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.
tailgater wrote:
let's try this:
in the beginning, a Breitbart Gay Extreme Right Wing Nut gives birth to something that both you and I think is silly.
But initially we don't know about his involvement nor the involvement in a White Supremacist group of the publicized leader.
It just looked like a legal, silly response to an equally legal, silly and unnecessary demonstration...our politics jibe on this, I believe.
Everything after is debatable, carries importance, but is not weirdly out of character for any of the players as we keep reproving, but the word "after" is key...how and why did this even happen?
Revisit "in the beginning..."
All that followed, upon which you seem stuck, (first by nouns used in the media, then the DA's politics, then whatever) is part of the desired aftermath of the original fringe rightists, and even the continuing debate/divide we see here (not just you and me) may also be part of a bigger picture.
Had this been a couple of hundred Fundamentalists doing what Fundamentalists do, then the reaction might be bigger news to me. I'd see it, give it a yawn, and move on. But something about this group makes no sense at all. Their surface purpose is that silly thing we have agreed on from the get go
But there appears to be a sinister motive not initially known by either of us from a camouflaged extremist group, headed by a White Supremacist in concert with a GAY right wing nut! Actually, someone Fundamentalists would shun, yet here they are parading?
Why did any of this happen? What was the motive, the goals of the extremists (not the happy little families with signs).
I'm looking in the shadows here and you're trying to score points for your team versus the team to which you've assigned me.
