising their right to assemble. A radical racist group came and disrupted their gathering and as this evil group was herded away, the radical racist group opened fire.

But this group called BLM has spoken against Cops and encouraged violence, during national TV interviews, came upon a group with a counter viewpoint, also exercising their right to assemble, and began to crowd them away. This small group of presumably white racists was confronted by a much larger and presumably louder group that many would describe as Black racists. With or without a pointy head dress, I think it would be easy to imagine this group feeling threatened. It'll be up to the court to determine if the threshold of threat of harm was met leading to the justifiable use of a firearm.

It doesn't really matter if I thought most of what BLM believes is trumped up or that you think it foolish that KKK showed up. BLM and KKK have the same rights to assemble and peacefully protest. But when one group starts herding the other group, then trouble soon follows. 

A couple years back, a group of Christians showed up in Dearborn, near Detroit. This city has the most Muslims in North America. There was a Muslim festival going on. The Christians brought Christian flyers to hand out. A large group of local citizens threw stones and bottles at the Christians. Local police ordered the Christians to leave, did nothing to the people pelting the Christians. The city was later sued for their bias against Christians. Seems everyone has rights.


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Investigations generaly exonerate cops even when it is obvious to everyone they shouldn't be so I don't blame them for not waiting until the review is done.
> 
> Trying to herd away the counter protesters probably was not the best of ideas. And I agree anyone has the right to protest no matter how vile their words may be. But the real question you are missing here is why did they show up at that protest armed? I think they were there hoping to shoot someone.


Hm.. that's not what I've seen in the news lately. Wasn't it just today that that Chicago cop was charged with the murder of the black teen who was shot last year? How about that cop that shot the black man in the back? Seems he didn't walk.. or how about those two troopers who shot at that man and killed his child instead, chasing him under false pretenses? Oh wait, he is white and they are black, so he doesn't count.

It is a very dangerous premise, don't you think, for us to decide that if cops shoot and kill a black person they are immediately guilty of murder no matter what preceded the shooting? Should cops never ever shoot black people, no matter what? Is that what BLM wants? 

Actually nevermind, I just looked at their website and their little ticker thingy which says: Every twenty-eight hours a black man, woman, or child is *murdered *by police or vigilante law enforcement. 

So yeah, I guess any cop shooting a black person is immediately guilty in their eyes.

I don't really know what they're chasing after, but it's not justice.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Just as everyone has the right to protest, irrespective if you agree with their cause, everyone has the right to carry a firearm and everyone has the right to protect themselves. 

I believe that every person has the right to be treated fairly. I will rally behind those that I believe are not being treated fairly. I supported bussing inner city youth to better schools in the suburbs. I supported lowering the requirements for Blacks to attend college. I supported affirmative action that encouraged the hiring and promotion of Blacks ahead of Whites, in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past.
I insist that when Cops break the law, they face the punishment.
But when less than 1% of the nation's population commits and is proven guilty of 70% of the violent crimes, I can not call it racist when Cops encounter people easily identifiable as being in this 1% group and that 1% act out in ways that threaten the Cop's safety and it ends badly. 18 to 28 year old, male, Black, unemployed and not in school. If you are in this age group, are black, costume yourself to look like a thug, hoody, sunglasses and baggy pants to hide your identity, do not come crying to me when Cops mistake you for a suspect in a crime.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

WildernesFamily said:


> Hm.. that's not what I've seen in the news lately. Wasn't it just today that that Chicago cop was charged with the murder of the black teen who was shot last year? How about that cop that shot the black man in the back? Seems he didn't walk.. or how about those two troopers who shot at that man and killed his child instead, chasing him under false pretenses? Oh wait, he is white and they are black, so he doesn't count.
> 
> It is a very dangerous premise, don't you think, for us to decide that if cops shoot and kill a black person they are immediately guilty of murder no matter what preceded the shooting? Should cops never ever shoot black people, no matter what? Is that what BLM wants?
> 
> ...




Is the Chicago officer charged the one the court had to force the police department to release the video of the victim being shot 16? times?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Is the Chicago officer charged the one the court had to force the police department to release the video of the victim being shot 16? times?


Yes that's the one.

It's not normal procedure to release those videos to the public when there's an ongoing investigation, and it serves no good purpose,

It will likely be used as an excuse for riots and looting by those pretending they want "justice"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

*Hispanic* "white suprremacist" arrested:



> MINNEAPOLIS, Nov 24 (Reuters) - Minneapolis police said on Tuesday they have arrested a 23-year-old white man and *a 32-year-old Hispanic man* over the shooting of five people near a city police station where demonstrators have gathered for more than a week to protest the killing of an unarmed black man by officers.


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/...0|htmlws-main-nb|dl3|sec1_lnk3&pLid=549870737


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes that's the one.
> 
> It's not normal procedure to release those videos to the public when there's an ongoing investigation, and it serves no good purpose,
> 
> It will likely be used as an excuse for riots and looting by those pretending they want "justice"


The investigation that took thirteen months to determine video footage showing the officer begin firing at the dead teen while he was walking away 6 seconds after the officer left his vehicle. Video footage that showed the officer paused after the dead teen was on the ground then continued to fire his weapon into him. Thirteen months. How long would the investigation have lasted if this was footage of anyone but a law enforcement officer acting this way?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wow. Bad enough Hispanics are a threat to Blacks in the labor market, now they are gunning down the ones that attempt to herd them off the streets?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The investigation that took thirteen months to determine video footage showing the officer begin firing at the dead teen while he was walking away 6 seconds after the officer left his vehicle. Video footage that showed the officer paused after the dead teen was on the ground then continued to fire his weapon into him. Thirteen months. How long would the investigation have lasted if this was footage of anyone but a law enforcement officer acting this way?


Amazing. I didn't know it was that clear cut. Can you PM me the HD video that details it from start to finish? Didn't think so. Speculate much?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Amazing. I didn't know it was that clear cut. Can you PM me the HD video that details it from start to finish? Didn't think so. Speculate much?


I listened to the prosecuters press conference on the way home this evening. The narrative is hers and is included in the charging documents. The video has been released but reports from news agencies say they can't download it from the secure sight it's on because the sight is overwhelmed. My question still stands. Would it have taken 13 months to complete the investigation if you had shot me on video?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

But since you'll insist. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...rged-with-murder-for-shooting-black-teenager/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I listened to the prosecuters press conference on the way home this evening. The narrative is hers and is included in the charging documents. The video has been released but reports from news agencies say they can't download it from the secure sight it's on because the sight is overwhelmed. My question still stands. Would it have taken 13 months to complete the investigation if you had shot me on video?


The answer remains, " I do not know. I don't have all the information." To jump to the conclusion one way or the other is not helping anything.

I have seen plenty of situations, live or video ns where two people witness the same event and see different details. When I saw the video of the Cop taking down that huge cigarette vender, I saw a head restraint, but many others would swear they saw a choke hold. In the end, the autopsy showed I was right, his throat was uninjured and he didn't suffocate as many claimed/hoped. Those that thought different weren't lying, they just saw it wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Would you like a link to the threads? I will be happy to give them to you.


He's parroting something I say, Patchouli. Or maybe he thinks all red haired liberal women are the same? Who knows?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> This is a really in-depth answer to your question. If you are genuinely looking for an answer it's here.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/black-lives-matter-loury-mcwhorter/409117/


I disagree. That answer is a cop out spoken well meaning by someone who really doesn't understand. There is more to it than that. Look further than a linguist opinion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> The answer remains, " I do not know. I don't have all the information." To jump to the conclusion one way or the other is not helping anything.
> 
> I have seen plenty of situations, live or video ns where two people witness the same event and see different details. When I saw the video of the Cop taking down that huge cigarette vender, I saw a head restraint, but many others would swear they saw a choke hold. In the end, the autopsy showed I was right, his throat was uninjured and he didn't suffocate as many claimed/hoped. Those that thought different weren't lying, they just saw it wrong.


What conclusion did I jump to other than thinking the investigation took an inordinate amount of time? I didn't speculate on the officer's guilt or innocence. A jury will decide that. The facts I stated are just that - facts. There's no dispute the officer began firing within seconds of exiting his vehicle. There's no doubt he fired 16 shots at close range. There's no doubt he continued to shoot even after the teen was wounded on the ground. There's no doubt none of the other five officers present fired a shot. I simply asked if you thought a similar incident involving two civilians would have taken 13 months to investigate. Sorry the question is so tough to answer.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

po boy said:


> From BFF's link
> Brown said that someone in the crowd pointed the men out as suspected agitators and the crowd started *to chase* them away, heading north on Morgan Avenue.
> 
> âI am obviously appalled that white supremacists would open fire on *nonviolent, peaceful protesters,*â said Nekima Levy-Pounds, president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, who returned to the site after the shootings.
> ...


Where were the non violent peaceful protesters?
Hiding behind the BLM thugs?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

haypoint said:


> "Black lives matter!" shouted the Black man.
> "White lives matter!" shouted the racist.
> 
> When two people see the same thing, they often see two very different things.
> ...


If the leftist haters have their way, that will change.
It's already changing under the bigot Obama


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> He's parroting something I say, Patchouli. Or maybe he thinks all red haired liberal women are the same? Who knows?


Oh gosh, I could be snotty here......................:happy2:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> What conclusion did I jump to other than thinking the investigation took an inordinate amount of time? I didn't speculate on the officer's guilt or innocence. A jury will decide that. The facts I stated are just that - facts. There's no dispute the officer began firing within seconds of exiting his vehicle. There's no doubt he fired 16 shots at close range. There's no doubt he continued to shoot even after the teen was wounded on the ground. There's no doubt none of the other five officers present fired a shot. I simply asked if you thought a similar incident involving two civilians would have taken 13 months to investigate. Sorry the question is so tough to answer.


Thank you for the 90 second snippet of what happened that night so long ago. I saw a patrol car in the middle of a five lane road. Then there was the patrol car that had the video. Plus, the Patrol car that the cop that shot him pulled up. A few seconds later a forth patrol car pulled up. We don't know how many other patrol cars are involved behind or next to the one with the video. I'm going to go out on a limb here. Do you suppose something big just happened, prior to the 90 second video clip? I mean besides that this guy had recently slashed the patrol car's tires? What else do we know? Are you prone to believe that every Black man out after dark in South Chicago gets an escort home by a half dozen patrol cars? The guy at Burger King claimed that 86 minutes of video was missing. Over an hour missing? Wow, I'll bet they racked up a lot of witnesses in an hour and a half. Sure, the 86 minute claim was false, but still there must have been something going on during that hour or two leading up to the shooting. 
Can Cops shoot you if you have a deadly weapon and refuse their order to drop it? I don't know. Do you and are you sure?
Before I can armchair this event that lasted presumably a couple hours and involved dozens of witnesses, some that will be believable and some outright liars, I want to view the whole event. I want to watch each interview with each witness. I want to read each Cop's report. You don't have even a tiny clue what happened. That you can assume the delay was evil, with no knowledge of the scope of the investigation, shows the lack of understanding of the complexity of an investigation or a clear bias. You pick.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Thank you for the 90 second snippet of what happened that night so long ago. I saw a patrol car in the middle of a five lane road. Then there was the patrol car that had the video. Plus, the Patrol car that the cop that shot him pulled up. A few seconds later a forth patrol car pulled up. We don't know how many other patrol cars are involved behind or next to the one with the video. I'm going to go out on a limb here. Do you suppose something big just happened, prior to the 90 second video clip? I mean besides that this guy had recently slashed the patrol car's tires? What else do we know? Are you prone to believe that every Black man out after dark in South Chicago gets an escort home by a half dozen patrol cars? The guy at Burger King claimed that 86 minutes of video was missing. Over an hour missing? Wow, I'll bet they racked up a lot of witnesses in an hour and a half. Sure, the 86 minute claim was false, but still there must have been something going on during that hour or two leading up to the shooting.
> Can Cops shoot you if you have a deadly weapon and refuse their order to drop it? I don't know. Do you and are you sure?
> Before I can armchair this event that lasted presumably a couple hours and involved dozens of witnesses, some that will be believable and some outright liars, I want to view the whole event. I want to watch each interview with each witness. I want to read each Cop's report. You don't have even a tiny clue what happened. That you can assume the delay was evil, with no knowledge of the scope of the investigation, shows the lack of understanding of the complexity of an investigation or a clear bias. You pick.


Still can't answer a simple question?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> He's parroting something I say, Patchouli. Or maybe he thinks all red haired liberal women are the same? Who knows?


Goose and gander.

And I gave another poster credit in my next post. But I guess it is only true when you say it.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

I was expecting a thread about the Bureau of Land Management.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Still can't answer a simple question?


My answer is that you and I don't know a thing about what was involved in that investigation. Only a fool could rush to judgment based on 90 seconds of silent video, discounting untold hours of interviews and reports. 

In a court of law, that 90 second video isn't enough to gain a guilty verdict. There isn't anything close to the whole event contained in that 90 seconds.

What is the average time for a homicide investigation involving a Cop in Chicago? If BLM facts are straight, nationally, it is nearly an every day occurrence. Should be easy to graph the average time to complete an investigation. Since you think the investigation took too long, what is the shortest, longest and average?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

TraderBob said:


> Oh please...spew some more garbage. Star Tribune? Liberal PC rag says they are? Who says they are "white supremacists" other than the Black Lives Matter bunch? Seriously?
> 
> So what this skewed article says to me is that some anti protesters were attacked by th unwashed filthy blm protesters and defended themselves. Then they took off because in this PC crazy "black people are always right" world they wouldn't get a fair shake...and because they left, now people can call them whatever they want.
> 
> *See how that works.. Screw Black Flies Matter... I'm just wondering why it took so long to fight back.*


Really? No violent rhetoric here..... I have to admit I thought I was beyond shock here. You managed to shock me though. Let the race wars begin.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

There is plenty of bystander video hitting the web. One of them shows a white agitator getting into a state trooper's car.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> There is plenty of bystander video hitting the web. One of them shows a white agitator getting into a state trooper's car.


What do they show? Do they complete the puzzle? Was the White agitator just getting into the car or was he being taken into custody? Ferguson's big boy Brown was getting into a Cop car and that contributed to his death. When it is a white guy, you call him an agitator. When it is a Black guy, do you call him a protester?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

haypoint said:


> What do they show? Do they complete the puzzle? Was the White agitator just getting into the car or was he being taken into custody? Ferguson's big boy Brown was getting into a Cop car and that contributed to his death. When it is a white guy, you call him an agitator. When it is a Black guy, do you call him a protester?


Said a mouthful there. Perception is all it is. But (usually) perceivers refuse to see it any other way than theirs.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Really? No violent rhetoric here..... I have to admit I thought I was beyond shock here. You managed to shock me though. Let the race wars begin.


Typical victim mentality, again! I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked that someone would want to see a race war, really? Why would you want that?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeffreyD said:


> Typical victim mentality, again! I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked that someone would want to see a race war, really? Why would you want that?


Sadly, I believe so.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Call me cynical, but why was the Chicago officer charged today? It is getting colder out, protesters prefer warmer weather, and it is Thanksgiving week, there is dinner, football, shopping. Time for the anger to be assuaged? 

Now has it been determined these men who shot up the BLM protest were really white supremacists? Or is anyone who demonstrates against the BLM automatically considered a white supremacists? Just curious.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> My answer is that you and I don't know a thing about what was involved in that investigation. Only a fool could rush to judgment based on 90 seconds of silent video, discounting untold hours of interviews and reports.
> 
> In a court of law, that 90 second video isn't enough to gain a guilty verdict. There isn't anything close to the whole event contained in that 90 seconds.
> 
> What is the average time for a homicide investigation involving a Cop in Chicago? If BLM facts are straight, nationally, it is nearly an every day occurrence. Should be easy to graph the average time to complete an investigation. Since you think the investigation took too long, what is the shortest, longest and average?


Once again, I'm not passing judgement on the officer. A jury will, eventually, do that. I'm not sure why most of your argument has focused around his guilt or innocence. You asked the wrong question. There should be no difference in the time it takes to investigate an officer involved shooting than it would for any other shooting with the same circumstances. One victim. One shooter. Public street. Video. Five police officer witnesses in close proximity. 13 months. Do you think you would have been treated the same?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Just as everyone has the right to protest, irrespective if you agree with their cause, everyone has the right to carry a firearm and everyone has the right to protect themselves.
> 
> I believe that every person has the right to be treated fairly. I will rally behind those that I believe are not being treated fairly. *I supported bussing inner city youth to better schools in the suburbs*. *I supported lowering the requirements for Blacks to attend college. I supported affirmative action that encouraged the hiring and promotion of Blacks *ahead of Whites, in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past.
> I insist that when Cops break the law, they face the punishment.
> But when less than 1% of the nation's population commits and is proven guilty of 70% of the violent crimes, I can not call it racist when Cops encounter people easily identifiable as being in this 1% group and that 1% act out in ways that threaten the Cop's safety and it ends badly. 18 to 28 year old, male, Black, unemployed and not in school. If you are in this age group, are black, costume yourself to look like a thug, hoody, sunglasses and baggy pants to hide your identity, do not come crying to me when Cops mistake you for a suspect in a crime.


Look in the mirror. See the problem?

Many of those "righting of wrongs" you supported led to this "sense of special treatment" and we get this behavior. No one appreciates what is given. People appreciate what is earned.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

BlackFeather said:


> Call me cynical, but why was the Chicago officer charged today? It is getting colder out, protesters prefer warmer weather, and it is Thanksgiving week, there is dinner, football, shopping. Time for the anger to be assuaged?
> 
> Now has it been determined these men who shot up the BLM protest were really white supremacists? Or is anyone who demonstrates against the BLM automatically considered a white supremacists? Just curious.


He was likely charged yesterday because a judge ordered the release of the video. There was no longer the ability to hide behind the initial narrative that the teen was shot once while threatening the officer. It took a whistleblower telling a reporter and a reporter asking a judge almost a year ago to get to today's events. Without that whistleblower having a conscience and starting the process this event would have been just like the last 50 officer involved showings in Chicago. Investigated for 12-15 months until everyone has forgotten about it and quietly found to be "justified".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> There is plenty of bystander video hitting the web. One of them shows *a white agitator* getting into a state trooper's car.


I highly doubt it shows anything more than a white PERSON getting in a car, and you are imagining the "aggitator" part.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Well, today is day 10 of the protests, I imagine they are getting worried about getting back to their jobs. (cough, cough).


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> The white supremacists go armed to a BLM rally and you come up with every possible excuse to justify their shooting into a crowd......


Yep ....... no guns found in the BLM crowd.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> Call me cynical, but why was the Chicago officer charged today? It is getting colder out, protesters prefer warmer weather, and it is Thanksgiving week, there is dinner, football, shopping. Time for the anger to be assuaged?
> 
> Now has it been determined these men who shot up the BLM protest were really white supremacists? Or is anyone who demonstrates against the BLM automatically considered a white supremacists? Just curious.


Do you want the elected officials of your community releasing inflammatory information at a time to create the most destruction of the town or at a time that would likely minimize the destruction? I think they acted in the best interests of the community and saddened the news media that was looking for some burning buildings to fill a spot on the 11 o'clock news.

Interesting someone said that no guns were found on any of the BLM protesters. Really? You think that in this Cop hating mob, the Cops are going to shake down hundreds of them, looking for weapons? Didn't happen. None were found because no one was looking.:idea:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Look in the mirror. See the problem?
> 
> Many of those "righting of wrongs" you supported led to this "sense of special treatment" and we get this behavior. No one appreciates what is given. People appreciate what is earned.


Oh, I know. I lived it. We all thought we'd be fair and chop down "white privilege" and level the playing field. Not just in the ways I mentioned earlier, but with LBJ's massive Great Society spending. We as a society and me as a generation tried to right past wrongs, real and imagined. But now I'm told I've been carried along on a pillow called "white privilege". This blaming the Cracker for everything wrong in your life is wearing thin.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Do you want the elected officials of your community releasing inflammatory information at a time to create the most destruction of the town or at a time that would likely minimize the destruction? I think they acted in the best interests of the community and saddened the news media that was looking for some burning buildings to fill a spot on the 11 o'clock news.
> 
> Interesting someone said that no guns were found on any of the BLM protesters. Really? You think that in this Cop hating mob, the Cops are going to shake down hundreds of them, looking for weapons? Didn't happen. None were found because no one was looking.:idea:


Public officials releasing information and acting promptly generally acts to tamp down the reaction. Witness what happened in South Carolina and Cincinatti. Contrast that with Ferguson and Chicago where the police and city officials were much less forthcoming. Something about sunlight being the greatest disinfectant.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Oh, I know. I lived it. We all thought we'd be fair and chop down "white privilege" and level the playing field. Not just in the ways I mentioned earlier, but with LBJ's massive Great Society spending. We as a society and me as a generation tried to right past wrongs, real and imagined. But now I'm told I've been carried along on a pillow called "white privilege". This blaming the Cracker for everything wrong in your life is wearing thin.


I wish more eyes were opened..

What color is your hair?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Just curious, how come black people do not protest all of the Black on Black killings?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Shine said:


> Just curious, how come black people do not protest all of the Black on Black killings?


It is harder to draw a straight line to the white man.

Of course it could be drawn, but it isn't straight.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

OK - I waas wrong about the straight line thing..

...yesterday on Sirius XM Urban View (one of the half-dozen lefty-dominated stations that Sirius offers to offset its one conservative station, the Patriot) when the hosts presented as uncontested fact that Chicago&#8217;s street gangs, which are the source of much of the blood currently running in Chicago&#8217;s streets, are a creation of the FBI. 

Before the FBI, the host said, there were progressive community-improvement organizations in Chicago, not violent street gangs, but the FBI infiltrated these organizations and &#8220;turned them against each other.&#8221; Of course. &#8220;That&#8217;s what they do,&#8221; the host insisted. Who? They &#8212; you know: Them: the FBI, &#8220;sellout *******,&#8221; as the host put it. 


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/african-american-conspiracy-theories


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Shine said:


> Just curious, how come black people do not protest all of the Black on Black killings?


Because they are about hatred of whites, not love of blacks.
They are a racist hate group endorsed by Obama and paid for by his handlers.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Once again, I'm not passing judgement on the officer. A jury will, eventually, do that. I'm not sure why most of your argument has focused around his guilt or innocence. You asked the wrong question. There should be no difference in the time it takes to investigate an officer involved shooting than it would for any other shooting with the same circumstances. One victim. One shooter. Public street. Video. Five police officer witnesses in close proximity. 13 months. Do you think you would have been treated the same?


It is a whole 'nuther level of investigation when a police officer is involved versus two civilians. The officer is held to a higher level of accountability than John Q. Public. Not just the law to consider, but policy, training, etc. And the whole department and then the city will be held to account, not just the individual as would be the case if you shot me and someone had video of it. Many more layers of bureaucracy involved. Yes, 13 months seems like a very long time, but trying to compare that case to a case between 2 civilians is apples to rutabagas.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think one more thing needs to be said. The Minneapolis police should probably be commended. The BLM group has been protesting against them, but when the protesters were shot, MPD promptly came to their aid. They have already made arrests of the shooters, etc. Very professional. I wonder if that will sink in with any of the protesters?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

popscott said:


> Yep ....... no guns found in the BLM crowd.


Did anybody check?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> I think one more thing needs to be said. The Minneapolis police should probably be commended. The BLM group has been protesting against them, but when the protesters were shot, MPD promptly came to their aid. They have already made arrests of the shooters, etc. Very professional. I wonder if that will sink in with any of the protesters?


I doubt it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think this explains who is killing who in this country.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I think one more thing needs to be said. The Minneapolis police should probably be commended. The BLM group has been protesting against them, but when the protesters were shot, MPD promptly came to their aid. They have already made arrests of the shooters, etc. Very professional. I wonder if that will sink in with any of the protesters?


Sink in? Nope, 'cause dats der job. Day has gots ta do dat.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Sink in? Nope, 'cause dats der job. Day has gots ta do dat.


Was there a reason why you felt the need to post using ebonics?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> When they don't protest the thousands of young black men being killed by other young black men, but, can only muster up a protest when the one doing the killing is white (or "blue"). BLM, the very name is racist.


Post of the day award.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Because they are about hatred of whites, not love of blacks.
> They are a racist hate group endorsed by Obama and paid for by his handlers.



So true.
The chart also shows that blacks kill twice as many whites then whites do blacks. Should I protest that?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> So true.
> The chart also shows that blacks kill twice as many whites then whites do blacks. Should I protest that?


Yes..


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Yes..



But then I would be a racist. 
If I was attacked by the BLM crowd it would be justified by the media.
I would be charged with inciting a riot.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Was there a reason why you felt the need to post using ebonics?


Was there a reason why you felt the need to post on him using ebonics? It has a name, "ebonics", so it's a legit form of expression. Are you trying to denigrate language choices now? or you saying it only belongs to one class, race, or whatever? Oakland even teaches it to the teachers in schools  

You certainly seem to get offended easily...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TraderBob said:


> Was there a reason why you felt the need to post on him using ebonics? It has a name, "ebonics", so it's a legit form of expression. Are you trying to denigrate language choices now? or you saying it only belongs to one class, race, or whatever? Oakland even teaches it to the teachers in schools
> 
> You certainly seem to get offended easily...


What in my question leads you to believe I'm offended? Can you point it out? Also, where did I denigrate his language choice?  As far as ebonics belonging to a race, here's the definition:

EÂ·bonÂ·ics
&#275;&#712;bÃ¤niks/
noun
*American* *black English* regarded as a language in its own right rather than as a dialect of standard English.


In my opinion, and from my experience, when a white person uses ebonics in imitation of a black person, they are mocking their race, and disparaging their education and/or intelligence. Of course your mileage may vary, especially if you are of the opinion that whites are always superior to blacks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> What in my question leads you to believe I'm offended? Can you point it out? Also, where did I denigrate his language choice?  As far as ebonics belonging to a race, here's the definition:
> 
> EÂ·bonÂ·ics
> &#275;&#712;bÃ¤niks/
> ...


Darned immigrants..... how many generations should it take to learn the language and assimilate into the culture!??


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Said a mouthful there. Perception is all it is. But (usually) perceivers refuse to see it any other way than theirs.


This guy climbed into the backseat of the unmarked cop car. The officer inside was in uniform. The cop was obviously friendly with him.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> I think one more thing needs to be said. The Minneapolis police should probably be commended. The BLM group has been protesting against them, but when the protesters were shot, MPD promptly came to their aid. They have already made arrests of the shooters, etc. Very professional. I wonder if that will sink in with any of the protesters?


Funny because that is not what I heard. I heard they stood by and watched and it took them 15 minutes to render aid. Again there is video available.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Was there a reason why you felt the need to post using ebonics?


And that is exactly why I put him on ignore. Blatant racism.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Funny because that is not what I heard. I heard they stood by and watched and it took them 15 minutes to render aid. Again there is video available.


 Got a link to that story? Because I live in MN and it's on the news all the time and I have not heard that the police waited 15 minutes to render aid.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

When blacks stop killing blacks, then I'll believe they really think black lives matter. Until then, it looks like all this rioting is about is racism. (yes, blacks can be racists too).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Funny because that is not what I heard. I heard they stood by and watched and it took them 15 minutes to render aid. Again there is video available.


Cops don't "render aid"
EMT's do that


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> This guy climbed into the backseat of the unmarked cop car. The officer inside was in uniform. The cop was obviously friendly with him.


I was speaking in general to the whole mess not one particular instance.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What in my question leads you to believe I'm offended? Can you point it out? Also, where did I denigrate his language choice?  As far as ebonics belonging to a race, here's the definition:
> 
> EÂ·bonÂ·ics
> &#275;&#712;bÃ¤niks/
> ...


Whys you gots to acts like dat? So you're saying I can't use it? ...lol. That's ONE definition...I can give you one too:

TOP DEFINITION 
ebonics 
A poor excuse for a failure to grasp the basics of english. When in doubt, throw an "izzle" sound in the middle of any word of just string random thoughts together and insinuate that they actually mean something. When backed into a corner, you can always claim that it has something to do with a sort of symbolism or is a defining trait that makes your race great, versus own up to the fact that it is essentially laziness at it's finest.
Plim-plizzle, my nizzle, don' foget bouts tha six-fo, chuch, dawg up in da hood, chilly my grilly. fo sho.
by Bling Bling WBF August 06, 2003


or another one, courtesy of UrbanDictionary 

ebonics 
Ebonics is really the study of the rules applied to turn English into some uneducated sounding pseudo-language whose purpose is for the most part to insult and denigrate "------." Here is what I learned in Ebonics 1 :
i) In any English word with a contraction, eliminate the apostrophe and any letters after it. 
1) Is it alright if I rollerskate through the campus ? 
English) Yes, it's alright 
Ebonics) It OK 
ii) In a word ending in "d," substitute "dt" or "oodt." 
English) That's all very fine... 
Ebonics) That all reeeal gooudt.... 
iii) In a word ending in "ore," eliminate everything after the first "o" and add an apostrophe. 
English) I won't tell you again, please shut the door. 
Ebonics) I ain tellin you no mo', shet de do' !! 
iv) For suffixes with 2 identical consonants followed by "er," eliminate the "er." 
English) That ***** was larger and was holding a pistol. 
Ebonics) Mah [N-word] was bigga had his fingah on yo' trigga. 
v) In general, most "er"s are dropped and replaced by "ah." 
English) Tower of Power 
Ebonics) Towah of Powah 


And as to what led me to believe what I wrote? Please muh pixa, we all know what you were doing....give it a rest.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

You know I am so tired of this black on black violence excuse. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem and it says I don't care enough to study the situation and have an informed opinion. I want a superficial reason I can trot out that leaves me feeling able to blow it all off as just their problem. And all the little heads nod and nothing gets done. Congratulations.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Cops don't "render aid"
> EMT's do that


Spin, spin, spin. You know what I meant and yeah cops do render aid if they are the first on the scene.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

scooter said:


> Got a link to that story? Because I live in MN and it's on the news all the time and I have not heard that the police waited 15 minutes to render aid.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/min...e-are-behind-the-black-lives-matter-shooting/


> According to Williams, police were âlurkingâ near the shooting and then refused to provide help to the injured protesters.
> âThis is what youâve been wanting,â she recalled one of the officers saying.
> âIt took 15 minutes for the police to even arrive and shortly after that, they began to Mace the crowd,â Williams said. âSo if youâre not part of the problem, if this is not something youâre trying to cover up, why would you not attend to victims who paid for your salaries?â


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/u...lives-matter-protest-are-identified.html?_r=0



> MINNEAPOLIS â The police on Wednesday released the names of four men arrested in connection with a shooting during a Black Lives Matter protest outside a police station that injured five protesters.
> 
> The authorities identified the suspects in the shooting as Allen Lawrence Scarsella, 23; Nathan Gustavsson, 21; Daniel Macey, 26; and Joseph Backman, 27. All are white and were arrested in the Minneapolis area. The police also detained a 32-year-old Hispanic man, but he was released after questioning.
> 
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> It is a whole 'nuther level of investigation when a police officer is involved versus two civilians. The officer is held to a higher level of accountability than John Q. Public. Not just the law to consider, but policy, training, etc. And the whole department and then the city will be held to account, not just the individual as would be the case if you shot me and someone had video of it. Many more layers of bureaucracy involved. Yes, 13 months seems like a very long time, but trying to compare that case to a case between 2 civilians is apples to rutabagas.


Thanks for answering the question. Now, explain to me how the officer in South Carolina was investigated, arrested and charged within days of the video of his action being seen by the public. Were all the other factors you mention ignored? Or is it that the only thing important in a criminal investigation is whether a crime was committed or not? Video evidence. Five police officer witnesses. Forensic evidence showing 2 of the 16 shots fired hitting the teen in the back. What was the difference between Chicago and South Carolina that made one investigation take a few days and another 400? Police officers should be held to a higher standard of behavior. So should those charged with investigating their behavior.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Spin, spin, spin. You know what I meant and yeah cops do *render aid if they are the first on the scene*.


No, they don't normally do that at all.
They aren't trained for that job
They typically secure the scene and wait for EMT's

Police are almost always "first on the scene" because often an ambulance will stage a short distance away until they arrive


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/min...e-are-behind-the-black-lives-matter-shooting/


 Oh, wow, CNN news, and I imagine there will be more liberal leaning news that go with this story.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they don't normally do that at all.
> They aren't trained for that job
> They typically secure the scene and wait for EMT's
> 
> Police are almost always "first on the scene" because often an ambulance will stage a short distance away until they arrive


The police chief and the officer who did render aid in this story might disagree with your opinion. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-area-police-chief-wants-officer-who-failed-to-render-aid-fired/. So do I. Most squad cars are equipped with first aid kits and first aid training has been a part of the education of every officer I personally know. If it had been a fellow officer shot in the leg and lying bleeding would the other officers have feigned ignorance of basic first aid and ignored his plight?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The police chief and the officer who did render aid in this story might disagree with your opinion.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-area-police-chief-wants-officer-who-failed-to-render-aid-fired/. So do I. Most squad cars are equipped with first aid kits and first aid training has been a part of the education of every officer I personally know. If it had been a fellow officer shot in the leg and lying bleeding would the other officers have feigned ignorance of basic first aid and ignored his plight?


They still don't *normally* do it, and here is the reason why:


> âBased on my training, education, experience I was concerned flipping the male victim over. I was concerned it could cause cervical or spinal injury and maybe kill him.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TraderBob said:


> And as to what led me to believe what I wrote? Please muh pixa, *we all know what you were doing*....give it a rest.


I see. You don't know why you said it either, you just knew you had to say something?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They still don't *normally* do it, and here is the reason why:


Her statement defines why she didn't do it in this case. She had specific reasons for not doing so. Her reasons were found sufficient that she kept her job. That has nothing to do with whether she was trained to render aid. The simple fact that she was able to articulate legitimate medical reasons for not rendering aid meant she had at least some knowledge and training disputing your point that officers aren't trained. The statement by the chief would indicate that rendering aid isn't just a part of the duties of his officers it is an expected action. Most police chiefs wouldn't expect their officers to do things they aren't trained to do.

I'll ask again. If it had been a fellow officer bleeding from a gunshot wound do you think the other officers would have rendered aid, or would they just wait for the EMTs to arrive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'll ask again. *If* it had been a fellow officer bleeding from a gunshot wound do you think the other officers would have rendered aid, or would they just wait for the EMTs to arrive.


That's speculation.
I'm talking about what I've observed over a lifetime

Most of them don't have any advanced training, nor do they normally have the equipment to do more than basic first aid, which most people learn at an early age.



> The statement by the chief would indicate that rendering aid isn't just a part of the duties of his officers it is an expected action. Most police chiefs wouldn't expect their officers to do things they aren't trained to do.


Police Chiefs tend to be politicians at heart, and say what they think the public wants to hear.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for answering the question. Now, explain to me how the officer in South Carolina was investigated, arrested and charged within days of the video of his action being seen by the public. Were all the other factors you mention ignored? Or is it that the only thing important in a criminal investigation is whether a crime was committed or not? Video evidence. Five police officer witnesses. Forensic evidence showing 2 of the 16 shots fired hitting the teen in the back. What was the difference between Chicago and South Carolina that made one investigation take a few days and another 400? Police officers should be held to a higher standard of behavior. So should those charged with investigating their behavior.



Well if you think I have enough "inside knowledge" to explain to you why things moved so much slower in Chicago than in South Carolina, then maybe you can explain to me why it took more than a year to bring charges against a former employee in our little hick town for a rather simple case of embezzling??

Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly but as long as they turn isn't that what is important?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Funny because that is not what I heard. I heard they stood by and watched and it took them 15 minutes to render aid. Again there is video available.


No, there is nothing funny about it. A lot of irony but not the kind with any humor to it. 

I would bet we're both right. I heard the police responded within 3 minutes. However it could well have taken 15 minutes to "render aid" because the police have to make sure the scene is secure before they let the EMT or fire personnel in. I bet that's where your 15 minutes came from.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's speculation.
> I'm talking about what I've observed over a lifetime
> 
> Most of them don't have any advanced training, nor do they normally have the equipment to do more than basic first aid, which most people learn at an early age.
> ...


I asked for your opinion. You often speculate on things you have no direct knowledge of. I'm sure you have an opinion on whether an officer would render aid to another officer. Could it be that if you even hint that they might, or might be able to, your whole lack of training premise goes out the window?

It doesn't take advanced medical training to apply basic first aid to a shooting victim. Many of the people shot in the recent Paris attacks were tended to by bystanders who probably had less basic first aid training than most police officers. They didn't have advanced equipment but knew enough to try to help. Of course, I'm only speaking of what I've seen in life. 

Sometime even political animals like police chiefs speak the truth.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> Well if you think I have enough "inside knowledge" to explain to you why things moved so much slower in Chicago than in South Carolina, then maybe you can explain to me why it took more than a year to bring charges against a former employee in our little hick town for a rather simple case of embezzling??
> 
> Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly but as long as they turn isn't that what is important?



I'm not familiar with your local situation so I don't feel qualified to comment on it. Maybe you could ask the officials involved.


In this case the wheels of justice had to be forcibly unfrozen by outside powers and even then moved at an almost glacial pace while those charged with the public interest continued to apply the brakes. Continued excuse of such actions by public officials does nothing to grease the wheels and make them move more quickly and openly. The wheels should turn at the same pace for all.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...arted-confrontation-led-minneapolis-shooting/

More details at the article



> MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota&#8212;A search warrant related to the shooting of five Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis reveals new details that may strengthen the case that the shooting was an act of self-defense by white suspects who were being assaulted by black protesters.
> 
> Three suspects, all white, have been charged in connection with the incident. No black suspects have been charged, despite the information provided to police and recorded comments from Black Lives Matter protesters stating that the white suspects were attacked after being surrounded.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> But then I would be a racist.
> If I was attacked by the BLM crowd it would be justified by the media.
> I would be charged with inciting a riot.


Sadly,, again, yes..


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

NYPD officer beating an unarmed black man while another officer stands by and does nothing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I see. You don't know why you said it either, you just knew you had to say something?



This is quite the hateful thing to say to others, do you not know that spitting in others faces is quite rude?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I asked for your opinion. You often speculate on things you have no direct knowledge of. I'm sure you have an opinion on whether an officer would render aid to another officer. Could it be that if you even hint that they might, or might be able to, your whole lack of training premise goes out the window?


My "opinion" is *they don't normally render any aid to anyone* if EMT's are on the way. 
They do not as a rule have any *advanced* first aid training, so that isn't going to change any "premise".

Repeating your questions won't change my answers


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> This is quite the hateful thing to say to others, do you not know that spitting in others faces is quite rude?


Are you going to single out the others acting rudely also?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Are you going to single out the others acting rudely also?


If they do the same thing over and over, well then, um - yes. As you have taken it upon yourself to step into the fray, what's your call on her being repeatedly rude?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The police chief and the officer who did render aid in this story might disagree with your opinion. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-area-police-chief-wants-officer-who-failed-to-render-aid-fired/. So do I. Most squad cars are equipped with first aid kits and first aid training has been a part of the education of every officer I personally know. If it had been a fellow officer shot in the leg and lying bleeding would the other officers have feigned ignorance of basic first aid and ignored his plight?





Bearfootfarm said:


> My "opinion" is *they don't normally render any aid to anyone* if EMT's are on the way.
> They do not as a rule have any *advanced* first aid training, so that isn't going to change any "premise".
> 
> Repeating your questions won't change my answers


Here's my original question. It's a fairly simple yes or no. I understand your reluctance to answer it as asked and truthfully.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> This is quite the hateful thing to say to others, do you not know that spitting in others faces is quite rude?


What did I say that was so hateful? The prior poster made a snotty comment to me, I called him on what he said, and he made the rather inane "we all know what you are doing" comment. All I said was that he didn't know what he was talking about, which is absolutely true. 

I fail to see the rude. I could have been rude and called a bunch of posters racists, but I didn't.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> What did I say that was so hateful? The prior poster made a snotty comment to me, I called him on what he said, and he made the rather inane "we all know what you are doing" comment. All I said was that he didn't know what he was talking about, which is absolutely true.
> 
> I fail to see the rude. *I could have been rude and called a bunch of posters racists*, but I didn't.


It is good to see you showing so much more restraint.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> What did I say that was so hateful? The prior poster made a snotty comment to me, I called him on what he said, and he made the rather inane "we all know what you are doing" comment. All I said was that he didn't know what he was talking about, which is absolutely true.
> 
> I fail to see the rude. I could have been rude and called a bunch of posters racists, but I didn't.


Because they aren't racist?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> It is good to see you showing so much more restraint.


Thank you for noticing. :happy2:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for noticing. :happy2:


You are so very welcome, as is your new found virtue.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You are so very welcome, as is your new found virtue.


It's not new found, but don't let that stop your passive aggressive snarkiness. It's cute.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not new found, but don't let that stop your passive aggressive snarkiness. It's cute.


I give what I get.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I give what I get.


Is it _possible_ for you to discuss the topic, not me? Your attention to me rather than the topic on multiple threads is getting a little unnerving.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is it _possible_ for you to discuss the topic, not me? Your attention to me rather than the topic on multiple threads is getting a little unnerving.


Don't let it worry you. You are by far the most prolific poster on opposing views, that makes you a candidate for rebuttal and discourse. I have a little time on my hands right now, and I am wasting some of it here, and on you.

Simple entertainment. That's all. When it comes down to it that is all GC is to everyone, a way to waste time and entertain ourselves.

Feel free to ignore me. I stop when you stop. Consider it a compliment that I consider you a foe to all my ideas and ideals.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Don't let it worry you. You are by far the most prolific poster on opposing views, that makes you a candidate for rebuttal and discourse. I have a little time on my hands right now, and I am wasting some of it here, and on you.
> 
> Simple entertainment. That's all. When it comes down to it that is all GC is to everyone, a way to waste time and entertain ourselves.
> 
> Feel free to ignore me. I stop when you stop. Consider it a compliment that I consider you a foe to all my ideas and ideals.


I don't consider it a compliment. The last time I had this much unwanted attention directed solely at me, I filed a restraining order. Just sayin'


----------

