London riot plans

Jonesy, do you not see the psychological disconnect between "those lefty ********* are breaking the law, send in the police to stop it" and "look at us on the right, we're breaking the law, aren't we awesome"?

Yes, the laws involved and the disobedience are different but I genuinely cannot understand how in one breath you can hurl your teddies out of the pram about protest and in another breath support protest, just because you agree with one group and disagree with another.

Of course in London the police are actually following the law, not choosing to break it.
Illegal aliens are not your fellow citizens though. They are people who let themselves in your country, without any official authorization. If the powers that be are handicapped by political types, who are more concerned about foreigners and their well being. Then Joe will rise up to “assist” those agencies.

Government has a duty to Americans first, not Mexicans or Central Americans. Sometimes our political leadership needs to be reminded to whom they serve.

Besides those climate change loons, would cause more harm to my lifestyle then then the militias patrolling the border.
 
Illegal aliens are not your fellow citizens though. They are people who let themselves in your country, without any official authorization. If the powers that be are handicapped by political types, who are more concerned about foreigners and their well being. Then Joe will rise up to “assist” those agencies.
Who said anything about foreigners?
 
My previous post was about the militia patrolling the border. Because the left in my country courts illegals to the disgust of the other side.

Not dealing with your fellow citizens who hold different beliefs.
I know, hence why I deliberately cut out any bits about foreigners. The first quote of yours was about protestors on Native American reservations.

Just to clarify:
American protestors you don't agree with:
I understand your point. But the rules are different here.
The Protesters also did some things that broke the rules. If a line in the sand is drawn and you cross it, you can expect the Law to respond.
American protestors you do agree with:
The left hates the right here, because we will openly defy them and get away with it. The silent majority does not like the shift the Dems are taking and it shows. The difference is the right here are the armed folks who have the means to resist.

Look at Colorado and the number of Sheriffs telling Denver to shove the new gun laws up their ass.
 
Just look at the state of New Mexico. An armed militia took it open themselves to police the border. They detained close to 300 illegals at gun point, then turned them over to USBP.

Nothing happened to them. They told the governor of the state to go jog on. She is more worried about the well being of non citizens then the residents of her state. Which is where the defiance kicks in.

The left hates the right here, because we will openly defy them and get away with it. The silent majority does not like the shift the Dems are taking and it shows. The difference is the right here are the armed folks who have the means to resist.

Look at Colorado and the number of Sheriffs telling Denver to shove the new gun laws up their ass.
Actually, the FBI has just arrested one of those types.

 
I know, hence why I deliberately cut out any bits about foreigners. The first quote of yours was about protestors on Native American reservations.

Just to clarify:
American protestors you don't agree with:

American protestors you do agree with:

The Indians were destroying property.
The Militia was trying to save taxpayers money.
 
The Indians were destroying property..
Examples?
The Militia was trying not to save taxpayers money.
I don't care about the militia. It's irrelevant.

I was raising the point that Colorado law enforcement have apparently decided not just to ignore a law but actively disobey it. You are supporting law enforcement breaking the law in one situation that you agree with, yet want law enforcement to break protest in another situation you don't agree with. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?
 
Examples?

I don;t care about the militia. It's irrelevant.

I was raising the point that Colorado law enforcement have apparently decided not just to ignore a law but actively disobey it. You are supporting law enforcement breaking the law in one situation that you agree with, yet want law enforcement to break protest in another situation you don't agree with. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

Oil pipeline protesters burn vehicles, set roadblock

Dakota Access protesters claim responsibility for pipeline sabotage


The Sheriffs are upholding the 2nd Amendment, not trying to subvert it. They are also the ones who would get shot at trying to enforce the new laws. Besides nobody really cares for transplants.

If we just agree that my side is mostly right, and the other side is mostly wrong it makes life easier.
 
Frankly, I'm on the side of the Sioux there. A bunch of ********* with construction equipment demand to come through and dig up their land? Yes, I'd have been pissed off. The Army Corps of Engineers are building a private industry pipeline through the handful of land they have been left to live on? **** yes, I'd be kicking off like a mad bastard.

And you genuinely think this is a case for sending in riot police?

The Sheriffs are upholding the 2nd Amendment, not trying to subvert it. They are also the ones who would get shot at trying to enforce the new laws. Besides nobody really cares for transplants.
Can we get this straight? A democratically passed law is refused by police officers - that is, people sworn to uphold the law are refusing to do their job and you think this is a good thing.

On the other hand, oil companies are forcibly trespassing on Native lands and when the landowners get upset you think that is wrong.

I thought you were a decent bloke with funny ideas but now you just come across as a prick.

Edit - I was misinformed, the pipeline never went or was planned to go through Native lands. Just a bawhair away.
 
Last edited:
Dakota Access protesters claim responsibility for pipeline sabotage
Frankly, I'm on the side of the Sioux there. A bunch of ********* with construction equipment demand to come through and dig up their land? Yes, I'd have been pissed off. The Army Corps of Engineers are building a private industry pipeline through the handful of land they have been left to live on? **** yes, I'd be kicking off like a mad bastard.

And you genuinely think this is a case for sending in riot police?


Can we get this straight? A democratically passed law is refused by police officers - that is, people sworn to uphold the law are refusing to do their job and you think this is a good thing.

On the other hand, oil companies are forcibly trespassing on Native lands and when the landowners get upset you think that is wrong.

I thought you were a decent bloke with funny ideas but now you just come across as a prick.
It would help if you would put the beer down and educate yourself.

The pipeline was not routed through the reservation. The Indians were the ones doing the trespassing on private property, destroying private property, and building illegal roadblocks. They don’t get a pass because they are Indians. But before you go all Limey SJW on me, how many reservations have you been on?

On to Colorado, have you been to Weld county? Have you been to Denver? Have you seen how the State has been transformed over the past two decades? Are you going to be the one entering somebodies home to confiscate their property without due process being served? Because one side has a majority and passes a law, makes it ok? Not all laws are just, right, or remotely possible to enforce.
 
It would help if you would put the beer down and educate yourself.

The pipeline was not routed through the reservation. The Indians were the ones doing the trespassing on private property, destroying private property, and building illegal roadblocks. They don’t get a pass because they are Indians. But before you go all Limey SJW on me, how many reservations have you been on?
I'll hold my hands up, I was misinformed on that one. I was under the impression the pipeline passed through the reservation rather than just within a bawhair of it.

On to Colorado, have you been to Weld county? Have you been to Denver? Have you seen how the State has been transformed over the past two decades? Are you going to be the one entering somebodies home to confiscate their property without due process being served? Because one side has a majority and passes a law, makes it ok? Not all laws are just, right, or remotely possible to enforce.
Yes. That is the whole point of a democracy. If it weren't the case we wouldn't have the extinction rebellion shit in London as a bunch of TSG would have walked through cracking skulls within 12 hours.
 
I'll hold my hands up, I was misinformed on that one. I was under the impression the pipeline passed through the reservation rather than just within a bawhair of it.


Yes. That is the whole point of a democracy. If it weren't the case we wouldn't have the extinction rebellion shit in London as a bunch of TSG would have walked through cracking skulls within 12 hours.
But here is what you don’t grasp. Forced and unwanted social change by outsiders who have essentially colonized your state is not accepted. If 200,000 Brits magically came here and were given the opportunity to vote and run for office, you would still be viewed as outsiders. If you managed to pass any of your laws they would be disobeyed by the natives.

Now change Brits to Californians and imagine how the rural counties feel. Foreigners have been allowed to come in and in a short span of time, change the laws and accepted social norms to match the places they left. In most countries they would just shoot the bastards, here we say no.
 
But here is what you don’t grasp. Forced and unwanted social change by outsiders who have essentially colonized your state is not accepted. If 200,000 Brits magically came here and were given the opportunity to vote and run for office, you would still be viewed as outsiders. If you managed to pass any of your laws they would be disobeyed by the natives.
That is the issue. You are quite happy to pick and choose which laws you will obey. Your police will choose which laws they will enforce.

In that situation how the **** can you judge any protestors? They are just choosing a different set of laws to ignore.

Either you enforce all laws or none. At least when coppers in London are waiting until they have 8 people to one suspect before carrying the crusty off they are still following the law.
 
That is the issue. You are quite happy to pick and choose which laws you will obey. Your police will choose which laws they will enforce.

In that situation how the **** can you judge any protestors? They are just choosing a different set of laws to ignore.

Either you enforce all laws or none. At least when coppers in London are waiting until they have 8 people to one suspect before carrying the crusty off they are still following the law.
We are somewhat naughty and rebellious by nature.

Some laws are not worth the time and effort to enforce, others really can’t be. Others are suggestions like speed limits etc.
If you piss off the communities that fund you, you can kiss that money goodbye. Law enforcement is always political.

As for protestors the home town ones know their community and what the majority will tolerate or not. Every place has the unwritten rules and behaviour expectations that are expected to be obeyed.

IF you are an outside agitator come to stir the pot, you best be carful. Most people do not take a kind view to people who only come to cause trouble. Hence ND.
 
So it's still, breaking laws I don't like is fine, breaking laws I agree with is bad.

Protest I tolerate is good, protest I don't like is bad.

You really can't see the mental disconnect in this?
 
Dame Emma Thompson: 'If I could fly cleanly, I would'
Actress Dame Emma Thompson has been defending her decision to fly from the US to attend a climate change protest in central London.
Speaking to reporters from the Extinction Rebellion campaign group's pink boat, she said she did not fly as much as she used to - and planted a lot of trees.
Ms Thompson also compared the protest to the campaign of disruption by the Suffragettes.’


I wonder what the weather is like in her planet?
Does that mean she will be running in front of a horse next?
 
Oil pipeline protesters burn vehicles, set roadblock

Dakota Access protesters claim responsibility for pipeline sabotage


The Sheriffs are upholding the 2nd Amendment, not trying to subvert it. They are also the ones who would get shot at trying to enforce the new laws. Besides nobody really cares for transplants.

If we just agree that my side is mostly right, and the other side is mostly wrong it makes life easier.
The burning of the vehicles that the Police had used to burn the bridge happened weeks after the police and security started using over the top levels of force and the camp had grown to thousands of protesters from all sorts of groups, some of which were quite happy to use vandalism.

The vandalism of the actual pipeline in your second example happened after the protests were over and the protest camps had been evicted. It had nothing to do with the Native American protesters and was done by two women from the Catholic Workers Movement.
 
So it's still, breaking laws I don't like is fine, breaking laws I agree with is bad.

Protest I tolerate is good, protest I don't like is bad.

You really can't see the mental disconnect in this?
Oh I do. But you are being completely rational in an irrational world. You are tying to understand a system that you don’t live in.
If we followed all the laws that have been passed, then the gay community would be up the creek. So would all the other minority’s etc. not all are repealed and many stay on the books and are just ignored.
 
Oh I do. But you are being completely rational in an irrational world. You are tying to understand a system that you don’t live in.
If we followed all the laws that have been passed, then the gay community would be up the creek. So would all the other minority’s etc. not all are repealed and many stay on the books and are just ignored.
Well, yes, that's what happens with statute law. I don't know about your version but assume it's similar, once a law is on the books then it stays until removed or superseded.

You cannot possibly be arguing that, because a lot of old laws need to be removed from statute books, that means the police can ignore any new law they want to. Can you?
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top