Hey BLM · Page 3 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#41

Delta, what’s happening in Portland during the day in not what’s happening at night, it’s like Jekyll and Hyde. Burning, shooting fireworks, using lasers, throwing various objects, destroying public property....none of which is peaceful. Now most of the protest is peaceful but not at Mark Hatfield courthouse (currently). Do you understand how kooky left Portland is? Why in the biggest most leftist town do they need to act this way to get what they want? Because things aren’t what they seem in totality.

Victor, the smartest dumba$$ on the boards.

Opel that’s my tag line but I do authorize your usage.

ZRX1200 wrote:

appreciate the insight, Z

so we can accurately distinguish peaceful protesters from the knuckleheads and not use the broadbrush...

I visited Portland last year, sister has friends in Lake Oswego...we stayed in the downtown area near the bus station and PSU...friendly youngish locals...lotsa great places to eat ...the hike to Forest Park was well worth it...

hope to return...how far are you from there?

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#42

there have been numerous incidents of white supremacist provocateurs committing criminal acts of vandalism at the sites of BLM protests...
ostensibly in effort to strengthen the narrative that con media keeps pushing: that these are violent terrorists who hate America...

have any of you ever talked to a BLM organizer or spoken to people attending a demonstration? I did, and drew a very different conclusion than labeling them thugs...

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#43

The media influence runs strong here.

Here's the quote (I think) that's in question: "If the US doesn't give us what we want then we will burn it down"

Alone, that quote could be taken in different ways.
But watching cities burn in the wake of "peaceful protests" (Miriam Webster definition would be "riots") there is only a single way to interpret it.

Sure, there are "good people" attending the "protests".
Hell, I'm on record as embracing the original cause. Who wouldn't? It made sense. It was pure.
But we were scammed.
The goal was/is the systematic tear down of our country.

You don't burn buildings to promote peace.
You don't cover for murderous thugs who kill innocent little girls.
You simply don't.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#44

delta1 wrote:

I read about the BLM cofounder.
Who is a self proclaimed Marxist.
And had a mentor in a domestic terrorist group.

And I read about the president of New York's BLM organization.
He said they would burn America down.

Yes. I mentioned these earlier.
But your post suggests you didn't comprehend it.

Locally, after an organized BLM protest in my town that WAS peaceful, the throngs took to social media.
Seems they didn't like the fact that the nearby Starbucks boarded up their windows for the event.

Cancel culture is real.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#45

sigh.
No tail. The quote you had is below. What the hell could possibly be a problem with this?

From BlackLivesMatter.com

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

tailgater wrote:

As for the other? Meh. What they want is to not be treated differently by the country's police force, to the point of innocent people being killed without repercussions.

If no one is willing to give them that, why would I judge them for being willing to burn it down.

But I honestly don't expect you to agree with that. From your years of posting we already know that. You'll get super supportive of protests again when it's something important to you. Like haircuts or something.

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

JadeRose
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#46

I thought this thread was about TG celebrating a dump he took.

blow me macs,

Jade

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#47

sigh.
No tail. The quote you had is below. What the hell could possibly be a problem with this?

As for the other? Meh. What they want is to not be treated differently by the country's police force, to the point of innocent people being killed without repercussions.

If no one is willing to give them that, why would I judge them for being willing to burn it down.

But I honestly don't expect you to agree with that. From your years of posting we already know that. You'll get super supportive of protests again when it's something important to you. Like haircuts or something.

victor809 wrote:

Only a fool or a liar would entertain the notion that the breakdown of the nuclear family hasn't had a devastatingly negative effect on today's youth, especially in the black community.
Considering the present party, I'll have to admit that one could also be both.

As for the burning quote?
Try to keep up, Chumly.
Although I feel it's a dangerous quote, that isn't the point. I'm calling BLM violent, and I've been asked to explain why I feel that way. Stupid people have already implied racism. So I offer a quote that specifies violence. And you shrug. Because you're an idiot. And a pot stirrer.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#48

I thought this thread was about TG celebrating a dump he took.

blow me macs,

Jade

JadeRose wrote:

That would be LBM (loose bowel movement).

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#49

tailgater wrote:

Your reading comprehension is poor. They are "disrupting" a "requirement". Essentially they are doing nothing. There is no nuclear family requirement in our country, so there is nothing to disrupt. All they are doing is providing support for each other "to the degree.... " that everyone involved is "comfortable".

That you have a problem with essentially a statement which is doing nothing, and just says they'll support each other is baffling.

As for the res.... Don't bother explaining to me. I don't actually care about your explanations regarding that. I don't bother reading them other than to mock you anyway. I certainly didn't ask you for an explanation. The reason is pretty damn clear.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#50

The quote is against the nuclear family.
True, there is no "requirement", yet it's certainly encouraged in this country.
Hell, the entire gay marriage movement was based on the fact that American society treats people according to social status (in this case married versus single).
A traditional family is similarly viewed and treated differently than are the families with one parent. Especially when siblings have only one parent (the mother) in common.
You're arguing a "fact" that has little to do with the discussion, nor the intent of the author. Do you think this woman was reeling against some laws or requirements? Do you? Because if you do you should focus your concern with comprehension inwards.
Again.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#51

You'll never get it.
You use the gay rights fight to have the ability to have a "nuclear family" as some sort of argument that people who are just saying they oppose the idea that it's some sort of "requirement" are trying to destroy something.

thats very very poor logic.

Tell you what tail. I'm steadfastly disrupting the requirement you fit beer-can sized plugs in your ass by supporting your fetish for trump's tiny, tiny orange fingers which collectively care for your butthole, especially when it's waxed, to the degree that your sphincter, and prostate are comfortable..

Now go at it. show me how wrong I am to do that.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#52

Typical vic.
You focused on the wrong word and now you want to blame me.

Such a snowflake.
Take ownership. Show a little self respect once in a while.

The funny part is, that if what you're saying was in fact the reality here, then Ms. Cullors would have to firmly believe that there is a requirement to have a nuclear family.
I don't like her organization.
But even I don't believe that she's that stupid.

What are you? Racist?

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#53

speaking of people who focus on the wrong word......

I get it. You're not smart, and you tend to espouse racist ideals. I know the challenges I'm facing here.

But she literally just said "if you don't want, or for whatever reason cannot have a nuclear family, we support you through extended families and "villages" to the extent everyone's comfortable"

That's the extent of it. And you decided it must mean they are attacking the nuclear family.
If you look at a statement like that and find an attack.... then you're looking for a reason to see an attack.

Which brings us back to the "espousing racist ideals".

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#54

funny how tail is zeroing in on and critiquing BLM's statement about the nuclear family...and yet he ignores the historic destruction the white establishment has had on black families since the birth of our nation...

here's a hilarious tail line: "Hell, I'm on record as embracing the original cause. Who wouldn't? It made sense. It was pure."

you mean back in Ferguson, or immediately after the George Floyd killing? I'd like to see any post of yours in support of the BLM...or for that matter any protest against racism and for social equality and/or the end to police brutality, especially when interacting with minorities

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#55

delta1 wrote:

You would?
Then do a search at the beginning of the George Floyd thing.

And don't worry. I knew you wouldn't remember.
You only see race and by default, you only see the negative.
It's pathetic. But there it is.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#56

victor809 wrote:

Ha!
You truly are an imbecile.
AND a liar.

She didn't say "IF you don't want..." or "IF you don't have..."
She said "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families"

We disrupt it.
By doing this other thing.

Disrupt.
And here's how we do it.

Not "if".

You idiot.
You can change your goalposts.
You can't change hers.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#57

He is Mr Sophistry.

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#58

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#59

Hey, this is what "Resist" looks like.

Dirty, smelling, angry communists.

For those thinking this BLM was going to do anything...get on their bus to nowhere.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#60

tailgater wrote:

Short bus, if you remove (or disrupt) a requirement for something, you are not disrupting the thing. Just the requirement.

If I disrupt the requirement for seatbelts, I'm not forcing you not to wear a seatbelt. That makes a seatbelt a "if you choose or not".

I know you aren't smart enough to understand this. I know you're going to pretend it means something different. Because you can't help it. Black people are demanding something. You must act against it, no matter how dumb you sound when you do.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: