Left targets justices' homes

[Sh1ne0n67]

What proof is there that it is 'leftists'?

Do they carry banners saying leftist?

Or are they pissed off Republicans fed up with the religious right?

I find to believe that you don't see the Left but you do see the Right.

What's the claim here, that we only have a Right and everything else is The Center?

They have candidates that run on Socialism...

 

[oggbashan]

I find to believe that you don't see the Left but you do see the Right.

What's the claim here, that we only have a Right and everything else is The Center?

They have candidates that run on Socialism...

I see 'both' and the right particularly on Jan 6th BUT assigning labels either way without proof does not help. You may think it was all 'the left'. Prove it.

Were the 'socialist' candidates identified as being there? Even if they were, they are a tiny proportion of left of centre people. They are not the whole of 'the left' if you count everyone who does not vote Republican as 'left'.

 

[Rotadom]

Uh, okay. So in your view the parties ands the politicians don't campaign
or either the need for abortion or the end of the abortion despite
the posts already dropped into this thread about Louisiana?

I don't accept your ascription or gibberish. I support the Founding Fathers who were apolitical at the time of signing. Why are you so unAmerican?

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

Would you refer to this as a false flag operation?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cocktail-attack-wisconsin-anti-abortion-group

And this?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/justice-kavanaugh-home-protests-abortion-roe-wade-blair

Was this Center-Right groups attacking anti-abortion groups?

And that Ogg, was just this weekend.

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

I don't accept your ascription or gibberish. I support the Founding Fathers who were apolitical at the time of signing. Why are you so unAmerican?

They were most certainly not apolitical. Read some of the scathing shots they fired at each other.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Black Ghetto Riots also lead to the actual passing of Civil Rights legislation that would have at best taken a few more years to pass than they did and at worse who knows? Its impossible to tell without a time machine.

The rest of your post is just a referendum on how racist this nation is not an argument that violent protests are bad. At the low end close to fifty percent of either supportive or tacitly accepting of J6.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and the War on Poverty was declared before the black ghetto riot in Harlem in August of that year.

The most racist whites are usually those who have the most experience with blacks. I have never talked to a white person who attended a black majority public school who liked blacks. I have never talked to a Hispanic or an Oriental who liked blacks. For economic reasons immigrants often need to live in or near black neighborhoods. They see blacks up close every day. They do not like what they see. They do not feel at all guilty about it. The civil rights legislation was forced on whites with extensive experience with blacks by whites with little experience with them.

 

[oggbashan]

Would you refer to this as a false flag operation?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cocktail-attack-wisconsin-anti-abortion-group

And this?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/justice-kavanaugh-home-protests-abortion-roe-wade-blair

Was this Center-Right groups attacking anti-abortion groups?

And that Ogg, was just this weekend.

OK, Putin? LMAO.

But can you prove who inspired those attacks? Which politician said - go out and do that? Prove it?

Yes, they might have happened but anything said by Putin about the US is likely to be a lie.

The main parties do not encourage their supporters to commit violence. Other groups might but you should have more faith in your politicians.

They want to change by political means. they might abuse their opponents but suggest physical attacks? No - except perhaps Trump, as yet unproven.

 

[Rotadom]

They were most certainly not apolitical. Read some of the scathing shots they fired at each other.

Now reread my post and comment with relevance.

 

[ll74]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and the War on Poverty was declared before the black ghetto riot in Harlem in August of that year.

The most racist whites are usually those who have the most experience with blacks. I have never talked to a white person who attended a black majority public school who liked blacks. I have never talked to a Hispanic or an Oriental who liked blacks. For economic reasons immigrants often need to live in or near black neighborhoods. They see blacks up close every day. They do not like what they see. They do not feel at all guilty about it. The civil rights legislation was forced on whites with extensive experience with blacks by whites with little experience with them.

Tl;Dr - his racist friends and he are proud to be racist and blame blacks for it

 

[JohnEngelman]

Tl;Dr - his racist friends and he are proud to be racist and blame blacks for it

You have never explained why my racist opinions are based on falsehoods. Calling someone a racist does not advance the dialogue on race we need to have; it is an attempt to suppress the discussion by those who know that they cannot defend what they pretend to believe in a debate where facts matter, and insults and name calling are forbidden.

 

[ll74]

You have never explained why my racist opinions are based on falsehoods. Calling someone a racist does not advance the dialogue on race we need to have; it is an attempt to suppress the discussion.

A racist wants to talk about being a racist and continues to blame non racists for not participating.

No one is suppressing anything, dipshit....you are absolutely free to post as much racist horseshit as you want.

 

[JohnEngelman]

A racist wants to talk about being a racist and continues to blame non racists for not participating.

No one is suppressing anything, dipshit....you are absolutely free to post as much racist horseshit as you want.

You are not intimidating me. You are justifying my low opinion of your character and intellect. What have I said that is not true?

 

[ll74]

You are not intimidating me. You are justifying my low opinion of your character and intellect. What have I said that is not true?

I'm not trying to intimidate you

 

[JohnEngelman]

I'm not trying to intimidate you

Then what are you trying to do? You are not refuting my fact based arguments.

 

[ll74]

Then what are you trying to do? You are not refuting my fact based arguments.

I'm publicly describing your behavior and mocking it. You haven't made a single argument

 

[JohnEngelman]

I'm publicly describing your behavior and mocking it. You haven't made a single argument

My arguments were over your head. Either that, or I expressed truths you are privately aware of, but pretend to deny.

 

[ll74]

My arguments were over your head. Either that, or I expressed truths you are privately aware of, but pretend to deny.

Rationalizations aren't arguments...sorry, Sparky.

 

[Rightguide]

I certainly don't support picketing justice's homes and families personally but one of my first thoughts to raise with the SC justices was whether the Constitution specifically prohibits the picketing of justice's homes. If not, to be consistent, what's their beef?

It's a congressionally enacted statute to protect all Federal Judges:

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

 

[pecksniff]

I don't accept your ascription or gibberish. I support the Founding Fathers who were apolitical at the time of signing. Why are you so unAmerican?

They were not apolitical, they were nonpartisan.

 

[pecksniff]

I find to believe that you don't see the Left but you do see the Right.

What's the claim here, that we only have a Right and everything else is The Center?

They have candidates that run on Socialism...

Almost everything in American politics is right or center. There is a left, but it really only exists to the left of the Democrats, and is mostly marginal. Not even Bernie Sanders really ran on "socialism" -- he might call himself a socialist, but he is really only a left-progressive, what in other countries would be called a social democrat -- wants a vigorous welfare state and redistributive taxation, but not to nationalize all means of production. There are real American socialists, but they are even more marginal than Sanders and there are none in Congress and very few in office at lower levels.

 

[pecksniff]

You are not intimidating me. You are justifying my low opinion of your character and intellect. What have I said that is not true?

That blacks, by their hereditary nature, are mentally inferior and prone to crime, violence, sexual promiscuity, etc. And please don't post all that Rushton/Jensen bullshit yet again.

 

[JohnEngelman]

That blacks, by their hereditary nature, are mentally inferior and prone to crime, violence, sexual promiscuity, etc. And please don't post all that Rushton/Jensen bullshit yet again.

You are committing the straw man fallacy.

I have never said, "That blacks, by their hereditary nature, are mentally inferior and prone to crime, violence, sexual promiscuity, etc."

 

[pecksniff]

You are committing the straw man fallacy.

I have never said, "That blacks, by their hereditary nature, are mentally inferior and prone to crime, violence, sexual promiscuity, etc."

Yes, you have said words to that effect, in countless posts. You always ascribe everything to heredity.

 

[ll74]

Yes, you have said words to that effect, in countless posts. You always ascribe everything to heredity.

Strawman implies an attempt to address an argument. Rejection is not an attempt

 

[JohnEngelman]

I have never said, "That blacks, by their hereditary nature, are mentally inferior and prone to crime, violence, sexual promiscuity, etc."

Yes, you have said words to that effect, in countless posts. You always ascribe everything to heredity.

I have never claimed absolute differences, only average differences. I have documented those differences several times. I have pointed out that crime and illegitimacy are more influenced by social changes, but then both raise or both decline racial differences persist.