Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

bostonangler

Members
  • Posts

    9,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. Yup Tom is a master of the game! B/A
  2. Those Kommie bastards!!! GO PATS!!! B/A
  3. Yup they were negged in their day. I think mentioned it wasn't supported by the majority. It was the minorities opinion they were living under an oppressive government at the time. And perhaps that is what we see today. A minority who feels oppressed and feels as though they need to strike out. I am not advocating their actions, just trying to understand it. I'm no expert, so I have to guess that most revolutions start with a few brave people willing to sacrifice for their belief. Many call President Trump's win the beginning of a revolution to take back their country. The end result obviously remains to be seen. I find it unfortunate that as far as we have come as a society, we still find room for hate. You read the postings here, most are good discussions with the ability to agree to disagree. But then we see those who have not evolved and resort to primal emotions that go untethered. I enjoy my time here and most of the conversations are both interesting and rewarding. It is the blind eye that is hardest to deal with from those who simply spew disregard, disrespect and simple hate for things they do not like or even understand. Jax, as always thanks for your honest opinions and respectful conversation. B/A
  4. You sound like those who were apposed to The Boston Tea Party. It was striking out against the government. It was destruction of property. It was breaking the law. It was not supported by the majority. Had they posted their thoughts here before heading to Boston Harbor, they would have been negged!!! LOL https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/video/reactions-to-the-boston-tea-party
  5. Jax, perhaps you didn't read my post above with the reaction to the election in 2008. Real news. Real people. Real sad. It is both sides of the equation. I just don't like government growing more and more into our daily lives. As for a solution? What they did last week. Arrest those who are out of hand. Is this really a big problem. What, were there 1/2 million people marching and 200 arrested? I think it was handled well. Do you want your congressman to add to this system that seemed to work? How about posting here. What if someone with a thin skin decided that there was too much bullying here, do we want them to legislate what we can or cannot say because some mamby pamby person is offended? That will be next. They will want to make sure we all get along. Again, I'm talking less government and it appears people here are in favor of more government control. Did I just step into Bizzaro Land? B/A P.S. I have to ask. Are people really living in the type of fear I see here on a daily basis? In a protest march of 4 or 500,000 people and 200 get out of hand, is this reason to be fearful? I just don't see it. Do we want law enforcement standing on every corner to be sure one person doesn't get crazy. Maybe some people want that kind of lack of freedom. I'm not one of them. To live in a free society, comes with some risk, otherwise we are not free.
  6. I am for peaceful protests. But these type of laws open Pandora's box. Do you think all gun laws are good? Of course not. Should there be some sort of laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons? Yup. But do we really need all the thousands of stupid gun laws that followed? Nope. How do you stop this government control once it starts? My point is, that we don't need to add more laws to the books. I think we need to take some laws off the books. And because of a few stupid people the reaction is to legislate. Do you think if these laws were passed, some jackass wouldn't try to expand them? What about all of us here? We have discussions that sometimes turn ugly or even hateful. Do we want some congressman to say we need to shut it down, because there is too much bullying or hate speech or whatever they find offensive? That is where these type of stupid laws go. First it's your right to assemble, then it's your right to free speech. I find it odd, that people here are negging me because I think there is too much government. B/A
  7. Nah, I'm all for peaceful assembly. I'm not into disrespect. The point to this thread is the pot calling the kettle black. Most protests are peaceful. The proposed laws are meant to outlaw violence, but it would open the door to more laws which could infringe on our rights. Look at gun laws. Some are legit, but as they pile them on them become ridiculous. I don't think these proposed laws will go anywhere, but it is scary that people willingly accept more government. B/A
  8. Right. I agree and all those things you mentioned did happen back in 2008. My point is non of this type of behavior is acceptable. There shouldn't be a double standard. All people should be accountable for their actions. But, it seems to me that people forgot history. Thus is why I use the term United States of Amnesia. Why will people on either side of any issue refuse to admit when their side has made a mistake? What we saw this weekend was deplorable. What we saw in 2008 was deplorable. You of all people know that the politicians are dividing us. It is up to us to stand together. B/A
  9. So you are cool with people calling President Obama "****** President"? And you are good with hanging effigies of President Trump as a protest? B/A
  10. Yup we live in The United States of Amnesia..... Or was it okay then but not now? I'm just asking. This isn't against Trump. It's a reminder that it is a two way street. Were the actions and protests and hanging of effigies of Obama okay? Would it be okay to hang effigies of President Trump? Or does it sicken you to read how people acted in 2008 Conservatives forget history in discrediting Trump protesters By Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, contributor - 11/12/16 07:27 PM EST Today, thousands of people assembled in streets around the world to protest the presidency of Donald J. Trump for the fourth straight day in a row. While the vast majority of the protests have been peaceful, spurts of violence have drawn the attention of the media. Reports of protesters throwing rocks and bottles at police in Santa Ana, stories of property destruction in Oregon, and a video of a physical attack against a Trump supporter in Chicago are a few examples of the recorded violent reactions to Trump’s election. Trump’s supporters also perceive these protests as “unfair” because they claim there were no riots following Obama’s election. According to conservatives on social media, “Republicans have jobs and responsibilities” and therefore couldn’t engage in civil disobedience to voice their discontent with the 2008 and 2012 elections. With this perception of the Obama elections and subsequent claims of “ Republican acceptance,” Trump supporters are now demanding the same “fairness” for Donald J. Trump’s presidency, “We sat through do nothing politics for 8 years, the least they can do is go shut up and sit in the corner for 8 themselves,” on Trump supporter explained. However, these perceptions do not reflect what actually followed the election of our country’s first black president, much less the difference between why people are protesting Obama’s election in 2008 was preceded and followed by violent attacks and property destruction targeted against minorities. Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted “**** Obama!” and “****** president!” as they broke Johnson’s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery. More frequently, Obama’s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obama’s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts. In 2008, anti-Obama protesters lashed out against minorities because of their discontentment with a black man being voted into the office of president for the first time in our nation’s history. Conversely, in 2016, anti-Trump protesters are holding mostly peaceful demonstrations because of their discontentment with a man, who has ostracized minorities, being voted into the office of president. And while anti-Trump protesters have engaged in mostly peaceful demonstrations against the president-elect, pro-Trump supporters have been responsible for a wave of attacks against Muslims, Latinos, blacks, and the LGBT community. According to Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center civil rights group, there haven’t been “such a rash of hate crimes in the United States since Barack Obama was elected America’s first black president in 2008.” Muslim women are reporting having their hijabs ripped from their heads, while immigrant children are being bullied. Trump’s name and slogan, “Make America Great Again,” are being found alongside swastikas and anti-minority messages in graffiti around the nation. Ultimately, demonstrators are not protesting Trump because he is Republican. They aren’t protesting him because he is a white male. These protests are because of the bigotry his campaign has emboldened and the fear of discrimination his presidency has the capacity to perpetuate. Mehlman-Orozco holds a Ph.D. in criminology, law and society from George Mason University, with an expertise in human trafficking. She currently serves as a human trafficking expert witness for criminal cases and her book, “Hidden in Plain Sight: America's Slaves of the New Millennium.” Follow her on Twitter @MehlmanOrozco http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit B/A
  11. There were many protests for the women's march on Saturday, including my town where there were no issues or arrests. I personally am not sure of what the point was, but most of the time people do assemble peaceably. Surely you don't want to lose your right to protest? That would be un-American. B/A
  12. While most of the world is still buzzing with positive energy from the Women's Marches on Saturday, several Republican legislators have been working hard to potentially make future peaceful protests a punishable offense. According to The Intercept, several proposals have been introduced by Republican legislators over the past few weeks specifically targeting protests that block or obstruct traffic — including a North Dakota bill that would allow motorists to hit and kill protesters obstructing the highway "as long as [the] driver does so accidentally." Another bill in Minnesota would make obstructing a highway a "gross misdemeanor" punishable by a hefty fine of $3,000 and up to a year in jail, while a separate piece of legislature would make "obstructing the legal process" punishable by an even heftier fine of up to $10,000 plus "imprisonment of not less than 12 months." Similar bills designed to criminalize and discourage protests have also been proposed in Washington, Iowa, and Michigan. As The Intercept points out, this "trend" appears to be a not-so-subtle workaround to the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Furthermore, the bills seem to be in response to recent protests organized by Black Lives Matter and the activists fighting construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline — which is horrifying for a multitude of reasons, most notably the continued criminalization of black and brown people. The very specific targeting becomes even more concerning when combined with what Slate reports is a "bracing message implicitly directed to supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement" from the Trump administration. As the source points out, amongst the "Top Issues" on President Trump's new White House website is "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community," which in part appears to be addressed to protestors of police violence. "The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration," the website reads. "The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it ... Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter." While neither specifically mentions Black Lives Matter or the Dakota Access Pipeline by name, it's easy to see how both the proposed bills and the Trump administration's stance feed a dangerous, violent narrative that targets smaller protests mostly consisting of people of color. As many pointed out in response to the low arrest numbers of the Women's Marches, it's not only a sign of a successful protest, but also proof of a wholly different method of policing — which is why, now more than ever, it's so essential just as many people show up for the small, local protests as the big ones. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8628723/republican-legislators-propose-bills-criminalize-protests/
  13. How a Trump ‘threat to world order’ could play out for stocks By Barbara Kollmeyer Published: Jan 23, 2017 10:28 a.m. ET Reuters After President Donald Trump’s inaugural address, with its “America first” emphasis, some believe the global trade paradigm has most likely been altered, and at least one economist says investors should brace for the potential fallout. According to Erik Nielsen, group chief economist at UniCredit Research, Trump’s trading policy represents a zero-sum game with only one winner and a loser, which will make it difficult for global trade agreements to be negotiated in earnest. As a result of Trump’s stance, Nielsen said he sees two trade scenarios playing out for the Trump administration. Under the first, the leader and his administration recognize deep divisions in the country and aim for “relatively traditional policies,” he said. In the second scenario, Trump “doubles down and plays to ‘his audience’ following through with the bulk of his hard-line policies which have been described by some as protectionist and nationalistic. Nielsen say he doesn’t see this as the scenario most likely to play out but warned that under this environment resides the greatest threat to the flow of capital and international trade. Nielsen has been critical of Trump in the past and described Friday’s inaugural address as “possibly the most divisive and aggressive inauguration speech in history.” Opinion: 10 popular stocks at risk from Trump’s ‘America first’ inauguration speech The UniCredit economists said if Trump’s more aggressive path is taken, investors should expect market volatility to accelerate as international capital heads for assets considered havens. “The guiding principle for investments will then rest on three pillars: (1) Safe havens, but defined in a world where the U.S. is the key source of concern, which probably means gold and bunds more than U.S. treasuries; (2) A greater share of capital will likely stay close to where it’s created, which means that you’ll want to pick countries with current account surpluses, including the Eurozone, and (3) you want to stay away from Trump’s wars, i.e. primarily U.S., Chinese and Mexican assets,” said Nielsen. So far, the market has been skittish of U.S. rule under the real estate billionaire. Last week, Bank of America Merrill Lynch reported that investors pulled $2.5 billion out of U.S. equities in the latest week, with outflows logged in four of the past five weeks. Precious metals, meanwhile, saw the first inflows in 10 weeks of $1.3 billion, which was the largest in five months. Investors tend to flock to precious metals like gold and silver in times of uncertainty and shy from assets perceived as risky like stocks. And so it begins.... Smart money is moving out... How about you? B/A
  14. Republican Legislators Propose a Series of Bills That Would Criminalize Peaceful Protests But it's still just as important as ever to show up. By Gina Mei Jan 23, 2017
  15. Why would anyone including democrats spend 200 million on an inauguration? If I was elected president, my first move would have been to eliminate most of that wasted expense. If don't care if you are left or right, you have to see this waste of money.
  16. Who doesn't like veggies? You just voted one in... LOL
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.