Jump to content
MunoRN MunoRN (Member)

Out of bounds protesting

Politics   (3,983 Views 53 Comments)
64,459 Visitors; 3,950 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 5 of Out of bounds protesting. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

17 minutes ago, chare said:

I never said that the driver had been “attacked,” I stated that the protester stepped in front of a stopped car, after the passenger had exited to remove an object in the road, and placed her hands on the hood in an apparent effort to prevent it from leaving.  And, after the driver started to pull forward another protester attempted to block her progress by attempting to place his bicycle in front of her car.  These are the two protesters referenced in the charges against the driver.  If video is available of the vehicle being driven into a crowd of protesters, as has been suggested, I have been unable to find it.

Technically the driver has been arrested, not charged.  What formal charges will be referred by the prosecuting attorney, reportedly to occur later this week or early next week, remain to be seen.

Which you have yet to identify. As I mentioned in another thread, I generally read all linked and referenced articles if I am following the thread.  I am aware of your stated inability to post links and recall that at one time you would post the headline of the article and the site on which you found it, making it easy to find if we were interested.  However, you now do this infrequently.

As you seem unwilling to read or acknowledge sources other than your own, I think it time to leave this discussion.


Strikes colors and withdraws from field of battle.

I completely agree, Chare!

It is time to leave this discussion. My thoughts exactly, maybe six or seven posts ago.

My reference wasn't to you, personally, but instead to the original intent of the thread.

I can't reason and wrap my head around false examples, such as Seattle, and claiming MLK didn't block roads, when there are pictures of him blocking a roadway.

Again, not you personally, but the examples used to build the premise of the thread.

My definition of "ambush," is very different from others definition of the word, and so on.

Best to leave it! Agreed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 2:23 PM, Lil Nel said:

Sure. 

However you want to see it.

Did you read the NY Times piece?

It contradicts your statements. That is why I ask.

But, you are welcome to see what you want.

 

I did read it, although without any explanation of why you feel it contradicts anything, I'm not sure how just declaring that it does adds to the discussion, although I'm not sure this has really been a discussion so far.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I did read it, although without any explanation of why you feel it contradicts anything, I'm not sure how just declaring that it does adds to the discussion, although I'm not sure this has really been a discussion so far.  

Oh, I agree. This was a never a true discussion.

The thread's premise was built on a weak foundation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you've made it very clear that you disagree with the premise, although it might be more enlightening if you could offer your rationale or evidence to support your opposition to the premise or the other points presented to you, rather than just skipping that step and moving right to 'I'm right and you're wrong'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.