Trump calls Black Lives Matter a 'symbol of hate' as he digs in on race

[Xilnik]

No, it cannot. Nobody gives a damn about their wishes. As long as they remain in a public place they can be legally recorded. That goes for anyone preaching in the streets as well. Just because it is being claimed to be a religious "ceremony" doesn't negate the right of the individual to record events in public areas. If they didn't want it recorded they are required to take it somewhere where there is an expectation of privacy. As it states in the law you referenced. Did you even bother to read what you posted?

There are two separate laws. There is a state law that protects the religious rights of Native Americans, and there is the first amendment of the constitution. Are you again asserting that the first amendment has no limitations?

Yes, they were given a lawful order to vacate, as the meeting was declared to be at an end. It is on the video. And you wonder why people think you are clueless? Amazing.

Here is what was actually on the video:

If you do not clear, the council can choose to end the meeting tonight. [It's] your choice: If you'd like to clear, please do so. If not, the mayor may or may not come out and end the meeting, so it's up to you.

The "news reporter" or filmmaker claims that they were ordered to clear the room, but the city official said differently. I see no evidence in the video that they were ordered to clear, and I do not trust the "news reporter" to have interpreted events correctly.

 

[wellwisher]

Trump calls Black Lives Matter a 'symbol of hate' as he digs in on race - CNNPolitics


Irony redefined.

If you bring up the killing of black by blacks in Chicago, or any number of Democrat controlled cities, BLM will change the subject. These black lives do not matter to them. Their name sake is a scam, since it misrepresents who they are. We are dealing with con artists seeking money and power through the race baiting industries.

If all black lives did matter, they would want to deal with black on black crime, and black abortions. These two things kill the majority of blacks. They want to picture frame the BLM movement as white versus black, or price versus black. This will not solve the worse problems but may button up try edges. BLM is designed to benefit the black race baiter industry and the DNC.

 

[Glitch]

There are two separate laws. There is a state law that protects the religious rights of Native Americans, and there is the first amendment of the constitution. Are you again asserting that the first amendment has no limitations?


Here is what was actually on the video:


The "news reporter" or filmmaker claims that they were ordered to clear the room, but the city official said differently. I see no evidence in the video that they were ordered to clear, and I do not trust the "news reporter" to have interpreted events correctly.

It was immediately after what you posted that the councilmen ended the meeting and ordered the room to be vacated. I understand your dishonesty, it can be embarrassing when you are exposed supporting criminal scum. Nevertheless, they were violating the law and had the councilman wished it, they could have been forcibly removed by law enforcement. The councilman's spineless inability to enforce the law does not negate the fact they were criminals and ceased being protesters the instant they decided to violate the law. All protests must be peaceful and lawful, remember? Otherwise it is not a protest.

 

[Schism]

I just read the headline again while New Topic surfing and just wanted to pop in and say,

Yep, Trump is right again: Black Lives Matter is a symbol of hate.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yum, yum, what vapid and meaningless accusations. It's like munching on marshmallows!

It's not like your posts, trying to convince everyone that there are no white supremacist supporters or sympathizers have any hidden meaning. We understand what you're doing and why.

 

[Xilnik]

It was immediately after what you posted that the councilmen ended the meeting and ordered the room to be vacated.

That is not on the video. Immediately after the quote I posted, the video has the "news reporter" stating that the protesters refused to leave the room. As I already said, I do not trust the filmmaker's interpretation of events. If he had wanted to show that they were ordered to leave the room, he should have filmed that portion of the events.

I understand your dishonesty, it can be embarrassing when you are exposed supporting criminal scum.

Do you always resort to personal attacks when someone refutes your claims?

Nevertheless, they were violating the law and had the councilman wished it, could have been forcibly removed by law enforcement. The councilman's spinless inability to enforce the law does not negate the fact they were criminals and ceased being protesters the instant they decided to violate the law. All protests must be peaceful and lawful, remember? Otherwise it is not a protest.

Had the group been told in no uncertain terms that they had to leave, I would agree that it was an unlawful gathering. Since they were given the option to stay and wait for the mayor, it was not unlawful. Their refusal to leave may have increased tensions with the on site police, but that also was not evident in the video. It appeared to be a fairly peaceful gathering from all reports in the video, ignoring the bias of the filmmaker.

 

[Court Jester]

I see that you are having difficulty separating BLM from the people in the video. As usual, people assume everyone who supports a movement is the same with the same beliefs and same methods. You do not recognize the people leading the protest? You cannot understand why they do not want their traditions misrepresented or exploited? Did it occur to you that this video does that very thing?

Actually the people in the video ARE BLM. They are the local chapter of BLM in that area. Therefore anything they are seen doing or saying in the video IS BLM-- not people who are supporting BLM---- IT IS BLM PEOPLE in that video.

So no, they are not being misrepresented at all. In fact the reason they were there protesting at the city council meeting was because a black felon was shot in a stolen car after being stopped by the police and then the felon reached for a rifle between his legs AFTER the police told him NOT to reach for it but he did so anyway. Rifle turned out to be a pellet gun but it makes no difference. However as if on cue the BLM organization will paint any police action against a black criminal as "murder" even if it means they are willing to lie about the facts and get a city burned down like they did in Fergeson.

If BLM doesn't want their "traditions" filmed in public, then don't do them in public. How hard is that for you to figure out? How ENTITLED these people in BLM are. Which wrong switches in the brain must there be where they actually believe they are that special? That when they act like idiots and are filmed doing so, that it is the fault of the person exposing them acting like idiots?

CLEARLY BLM does not want people to really know what they are about. But opinions about that group are quickly changing as Americans are awakening to the fact that saying "black lives matter" and believing all black lives included with other lives matter is a very DIFFERENT thing than supporting the organization BLM. Therefore keep the cameras rolling on them I say, all they will do is prove what they are as an organization. Great marketing plan I must say however. Use a seemingly good intended phrase (black lives matter) as a front for a anarchist occupy radical group and suck people in that way.

Black lives do matter. The organization however is not to be trusted. They have a history of lies and deceit.

 

[Glitch]

I just read the headline again while New Topic surfing and just wanted to pop in and say,

Yep, Trump is right again: Black Lives Matter is a symbol of hate.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 2331 Black Lives Matters is a "domestic terrorist" organization. No different from the Ku Klux Klan. Which should not come as a surprise, since both are supported by the Democratic Party.

 

[Xilnik]

Actually the people in the video ARE BLM. They are the local chapter of BLM in that area. Therefore anything they are seen doing or saying in the video IS BLM-- not people who are supporting BLM---- IT IS BLM PEOPLE in that video.

So no, they are not being misrepresented at all. In fact the reason they were there protesting at the city council meeting was because a black felon was shot in a stolen car after being stopped by the police and then the felon reached for a rifle between his legs AFTER the police told him NOT to reach for it but he did so anyway. Rifle turned out to be a pellet gun but it makes no difference. However as if on cue the BLM organization will paint any police action against a black criminal as "murder" even if it means they are willing to lie about the facts and get a city burned down like they did in Fergeson.

If BLM doesn't want their "traditions" filmed in public, then don't do them in public. How hard is that for you to figure out? How ENTITLED these people in BLM are. Which wrong switches in the brain must there be where they actually believe they are that special? That when they act like idiots and are filmed doing so, that it is the fault of the person exposing them acting like idiots?

CLEARLY BLM does not want people to really know what they are about. But opinions about that group are quickly changing as Americans are awakening to the fact that saying "black lives matter" and believing all black lives included with other lives matter is a very DIFFERENT thing than supporting the organization BLM. Therefore keep the cameras rolling on them I say, all they will do is prove what they are as an organization. Great marketing plan I must say however. Use a seemingly good intended phrase (black lives matter) as a front for a anarchist occupy radical group and suck people in that way.

Black lives do matter. The organization however is not to be trusted. They have a history of lies and deceit.

The group that was filmed was a small subset of the overall group. I have no idea how many of that subset of people are members of the overall chapter. I just happen to recognize the culture within that circle and find it odd that you think it is a BLM tradition when it is not.

There are a lot of people supporting the movement who are not actually in the movement. I support aspects of the movement. I have also, several times, spoken against some of their methods and messages. Just because I am in favor of some changes to law enforcement systems and the restructure of various city programs does not mean I am a member of BLM. I suspect several people are riding the coattails of the movement because it provides an avenue to have a voice; the movement is also pretty inclusive of diversity so those voices can be heard.

 

[Schism]

The group that was filmed was a small subset of the overall group. I have no idea how many of that subset of people are members of the overall chapter. I just happen to recognize the culture within that circle and find it odd that you think it is a BLM tradition when it is not.

:lamo

There are a lot of people supporting the movement who are not actually in the movement. I support aspects of the movement.

That's not good enough for BLM. In fact, anything you offer BLM will be taken and used to come back for more.

I have also, several times, spoken against some of their methods and messages. Just because I am in favor of some changes to law enforcement systems and the restructure of various city programs does not mean I am a member of BLM. I suspect several people are riding the coattails of the movement because it provides an avenue to have a voice; the movement is also pretty inclusive of diversity so those voices can be heard.

I'm not sure if this is youthful naiveté or ignorance. Either way, you're in for a rude awakening when the fullness of BLM's demands are made known.

 

[CharisRose]

Where in the biblical narrative does it say anything about this "all mixed race" lineage. According to my research, there are two conflicting lineages mentioned in bible text but nothing about being mixed. He was a middle eastern jew with a middle eastern jew's heritage.

One thing for sure is that he wasn't a white man.

I do agree that the message is more important than the look of the idol or icon. a little cultural appropriation in the name of the faith isn't a bad thing apparently.

After, rereading what I wrote... I’m truly sorry that I presented my first statement as if it was a fact that was not my intention. I should have worded it better.

It was a very complicated Biblical narrative study using not only the two ancestors lineage but also multiple Biblical narratives along with studies of words and names. Skin color was not the reason for the study but we found some interesting information related to color.

My main point was Jesus’s message being the most important aspect for His purpose in life and not the physical attributes of his temporal human body.

Added to that is the fact that the Biblical narrative clearly does not endorse the use of images.

I think, that would include all kinds of images concerning Jesus.

Even using the imagination concerning the color of his skin.

I think, Jesus was not concerned about skin color during His time on earth it was all about “The Good News Message”.

imho, Roseann

 

[Xilnik]

I'm not sure if this is youthful naiveté or ignorance. Either way, you're in for a rude awakening when the fullness of BLM's demands are made known.

For everyone's sake, I hope we have enough moderate Democrats that should the Senate flip, all demands do not become reality. I believe it is around 20% of Democrats who are against abolishing police and starting over from scratch. That group just wants the actual issues addressed in a way that provides less interference and less conflicts of interest when trying and convicting police who commit crimes. I find it unsettling that so many are in favor of fully defunding and restructuring. We do need law enforcement that can handle violent crimes and other crimes should they turn violent.

 

[Court Jester]

There are two separate laws. There is a state law that protects the religious rights of Native Americans, and there is the first amendment of the constitution. Are you again asserting that the first amendment has no limitations?

The first amendment protects the rights of ANYONE to film or record ANYONE else, government agents or--- THE PUBLIC--- when they are anywhere in public view doing WHATEVER the people being filmed may be doing. The first amendment supports the right of a 'free press' which in todays age could be ANYONE reporting and publishing a news story--- not just corporate media. So when a group does their "sacred ceremony" thing in public the courts have ruled they have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

Maybe you should brush up the laws before you attempt to misconstrue them here. Clearly something BLM types are either uniformed about, or willfully ignoring and the seeking to spin the narrative with lies.

And if you don't mind me asking, are you claiming that the BLM organization is somehow a "Native American" rights organization and/or religious group? Native to where????

The "news reporter" or filmmaker claims that they were ordered to clear the room, but the city official said differently. I see no evidence in the video that they were ordered to clear, and I do not trust the "news reporter" to have interpreted events correctly.

People are only ordered to clear the room when the rules of decorum are not followed. Then the council can clear everyone of the room, including people who are not protesting. The council meetings are being recorded anyway, both by camera/sound, and with a certified person who records the meeting and then enters it into an official record same way a courtroom will work.

The reporter in this case is an independent news person with a youtube site (onus news service) which specializes in recording the police. He is not part of any corporate media, and even as his commentary in this video suggests his criticism of the BLM group, his point about their hypocrisy is that they don't want themselves to be filmed doing something wrong, but if this reporter had filmed the police doing something wrong, then the BLM fools would certainly want that video to be shown to the public.

 

[Schism]

For everyone's sake, I hope we have enough moderate Democrats that should the Senate flip, all demands do not become reality. I believe it is around 20% of Democrats who are against abolishing police and starting over from scratch. That group just wants the actual issues addressed in a way that provides less interference and less conflicts of interest when trying and convicting police who commit crimes. I find it unsettling that so many are in favor of fully defunding and restructuring. We do need law enforcement that can handle violent crimes and other crimes should they turn violent.

I can actually agree with that. Whether BLM will is yet to be seen.

I DO NOT believe they are willing to negotiate. Further, we have not seen the entire list of demands.

But we have seen this: Our Demands | Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County

 

[Rogue Valley]

The "movement" was founded by Marxists and runs on Marxist strategies, principles, and goals.
The "movement" name is as close to race as the "movement" gets.
It has other intentions.

I looked up the Founders of Black lives Matter. None of them ever was or are Marxists.

Patrisse Cullors - Wikipedia

Alicia Garza - Wikipedia

Opal Tometi - Wikipedia

 

[Xilnik]

The first amendment protects the rights of ANYONE to film or record ANYONE else, government agents or--- THE PUBLIC--- when they are anywhere in public view doing WHATEVER the people being filmed may be doing. The first amendment supports the right of a 'free press' which in todays age could be ANYONE reporting and publishing a news story--- not just corporate media.

I agree with everything above.

So when a group does their "sacred ceremony" thing in public the courts have ruled they have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

Even if their religious beliefs are being infringed upon? Even when the video is used to misrepresent or exploit their traditional cultural expressions? Freedom of the press and filming rights are not without limitations. Filming rights vary from state to state and even city to city. There are some states where video that contains audio is illegal in public settings. Other states allow audio within the video, but it may depend on whether subjects are aware of eavesdropping based on the one party or two party eavesdropping laws.

And if you don't mind me asking, are you claiming that the BLM organization is somehow a "Native American" rights organization and/or religious group?

I am not claiming anything about BLM. I observed that the gathering in the video after the main group dispersed seems to be arranged in a circle that is similar to those held in many Native ceremonies and traditions. I also note several people within that circle who appear to be indigenous. I believe there are leaders within that group who have specific religious rights under the laws within the state of California and within the various Native treaties protecting them in our country.

 

[Schism]

I looked up the Founders of Black lives Matter. None of them ever was or are Marxists.

Patrisse Cullors - Wikipedia

Alicia Garza - Wikipedia

Opal Tometi - Wikipedia

 

[Paradoxical]

Did the "particularly when it comes to black victims part" not register at all?

The issue is particularly prevalent with black victims. This does not mean the cops never murder a white person and get away with it.

You, the one who pretends that white people are being ignored by us liberals, don't even know the name Daniel Shaver do you?

The reason people "go ballistic" over people saying "All Lives Matter" is because the people saying that are lying. They don't care. YOU DONT CARE ABOUT ALL LIVES.

I have said many times that this is NOT systemic racism, and it is the left wing race baiters that believe their leaders and MSM when they claim it is. All we ever get from your side is anecdotal accounts of job applications which in itself is stupid because corporations today are bending over backwards to be "diversified" so that some left wing group won't attack them and threaten to boycott. All I ever hear is that some white person didn't like black people, as if that means a hill of beans. Are all whites now commanded to love black people? If so, does the same hold for all black people being commanded to like white people?

Of COURSE a white cop kneeling on the neck of someone is wrong. But this is not an every day occurrence like some are rioting over. EIGHT....count them....EIGHT unarmed blacks were killed and TWENTY....count them TWENTY white people were killed.For all I know, those 20 white people were ALL killed by black cops. Is that racism? Should I riot? If not, why not? But, leftists don't want to hear that. A black person to them cannot be racist. Yet, I think black people are far more racist against whites than the other way around. They have been taught by YOUR croup that white people are inherently racist and they are privileged. Your side is dividing America. Many of the rioters are just pinks who want the blacks to know they are down with them, and they are their heroes.

 

[bubbabgone]

I looked up the Founders of Black lives Matter. None of them ever was or are Marxists.

Patrisse Cullors - Wikipedia

Alicia Garza - Wikipedia

Opal Tometi - Wikipedia

“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said, referring to BLM co-founder Alicia Garza.
“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk,” - Patrisse Cullors
BLM co-founder describes herself as 'trained Marxist'

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I looked up the Founders of Black lives Matter. None of them ever was or are Marxists.

Patrisse Cullors - Wikipedia

Alicia Garza - Wikipedia

Opal Tometi - Wikipedia

It never mentioned Marxism one way or another but even from what you read you should get the idea, which is the destruction of the US political system. Here's what the first member you mentioned said. Page not found | New York Post

 

[Top Cat]

If you bring up the killing of black by blacks in Chicago, or any number of Democrat controlled cities, BLM will change the subject. These black lives do not matter to them. Their name sake is a scam, since it misrepresents who they are. We are dealing with con artists seeking money and power through the race baiting industries.

If all black lives did matter, they would want to deal with black on black crime, and black abortions. These two things kill the majority of blacks. They want to picture frame the BLM movement as white versus black, or price versus black. This will not solve the worse problems but may button up try edges. BLM is designed to benefit the black race baiter industry and the DNC.

Don't pretend Trump gives two ****s about people of color.

 

[Schism]

Don't pretend Trump gives two ****s about people of color.

Really...you want to go there?

Show me the city in the US where democrats "turned it all around" for people of color. Show me the test scores, crime rates, unemployment, lifted up from poverty, got off SNAP assistance, the better urban housing, the cleaner streets, the decrease in meth and heroin addiction.

Show me the money! Show me the success nobody else can find! YOU CAN'T.

Here's the facts. Democrats have been lying to these people for 50 years. Now they're baying at the front door and liberals want to pretend it's a referendum on Conservatives? HAHAHAHA. What a load of manure. The bill is 40 years past due. You're about to be evicted by the mob.

You want to know what Trump did for Black and Hispanic Americans in only 3 years?

Black and Hispanic unemployment is at a record low | [url]www.cnbc.com 2019/10/04[/URL]

:rwbelepha :2party: :2usflag:

That is the success that Democrats have never tasted.

 

[Court Jester]

I agree with everything above.

A good start, now lets see if you can agree with the rest.

Even if their religious beliefs are being infringed upon?

But they are not being infringed on. Not in that public setting at a city council meeting. Nobody told them they aren't allowed to think what they want. And at the city council meeting they can say pretty much what they want--- following the rules for a council meeting (time limits, speak after filling out a speaker's card, etc).

Even when the video is used to misrepresent or exploit their traditional cultural expressions? Freedom of the press and filming rights are not without limitations.

Yes they pretty much are without limitation at any public place where you could see or hear anything with your own eyes and ears anyway. There is NO expectation of privacy in any public place. Limitations may apply to private property, they may apply to courtrooms, or other sensitive areas, but not in a public place, and especially not at a city council meeting open to the public.

Filming rights vary from state to state and even city to city.

First amendment rights trump all other limitations. There is plenty of case history on the subject, including Supreme court decisions.

There are some states where video that contains audio is illegal in public settings. Other states allow audio within the video, but it may depend on whether subjects are aware of eavesdropping based on the one party or two party eavesdropping laws.

What you are talking about is recording private conversations. Some states require consent to record conversations which would otherwise be private. California (where the city council meeting occurred) is one of those states. But again, the BLM group was doing their "ceremony" in a public place so no expectation of privacy--- or no demand not to be filmed or audio recorded would apply.

In states where audio recording may be prohibited it usually applies to using recording technology which may not be noticed. Parabolic mics, hidden mics, etc. You may not be allowed in some of those states to record a conversation between you and someone else without their consent. But if someone is speaking loudly for all to hear.... well, maybe they can't claim privacy later on.

I am not claiming anything about BLM. I observed that the gathering in the video after the main group dispersed seems to be arranged in a circle that is similar to those held in many Native ceremonies and traditions. I also note several people within that circle who appear to be indigenous.

Doesn't matter, they were at a public place.

I believe there are leaders within that group who have specific religious rights under the laws within the state of California and within the various Native treaties protecting them in our country.

Not in a public place. Any of those religious rights to privacy would only apply in a private place. They can ask people not to record their prayer or whatever it was. But people can choose to not comply with their request.

 

[yankintx]

If this poll is any indicator, it seems one area both Democrat and Republicans agree on is their dissatisfaction in the direction this country is heading.

It's polls such as this, that should be sending alarm bells at the RNC.

 

[gino]

Address it, or ignore it.


Thus, as a historian, clearly, my agenda is truth.

The truth is that black people are not being shot more than white people. every statistical analysis has shown that. The problem is that a bunch of poor black guys are in gangs and they have a high crime rate.
If you are a law-abiding citizen and are black, you have nothing to worry about. Both of the shootings we are discussing were career criminals who physically fought the police upon arrest. Don't be a criminal and don't fight the police. Show me where a black guy is doing nothing wrong and gets shot by the police.

The insurance industry likes to put a percentage blame on accidents. If we did this in the two recent shootings, we'd have to give the two "victims" a good bit of the blame for what? Oh, breaking the law and fighting with the police.