• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson vs. Bundy Ranch

Do you or did you support the Ferguson and/or Bundy Ranch protests?

  • I support(ed) the Ferguson and Bundy Ranch Protests?

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • I support the Ferguson Protests and opposed Bundy Ranch Protest

    Votes: 7 17.9%

  • I supported the Bundy Ranch protest and oppose the Ferguson Protest

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • I oppose(d) both protests

    Votes: 16 41.0%

  • My opinion does not fit any of the options listed above

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • Total voters
    39
vesper said:
It starts out as a protest due to false information spread by the media and race hustlers ratcheting up the rhetoric. Add to the mix professional agitators of activist groups from Democratic Socialists of America, to Nation of Islam, to union thugs, to Occupy Wallstreet, all with a political agenda, and no sooner a protest begins it turns into a riot by design.
Click to expand...

This protest was not due to false information. It is due to what is perceived as injustice in the 'justice system'. It starts with the cops and ends with the courts. There is credence to this attitude whether you agree with it or not.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This protest was not due to false information. It is due to what is perceived as injustice in the 'justice system'. It starts with the cops and ends with the courts. There is credence to this attitude whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it was due to false information spread by the media. And the perception of injustice of the justice system was the goal of those activist groups involved in wanting to "change" this country. By tearing down another institution that this country was built upon inches them closer to that change they desire.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This protest was not due to false information. It is due to what is perceived as injustice in the 'justice system'. It starts with the cops and ends with the courts. There is credence to this attitude whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...
What credence? I'd like to hear it. Let me guess, your going to break out stats that show black males being arrested and convicted at higher rates than whites but fail to point out that most of the crimes they are being arrested and convicted for are against other blacks. Or you are going to bring up that Ferguson is 70% black but has a mostly white police force but fail to point out that blacks simply don't apply to be police officers. If that's what you're going to use, it's bogus. If you've got something else, I'd like to hear it.
 
vesper said:
Oh yes it was due to false information spread by the media. And the perception of injustice of the justice system was the goal of those activist groups involved in wanting to "change" this country. By tearing down another institution that this country was built upon inches them closer to that change they desire.
Click to expand...

No one is looking to tear down any institution(s). That is hyperbole. The goal is to make the justice system 'just'.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No one is looking to tear down any institution(s). That is hyperbole. The goal is to make the justice system 'just'.
Click to expand...

"Just" based on what? Public opinion? No thanks.
 
MarineTpartier said:
What credence? I'd like to hear it. Let me guess, your going to break out stats that show black males being arrested and convicted at higher rates than whites but fail to point out that most of the crimes they are being arrested and convicted for are against other blacks. Or you are going to bring up that Ferguson is 70% black but has a mostly white police force but fail to point out that blacks simply don't apply to be police officers. If that's what you're going to use, it's bogus. If you've got something else, I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...

Cops should not be shooting unarmed teens and kids in the street dead. If they do, they should expect to be scrutinized to the fullest extent.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Cops should not be shooting unarmed teens and kids in the street dead. If they do, they should expect to be scrutinized to the fullest extent.
Click to expand...
So since Michael Brown didn't have a gun, Officer Wilson should have done what? Allowed him to take his gun? Punch him repeatedly? Charge at him? I don't understand what you expect him to have done?
 
MarineTpartier said:
So since Michael Brown didn't have gun, Officer Wilson should have done what? Allowed him to take his gun? Punch him repeatedly? Charge at him? I don't understand what you expect him to have done?
Click to expand...

No one will ever know if that was true. It will never go to trial. That in itself is an injustice in many people's opinion.
 
They are different events with different scopes. Nevertheless, on the broad scale, I oppose(d) both, if you take the post-grand jury protests into account.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Why? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Because the agreed upon laws are applied regardless of public opinion. If it were otherwise, the laws wouldn't be worth the paper their written on. I'm assuming you understand the basic concepts of law, society and government - or do you need an explanation of those things as well?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No one will ever know if that was true. It will never go to trial. That in itself is an injustice in many people's opinion.
Click to expand...

Nice avoidance. What we do know is this. Michael Brown stole something. He assaulted the store owner. He brought attention to himself by walking down the middle of the street with stolen goods. He then punched the police officer and failed to follow instructions. There is no testimony that refutes any of that. That, in and of itself, lends "credence" to why he was shot.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No one is looking to tear down any institution(s). That is hyperbole. The goal is to make the justice system 'just'.
Click to expand...
No it isn't hyperbole that there are those wanting to bring down this country and change it into something it was never meant to be. The hyperbole of leftist activists involved in agitation is at the heart of fabrication inciting hate and injustice and using Black folks as their pawns to achieve their political agenda. They want blacks to believe they are unjustly treated yet today in this country there are numerous numbers of blacks achieving great success in all industries. This is no longer the 1960's. The agitators have been found out.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
But it's all against government overreach. Some here won't see it if it's not Obama doing it, but it is all against that.

I had to say none of the options really describe my opinion. A protest is fine. Rioting is crossing the line. Threatening an armed rebellion is too far. Can you imagine what would have happened at Bundy's ranch if a federal officer there decided that he was "being threatened?"
Click to expand...

True and I agree, a protest is just fine. If that was all that happened I think there would have been more sympathy for the community of Ferguson. But then again, most people are of the like that if something doesn't affect them, then they don't worry about it either.

Over reach is over reach no matter on what level.
 
Ockham said:
Because the agreed upon laws are applied regardless of public opinion. If it were otherwise, the laws wouldn't be worth the paper their written on. I'm assuming you understand the basic concepts of law, society and government - or do you need an explanation of those things as well?
Click to expand...

For instance, no one agreed that using evidence, to base an important decision on, which was ruled unconstitutional is 'justice' served. People have a right in the US to protest such a stance. Living in the US gives us a right to protest anything we see as an injustice. That is very American.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Nice avoidance. What we do know is this. Michael Brown stole something. He assaulted the store owner. He brought attention to himself by walking down the middle of the street with stolen goods. He then punched the police officer and failed to follow instructions. There is no testimony that refutes any of that. That, in and of itself, lends "credence" to why he was shot.
Click to expand...

But did brown deserve to die that night? Was no solution satisfactory if it did not end in browns death?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Nice avoidance. What we do know is this. Michael Brown stole something. He assaulted the store owner. He brought attention to himself by walking down the middle of the street with stolen goods. He then punched the police officer and failed to follow instructions. There is no testimony that refutes any of that. That, in and of itself, lends "credence" to why he was shot.
Click to expand...

That was not avoidance. That was a factual statement.
 
vesper said:
No it isn't hyperbole that there are those wanting to bring down this country and change it into something it was never meant to be. The hyperbole of leftist activists involved in agitation is at the heart of fabrication inciting hate and injustice and using Black folks as their pawns to achieve their political agenda. They want blacks to believe they are unjustly treated yet today in this country there are numerous numbers of blacks achieving great success in all industries. This is no longer the 1960's. The agitators have been found out.
Click to expand...

This whole rant is based on conspiracy.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
For instance, no one agreed that using evidence, to base an important decision on, which was ruled unconstitutional is 'justice' served. People have a right in the US to protest such a stance. Living in the US gives us a right to protest anything we see as an injustice. That is very American.
Click to expand...

People have a right to protest anything - there are no restrictions as to the subject matter - however that factoid is irrelevant. A grand jury reviewed the evidence for indictment and there wasn't enough evidence to indict. The people burning building as well as those peacefully protesting what they see as injustice will not change the grand jury decision.

The only way effective change will happen is 1.) without violence 2.) by having an open discussion about the problems in the justice system and how to correct them and 3.) to elect members of society who are dedicated to changing those identified defects in the law and 4.) Numbers 1-3 must continue to apply to all people, of all races, creeds, religions etc. and not single out some. The 1960's saw the type of change I'm talking about. Ferguson's violence is bad example of constructive change.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This whole rant is based on conspiracy.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. There's plenty of proof. It's all political. The good news a new group of black leadership is emerging from the ashes that will help to enlighten those who have fallen for the "big lie".
 
Ockham said:
People have a right to protest anything - there are no restrictions as to the subject matter - however that factoid is irrelevant. A grand jury reviewed the evidence for indictment and there wasn't enough evidence to indict. The people burning building as well as those peacefully protesting what they see as injustice will not change the grand jury decision.

The only way effective change will happen is 1.) without violence 2.) by having an open discussion about the problems in the justice system and how to correct them and 3.) to elect members of society who are dedicated to changing those identified defects in the law and 4.) Numbers 1-3 must continue to apply to all people, of all races, creeds, religions etc. and not single out some. The 1960's saw the type of change I'm talking about. Ferguson's violence is bad example of constructive change.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your last part and a good way to have dissent or just a dialogue is to bring the issue forth into the light. I believe that is what many who protested took the time to do. Bring the issue to light in the hopes to make changes as you stated so nicely in the second part of your post.
 
They were both false flags. Bundy was using government property and should have to pay. Darren wilson acted iaw his training and responded appropriately with a violent criminal.

Neither have a good argument
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But did brown deserve to die that night? Was no solution satisfactory if it did not end in browns death?
Click to expand...

He deserved to be handled iaw standard operating procedures at any law enforcement agency. His actions dictated the outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom