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.

frankj1 wrote:

Frank, I'm not "stuck" on "all that follows". It was the subject of my scorn. You chimed in and want to make it something different for some reason. I know why I posted what I did.

And your "in the beginning" details don't even matter. The protesters only knew what we knew at the time. They did what protesters do. Some got violent. Others were insubordinate. Nobody protests and purposely gets arrested with an expectation of being let off. The day that happens is the day EVERYONE protests because the risk is ZERO.

But you're right. It is debatable, because it's only my opinion that the DA acted out of politics.
I still feel that way.
And I still know with absolute certainty that if the politics were switched she would not be telling the judge to stand down.
I'd like to assume that your silence on that equates to agreeing. But I won't be so bold as to presume.

Edit: and for the record, the 200 weak minded parade goers did nothing to emulate their hate filled sponsor. They marched with stupid signs and didn't create any problems. Still stupid, but not the hate mongers that you suggest above.

tailgater wrote:

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!

frankj1 wrote:

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.

tailgater wrote:

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

teedubbya wrote:

Does that mean you're a homophobe?

izonfire wrote:

OK, no conspiracy talk (even though I was just trying to connect the dots that Opel laid out days ago).

So, assuming you believe it is a fact that a fringe-right gay man and a leader of a far right White Supremacist group put this parade together, can you explain why?

frankj1 wrote:

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, it don't fit my narrative.

tailgater wrote:

fxd

delta1 wrote:

Homosapien?

Speyside wrote:

Homoerectus?

Speyside wrote:

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.

tailgater wrote:

Homosapien?
Homoerectus?

Speyside wrote: