GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently October 22 17, 10:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 414 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: August 12 17, 6:32 pm 
Offline
The Last Word

Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Posts: 17221
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
What is that Woodruff guy talking about, with regard to the 3 GOP legislatures?


This:

In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car

So yeah, North Dakota's response to the DAPL protests was to think about legalizing running over protesters with your car.

This was the one in Tennessee:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters



I addressed this earlier. It's misleading rhetoric, really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12 17, 10:36 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 20864
Location: St. Louis
Socnorb11 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
What is that Woodruff guy talking about, with regard to the 3 GOP legislatures?


This:

In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car

So yeah, North Dakota's response to the DAPL protests was to think about legalizing running over protesters with your car.

This was the one in Tennessee:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters



I addressed this earlier. It's misleading rhetoric, really.

It's a busy thread, and I missed how this was addressed or misleading. What do you think of this sort of legislation? Is it necessary? Why is it suddenly a priority


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12 17, 11:35 pm 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 27136
Location: America's Dong


Yup.


A gofundme for the family of Heather Heyer, the brave woman who was murdered by the radicalized neo-nazi from Ohio, is here:
https://www.gofundme.com/our-sisters-ke ... atherheyer

Give anonymously. Alt-right scum likes to dox folks via crowd funding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 7:53 am 
Offline
far too respected for anyone to give him a silly rank
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 5:08 pm
Posts: 40105
Location: Live Free or Die


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 8:55 am 
Online
'Burb Boy
User avatar

Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Posts: 15146
Location: Out of the Loop
So which of Bannon, Miller or Gorka was it?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 9:13 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 15933
Location: Low A Minors
Socnorb11 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
What is that Woodruff guy talking about, with regard to the 3 GOP legislatures?


This:

In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car

So yeah, North Dakota's response to the DAPL protests was to think about legalizing running over protesters with your car.

This was the one in Tennessee:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters



I addressed this earlier. It's misleading rhetoric, really.


It's not misleading at all. Thesee laws were a direct response to the DAPL protests, the North Dakota lawmaker says that right in the article. To me, this law is very much like "stand your ground". It creates a gray area for these murderers to operate in, so they can run over protesters or shoot black people. Trying to prove that they had no other choice, or that they really did try hard to avoid the problem, is extremely difficult. And if you get enough racists or right wing nut jobs on the jury, you'll never get convicted even if you are charged.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 9:48 am 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 20864
Location: St. Louis
It appears Trump thinks he covers his racist ass because of Jewish people in his family and administration. Send his daughter out there who is married to a Jew to denounce Nazis. Stephen Miller -tasked with promoting the anti-immigration agenda.

When in doubt, trot Ivanka out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 11:29 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: October 15 06, 4:40 pm
Posts: 4771
Location: Knoxville, TN
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
So which of Bannon, Miller or Gorka was it?


That trifecta terrifies me more than anybody else in Drumpf's army of idiots. Bannon is Satan in the flesh, Miller is probably going to be exposed as a serial killer who kept the bodies in his basement, and Gorka is even more of an unhinged fraud than Drumpf.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 7:09 pm 
Offline
The Last Word

Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Posts: 17221
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
What is that Woodruff guy talking about, with regard to the 3 GOP legislatures?


This:

In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car

So yeah, North Dakota's response to the DAPL protests was to think about legalizing running over protesters with your car.

This was the one in Tennessee:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters



I addressed this earlier. It's misleading rhetoric, really.


It's not misleading at all. Thesee laws were a direct response to the DAPL protests, the North Dakota lawmaker says that right in the article. To me, this law is very much like "stand your ground". It creates a gray area for these murderers to operate in, so they can run over protesters or shoot black people. Trying to prove that they had no other choice, or that they really did try hard to avoid the problem, is extremely difficult. And if you get enough racists or right wing nut jobs on the jury, you'll never get convicted even if you are charged.



It is misleading. The bill specifically states that if the action is willful, the driver is not protected, and that they have to be exercising due care. This obviously wouldn't apply to the incident yesterday. Saying that this legislation is designed to protect terrorists like the guy in the car yesterday isn't true. JC posted brilliantly about this sort of rhetoric (from both sides) in the other thread, but I think everyone just filtered out everything in his post that might apply to them specifically, and just assumed he was talking about "the other side". Both sides are guilty of doing it. A guy tweets that legislators want to protect people like this, people believe it and re-post it without actually reading the bill, it fuels the fire and divides. It's unnecessary, and doesn't really move any conversation forward or advance anyone's cause.

What's going on in Charlottesville, and Trump's reaction to it are heinous enough in their own right. Making false statements to try to make it worse (as if that's possible) only distracts from the real issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13 17, 7:17 pm 
Online
'Burb Boy
User avatar

Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Posts: 15146
Location: Out of the Loop
Socnorb11 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
What is that Woodruff guy talking about, with regard to the 3 GOP legislatures?


This:

In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car

So yeah, North Dakota's response to the DAPL protests was to think about legalizing running over protesters with your car.

This was the one in Tennessee:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters



I addressed this earlier. It's misleading rhetoric, really.


It's not misleading at all. Thesee laws were a direct response to the DAPL protests, the North Dakota lawmaker says that right in the article. To me, this law is very much like "stand your ground". It creates a gray area for these murderers to operate in, so they can run over protesters or shoot black people. Trying to prove that they had no other choice, or that they really did try hard to avoid the problem, is extremely difficult. And if you get enough racists or right wing nut jobs on the jury, you'll never get convicted even if you are charged.



It is misleading. The bill specifically states that if the action is willful, the driver is not protected, and that they have to be exercising due care. This obviously wouldn't apply to the incident yesterday. Saying that this legislation is designed to protect terrorists like the guy in the car yesterday isn't true. JC posted brilliantly about this sort of rhetoric (from both sides) in the other thread, but I think everyone just filtered out everything in his post that might apply to them specifically, and just assumed he was talking about "the other side". Both sides are guilty of doing it. A guy tweets that legislators want to protect people like this, people believe it and re-post it without actually reading the bill, it fuels the fire and divides. It's unnecessary, and doesn't really move any conversation forward or advance anyone's cause.

What's going on in Charlottesville, and Trump's reaction to it are heinous enough in their own right. Making false statements to try to make it worse (as if that's possible) only distracts from the real issues.


There were journalists tweeting just yesterday that police didn't believe the guy acted intentionally because he was scared when they took him into custody. Of course, the video I saw made it look pretty clear that he got a running start into a crowd of humans. There's 1 million percent valid skepticism about how such a law would ever be fairly enforced.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 414 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group