Black Lives Matters. A Terrorist or Hate Group?

There's not a doubt in my mind that they'll go full retard. Not. One. Doubt.

 

Nice red herring.

 

Wish in one hand and Obama in the other. I for one am putting you on ignore.

 

Either you don't watch TV or you're just playing coy.

 

If the part of the wholes leadership condones but does not advocate violence? and purposefully advocates against peace? Due to the part engaging in violence and no ability to seperate? We have no choice but consider them one.

Basically BLM is like Obama Care. Great idea very very poorly designed by the wrong people

 

"Black lives matter" is a racist slogan, cooked up by idiots and maniacal racists in defense of the criminal behavior of violent, angry, black thugs, who managed to get themselves killed by Cops while committing crimes and endangering the lives of the Officers whose job it is to enforce the law and keep the peace against these very types of people. It is a hoax, manned by half wits, thugs and snakes.

 

That's because Clinton is too dumb to realize that the division she's causing will only hurt her and strengthen Trump. She's spent way too much time pandering to the people she hates.

 

This proves that there are some extremists within the movement but does not prove that it is the mission statement of the organization. Show me where on the BLM website the slogan "No justice no peace" is located. My argument is that a part of the whole does not represent the whole and there is no proof that the founding members nor the majority of BLM members advocate violence. The exception is not the rule.

 

red herring - something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

I gave you a comparison. You people lump all of Trump's supporters in with the KKK and white supremacists, then turn around and question how being a part of a whole represents the whole.

 

Dodge noted and I take said dodge as an admittance that you cannot or will not back your previous claim. Blocking me is fine by me as there is nothing for me to learn from those who make claims that they cannot back with an objective body of evidence.

 

I take said dodge as an admittance that you cannot or will not back your previous claim thus I will move on to debate those who can.

 

If they didn't advocate it, they would denounce it. There are no sources to prove that they denounce it.

Here's another "red herring" for you, to call you out on your hypocrisy...

David Duke says he supports Trump, Trump doesn't immediately denounce Duke, now Trump and all of his supporters are David Duke and KKK and white supremacist supporters... Do you get it yet or are you gonna keep throwing your hypocritical hypotheticals at me?

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck playing coy.

 

Condoning violence would be to advocate violence. Do you have source citation that the founding members condone violence? My mind is not closed here and as such my views are subject to change pending an objective body of evidence that supports a organizational advocacy of violence.

Perhaps you have no choice, but I do. I understand than in large groups of people there will likely be outliers that do not act in a way that is representative of the whole.

 

I already responded before which you did not answer, and I will respond to this. If you can only come to conclusions or opinions based upon the strict hypotheticals you state above? Must be an easy black and white world you live in

Now I will repeat myself which is annoying. BLM as a whole can not be given a pass simply because the leadership does not actively advocate violence. They do however condone it. Everything about their mission, their communications, harsh website design, are all aggressive. No where have I heard the leadership communicating peace and inclusion. It's all divisive

Only time you hear them say we want peaceful demonstrations is after a riot has happened. How convenient. They don't say it before or when organizing, it's all charged emotional rhetoric. That's dangerous.

 

It's an accumulation of all the small parts that doesn't add up. Repeating myself again. That is the leaderships fault. If interested Google both BLM attacks on people, also look at their website and Twitter , very charged stuff and THAT starts at the top and it's not being hidden, They are a large organized presence now and I believe their racist ideology is going to get a lot more people hurt. A lot more

 

And wrong again. They had to apply for a permit to march. They led that March with a BLM sign.

Its incredible the lengths of dishonesty you will go to simply to provide cover for these animals.

 

No there's only bad. It was based on nothing but lies from "hands up don't shoot" to police kill more blacks. No justice no peace is a threat not a movement. I'm amazed how many liberals defend these peddlers of lies and racism.

 

The name alone. "Black Lives Matter", pretty much sums up thee inanity of the group itself. Did anyone ever suggest that Black lives don't matter? It only separates groups from each other which then allows the political hucksters pit to pit one against another. Black against White, or the foolish against the police, the only real glue that keeps society together.

 

Its sad this has to be repeated over and over again to the excuse mongers.

 

Indeed which is what bringing Trump into the topic does.

Thus your bias be revealed as I have never claimed nor do I think that all of Trump's supporters are KKK and white supremacists. Yet another red herring.

 

And how many German soldiers killed or believed in the Nazi Party? did it matter one bit when Germany declared war and invaded Poland?

Did the Allies said "Hold on before we bomb that enemy target has anyone taken a poll of the soldiers to see if they support Hitler?"

Its pathetic pretending you can separate the two.

 

And how many Tea Party members ever engaged in violence or showed acts or words of racism but that sure in the hell didn't stop the left from labeling the Tea party as racist

 

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Without a direct tie to the founders and an advocacy of violence at the organizational level all one can do is speculate which is not synonymous with fact.

Moot point as it is not germane to the OP or anything that I have said in this thread. I am talking about the BLM not Trump. If you like, start a thread on Trump and send me an invite. I may surprise you and defend Trump as I have done a number of times here on the forums.

How one judges another says more about the judge than the judged.

 

And if Black men wouldn't committee some many crimes in big cities and elsewhere then cops wouldn't have an axe to grind.

 

Questions that I do not answer I see either as not being germane to the argument or rhetorical. If you feel I have unfairly dodged a question please ask it again and I will either answer it, or argue that it is not germane to my position here on the thread.

I live in a relative world which is currently over 7 billion shades of grey. As opinions are without limits I prefer facts as they are bound by limits. The facts as I see them at this time is that there are some people who claim to be a part of BLM who advocate violence. What I do not know is what percentage of the whole they are. Without that knowledge how can one come to a fact based assessment of BLM as a whole being a terrorist organization or a hate group?

Says who and by what authority?

Source citation needed for the above claim.

A subjective matter of opinion.

Yet on the BLM website is the quote "We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another." (Click on Loving Enguagement)
http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

And this irrefutably proves what?