Was this a Racial Slur?

its no longer protestors its just mob action, one thing is certain that covid -19 does not discriminate based on age, race or gender if you are rich or poor this virus does not care. in 2 weeks we are going to see some big infection rates sore because of this.
 
Thousands of images...hundreds of video's...this one really stands out a lot most for me. Pictures, like fine art, can hold many meanings for different people. In the image below I see a coming together of the different races.
The man on the ground...obviously exhausted from some very intense protesting,is being helped by a fellow protestor from a different race than his own. The man standing is attempting to re-hydrate his fellow protestor by pouring that 40 ounce bottle of vodka straight down his throat.
To me,that's got caring written all over it. One can only hope that the Mom & Pop liquor store where the bottle was "aquired" from is fully insured and that it doesn't cause them too much trouble like...total bankruptcy.
I'm sure the protestors left some cash and a nice note.
Rubb.
1620397
 
This fellow want's folks to know he identifies with his fellow Latino's. The George Floyd "Cause" can't help but benefit from the burning of those traffic cone's.
Like the protest signs read..."Violence = Violence."
I wonder how George...God Rest his Soul...feels about all this.
1620398

Rubb.
1620399
 
Jamar Clark.Micheal Brown.Trayvon Martin. Rodney King.George Floyd.Just a few I can remember off the top of my head.There have been thousands and thousands around the world,a lot of them I'm sure now forgotten.This is by no means a US only problem.
Not too worry,society will have this figured out in no time.;)
Rubb.
 

#CoViD19PlanDemic ~ #JustCoincidental ~ #TankDeployment ~ #THEoRg *

www.hayabusa.org

Who thinks COVID 19 is a hoax? | In the News

I've been hearing more and more from folks that think that the virus is nothing more than the Flu and that the virus is the biggest hoax of this generation. Your thoughts! Ready, set, Go! Post away..
www.hayabusa.org www.hayabusa.org

#PleaseBelieveThisHasNothingToDoWithOurPuppetMasters *

1591046431341.png
 
Last edited:
Joshua Dumas said:


This will not end well. These people are domestic terrorists.
Click to expand...
Armed, anti-government white folks who proudly display the flag of an enemy of the United States aren't domestic terrorists, but some street punks running around beating people up are? Go get you a copy of Merriam Webster's because you clearly don't understand the definition of terrorist. These idiots don't have a political goal. They're criminals....plain and simple.
Protestors are protesting. Looters are looting. Stop getting them confused.
 
www.hayabusa.org

the brick | 1/4 Mile

I had been looking at a brick. brocks is on sale for $157 at the moment. Still that seems really expensive for what it is really. Are there any others out there with that kind of set up? And has anyone used it that can comment on if it was useful at all or worth the money? thanks
www.hayabusa.org www.hayabusa.org
 
Mr Brown said:
Armed, anti-government white folks who proudly display the flag of an enemy of the United States aren't domestic terrorists, but some street punks running around beating people up are? Go get you a copy of Merriam Webster's because you clearly don't understand the definition of terrorist. These idiots don't have a political goal. They're criminals....plain and simple.
Protestors are protesting. Looters are looting. Stop getting them confused.
Click to expand...
Mr Brown said:
Armed, anti-government white folks who proudly display the flag of an enemy of the United States aren't domestic terrorists, but some street punks running around beating people up are? Go get you a copy of Merriam Webster's because you clearly don't understand the definition of terrorist. These idiots don't have a political goal. They're criminals....plain and simple.
Protestors are protesting. Looters are looting. Stop getting them confused.
Click to expand...

Who are the armed anti government white folks you’re referring to?

And how many buildings have been burned down in the last week?

4EDAC126-A906-49C7-BF6C-C69A44868EA8.png


FCD6C40B-4878-45F6-9BA3-5A641F3EE7D7.png
 
Don't insult my intelligence. You know exactly who I'm referring to. We all do.
I'll say it again, slowly:
Street. Punks. Have. No. Political. Goals.
Therefore, by definition (which you posted but evidently did not read fully) they can't be terrorists.
 
Mr Brown said:
Don't insult my intelligence. You know exactly who I'm referring to. We all do.
I'll say it again, slowly:
Street. Punks. Have. No. Political. Goals.
Therefore, by definition (which you posted but evidently did not read fully) they can't be terrorists.
Click to expand...

If you’re still referring to the armed Michigan protesters then that is what you call them by opinion. Just like im calling these people that are causing chaos domestic terrorists.

And yes I did read that domestic terrorism is in fact “Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,[5] no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism". Acts of domestic terrorism are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce".[6]”

Do you need to see more links of the destruction they are causing?
 
Joshua Dumas said:
If you’re still referring to the armed Michigan protesters then that is what you call them by opinion. Just like im calling these people that are causing chaos domestic terrorists.

And yes I did read that domestic terrorism is in fact “Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,[5] no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism". Acts of domestic terrorism are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce".[6]”

Do you need to see more links of the destruction they are causing?
Click to expand...
Ha ha you just described those officers that kill George Floyd!
 
Joshua Dumas said:
If you’re still referring to the armed Michigan protesters then that is what you call them by opinion. Just like im calling these people that are causing chaos domestic terrorists.

And yes I did read that domestic terrorism is in fact “Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,[5] no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism". Acts of domestic terrorism are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce".[6]”

Do you need to see more links of the destruction they are causing?
Click to expand...
There is a political aspect which has to be present for something to be accurately described as terrorism, see the definition which you kindly provided. The protests in Michigan were political in nature. The criminal acts you refer to were not. .
I can keep explaining it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
 
So I'm a conspiracy guy Huh? The Sedition Act is the law that will allow Trump to send federal troops into the states to fire on American citizens. Read this:

The most controversial of the new laws permitting strong government control over individual actions was the Sedition Act. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. (like for example Joe Biden?)

Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned. While Federalists sent Lyon to prison for his opinions, his constituents reelected him to Congress even from his jail cell.

The Sedition Act clearly violated individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution; however, the practice of "judicial review," whereby the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws was not yet well developed. Furthermore, the justices were all strong Federalists. As a result, Madison and Jefferson directed their opposition to the new laws to state legislatures. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring the federal laws invalid within their states. The bold challenge to the federal government offered by this strong states' rights position seemed to point toward imminent armed conflict within the United States.
 
fallenarch said:
So I'm a conspiracy guy Huh? The Sedition Act is the law that will allow Trump to send federal troops into the states to fire on American citizens. Read this:

The most controversial of the new laws permitting strong government control over individual actions was the Sedition Act. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. (like for example Joe Biden?)

Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned. While Federalists sent Lyon to prison for his opinions, his constituents reelected him to Congress even from his jail cell.

The Sedition Act clearly violated individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution; however, the practice of "judicial review," whereby the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws was not yet well developed. Furthermore, the justices were all strong Federalists. As a result, Madison and Jefferson directed their opposition to the new laws to state legislatures. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring the federal laws invalid within their states. The bold challenge to the federal government offered by this strong states' rights position seemed to point toward imminent armed conflict within the United States.
Click to expand...
May not be clear the Sedition Act was enacted in 1790 or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Southside Playa
Another Officer - On His Worst Behavior
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
3,818
Dirty Red357
Dirty Red357
N
  • Locked
Racial jokes.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2,297
Professor
Professor
Chris79761TX
Do you all think I was being Racist??????
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3,964
PB1
PB1
O
Man it pays to take care of people
Replies
13
Views
947
VaBusa
VaBusa
yamahor
Had fun at vir
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2,603
yamahor
yamahor
Back
Top