Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Lisa

Protesters Tear-Gassed for Trump ‘Law and Order’ Photo Op

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Dutch13
19 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

Your setting an example is a good thing to do, even though you may never know if anyone is changed by or because of it.

So, as long as white people acknowledge black lives matter, it's all good?  They will keep voting for the same shatty politicians and nothing will change......but it's all good because I said black lives matter?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV
32 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

Incorrect.  You should not be surprised when your employer chooses to replace you if you are unwilling or unable to specifically acknowledge the value of black lives. 

That’s all I’m saying. 

I specifically acknowledge the value of all lives. Why should I lose my job for holding that belief? 

And why should I accept the alternative you're offering over Trump? Trump isn't threatening my job if I believe every life matters. Your alternative *IS* threatening my job. So why should i embrace your alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV
24 minutes ago, Magic Rat said:

This is too bad.  According to this new information, I could have fired any employee for not repeating everything I wanted them to say!  

I should have fired anyone who did not address me as "Your Exaulted Royal Highness; The Most Handsome, Intelligent, Fair and Humble Man On Earth"!

I missed so many opportunities...  I wonder what other political slogans employees should be forced to repeat.

Or turn it around...

If my employer demands I say "All Black Lives Should End", do I deserve to lose my job if I refuse?

How much control should an employer have over our thoughts?

 

Try answering that one, TG.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
6 hours ago, That_Guy said:

Nothing to worry about in terms of employment; all you and this now former NBA announcer have to do, (when asked) is state unequivocally that black lives matter.

Odd that this is a thing seeing how more White people are killed by the police than black people.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
1 hour ago, MontyPython said:

Yes, specifically.

Please quote him specifically referring to black lives as mattering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
1 hour ago, Dutch13 said:

So, as long as white people acknowledge black lives matter, it's all good?  They will keep voting for the same shatty politicians and nothing will change......but it's all good because I said black lives matter?

You are one individual white person, Dutch, and you are setting a good example with your specific acknowledgement.  

(I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about voting)

  • Disagree (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
1 hour ago, GrimV said:

I specifically acknowledge the value of all lives. Why should I lose my job for holding that belief? 

And why should I accept the alternative you're offering over Trump? Trump isn't threatening my job if I believe every life matters. Your alternative *IS* threatening my job. So why should i embrace your alternative?

I never said you should or shouldn't lose your job for any reason; and I"m not asking you to embrace or not embrace anything.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
3 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

 

 

I understand the point of everybody saying that "Black lives matter".  At this time, we should all understand the need for some to hear us agree with that statement.  Black lives do matt

 

 

Congrats!  You now have TG's permission to be employed by acknowledging his social and political position.   Expect more loyalty oaths in the future.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, That_Guy said:

I never said you should or shouldn't lose your job for any reason; and I"m not asking you to embrace or not embrace anything.

How much control over our thoughts should employers have?

Again -- If my employer demands I say "All Black Lives Should End", do I deserve to lose my job if I refuse?

Because yes, I would refuse to say all "All Black Lives Should End".

Should I ALSO not be surprised when my employer chooses to replace me if I'm unwilling or unable to specifically say "All Black Lives Should End"? 

How much control should an employer have over my thoughts? 

According to the alternative you're offering, an employer should have ABSOLUTE control. Afterall, you're the one who keeps saying I should worry about this: "You should not be surprised when your employer chooses to replace you if you are unwilling or unable to specifically acknowledge the value of black lives."

Put another way -- "Think exactly what I want you to think, and say exactly what I want you to say, otherwise I'll end your employment"

Tsk, tsk TG. What would Komrade Bernie say about such treatment from an employer? 

Edited by GrimV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
2 hours ago, That_Guy said:

Please quote him specifically referring to black lives as mattering...

Already done...multiple times...UNLESS you believe black lives aren't part of all lives.

Oh wait...I get it...Unless blacks get some level of special separate mention and favors and consideration, over and above equal mention and favors and consideration, you and the rest of the shameless black racists won't be satisfied.

Golly, what a "shock".

:rolleyes: 

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, That_Guy said:

When specifically asked about black lives, don't be surprised if a response referring to "all lives" results in your employer replacing you with someone who chooses to answer the question as asked.

-California. In California, employers may not control the political affiliation or activities of workers. Employers cannot threaten to terminate workers for refusing to engage in specific political activity.

-Colorado. In Colorado, an employer may not prevent employees from engaging in political activities. An employer may not terminate an individual because of political affiliation.

-District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, employers cannot discriminate against employees based on political affiliation.

-Louisiana. Louisiana law prohibits employers from threatening or intimidating individuals on account of political party affiliation.

-Minnesota. Minnesota law prevents employers from financially retaliating against, or threatening to fire, an individual based on that individual’s political activities.

-Montana. Under Montana law, an employee may only be terminated for “good cause.” That is, the termination must be based on reasonable grounds related to work performance. Termination based on political activity is prohibited. Termination based on political affiliation is prohibited.

-Nebraska. Employers may not threaten to terminate individuals based on their political activities.

-New Jersey. New Jersey law prohibits employers from requiring employees to take part in employer-sponsored meetings about the employer’s political opinions or positions.

-New York. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their off-duty, off-premises political activities.

-South Carolina. Employers may not terminate a citizen from employment because of that person’s political opinions or activities.

-Wisconsin. Wisconsin law also prohibits employers from threatening to terminate employees based on political activity.

(source)

Grant Napear may have a case of illegal termination unless his contract specifically prohibits what he said. California law by itself does not support his termination.

Edited by Natural Selection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
3 hours ago, That_Guy said:

You are one individual white person, Dutch, and you are setting a good example with your specific acknowledgement.  

(I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about voting)

My point is that statement by me or anyone else means NOTHING if things don’t actually change in the lives of black people.  Nothing changes when black people simply vote democrat without actually holding those democrats accountable for their INACTION and NEGLIGENCE. 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
13 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Well lets see, once again we saw a simple act turned into one in which the media demonstrated their bias and support of the DNC narrative. A narrative that you and every other person on here bitching fell for. When are you going to stop falling for these BS narratives? When are you going to realize that these people sitting at the White House are 70% useful idiot 30% violent provocateurs? They had weapons cache's pre-positioned. What do you think that means? There were FROZEN bottles of water and other fluids that were thrown into police lines. What? You didn't hear that from the media? There were bricks thrown at police, oh wait didn't hear that from the media!?!? Yeah guess what, you are gullible. I dare you to stand on the line of one of these protests and tell me how peaceful they are. For ever 1 person standing there peacefully out in front there are 3 with weapons behind him. Red teams hide 2-3 rows back from the regular protesters (green team) and throw their weapons at the police. That's their TTP, it allows them to blend into the crowd and escape arrest. When they are caught, that's when the yellow teams work to break up the arrest and resist the police by glomming on the and holding them from arresting the red team members. 

https://www.unitedpatriotsofamerica.com/antifa/antifa-and-the-black-bloc-explained.html

So when you see cops being swarmed by people during an arrest, that's what you are seeing. Trained operatives that are defending a black block member to ensure they get away. They are the 20 something little dirtbags willing to do harm to people, so they have to get away, there are only so many of these true believers out there. It is their version of "never leave a man behind". It's most effective when the PD does not recognize the actions, to capture the black block scumbags you need to respond in force as well, nail the clown, pin him and then encircle him to defend against the yellow.

That's what we are up against and you would rather criticize a POTUS that is attempting to enforce law and stop this.

First, can you show any reliable reports to show that what you are talking about was occurring outside of the WH when the President used the police to forcefully push his way through for a photo op?  I didn't see anything being thrown.  I have heard of no caches there.  There was no effort, in this case, to "capture" anyone, let alone "black block scumbags."  You have never seen me support Antifa or BLM thugs or professional rioters and rabble rousers.  In fact, I haven't even supported (or not) the people that were between the WH and the Church on the day in question.  I question the wisdom and the utility and the optics of forcing your way through whoever was there for a photo op.  Period.

Second, you responded to exactly NOTHING in my post.  NOT. ONE. THING. Instead of saying how the photo op "advanced" anything that you had talked about in your previous rant, you went on a "you are just a dumb censored, what do you know" rant.

If you can't support your assertions, then just say so.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
3 minutes ago, Dutch13 said:

My point is that statement by me or anyone else means NOTHING if things don’t actually change in the lives of black people.  Nothing changes when black people simply vote democrat without actually holding those democrats accountable for their INACTION and NEGLIGENCE. 

Obama (and BIDEN) had eight years to address "systemic racism" in the police departments. Apparently, they were too occupied with quid pro quo stuff.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
3 minutes ago, JerryL said:

First, can you show any reliable reports to show that what you are talking about was occurring outside of the WH when the President used the police to forcefully push his way through for a photo op?

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park.  At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

(source)

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
13 minutes ago, Dutch13 said:

My point is that statement by me or anyone else means NOTHING if things don’t actually change in the lives of black people.  Nothing changes when black people simply vote democrat without actually holding those democrats accountable for their INACTION and NEGLIGENCE. 

Kind of stinks of "#Bring Back our Girls".  Good for virtue signalling, but doesn't do a damned thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
6 minutes ago, Natural Selection said:

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park.  At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

(source)

This was going on where and when the President was forcing his way through with police?

Do you honestly think the Secret Service would allow the President to transit an area like that...on foot...with that kind of threat if it were active or imminent?  For a photo op?

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
15 minutes ago, Natural Selection said:

Obama (and BIDEN) had eight years to address "systemic racism" in the police departments. Apparently, they were too occupied with quid pro quo stuff.

We are living in a time where the country is more and more racially divided than ever because of those two dip<censored>s.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
17 minutes ago, JerryL said:

This was going on where and when the President was forcing his way through with police?

Do you honestly think the Secret Service would allow the President to transit an area like that...on foot...with that kind of threat if it were active or imminent?  For a photo op?

 

Trump began his walk to the church at 7:01pm, one minute after the curfew started. USPP said the trouble started at 6:33 pm. With enough force, that's enough time to clear out the hooligans.

(7:01pm source)

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

It was a photo-op strictly for his base, to calm their fears and counter reports of his hiding in a bunker while the country goes to <censored>. Stevie Wonder could see through this one.  He doesn't concern himself with uniting the country as a whole.  Being The Great Divider worked to get him in office. He thinks that strategy will work again in 2020. We shall see.  Up until this year, I would have sworn he is right.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
30 minutes ago, Natural Selection said:

Trump began his walk to the church at 7:01pm, one minute after the curfew started. USPP said the trouble started at 6:33 pm. With enough force, that's enough time to clear out the hooligans.

(7:01pm source)

Makes this even less understandable for me. 

First, his photo op was tone deaf to begin with.  He wasn't elected as a spiritual advisor and no one expects him to be one.  His declaration of law and order on the steps of a church waving a Bible was poorly thought out from the beginning. 

Second, the optics of having to force his way through a crowd that wasn't doing any of those actions (had the crowd on his route been throwing projectiles or posed any other sort of imminent threat, the SS would never have let him do this) are terrible and the backlash, including from people who support him (me, for one), was entirely predictable and preventable.  

I still feel that this was stupid and counterproductive move on his part.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ladybird said:

It was a photo-op strictly for his base, to calm their fears and counter reports of his hiding in a bunker while the country goes to <censored>. Stevie Wonder could see through this one.  He doesn't concern himself with uniting the country as a whole.  Being The Great Divider worked to get him in office. He thinks that strategy will work again in 2020. We shall see.  Up until this year, I would have sworn he is right.

Just as there are those who will never criticize him for anything, there are those who are so deep in TDS that they will never give him credit for anything.  

Trump has been visible and has been condemning the death of George Floyd since it happened.  He proactively and immediately, against the criticism of many, sent in Federal LEO to investigate possible civil rights violations and, IMO, to put pressure on state and local LEOs, all run by Democrats, to do their freaking jobs.  AND, he did all this when it hasn't even been established that this horrendous incident has anything to do with racism.  You do know that the 4 officers on the scene could make a publicity poster for "diversity", right?  You do know that the Chief of Police is black, right?  You do know that the entire State and city are run by Democrats who are supposedly the tolerant and inclusive ones, right?  So in essence, he immediately sent in Federal LEO to investigate in case there were civil rights and racism aspects.  

His pre-COVID-19 economy was a boon to all and an absolute God send for minorities.  His prison reform greatly benefited minorities.  His deregulation and desire to bring business back to the US helps everyone, including minorities. 

You have spent 3.5 years clinging to this belief that, simply because he does not cater to your victimhood, that he is racist.  Black Americans are Americans and benefit from his policies, but since he doesn't implement policies to ONLY benefit blacks, he is a racist.  This is kind of like the moronic argument about the statement BLM that Your_Brother is pushing.  You have never been able to cite one in context statement or action that he has taken that was racist.  Not one.  The "great divider" my ass.  He could pay $1m in reparations to every black person in America and you would STILL criticize everything he does.

"If you are still having trouble figuring out who to vote for, then you ain't black."  Talk about "strictly for the base."

Edited by JerryL
  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
30 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Makes this even less understandable for me. 

First, his photo op was tone deaf to begin with.  He wasn't elected as a spiritual advisor and no one expects him to be one.  His declaration of law and order on the steps of a church waving a Bible was poorly thought out from the beginning. 

Second, the optics of having to force his way through a crowd that wasn't doing any of those actions (had the crowd on his route been throwing projectiles or posed any other sort of imminent threat, the SS would never have let him do this) are terrible and the backlash, including from people who support him (me, for one), was entirely predictable and preventable.  

I still feel that this was stupid and counterproductive move on his part.

I'll go 50/50 on this.

I suspect that Trump deliberately chose a church, not because of THIS per se, but as a rebuke to various blue-state governors who seem to be disproportionately cracking down on Churches whilst ignoring others in this COVID-19 thing. THAT PART was 'good optics' I think.

Overall, yeah, could've been done better. I suspect he was looking for a REASON to appear in front of a church, and this was the best they had at short notice. It is what it is; you play the hand that you're dealt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

So, as long as white people acknowledge black lives matter, it's all good?  They will keep voting for the same shatty politicians and nothing will change......but it's all good because I said black lives matter?

Maybe if you took a knee and pledged your support it would be better?

Kestrel...

Edited by kestrel
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, Ladybird said:

It was a photo-op strictly for his base, to calm their fears and counter reports of his hiding in a bunker while the country goes to <censored>. Stevie Wonder could see through this one.  He doesn't concern himself with uniting the country as a whole.  Being The Great Divider worked to get him in office. He thinks that strategy will work again in 2020. We shall see.  Up until this year, I would have sworn he is right.

He sure did!..Thanks President Obama!

k...

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...