Coreece

I guess I'll just have to take in on faith that posters here condemn it unequivocally, no ifs ands or but but buts about it.

Keyword there is government. I suppose I always saw that as being a somewhat more organized threat with a specific goal in mind, rather than just random acts of violence against citizens and business owners that really have nothing to do with the problem. I see it similar to what the "Not Fucking Around" guys did at Stone Mountain - or perhaps even if they took it a bit further and took control of the park and gave a list of demands. Or maybe even something like the protesters in Michigan when they stormed the Capital.

I agree, but I think you lose an opportunity to find much needed common ground when you don't just condemn the rioting outright and use the reasoning behind peaceful protests to bring about that understanding, especially when discussing it with people who by default automatically think like that.

Everything after the BUT is an invention that exists only in the minds of you, Turtlespeed and Tucker Carlson. Oh stop flattering me, lol. Oh come on, I just said that there is no excuse for the rioting and Jerry just said that there was because we don't know what it's like to be black. . .John posted the pic likening it to the tea party. Both Wendy and Bill posted thoughtful replies as to the reasons why it's happening, and I get all that. I understand that's the reason - but at the same time it's like so what, everyone has reasons for their criminality. Anyone that gets it understands those are the reasons, and I think you lose an opportunity to find common ground when you belabor that point rather than just condemning it outright and moving on to the more positive aspects/reasons for peaceful protest when discussing these issues with people or business owners that don't get it. And that's mainly what I had in mind when I said it undermines legitimate efforts. See, it's you who's in their own head making things up. Where did I ever lump together legitimate protesters and opportunist rioters? Take for example my post about rioting and olof's sarcastic reply as if it's all just about the demand that police stop killing minorities. Or Bill's reply about using the reasoning behind the riots as a means to understand the issues and end them, rather than just condemning the rioting and using the peaceful protests as a means to explain those issues. Those two replies lack distinguishing more than anything that I've ever said on the subject.

?? I am not justifying it. WTF are you talking about? First, I apologize for my tone - that wasn't fair. People here including you say that you condemn the violence, rioting, looting, arson. . .BUT you know, reasons. . . because trump, because racism, because nobody's listening, because this is just a way to express a reasonable "demand that police stop killing minorities, or that it's just like the tea party, etc, etc, blah blah blah. . . But there is no excuse for this shit. It doesn't help and only undermines legitimate efforts of those that ARE listening, especially those working on a local level to implement implicit bias training along with violence prevention and other social programs to address some of the underlying issues. There is plenty of blame to go around, but this is a multi faceted issue that goes beyond just white/black, left/right - and it's going to take a concerted effort to address those issues - but if all we do is continue to get pissed off and point fingers in an attempt to garner votes during election years, then the problems will never be addressed. And another thing, it's really not just about black people out there rioting, because from my perspective, what I'm seeing is a bunch of pissed off underprivileged white kids on the left and bunch of pissed off boogaloo shitheads on the right exploiting the situation and using it as an excuse to be one giant collective asshole from which to dump all their shit on the rest of us.

That is 100% correct. So then why do you keep coming up with idiotic shit to justify it?

If you want war, then I'm sure there are plenty of people out there willing to give it to you. Whatever happened to using your brain to solve problems rather then resorting to violence, "playing dirty," and just letting history repeat itself ad nauseam?

Exactly! So do you want four more years of criminals, murderers, looters and rioters, or do you want to change that? Oh, so like domestic terrorists holding the country to ransom.

Shouldn't this be in the hypocrisy thread too? If not, there's always the "age of American unreason" thread, or the "the lies are so obvious it just shows contempt" thread, or the "religious joke of the day" thread. . . .sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Hard to say. This guy is pretty obvious once you get past the title and the first 20-30 seconds or so.

OK - that wasn't bad. I met a couple "rednecks" like him along with a couple blacks guys that do something similar. They know that "sounding black" is either funny, ignorant or annoying depending on who you are, so they just play to the stereotype. The interesting thing tho it that haters only see how they look and what they sound like, and not what they're actually saying.

Yes, he is funny in a way that not everyone will appreciate. The first time I saw this guy was when Headoverheels posted his "mask are for sheep" video. He had me cracking up:

I didn't watch it - was it anything like the "Leave Brittany Alone" video? No, this guy is hilarious and I think it's lost on many people. Just listen to what he's actually saying, lol.

That crossed my mind as well. I didn't bother looking into this much - just watched the video and skimmed a coupe articles. I'm not wasting anymore time arguing different angles and playing lawyer on this one. The court of public opinion will do it's thing, and the court of law will do it's thing.

Wisconsin uses the terms criminal activity and unlawful conduct. They do not specify felony anywhere. If true, that's absurd. I think I'd much rather it be a felony for the kid to cross state lines and roam the streets illegally with a firearm, then maybe he wouldn't have even been there. I mean shit, the cops came to my apartment for loud music when I was in college and arrested me for drinking on my 20th birthday - a misdemeanor. Apparently this is like the same thing.

Yes, you do. If you shoot someone during the commission of a crime you can't claim self defense. shouldn't that be "during the commission of a felony?" The weapons charge in this case appears to be a misdemeanor.

Turf

Don't you think that 5 pages of the same old lame weasel comments are enough? Get some new material.

How offensive, suggesting that men are just a bunch of easily manipulated fuck toads! What are you, some type of manophobe!

I can't argue with that. Apparently I'm suffering from the effects of covid and I wasn't even infected. (as far as I know)

Ya, we need to start thinking about wft will actually work.

They will generally do what we do. Exactly, and many are still having trouble joining the 20th century, let alone the 21st.. In their mind, what's going to get them their more quickly? What I'm talking about goes beyond just transportation. Not for you. For your grandkids? Probably. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Stretching it 50 more years probably isn't enough. It seems like we'd have to extend it by 100 or 200 years, probably even more. Yet while the western world decreases it's use of fossil fuels, global demand and consumption continue to rise. I found this article that explains the point I'm trying to make: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/27/the-world-is-not-going-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-50-by-2030-now-what/#1bf7b5933794 "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Specifically, “Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050.” Here I’ll show you the simple mathematics of what achieving the 2030 target entails. The evidence shows clearly that the world is far from being on a path that will come anywhere close to that goal. That is not an opinion, it is just math . . . . . .Despite the overwhelming evidence on the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 target, such realism has yet to take hold in climate policy discussions. Some even go so far as to claim that presentation of this type of analysis amounts to climate denial. For those making such claims, I’ve got news for you – the world is going to miss the 2030 target whether we talk about that reality or deny it, so we had better get to work on rethinking climate policy."

Why do you want to force to comply ? Comply to what ? Force them to comply with being "the smart dude" as you put it and stretching it to 100-150 years like you said. No not at all. I'm just saying that I think other countries will burn it regardless of what we do. Also, will stretching it an extra 50 years make much of a difference? I suppose I can do my own research on that one.

Highlighted the problem in your post. Why do you think they were poorly trained, or that it was implemented hastily? There is no evidence of that. Correct. At this time more research is needed (as always) to determine the relationship between the significant increase of nearly 100,000 police from 1994-2000 and the significant increase in fatal police shootings starting in 2000 - 2020. I accept Bitcoin: 3BXzaixAFneXgb8gsVAgwqmbBhN5sdFLPM

I think there was something in the news lately about how the process to make those diamonds was similar to how they recently made metallic hydrogen.