Maturity??? No, I like you, because I think you're Special.....

I'm on "E".
But I still read every vitriolic post

You gotta get out more.
The DA back tracked. She wanted ALL charges dropped but then acquiesced because cops were injured and out of work. She's a disgrace.
The SJC wasn't ruling on the case itself, but only on her ability to use her authority.


Frank, don't you find it even a little bit strange that the only ones facing charges are the only ones arrested and on video?
The DA is making the ASSUMPTION, against the will of the judge, that those not on camera were behaving and merely expressing their rights to free speech. Even with police testimony to the contrary.
The only thing that foiled the DA plans to release everyone are the videos and the injured cops.
This isn't a rogue judge that needs to be reeled in. This is a judge believing police reports over those of MASKED Antifa thugs who thought they could act with immunity. Because #Massachusetts.


But further to the point, NPR provided an update on today's morning drive.
The 7 antifa thugs were referred to as protesters and the dozen with the dropped charges were referred to as COUNTER protesters.

I'm not talking about modified accounts.
When the news initially broke, the DA wanted to drop charges for everyone. I heard the report on two separate radio stations and read it somewhere else.
It's what prompted my comment.

Only upon further investigation do we learn about the videos.


So let's take politics and precedence out of it.

Should a person accused of disorderly conduct be charged or simply released?

When police are reigning in 800 "counter" protesters against a "parade" of 200 marchers, don't you think it's prudent to listen to the cops when they tell you to move?
I know you've seen the videos. This wasn't peaceful opposition. The cops were proactive once it was clear that verbally demanding conformance wasn't an option. They were right to do so when many in the crowd wore face masks and stood in defiance of those commands and outnumbered parade marchers 4 to 1.

I get it.
The protesters wanted to project a perceived hatred on the event.
That's their right. They won't go to prison.
But they might go to jail and they might pay a fine.
The DA had no reason to step in.

But more to the point: would she do the same if the political leanings were reversed?

Answer that with honesty and you'll see what's going on.

See?
You're in this one deep, my friend.

I clearly state that the parade is ridiculous. I don't care who was in it. Or who was against it. It's stupid.

But now you're now trying to defend the protesters because you agree with them. And worse, your post seems to imply that I agree with the parade goers. Despite what I've clearly stated many times now.
Your diatribe is pointless. Or more accurately, you're arguing a point that doesn't exist.

I'm saying the judge was right to agree with the police. Not that the parader were justified.
The police were there to keep the peace. Some of the protesters resisted. They get slapped on the wrist and live another day. Right?
Nope.

The DA said NO. Because she agrees with your politics. The politics you show above that have nothing to do with justice being served.
A righteous person can still break the law.
Yet without video evidence the masked antifa thugs would have been spared prosecution because of the DA's politics.

That's not free speech. That's a free pass.

I thought you both were team patriots

first it was about media saying counterprotesters here and there
then it was about the DA's politics.
then it was my political alignment with the DA and your ability to know her mindset and hypothetical actions (simply because she's a lib?)...odd one to toss in.

OK, then...

so, I believe that every person in politics, law enforcement, judiciary, etc has political beliefs, like the rest of us. I simply don't agree that if the situation was reversed she would feel differently about the law as she understands her duty to uphold it. I believe that it would be applied evenly, even if those charged voted differently than her, nor do I feel that way about most in her position, liberal or conservative. I could be wrong but I don't think most DA's are elected.

I do believe Rollins has an agenda when it comes to low level crime, but not necessarily based on the voting preferences of those accused. I'm fairly certain she'd ask charges to be dropped if you were hauled into court for smoking a joint on Boston Commons. That seems to be more in line with her politics, and it's more than fair to find fault with her for that.


Also, you are incorrectly interpreting my points, some you are repeating to me as if corrections! Like,

"The protesters only knew what we knew at the time." That's key to my in the beginning stuff. Those in the shadows were angling for this type of reaction. You are correct, the protesters did not know the weak minded were pawns of the real instigators of the fake parade...the weak minded were used as chum to lure equally dim witted people to perform on cue.

So, are you not even a teensy bit curious why far right wing gay guy teams with white supremacists to pull a permit about a fake cause?

Talk about silence!

I'm bored with this and I fear we may have lost a lot of our subscribers.

Ironic conclusion aside, this is boorish drivel. You trying to convince yourself?

You can keep your conspiracy theories. I have neither the time nor the interest to follow your crazy train of thought. The discussion of who got arrested and how the DA over reached has nothing to do with your sub-plot.
You admit she is motivated by personal causes over and above what the law entails. That isn't the job of the DA.
Massachusetts and New England in general is renowned for their liberal judges. Here we have a seemingly conservative judge and the DA strikes down with angst. First within her position (upheld by the courts) and again on social media where she attacked the judge.

I'll say that again.
The DA Rachael Rollins took to social media to say bad things about Judge Richard Sinnott.

Oh, I'm sorry.
Did you not see that in your morning Globe?
Forgive me for not being surprised.

I’d guess because white nationalists are a bunch of homos.

Homosapien?
Homoerectus?

Treating this as a separate subject, or perhaps as a logical seque way (sp?), you pose a great question.

I don't know.

But truth be told, I don't care.

Can gay people be white?

Samewise, or otherwise?


Same boner?
Who's Peking Man???

ya bassturd!

If you're gettin' off right now, the answer might be "yes"

So a gay guy and a white supremacist walk into a bar...

and the White Supremacist marches on his forehead?
(best parade reference I could muster on short notice).

and the White supremacist plants his flag in the ghey guy's rear and says, "no, let me"

That was a punchline?
You must be joking

That comparison makes no sense.

I’ve heard that joke plenty a times, but Frank felt the need to continue the joke for some reason, and his response was beyond lame, so Delta and I jumped in to pull the focus of ridicule off him, cause that’s the kinda guys we are...

Yeah, but he complained that it felt Drafty, so we put it back on him...

You back in bidness chief!