Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

@Jiigzz i found this article from the santa barbara news press...'BLM-L.A leader and anti-semitism'

i highly suggest you read this article, please do.

@Jiigzz @Jiigzz @Jiigzz you really need to read this article!!!!!

you hear me @Jiigzz
What do you make of this response?

But, officials from the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and the Anti-Defamation League insist the Jewish community has not been targeted by protesters or by looters. No major damage was sustained by any Jewish institution, and there has been no rise in antisemitic incidents since Floyd’s death.
 
We all know that a lot of people vote based on emotions. Recent Russia involvement shows bots and accounts spreading misinformation about Bidens health, further perpetrating Trumps comments about dementia Joe etc.

At this stage it is a vote to either get Trump out or not get groper Joe in. It's not even about policies anymore

Groper Joe almost looks as if he belongs in a nursing home, you dont need Russian bots to tell people that. All you need to do is watch him.

People vote based off of emotions since the beginnings of democracy. Its nothing new.
 
Ok, heres the thing, if BLM are anti-semitic, then that's a movement destroying stance. No support whatsoever.

I still support equality, but am against hypocrisy
 
Ok, heres the thing, if BLM are anti-semitic, then that's a movement destroying stance. No support whatsoever.

I still support equality, but am against hypocrisy

Jews have white skin and BLM is a racially divisive group at heart so regardless, the Jews lose.
 
I still love Mike! Still, Ive seen so much of stuff like this in my life but its not considered racism. Its a double standard in the USA.

Invalid Link Removed
 
What do you make of this response?

But, officials from the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and the Anti-Defamation League insist the Jewish community has not been targeted by protesters or by looters. No major damage was sustained by any Jewish institution, and there has been no rise in antisemitic incidents since Floyd’s death.
there are 2 things that come to my mind
#1. fear of reprisal
#2. for some reason the jewish federation and anti-defamation league are very democrat and strident biden supporters. if they made issue of this and biden were to lose, it's possible biden supporters would hold them responsible for loss much as hillary blames/d james comey.

politics make strange bedfellows-eh?

the santa barbara news-press is southern california's longest running news publication, i doubt they would print actual quotes if they weren't true...you did read the actual quotes-eh? isn't that a suable offense to quote untruths? i have not heard of any legal action-have you?

@Jiigzz
 
I think BLM started with a message and mission we'd all get on board with in a heartbeat. The idea of bringing some of the injustices they face (harsher sentencing for equal crimes for example) to light.

I think it slowly evolved into an organization, infiltrated by powerful people with VERY different ulterior motives that no longer align with the original intent, and it's gone off the rails. It's almost like a tech startup with a great culture being acquired by Google. It is sterilized and absorbed, morphed into a larger part of the beast, and unrecognizable in the end.

So I think BLM has become this all encompassing term. Someone can define it in a way that I can be fully on board with -- someone can view the current state of BLM and their aggression and reverse-racism, and I'd abhor that just as much as the "racism" they're supposedly fighting against.

It's just too obscure. They needed real leaders to rise to the top to give clear and concise statements of intent, objectives for the movement, and desired outcomes. A shame it hasn't happened. Now you have fringe people using the BLM umbrella to commit atrocities and really blur the lines even further.
 
I think BLM started with a message and mission we'd all get on board with in a heartbeat. The idea of bringing some of the injustices they face (harsher sentencing for equal crimes for example) to light.

I think it slowly evolved into an organization, infiltrated by powerful people with VERY different ulterior motives that no longer align with the original intent, and it's gone off the rails. It's almost like a tech startup with a great culture being acquired by Google. It is sterilized and absorbed, morphed into a larger part of the beast, and unrecognizable in the end.

So I think BLM has become this all encompassing term. Someone can define it in a way that I can be fully on board with -- someone can view the current state of BLM and their aggression and reverse-racism, and I'd abhor that just as much as the "racism" they're supposedly fighting against.

It's just too obscure. They needed real leaders to rise to the top to give clear and concise statements of intent, objectives for the movement, and desired outcomes. A shame it hasn't happened. Now you have fringe people using the BLM umbrella to commit atrocities and really blur the lines even further.
well said, @DaveGabe24 ...i don't agree 100% but i can still acknowledge the valid points you have made.
 
Ok, heres the thing, if BLM are anti-semitic, then that's a movement destroying stance. No support whatsoever.

I still support equality, but am against hypocrisy
it is worse than hypocrisy, it is flat out racism.
 
I think BLM started with a message and mission we'd all get on board with in a heartbeat. The idea of bringing some of the injustices they face (harsher sentencing for equal crimes for example) to light.

I think it slowly evolved into an organization, infiltrated by powerful people with VERY different ulterior motives that no longer align with the original intent, and it's gone off the rails. It's almost like a tech startup with a great culture being acquired by Google. It is sterilized and absorbed, morphed into a larger part of the beast, and unrecognizable in the end.

So I think BLM has become this all encompassing term. Someone can define it in a way that I can be fully on board with -- someone can view the current state of BLM and their aggression and reverse-racism, and I'd abhor that just as much as the "racism" they're supposedly fighting against.

It's just too obscure. They needed real leaders to rise to the top to give clear and concise statements of intent, objectives for the movement, and desired outcomes. A shame it hasn't happened. Now you have fringe people using the BLM umbrella to commit atrocities and really blur the lines even further.

Agreed. They had a moment when even the cops were on their side. Then the idiots came out and started looting. To add insult to injury the white liberals hijacked it and turned it into a complete **** show. It’s really text book squandered opportunity. Sad really.
 
Agreed. They had a moment when even the cops were on their side. Then the idiots came out and started looting. To add insult to injury the white liberals hijacked it and turned it into a complete **** show. It’s really text book squandered opportunity. Sad really.

They got my attention and they had momentum, and then the Atlanta Wendy's shooting happened and thats what they completely lost me.
 
Agreed. They had a moment when even the cops were on their side. Then the idiots came out and started looting. To add insult to injury the white liberals hijacked it and turned it into a complete **** show. It’s really text book squandered opportunity. Sad really.
if you look at the 'founders' they are marxists and imo, had a political agenda from jump...you can trace blm back to trayvon martin and the ferguson riots, both were before facts were in...and that clown obama injected himself into the trayvon martin thing and the media should have gave him hell for it especially when zimmerman was shown justified.
 
if you look at the 'founders' they are marxists and imo, had a political agenda from jump...you can trace blm back to trayvon martin and the ferguson riots, both were before facts were in...and that clown obama injected himself into the trayvon martin thing and the media should have gave him hell for it especially when zimmerman was shown justified.

And then they find out Zimmberman was a minority, still blame whitey RROOFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
if you look at the 'founders' they are marxists and imo, had a political agenda from jump...you can trace blm back to trayvon martin and the ferguson riots, both were before facts were in...and that clown obama injected himself into the trayvon martin thing and the media should have gave him hell for it especially when zimmerman was shown justified.

I was more taking about the messaging during the time when the criminal drug addict formerly known as Floyd died. The organization is never going to get support as an organization with the leadership they have and without a clear agenda but they wasted the moment in a big way.
 
I was more taking about the messaging during the time when the criminal drug addict formerly known as Floyd died. The organization is never going to get support as an organization with the leadership they have and without a clear agenda but they wasted the moment in a big way.
i can't believe they had any credibility left after trayvon and ferguson, but you are right they squandered a undeserved 3rd chance opportunity.

the thing i can't understand is blacks and even whites supporting such a already discredited organization....blacks wasted a golden opportunity by jumping on the blm bandwagon, imo.
 
Invalid Link Removed

As someone who's friends with marines, my one college roomie went to be a paratrooper or some crazy ****, and family who fought in Vietnam, it pains me to see him refer to soldiers, especially those who paid the ultimate price, this way.

I know you guys are probably not fans of The Atlantic, so I guess there's a chance you ignore it based on that...but does any of his disparaging of our troops bother you guys?
 
Invalid Link Removed

As someone who's friends with marines, my one college roomie went to be a paratrooper or some crazy ****, and family who fought in Vietnam, it pains me to see him refer to soldiers, especially those who paid the ultimate price, this way.

I know you guys are probably not fans of The Atlantic, so I guess there's a chance you ignore it based on that...but does any of his disparaging of our troops bother you guys?

According to four familiar sources...okay.
 
To highlight that very point. It's all anti-BLM in here, let's not forget the people they're up against.

Yeah but BLM is in the spot light right now. Just like no one is talking about the flu because COVID is in.

BLM isn’t going after neo-nazis. They’re going after ANYONE THAT’S WHITE! Have you not seen videos where BLM followers have made White people kneel down before them and apologize for being white? I see the point you’re trying to make, but it’s just doesn’t fit with what’d going on. I truly think you don’t understand enough about US culture to get it.
 
blacks wasted a golden opportunity by jumping on the blm bandwagon, imo.

Well, technically not "blacks" since just because your black doesnt mean you want anything to do with BLM BS as many dont.
 
Was it a coincidence that antisemitism came up today, or was it inspired by this?

Jacob Blake Sr., the father of the man shot Aug. 23 by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, appears to have a long history of racist, antisemitic, and anti-Christian posts on Facebook.

Invalid Link Removed

What a joke this guy is, and we are supposed to support this family? They are trash...
 
Was it a coincidence that antisemitism came up today, or was it inspired by this?

Jacob Blake Sr., the father of the man shot Aug. 23 by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, appears to have a long history of racist, antisemitic, and anti-Christian posts on Facebook.

Invalid Link Removed

What a joke this guy is, and we are supposed to support this family? They are trash...
I dont understand why the Jews have copped so much hate for literal centuries. They're always the target.
 
I dont understand why the Jews have copped so much hate for literal centuries. They're always the target.

Alot of them have been getting bullied in NYC, especially the Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn especially by "African Americans."

Invalid Link Removed

Fortunately there are alot of good people from both groups that can get together to try to stop this.

Invalid Link Removed
 
I dont understand why the Jews have copped so much hate for literal centuries. They're always the target.
Because Jesus Christ was Jewish...and people hate Christ...
 
Yeah, no wonder his son turned into an armed sexual predator
 
It would have been disappointing if Trump had indulged the family. Both parties knew they had nothing in common with each other.

Biden and the Blake family makes complete sense...
 
It would have been disappointing if Trump had indulged the family. Both parties knew they had nothing in common with each other.

Biden and the Blake family makes complete sense...
lol...sad but true.
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
IMG_8822.JPG



Invalid Link Removed
 
Ok, heres the thing, if BLM are anti-semitic, then that's a movement destroying stance. No support whatsoever.

I still support equality, but am against hypocrisy

Here is my take on this - I don't think MOST people are against equality. I am certainly for equality, at least in my mind. But the fact that I really have no respect for BLM and see them as being a racist, lying, evil movement automatically makes people take the stance of, "You're against equality!"

No, I'm not. MLK was for equality. I would guess he would not support BLM. The premise behind their arguments is flawed. They claim police are targeting black people. Look at all of the videos they've put out. If there are 10 videos of black people being killed by white police officers - how many of them were actually unjustified? 1 maybe? I'm not saying it is non-existent. I am saying that they are not applying logic, they are just automatically labeling every black death a racist killing.

But if a white person was violating a restraining order against someone who accused them of sexually assaulting them, resisting arrest, unresponsive to being hit with tasers and then going for a weapon - how many of these BLM supporters would say that is wrong? Because I wouldn't.

The idea that you should be able to resist arrest because you are black is DANGEROUS to be telling black people. That idea itself will get more black people killed. It's divisive and not about equality, it's about anger.

MLK would NEVER advocate for a black man to resist arrest. He would advocate for fairness in the process, tell black people to comply and stay alive, and advocate for fair due process. He would never need to attach himself to criminals to make his case. BLM is a HUGE step backwards for equality.

Now, I know you don't see it this way - you are seeing what is at the surface and saying, "Yeah, equality, I'm for that! Why would anyone be against that!?" Yeah, it sounds great - but that is not what they are after. They are looking for privileges that prevent them from taking responsibilities. And if this isn't enough to convince you - look at all the rioting. Yes, it's rioting, not protesting. They aren't for peach and equality. They are using it as a facade to garner support for their evil motives.

I think BLM started with a message and mission we'd all get on board with in a heartbeat. The idea of bringing some of the injustices they face (harsher sentencing for equal crimes for example) to light.

I think it slowly evolved into an organization, infiltrated by powerful people with VERY different ulterior motives that no longer align with the original intent, and it's gone off the rails. It's almost like a tech startup with a great culture being acquired by Google. It is sterilized and absorbed, morphed into a larger part of the beast, and unrecognizable in the end.

So I think BLM has become this all encompassing term. Someone can define it in a way that I can be fully on board with -- someone can view the current state of BLM and their aggression and reverse-racism, and I'd abhor that just as much as the "racism" they're supposedly fighting against.

It's just too obscure. They needed real leaders to rise to the top to give clear and concise statements of intent, objectives for the movement, and desired outcomes. A shame it hasn't happened. Now you have fringe people using the BLM umbrella to commit atrocities and really blur the lines even further.

I also agree that you have good points, and we're not too far off - but I don't agree that it started out as anything different than it is today. It has always been and remains a facade that they are for equality. If a black man gets killed merely because he is black - that is upsetting and SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. I think we all agree on this. Someone should not be treated any differently based on the color of their skin - it is merely a trait like the color of your hair. If we start shooting brunettes because they aren't blond, that would be ludicrous. So is shooting someone because they aren't white.

But ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES that has been promoted as an unjustified black killing, turns out to look pretty justified as more information comes out. But partial footage is released, people stirred up, and the momentum is put in place before the facts come out. It's possible the cop didn't even kill George Floyd. It could be that George Floyd killed himself with drugs. A drunk driver who steals a cops taser needs to be dealt with immediately, regardless of his skin color.

But this movement has never been about equality, it has been about gaining black privilege. The mere fact they aren't trying to just be equal with "white" people and instead want to be equal to "white privilege" is telling.


Invalid Link Removed

As someone who's friends with marines, my one college roomie went to be a paratrooper or some crazy ****, and family who fought in Vietnam, it pains me to see him refer to soldiers, especially those who paid the ultimate price, this way.

I know you guys are probably not fans of The Atlantic, so I guess there's a chance you ignore it based on that...but does any of his disparaging of our troops bother you guys?

This would be very upsetting, but he has come out against this and denied the claims. And to be honest, his actions speak louder than words here. There are NUMEROUS families of fallen soldiers who have had calls from Trump, and without fail they all claim he has been respectful and genuine with them and that they were very thankful for his call. He has even sent money to at least one of the families, from his own personal funds.

But this just highlights the "journalism" that surrounds Trump. If it's bad news about Trump, it doesn't need to be substantiated. Hell, let's just make up a claim in a dosier and then use that to launch an investigation.

Invalid Link Removed

Good link in reference to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Colion Noir has some great stuff.

Was it a coincidence that antisemitism came up today, or was it inspired by this?

Jacob Blake Sr., the father of the man shot Aug. 23 by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, appears to have a long history of racist, antisemitic, and anti-Christian posts on Facebook.

Invalid Link Removed

What a joke this guy is, and we are supposed to support this family? They are trash...

On one hand I can say that the crimes of a man's father have no bearing when someone is killed. Even the past crimes of someone being charged really have no bearing. Just because I stole a bunch of TVs doesn't mean I stole the TV this time. It can be suspicious, but it doesn't mean sh1t.

However, to put this family up as part of your "movement" for equality is really telling. When the only people you are raising are criminals, you really have to wonder what the real "good" coming from this is. Let's put criminals on a pedestal and eliminate the police force. Sounds like a winning strategy for a peaceful and orderly society. *heavy sarcasm*
 
Interesting thoughts . . . As people continue to defend him.

Invalid Link Removed

This is a LUDICROUS argument. So let's take guns out of the equation. I have a knife in my pocket and I I walk through a ghetto in the inner city where I know people get mugged often, and someone attacks me - I can't defend myself with my knife?

I don't disagree with the criminal past argument per se - like I said, just because I stole a TV yesterday doesn't mean I stole a TV today.

But most INTELLIGENT people going to an area where they could be attacked would carry a weapon if it is at their disposal. I guarantee that veteran in that quote would carry a weapon with him when he is going through a rough neighborhood or even going shopping. The fact is, this is the real world, violence happens everywhere and you should always be prepared for it.

Using similar logic, if I arrive at a place where car accidents are known to occur, prepared for a car accident (you know, like wearing a seat belt), and I engage in activities that have been known to create car accidents, then I am at fault when someone runs a stop sign?

Further, in regard to "this kid" - guessing he is talking about Rittenhouse - he did not "engage" in violence. He actually retreated - he ran from the guy. He was chased and then someone tried to take his weapon from him. Guess what I'm going to do if someone tries to take my weapon from me. If you guessed, I will just hand it over and hope for the best you would be sorely mistaken.

And then when someone yelled, "Get him" he didn't continue to engage, he tried running away again until he tripped and fell. He still didn't fire until someone hit him in the head with a skateboard. I wonder what a "combat veteran" would do in this situation? Throw his hands up and ask him to stop?

And of course, finally, the third guy he shot was coming at him with a gun of his own and this guy's only regret is that he didn't unload his entire gun into Rittenhouse - so we know what his intent was.

Also keep in mind only one person called the police before all of this happened/during the interaction. It wasn't any of the people who got shot.

Defending someone for assaulting a person just because it didn't turn out in their favor is insanity. The victim is not always the person who is at room temperature.

Oh, and why was the first person going after Rittenhouse? Because he tried to put out their trash fire. i.e. - He tried to prevent people from getting hurt.

If you want to say he was carrying illegally and charge him for that - if he was even carrying illegally because he may not have been - fine. If you want to say a 17 y/o kid shouldn't have been in an area where nothing good was going down - fine; although he was there trying to provide medical assistance and clean up graffiti and prevent unnecessary destruction. But "illegal all the way around" is not even close.

More to the point, all these people want to defund the police - and then they draw the short stick - what world are they even living in? Yeah, he shouldn't have been there. He shouldn't have NEEDED to be there. The riots shouldn't be happening and police should be crushing them where they stand. But we have twisted morals and here we are.
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
Interesting thoughts . . . As people continue to defend him.

Invalid Link Removed

This guy has no clue what he’s talking about. That logic could be placed on people that are concealed carry permit holders and they carry in a bad areas of town that has had frequent shooting/violence.

Kyle Rittenhouse, no matter if you agree or not, exercised his constitutional rights and also defended himself. He was chased on separate occasions and the ones chasing him caused him to use deadly force to protect himself. The guy that made that post about being an insurgent really has no clue.
 
Interesting thoughts . . . As people continue to defend him.

Invalid Link Removed

It became self defense when Kyle was attacked/assaulted. That simple.

Whether or not he broke any weapon related laws between Illinois/Wisconsin, that's a different issue entirely. If the court finds that he did illegally cross state lines with the firearm, or illegally open carry (as a minor), then he'll get slapped with a weapon related misdemeanor (and rightfully so).

With that being said, none of this changes the criteria for self defense. The trial will prove this.

Source: Also a combat vet, but without a gaping vagina. Actually laughed at this chode comparing Kyle to an insurgent. Definitely wouldn't buy this guy a beer.
 
Last edited:
This is a LUDICROUS argument. So let's take guns out of the equation. I have a knife in my pocket and I I walk through a ghetto in the inner city where I know people get mugged often, and someone attacks me - I can't defend myself with my knife?

I don't disagree with the criminal past argument per se - like I said, just because I stole a TV yesterday doesn't mean I stole a TV today.

But most INTELLIGENT people going to an area where they could be attacked would carry a weapon if it is at their disposal. I guarantee that veteran in that quote would carry a weapon with him when he is going through a rough neighborhood or even going shopping. The fact is, this is the real world, violence happens everywhere and you should always be prepared for it.

Using similar logic, if I arrive at a place where car accidents are known to occur, prepared for a car accident (you know, like wearing a seat belt), and I engage in activities that have been known to create car accidents, then I am at fault when someone runs a stop sign?

Further, in regard to "this kid" - guessing he is talking about Rittenhouse - he did not "engage" in violence. He actually retreated - he ran from the guy. He was chased and then someone tried to take his weapon from him. Guess what I'm going to do if someone tries to take my weapon from me. If you guessed, I will just hand it over and hope for the best you would be sorely mistaken.

And then when someone yelled, "Get him" he didn't continue to engage, he tried running away again until he tripped and fell. He still didn't fire until someone hit him in the head with a skateboard. I wonder what a "combat veteran" would do in this situation? Throw his hands up and ask him to stop?

And of course, finally, the third guy he shot was coming at him with a gun of his own and this guy's only regret is that he didn't unload his entire gun into Rittenhouse - so we know what his intent was.

Also keep in mind only one person called the police before all of this happened/during the interaction. It wasn't any of the people who got shot.

Defending someone for assaulting a person just because it didn't turn out in their favor is insanity. The victim is not always the person who is at room temperature.

Oh, and why was the first person going after Rittenhouse? Because he tried to put out their trash fire. i.e. - He tried to prevent people from getting hurt.

If you want to say he was carrying illegally and charge him for that - if he was even carrying illegally because he may not have been - fine. If you want to say a 17 y/o kid shouldn't have been in an area where nothing good was going down - fine; although he was there trying to provide medical assistance and clean up graffiti and prevent unnecessary destruction. But "illegal all the way around" is not even close.

More to the point, all these people want to defund the police - and then they draw the short stick - what world are they even living in? Yeah, he shouldn't have been there. He shouldn't have NEEDED to be there. The riots shouldn't be happening and police should be crushing them where they stand. But we have twisted morals and here we are.

Well said!
 
Awesome responses and I agree with most. Posted the picture figuring you guys would open me up to diff perspectives.

I think the one fault in your analogies of carrying a weapon when you know you're shopping or traveling through an area, is that Kyle intentionally visited this area across state lines, seeking SOMETHING out.

Now we can all speculate why he really visited. If you believe he's truly altruistic and was there for graffiti and dumpsterfires, fair enough. Id say he went with slightly different intentions personally.

So its more like going to a hood, carrying, and also looking for trouble. I could be wrong.

I saw him punch a girl in the face, so this graffiti cleaning kid seems to have 2 sides (as we all do).
 
Awesome responses and I agree with most. Posted the picture figuring you guys would open me up to diff perspectives.

I think the one fault in your analogies of carrying a weapon when you know you're shopping or traveling through an area, is that Kyle intentionally visited this area across state lines, seeking SOMETHING out.

Now we can all speculate why he really visited. If you believe he's truly altruistic and was there for graffiti and dumpsterfires, fair enough. Id say he went with slightly different intentions personally.

So its more like going to a hood, carrying, and also looking for trouble. I could be wrong.

I saw him punch a girl in the face, so this graffiti cleaning kid seems to have 2 sides (as we all do).

The state line debate isn’t an issue. He only lives 30 minutes away. That is still part of the greater metro area. State line or not.

He was there to help. He started by cleaning the mess and later that night he was there to provide medical attention as EMS was not going to come near that place. He ended up having to defend himself.

This case is open and shut. He will be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as a minor at worst and pay a fine.
 
Awesome responses and I agree with most. Posted the picture figuring you guys would open me up to diff perspectives.

I think the one fault in your analogies of carrying a weapon when you know you're shopping or traveling through an area, is that Kyle intentionally visited this area across state lines, seeking SOMETHING out.

Now we can all speculate why he really visited. If you believe he's truly altruistic and was there for graffiti and dumpsterfires, fair enough. Id say he went with slightly different intentions personally.

So its more like going to a hood, carrying, and also looking for trouble. I could be wrong.

I saw him punch a girl in the face, so this graffiti cleaning kid seems to have 2 sides (as we all do).

Side note, (as already tackled by dixonk) We shouldn't pretend that 30 minutes away is this massive trip to travel, to go play hero. It's a neighboring community that he was looking to help preserve after much damage had occured the days prior. I would do the same, in one of my nearby towns, because here in the Midwest we take care of our own.

I'm sure he knew there was a possibility for danger (hence, being armed). Does that mean he was LOOKING for trouble? Or does it mean he was likely EXPECTING trouble, given the type of people causing destruction in the streets. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I conceal carry, everyday, for that very reason.
 
Back
Top