Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

“Destroying Property, if it can be replaced, is not violence”

Recommended Posts

You have to love how the left loves to change definitions of words to suit their agenda. For example, Racism has had a new definition by the left for quite a while. Or how about the new definition of what a Nazi is so they can call anyone they don’t like a Nazi. Well now there’s an effort to re-define what a peaceful protester is vs. a rioter. They want peaceful protesters to be able to break shit and have some level of violence while keeping the peaceful tag. So how can you make that work? You start changing the definitions of words such as “violence”. 

So here we have a NY Times reporter starting to pimp a new definition of violence. So when a reporter is writing a story about some chaos in the streets, he/she can say the protesters were peaceful and not violent even though they were actually engaging in some level of rioting. That’s because destroying property that can be replaced (which is almost everything) is not violence, right? Perfect!!!  
 

https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroying-property-is-not-violence/

 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

You have to love how the left loves to change definitions of words to suit their agenda. For example, Racism has had a new definition by the left for quite a while. Or how about the new definition of what a Nazi is so they can call anyone they don’t like a Nazi. Well now there’s an effort to re-define what a peaceful protester is vs. a rioter. They want peaceful protesters to be able to break shit and have some level of violence while keeping the peaceful tag. So how can you make that work? You start changing the definitions of words such as “violence”. 

So here we have a NY Times reporter starting to pimp a new definition of violence. So when a reporter is writing a story about some chaos in the streets, he/she can say the protesters were peaceful and not violent even though they were actually engaging in some level of rioting. That’s because destroying property that can be replaced (which is almost everything) is not violence, right? Perfect!!!  
 

https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroying-property-is-not-violence/

 

Says the original Tea Partiers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're only getting to this conversation now? People were talking about this quote in discussions here like two months ago. I know it can be tough to keep up, but Jesus...

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

You have to love how the left loves to change definitions of words to suit their agenda. For example, Racism has had a new definition by the left for quite a while. Or how about the new definition of what a Nazi is so they can call anyone they don’t like a Nazi. Well now there’s an effort to re-define what a peaceful protester is vs. a rioter. They want peaceful protesters to be able to break shit and have some level of violence while keeping the peaceful tag. So how can you make that work? You start changing the definitions of words such as “violence”. 

So here we have a NY Times reporter starting to pimp a new definition of violence. So when a reporter is writing a story about some chaos in the streets, he/she can say the protesters were peaceful and not violent even though they were actually engaging in some level of rioting. That’s because destroying property that can be replaced (which is almost everything) is not violence, right? Perfect!!!  
 

https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroying-property-is-not-violence/

 

Damn I’d love to see the protesters burn this reporters house down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, soupslam1 said:

The word Democrats needs to be added. I can’t blame the others trying to escape that loony bin. 

Don't worry, the majority of Californians moving here are conservative.

I think, therefore I'm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, renoskier said:

:lol: "Conservative" means different things to different folks.

True, they aren't conservative by Idaho standards. They're new money who hate taxes and love city life. Typically shocked to discover Boise is largely liberal.

I think, therefore I'm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

I didn’t see it. Was there a thread here? I didn’t see it. 

I'm not going to do your homework for you. But you probably liked my posts on it back when I was arguing about the nature of violence. Well, maybe not. They had a few big words in them.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PackNation said:

Exactly. Kind of like how a far right nut job like you defines himself as a moderate leaning slightly to the right.

I’ve been challenged on this a few times in the past, and you can do a search and find it. You know it’s there, you’re just lazy. The last one I did was with bagibos, and he agreed with me after he saw my position on all the issues. I haven’t seen him in forever. We seem to talk about the same issues over and over on the board, and never talk about so many others. The common mistake dorks like you make is you confuse my “passion for winning in politics” with “obsession of Trump and extreme right views”. Not that I’d expect you to see that because you’re always wrong. 🤠👍

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone builds a business over years or decades, usually more than a 9 to 5 and loses it to theft or rioting that is not violence?  God only gives us a relatively few rides around the sun, those rides can't be replaced.  Are most businesses covered for these losses by insurance?  I wonder if there are civil unrest clauses where these losses are not covered by insurance.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

I’ve been challenged on this a few times in the past, and you can do a search and find it. You know it’s there, you’re just lazy. The last one I did was with bagibos, and he agreed with me after he saw my position on all the issues. I haven’t seen him in forever. We seem to talk about the same issues over and over on the board, and never talk about so many others. The common mistake dorks like you make is you confuse my “passion for winning in politics” with “obsession of Trump and extreme right views”. Not that I’d expect you to see that because you’re always wrong. 🤠👍

What's to search, cupcake?

You have described yourself as a slightly right leaning moderate.

You actually are a far right nut job.

Try and keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...