RE: These aren't "protests" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 12:23:14 PM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD


He ignores the fact that if the Brits had caught the founding fathers they would have hung them. Does that mean that to follow the same rules we should hang all the protesters we can catch?


I ignore nothing. You on the other hand have little understanding of the cause or the nature of the revolution. The britts did punish those who protested just as our government punish those who protest. Did the government not execute mcvey?
You claim to be part souix. How many souix are in jail as we speak for protesting the poisoning of their water supply?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 12:40:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.


My point stands regardless.

K.

Your point seems to be that either you do not approve of the founding of amerika or that it was right for then but not for now...Which is your point that stands regardless?

I never said anything about right or wrong. I just contrasted protests with extortion.

How is extortion by the founders any different?

My point was that there's a difference, and that point stands.

You have not shown a difference therefore your point is "pointless"

I never claimed to show a difference between the Founders and the present, so harping on the issue is what's "pointless."

K.




thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 12:48:19 PM)

ORIGINAL: bounty44
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I don't know federal/state laws concerning electors,

If you do not know what you are talking about why do you post?

but I do know its illegal to impede traffic and obstruct entrances. so if that's what he was responding to when he says "its perfectly legal", he's wrong (what a surprise).

It is not surprising that a graduate of the university of dumbass would not be aware that the constitution is the prevailing authority here.

Do you also condem those who tossed the tea into boston harbor for theior illegal acts?
Do you also condem those who illegally occupied seats reserved for "whites only" at lunch counters and busses?


your questions not only DO NOT follow from what I wrote,

Only in your ignorant, untutored opinion.

they are also based on gross misrepresentations of the current "protests" vis-à-vis historical ones.

How so?

this place was better recently because of your absence. youre a troll and im sorry to see you are back.

It is pretty clear that you do not take criticism well but that is "your misfortune and none of my own".
If you are unable to take the heat perhaps you should stay out of the kitchen.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 12:55:27 PM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Leave aside for a moment the vandalism and fire-setting. Imagine thousands of people holding signs in a line along the edges of the sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Central Park. That would be one hell of an impressive protest. No businesses would be shut down and no thoroughfares blocked. Access by the public would be unaffected and emergency vehicles would not have to be diverted. But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.

K.

For those who never acquired a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade I would like to point out that those "illegal" actions are the same ones used by the founders of this nation.


My point stands regardless.

K.

Your point seems to be that either you do not approve of the founding of amerika or that it was right for then but not for now...Which is your point that stands regardless?

I never said anything about right or wrong. I just contrasted protests with extortion.

How is extortion by the founders any different?

My point was that there's a difference, and that point stands.

You have not shown a difference therefore your point is "pointless"


I never claimed to show a difference between the Founders and the present, so harping on the issue is what's "pointless."

K.

You claimed there is a difference between the extortion of one group vs. the protest of the other. Since that point exist only in your head the point would necessarily be there. If you keep your hat on perhaps no one will notice.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 1:18:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You claimed there is a difference between the extortion of one group vs. the protest of the other.

No, I didn't. You're making shit up. I claimed that there is a difference between protest and extortion, period.

K.



BamaD -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/21/2016 9:20:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

protests are guaranteed under the constitution by our right to redress our grievances.

And in other news, the sky is blue. Did I say it wasn't?

K.


Protest yes, burning and looting no.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 2:19:04 AM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You claimed there is a difference between the extortion of one group vs. the protest of the other.

No, I didn't. You're making shit up. I claimed that there is a difference between protest and extortion, period.

K.

Perhaps youmight be able to get a third grade english teacher to explain what you meant when you posted this.

But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 2:22:04 AM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD

Protest yes, burning and looting no.

Except when our founders did it???right?



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 3:17:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You claimed there is a difference between the extortion of one group vs. the protest of the other.

No, I didn't. You're making shit up. I claimed that there is a difference between protest and extortion, period.

K.

Perhaps youmight be able to get a third grade english teacher to explain what you meant when you posted this.

But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.


Nowhere in that sentence, or in the full quote, had you troubled yourself include it, did I compare two identifiable groups, let alone today's protesters with the founding of America, which seems to obsess you. I only contrasted protest with extortion. That contrast stands, and will continue to stand for speakers of English no matter what contortions you try to impose on it. But hey, thanks for playing.

K.



BamaD -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 3:36:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You claimed there is a difference between the extortion of one group vs. the protest of the other.

No, I didn't. You're making shit up. I claimed that there is a difference between protest and extortion, period.

K.

Perhaps youmight be able to get a third grade english teacher to explain what you meant when you posted this.

But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.


Nowhere in that sentence, or in the full quote, had you troubled yourself include it, did I compare two identifiable groups, let alone today's protesters with the founding of America, which seems to obsess you. I only contrasted protest with extortion. That contrast stands, and will continue to stand for speakers of English no matter what contortions you try to impose on it. But hey, thanks for playing.

K.


Among the many things he forgets is that the founding fathers understood that they were committing treason, and that if they had failed they would have all been guilty of treason.
Is he arguing that we should treat everyone in these riots as terrorist or traitors?
Maybe he thinks we should execute them all.



bounty44 -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 5:18:24 AM)

isn't absolutely amazing---the hubris---that he believes he knows better what you said than you know what you said?

hey troll---whats the more likely, that kirata knows indeed what he meant and took care to use the appropriate language to describe it? or that you've missed being a gadfly, combined with your lack literacy, and couldn't help yourself?



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 8:04:31 AM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You claimed there is a difference between the extortion of one group vs. the protest of the other.

No, I didn't. You're making shit up. I claimed that there is a difference between protest and extortion, period.

K.

Perhaps you might be able to get a third grade english teacher to explain what you meant when you posted this.

But that's not what these so-called "protesters" want. Their intention isn't to protest, their intention is to disrupt, to disrupt the course of life for everyone who crosses their path until and unless they get their way. That's not a "protest," that's extortion.


Nowhere in that sentence, or in the full quote, had you troubled yourself include it, did I compare two identifiable groups,


As I said you should check with any third grade english teacher to help you with your composition issues.


let alone today's protesters with the founding of America,

If you had then we, possibly, would not be having this discussion. I am, however the one who pointed out that the founders behaved as your "so called" extortionist.


which seems to obsess you. I only contrasted protest with extortion.


I pointed out that extortion, by your definition, is what the founders did. Had you ever bothered yourself with a casual perusal of a history book written for someone beyond the fiffth grade you would be aware of that.

That contrast stands, and will continue to stand for speakers of English no matter what contortions you try to impose on it.

The contrast is in your mind and not in reality.

But hey, thanks for playing.

"It is not how you playt the game but whether you win or loose" Is that your point?



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 8:21:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I am, however the one who pointed out that the founders behaved as your "so called" extortionist.

Yes, you are fond of pointing out irrelevancies. But the contrast stands nonetheless.

K.




thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 9:12:13 AM)

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Among the many things he forgets is that the founding fathers understood that they were committing treason,

Once again the graduate of the university of dumbass shows his ignorance. The founders did not commit treason until the declaration of independence which happens in 1776. The boston tea party happens in 1773.



and that if they had failed they would have all been guilty of treason.
Is he arguing that we should treat everyone in these riots as terrorist or traitors?

See above duimbass


Maybe he thinks we should execute them all.


Amerika executed mcvey did we not?
How many protesters were executed at kent state?



thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 9:18:19 AM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I am, however the one who pointed out that the founders behaved as your "so called" extortionist.

Yes, you are fond of pointing out irrelevancies. But the contrast stands nonetheless.

K.

It is hardly irrelevant to point out your hypocracy in castigating the protestors you characterize as extortionist behaving in exactly the same way as the founders of our nation.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 10:07:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I am, however the one who pointed out that the founders behaved as your "so called" extortionist.

Yes, you are fond of pointing out irrelevancies. But the contrast stands nonetheless.

K.

It is hardly irrelevant to point out your hypocracy in castigating the protestors you characterize as extortionist behaving in exactly the same way as the founders of our nation.

Firstly, we're no longer colonies of a foreign power. You can't extract behavior from it's context. Secondly, the contrast would stand in any case. And there is no hypocrisy in calling a spade and spade. Any more questions before the quiz?

K.



mnottertail -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 10:52:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

protests are guaranteed under the constitution by our right to redress our grievances.

And in other news, the sky is blue. Did I say it wasn't?

K.


Protest yes, burning and looting no.


1.) Kirata, did I say I said you didnt? And in other news, there is no other news, and you haven't made any, by saying what you said.
2.) Welfare patient, looting and burning, I think, is understood by even nutsuckers to not be in the constitutiion.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 10:59:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

protests are guaranteed under the constitution by our right to redress our grievances.

And in other news, the sky is blue. Did I say it wasn't?

Kirata, did I say I said you didnt? And in other news, there is no other news, and you haven't made any, by saying what you said.

Well you were replying to me. Why tell me that protests are guaranteed under the constitution if I never said otherwise? But leaving that aside, unless I'm mistaken we only have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It can say no.

K.




thompsonx -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 2:06:57 PM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


I am, however the one who pointed out that the founders behaved as your "so called" extortionist.

Yes, you are fond of pointing out irrelevancies. But the contrast stands nonetheless.

K.

It is hardly irrelevant to point out your hypocracy in castigating the protestors you characterize as extortionist behaving in exactly the same way as the founders of our nation.


Firstly, we're no longer colonies of a foreign power.


Colony of a foriegn power?
The founders were britt citizens.
Just as the protestor/extortionist are amerikan citizens who live in colonies/states governed by federal government


You can't extract behavior from it's context.

The behaviour is in it's exact context. The britt citizens in the colony/state of amerika petitioned the state (g.b.) for a redress of their greviences.
Please play your word games with the children in your neighborhood...they do not work with me as you should well know.

Secondly, the contrast would stand in any case. And there is no hypocrisy in calling a spade and spade.

Calling a shovel a hoe is not calling a spade a spade.



K.



Kirata -> RE: These aren't "protests" (11/22/2016 3:47:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Kirata

Firstly, we're no longer colonies of a foreign power.

Colony of a foriegn power?
The founders were britt citizens.
Just as the protestor/extortionist are amerikan citizens who live in colonies/states governed by federal government

You can't extract behavior from it's context.

The behaviour is in it's exact context. The britt citizens in the colony/state of amerika petitioned the state (g.b.) for a redress of their greviences.
Please play your word games with the children in your neighborhood...they do not work with me as you should well know.


Name the Members elected by the colonies to represent them in Parliament.

K.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
9.277344E-02