Is THIS a bridge too far?

On Monday, the president of the United States directed military action against his fellow American citizens as they lawfully exercised their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly in a park close to the White House. Said military action produced volleys of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and displays of forcible physical contact between military personnel and civilians. The sound of tear gas explosions and, perhaps, so-called "flashbangs" could be heard as the president delivered a brief statement in which he declared his intention to introduce U.S. military forces into American cities if the mayors and governors of those cities and their states don't take the actions he deems necessary to quell protests and their concomitant violence in reaction to the death of George Floyd last week while in police custody.

At the end of his statement - which he made without taking questions from the assembled journalists - the president said he was about to "pay [his] respects to a very special place." That "very special place" turned out to be St. John's Church, often referred to as "the church of the presidents," since so many American presidents have worshiped there. The church had been the victim of significant vandalism Sunday night and was boarded up when the president arrived... to have his picture taken in front of the building as he held a Bible, first by himself, then with others in his entourage: the Secretary of Defense and the White House press secretary to name two.

In total, by my estimation, the president spent no more than five seconds looking at the church building during his handful-of-minutes visit to the site. Most of his time was spent looking at cameras as he held the Bible and stood with others. Immediately after the picture-taking ended, the president handed the Bible to someone and walked back to the White House... as his fellow Americans nursed rubber bullet wounds and washed tear gas and pepper spray from their eyes.

So the president of the United States directed military action against fellow United States citizens as they lawfully exercised their constitutional rights to assemble and speak their minds because he wanted to walk across the street from the White House for a five minute photo op. Is THAT too much for you, @reformed, @Wolfgang ? You both have expressed resilient support for and loyalty to Mr Trump. Are you bothered that he would trample on Americans' right to assemble so that he could get his picture taken?

  • Had President Obama militarily shut down a gun rights protest so that he could get a selfie, would you have supported his action, @reformed?
  • How about for you, @Wolfgang? Were Angela Merkel to do such a thing as people peacefully protested in Berlin or any other city, would you support her action?

In my view, the president's actions on Monday were among the most offensive, outrageous, and egregious yet - despicable, yet sadly demonstrative of his autocratic, despotic leanings. What say you two (and any others)?

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    So the president of the United States directed military action against fellow United States citizens as they lawfully exercised their constitutional rights to assemble and speak their minds because he wanted to walk across the street from the White House for a five minute photo op. Is THAT too much for you, @reformed, @Wolfgang ? You both have expressed resilient support for and loyalty to Mr Trump.

    I have expressed resilient support for Mr. Trump? I have rather expressed my disgust and heavy criticism of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden, as well as Mr. Obama ... to name a few persons involved with recent USA presidents.

    I have also expressed grave concern over liberties and freeedom being taken from the USA People by corrupt government puppets and those satanists pulling their strings.

    If "fellow US citizens exercise their rights, it is obvious that the State ought to respect those rights ... and the State would be overstepping its borders and it would not matter what means (police, military, bought criminals, mass media, etc) are being used.

    As far as I am concerned, the current situation would be the same, had this happened with another USA President occupying the White House. My observations from outside the country lead me to think that the USA has been overthrown after September 2001 events and in all practicality has been turned into a dictatorship (the dictator, by the way, is not the occupant of the White House) with the people in the USA are for a large part in the dark and still thinking of "liberty and justice for all", even though their rights and freedoms have been taken away, their economy has been shut down and exploited by a few who are profiting more than before, raking in the billions.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 2


    Did this happen? od is it "fake news"? What about instigated rioting by Antifa and BlackLIvesMatter?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    What is wrong with Mr. Trump's words at the White House press conference (starts at 32:00 min ) ??? Should a President submit to ANTIFA and their organized rioting and attempt to overthrow the country?

    Let's see if it can be done to overcome the uproar and street wars instigated to overthrow the country.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043

    @Wolfgang posted:

    I have expressed resilient support for Mr. Trump? I have rather expressed my disgust and heavy criticism of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden, as well as Mr. Obama ... to name a few persons involved with recent USA presidents.

    I suggest the resilience of your support for Mr. Trump is shown in the whole of this response, Wolfgang.

    Notice that you specifically named Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama as targets of your "disgust and heavy criticism," but you did NOT name Donald Trump as a target. Instead, you identified...

    •  "[C]orrupt government puppets and those satanists pulling their strings"
    • "[t]he State" as expressed in many ways, including "police, military, bought [?] criminals, mass media, etc."
    • A "dictator," but one who, you take time to note, is "is not the occupant of the White House" (emphasis added)
    • And "a few who are profiting more than before, raking in the billions"

    In your response you reference Mr. Trump exactly once - in its opening question. Not once is he the subject of one of your criticisms; "the State" is as close as you come... though you identify Secretary Clinton, Vice-President Biden, and President Obama by name as targets of your "disgust and heavy criticism." Such is EXACTLY the pattern I have observed in your posts over the last few years, and such is the reason I continue to assert the resilience of your support for Mr. Trump.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Did this happen? od is it "fake news"? What about instigated rioting by Antifa and BlackLIvesMatter?

    Of course the press conference depicted in the video happened. As did, I'm confident, the events to which the police chief refers during his presentation.

    Are you aware that Antifa is a movement, NOT an organization? Yes, there are militant aspects to the movement's actions - and I condemn those - but there is no organization called "Antifa."

    Are you aware of the work of white nationalist groups in fomenting violence? (see below) Do you acknowledge and condemn these actions of white nationalist groups (by name, please, not by general groups as in your earlier reply to my criticism of Mr Trump's actions)?


    As of the moment, however, I don't think there's a great deal of evidence that outside groups from either end of the spectrum are a major force in instigating the violence seen at night in our cities. It seems most of that wrong is homegrown.


    What is wrong with Mr. Trump's words at the White House press conference (starts at 32:00 min ) ??? Should a President submit to ANTIFA and their organized rioting and attempt to overthrow the country?

    1. The president planned his comments (it's not a "press conference" when the president refuses to take questions from the press) to coincide with sound and fury of the military actions he ordered against his fellow American citizens who were peacefully protesting across the street from his residence. That is wrong.
    2. In his comments, the president vowed to protect Americans' Second Amendment rights, WHILE AT THE VERY SAME TIME the military operation he ordered took violent action against Americans' First Amendment rights outside the White House grounds. That is wrong.
    3. The president ended his comments with the advisory that he was about to "pay [his] respects to a very special place," respects he "paid" after a short walk from the White House on streets cleared by the military actions he ordered against his fellow American citizens. That is wrong.
    4. Antifa is a movement, not an organization.
    5. I know of no evidence that the Antifa movement seeks to "overthrow the country." Please cite some.


  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    Notice that you specifically named Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama as targets of your "disgust and heavy criticism," but you did NOT name Donald Trump as a target. Instead, you identified...

    Your mistake is that you interpret my criticism of the criminal and corrupt deeds of Clinton, Biden, Obama etc. as "support for Trump" ... and, yes, I did that on purpose. But my purpose was not to laud or favor Mr. Trump ... and I don't think I did.

    I think that the current big problem for the USA Is not the person Trump ... seems to me that a takeover of the USA is in full swing, and the higher powers (not positioned in the White House) appear very adamant to now use brute force in stirring up a civil war with their top financed terrorist antifa groups.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043

    @wolfgang posted:

    Your mistake is that you interpret my criticism of the criminal and corrupt deeds of Clinton, Biden, Obama etc. as "support for Trump" ... and, yes, I did that on purpose. But my purpose was not to laud or favor Mr. Trump ... and I don't think I did.

    I think that the current big problem for the USA Is not the person Trump ... seems to me that a takeover of the USA is in full swing, and the higher powers (not positioned in the White House) appear very adamant to now use brute force in stirring up a civil war with their top financed terrorist antifa groups.

    And yet again you choose not to name Donald Trump as the subject of your criticism, Wolfgang. You allege, by name, "criminal and corrupt deeds" on the part of Secretary Clinton, Vice-President Biden, and President Obama, but you are not willing by name to level criticism against Mr. Trump. In this latest response, yet again you take pains to exclude Mr Trump from your criticism:

    • You say the "current big problem for the USA is not the person Trump." (emphasis added)
    • You declare that behind a "takeover of the USA," which you believe "is in full swing," are "higher powers," but NOT powers who are "positioned in the White House."

    In my view, your almost-abject refusal in your posts to criticize Donald Trump directly and by name, while you are quite willing to criticize "Clinton, Biden, Obama, etc" in that manner, testifies to the resilience of your support for him. Yesterday the man ordered military action against his own citizens as they peacefully exercised their constitutional rights so that he could stand for a five minute photo op holding a Bible in front of a church, YET YOU CHOSE TO CRITICIZE "THE STATE" FOR THAT ACTION, NOT MR TRUMP HIMSELF. THAT'S resilient support.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 2

    Yesterday the man ordered military action against his own citizens as they peacefully exercised their constitutional rights

    This is what I read you claim he did ... but the news video live coverage of his press conference with his speech did sound quite different. In it, Mr. Trump made clear distinctions between peaceful demonstrators and rioting groups against whom force would be used. Is conducting violent riots with luting, setting fires, using violence against others and causing harm now considered peaceful and a constitutional right? I was not aware of that.

    On a larger scale, the real culprits and luters and criminals are not the violent demonstrators on the streets ... they are little fish. I do think that by now it is questionable whether the USA (and other countries, such as Germany, the one in which I live) can be restored to some kind of normality with liberty and justice for the people at large ... it would take an overthrow of the globalist liberalist fascist elites behind the scenes and a cutting of the strings and disposing of players and puppets. While many many people have barely enough to survive and 50 million US folks are out of work in the wake of the "corona plan-demic", the data from mid March to mid May show that the richest in the country have tremendously profited from the fake health pandemic. The 5 biggest billionaires in the USA (Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison) watched their net worth increase 75 billion $US (19% increase).

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043

    @Wolfgang posted:

    This is what I read you claim he did ... but the news video live coverage of his press conference with his speech did sound quite different. In it, Mr. Trump made clear distinctions between peaceful demonstrators and rioting groups against whom force would be used. Is conducting violent riots with luting, setting fires, using violence against others and causing harm now considered peaceful and a constitutional right? I was not aware of that.

    AND YET AGAIN you refuse to criticize Mr Trump directly and by name. I think I've more than made my point.

    But specific to your response:

    • What Mr Trump said "with his speech" had nothing to do with the military operation he ordered to take place as he spoke. The ONLY possible vague allusion to that operation was his concluding spoken intention to pay respects to "a very special place," which of course was the church in front of which for five minutes he posed for photos while holding a Bible, a visit made possible thanks to the military operation he had ordered against his fellow citizens.
    • In his brief address, he indeed "made clear distinctions between peaceful demonstrators and rioting groups against whom force would be used." So IF those words have ANYTHING to do with the military operation he executed as he spoke, then you'll be able to prove that the protesters against whom he ordered the operations were members of "rioting groups." If you can't do that - and you can't since there is NO evidence that ANY of those people were "rioting" during that particular protest - then your argument falls apart.... But I could be wrong! Please link to evidence that the protesters against whom the president ordered military action were a "rioting group."


    On a larger scale, the real culprits and luters and criminals are not the violent demonstrators on the streets ... they are little fish.

    While I suppose it's possible that as the military operation Mr Trump ordered against his fellow citizens unfolded, "globalist liberalist fascist elites (were) behind the scenes... cutting... strings and disposing of players and puppets," such a possibility has no relevance to the fact that said military operation targeted American citizens as they peacefully exercised their rights to assemble and express their opinions. It bothered you that in a different protest, people "mostly just walking about" were by select media outlets lumped together with "a few screaming women," but it DOESN'T bother you that a federal government took military action against its own citizens so that its leader could take five minutes of pictures in front of a church he hardly ever attends while holding a Bible you can bet he hardly ever reads (except, of course, his favorite book, "two Corinthians").

    Case closed.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 3

    It bothered you that in a different protest, people "mostly just walking about" were by select media outlets lumped together with "a few screaming women," but it DOESN'T bother you that a federal government took military action against its own citizens

    It bothers me to see the exact same lumping done by you (this time the other way around) .. as you do not distinguish between violant rioting groups and peaceful demonstrators, but rather used its own "citizens" and framed a context to give the impression that there were only nice guy peaceful citizens and an indirectly "violent" president .... I mean, "how dare he use the military ...". For one, such use of military is in this case apparently a mission of assistance to police to re-establish a normal without violent street war situations, or do you have evidence that Trump ordered military action to suppress and subdue the general and at large peaceful population and establish a dictatorship ??


    Here is a transcript of the speech by Trump at the White House:

    Thank you very much. My fellow Americans: My first and highest duty as President is to defend our great country and the American people. I swore an oath to uphold the laws of our nation, and that is exactly what I will do.

    All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that, for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain. But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities, and as their President, I will fight to keep them safe. I will fight to protect you. I am your President of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters.

    But in recent days, our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others. A number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents. Innocent people have been savagely beaten, like the young man in Dallas, Texas, who was left dying on the street, or the woman in Upstate New York viciously attacked by dangerous thugs.

    Small-business owners have seen their dreams utterly destroyed. New York’s Finest have been hit in the face with bricks. Brave nurses, who have battled the virus, are afraid to leave their homes. A police precinct station has been overrun. Here in the nation’s capital, the Lincoln Memorial and the World War Two Memorial have been vandalized. One of our most historic churches was set ablaze. A federal officer in California, an African American enforcement hero, was shot and killed.

    These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror. The destruction of innocent life and the spilling of innocent blood is an offense to humanity and a crime against God.

    America needs creation, not destruction; cooperation, not contempt; security, not anarchy; healing, not hatred; justice, not chaos. This is our mission, and we will succeed. One hundred percent, we will succeed. Our country always wins.

    That is why I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America. I am mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights. Therefore, the following measures are going into effect immediately:

    First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country. We will end it now. Today, I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.

    If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

    I am also taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington, D.C. What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace. As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.

    We are putting everybody on warning: Our seven o’clock curfew will be strictly enforced. Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    I want the organizers of this terror to be on notice that you will face severe criminal penalties and lengthy sentences in jail. This includes Antifa and others who are leading instigators of this violence.

    One law and order — and that is what it is: one law. We have one beautiful law. And once that is restored and fully restored, we will help you, we will help your business, and we will help your family.

    America is founded upon the rule of law. It is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our very way of life. But where there is no law, there is no opportunity. Where there is no justice, there is no liberty. Where there is no safety, there is no future.

    We must never give in to anger or hatred. If malice or violence reigns, then none of us is free.

    I take these actions today with firm resolve and with a true and passionate love for our country. By far, our greatest days lie ahead.

    Thank you very much. And now I’m going to pay my respects to a very, very special place. Thank you very much.

    Statement by the President, The White House

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043

    @Wolfgang posted:

    It bothers me to see the exact same lumping done by you (this time the other way around) .. as you do not distinguish between violant rioting groups and peaceful demonstrators, but rather used its own "citizens" and framed a context to give the impression that there were only nice guy peaceful citizens and an indirectly "violent" president .... I mean, "how dare he use the military ...". For one, such use of military is in this case apparently a mission of assistance to police to re-establish a normal without violent street war situations, or do you have evidence that Trump ordered military action to suppress and subdue the general and at large peaceful population and establish a dictatorship ??

    When you revisit my last post, you'll see that I indeed DID distinguish between rioting groups and peaceful demonstrators. Specifically I wrote...

    "In his brief address, he indeed 'made clear distinctions between peaceful demonstrators and rioting groups against whom force would be used.' So IF those words have ANYTHING to do with the military operation he executed as he spoke, then you'll be able to prove that the protesters against whom he ordered the operations were members of 'rioting groups.' If you can't do that - and you can't since there is NO evidence that ANY of those people were "rioting" during that particular protest - then your argument falls apart.... But I could be wrong! Please link to evidence that the protesters against whom the president ordered military action were a 'rioting group.'"

    In other words, I acknowledged the difference between the two kinds of groups, BUT claimed that there was NO evidence that the group against which the president ordered military action was a "rioting group," and asked YOU to link to that evidence, if any existed. You did not do so.

    And then there's the proverbial elephant in this room: You have created six posts in this thread, YET NOT ONCE have you even mentioned the actual reason the president ordered military action against his fellow citizens: To take a walk across the street from the White House to St John's Church, where, for a period of no more than five minutes, he posed for pictures - both by himself and with others - as he held a Bible. As I have noted in three of my five previous posts in this thread, THAT'S why he cleared those streets, THAT'S why he took military action against his fellow citizens. And yet you have chosen not even to mention the photo op in ANY of your six posts.

    There is NO evidence - NONE - that the president ordered military action against his fellow citizens as "a mission of assistance to police to re-establish a normal without violent street war situations." There is EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE - it's on video! - that the president ordered military action so that he could have his picture taken in front of St John's Church while he held a Bible.

    PLEASE address the photo op directly, and provide evidence to support your claims about the reason for the president's action and the nature of the group of protesters against which the president ordered military action.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    Brick piles - preparation for what? Antifa riots? (as a German who has seen Antifa in action in German cities, such as 2017 G20 summit in Hamburg, this would appear very plausible)

    Are "theories" - once again - turning into "realities" when one takes a look behind the scenes or curtains?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 4

    Has anyone looked in a little more detail into the background, the aims and goal demands of the "BlackLivesMatter" group/organization/movement? Even across the ocean, and while seeing mostly mainstream media coverage of this movement's current actions, this "Matter" smells badly from faraway .... who is hoodwinking who into slavery ???


  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 4

    As you can see, this movement is internationally organized and has little to do with "George Floyd" or USA unsolved racial problems. Announcements for the violent group's and antifa "demonstrations" this coming Saturday in several larger cities in Germany.

    After the violence has been transported to UK yesterday, it looks like Germany is the next target on the list ... even though we do not even have the racism problem (!!).... I wonder who will supply the bricks for violent outbursts here this coming Saturday


  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Brick piles - preparation for what? Antifa riots? (as a German who has seen Antifa in action in German cities, such as 2017 G20 summit in Hamburg, this would appear very plausible)

    Are "theories" - once again - turning into "realities" when one takes a look behind the scenes or curtains?

    1. The fact that you think it "very plausible" those brick piles reflect preparation for "Antifa riots" proves nothing. They might also be there to build dog houses, mice shelters, or fun houses for the Lilliputians of "Gulliver's Travels," should they ever come to America. It's also "very plausible" that the piles were positioned by city- or construction company workers in advance of projects. Did you notice the orange and white caution cones around the pile in the largest image in the link you provided? the kind of cones to which city- and construction workers have easy access and of which they make daily use?
    2. Antifa is an international movement because fascism and far right governments, which Antifa opposes, exist internationally. [I'm not defending the violent tactics Antifa-sympathetic groups use. By the way, in the U.S. some of our right wing friends refer to such tactics as "second amendment remedies."]
    3. Whether Antifa has anything to do with George Floyd or America's unresolved racial issues, or Black Lives Matter to you "smells badly from faraway" are each irrelevant to President Trump's decision to take military action against his fellow citizens so that he could have a five minute photo op in front of St John's Church, across the street from the White House.
    4. I don't know about the violence you contend has occurred, but I think it's "very plausible" that people in both Germany and the U.K. oppose the murder of George Floyd at the hands of uniformed police officers, and in response to their opposition have taken to the streets in protest. PARTICULARLY if, as you contend, the U.K. and Germany don't have racism problems, I could understand very passionate protests arising in those nations in response to the racism expressed so frequently in America.
    5. You have now created nine posts in this thread and yet you STILL have not even mentioned, let alone explained, President Trump's five minute photo op holding a Bible at St John's Church, across the street from the White House, which I claim is self-evidently the reason the president ordered military action against his fellow citizens. This IS your M-O, Wolfgang, displayed now countless times over your years of posting in these forums: When confronted with a question or observation that undermines your argument, you choose not to engage it, in fact, you choose not even to mention it, even when asked multiple times to do so. You are not the only poster in these threads who refuses to respond to or even mention challenging questions or observations, but that can't possibly defend your practice.


  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    A little insight into those "peaceful demonstrators" who are otherwise known as the Antifa.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    Hmn ... there are obviously stiil some young people out there who think a bit different from what the mainstream propaganda tries to impress on the population at large ... have a look at this young lady


  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,043
    edited June 4

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Hmn ... there are obviously stiil some young people out there who think a bit different from what the mainstream propaganda tries to impress on the population at large ... have a look at this young lady

    Your latest shiny object, in my view intended to distract from the fact that NONE of your now ELEVEN POSTS in this thread has even mentioned, let alone engaged the five minute photo op for which the president took military action against his fellow citizens, is a Facebook video from Candace Owens, a well-known conservative critic of the Black Lives Matter movement. The content and intent of her video are so profoundly offensive and disgusting that I refuse to invest time analyzing them in this post.

    But I will comment on your use of her video because it fits well into another part of your posting M-O. On countless occasions over the years you have posted links to anecdotal - and hence, not necessarily reflective or representative of the truth - video and print resources that you believed supported your views [e.g. on climate change, where the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous, you've posted links to other points of view, as if those divergent points view had the same standing as that of the nearly unanimous scientific consensus... which of course they don't]. Ms Owens is welcome to her views, but her views do not represent America's African American community, ESPECIALLY in her disgusting commentary about George Floyd. But I don't think that matters to you, as long as she espouses a contrarian point of view.

    Bottom line: I won't be distracted by your shiny objects.

    And I will no longer engage you in discussions of anything other than theological and biblical interpretation matters. Your abject refusal to even mention, let alone engage, my questions, even when I have posed them to you repeatedly is in my view unacceptably disrespectful. I deserve better from you than that, but it's now clear that you aren't willing to give it, so I'm done.

    We both know why you won't respond to - won't even acknowledge the existence of - questions and observations that undermine your contentions and points of view: You have no defense against the truth that would be acknowledged by candid, truthful responses to those questions and observations. Common courtesy and decency command our acknowledgement of each other's points of view. Your longstanding practice tells me that you're not willing - and possibly not able - to acknowledge many of my points of view. Your points of view on social and political matters will no longer receive the attention of my posts.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    We both know why you won't respond to - won't even acknowledge the existence of - questions and observations that undermine your contentions and points of view: You have no defense against the truth that would be acknowledged by candid, truthful responses to those questions and observations.

    Hmn ... I don't think so. Perhaps I am as convinced of certain things as you are of other things? Your fanciful and long winded attempts at "undermining my contentions and points of view" just don't convince me.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    an American voice and observations on the current situations with police crimes & racism accusations all over the place:


  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    As far as a US president "sending military against his own citizens" : Remember similar events from recent years ?

    Aug 2014 - Ferguson - Obama sends military

    Apr 2015 - Baltimore - Obama sends military

    Sep 2016 - Charlotte, NC - Obama sends military

    Now, everyone seems SO EXCITED AND UPSET about military being sent to regain order??

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 6

    which lives matter? only certain lives of people of certain skin color?

    What about the medias' handling of the David Dorn matter and comparing it with their "honoring" of the convicted felon and suspect George Floyd?

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 6

    Some facts not publicized by mainstream media and those who have "created" their "holy martyr" :

    Hmn .... and yet, quite (in)famous folks gathered to celebrate his life and deeds .... ????

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690
    edited June 10

    Interesting information "direct from the horses' mouths" ... why are so many blind to certain political party dudes

    Hmn ...

    Some nice exampless of what it might be like if the likes of these Democ rats display ? :...

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    Here are some facts about the saintly marty George Floyd

    Anyone still want to hail him to heaven? To not misinterpret my words, I am simply providing some information for those interested in wanting to do their own evaluation and thinking, nor am I in favor of crimes committed by anyone, including police officers ...

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,849

    This whole post is based on a lie. The POTUS did NOT direct military action against people lawfullly excercising rights of free speech and assembly.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,690

    Are the USA "gone with the wind" ??? Do we see the real colors of those who "won the civil war" ... the empire not interested a lousy bit in liberty and justice for all but in exploiting those States who were not in agreement with the empire's doings?? Anyone here know that the civil war was not about and actually had not much and basically nothing to do with the matter of "slaves / racism" ???

    Looking back one may wonder if things would not have turned out not only different but better had the Confederacy won the war ...

Sign In or Register to comment.