Soros Strikes - 70 Percent of Charlotte Riot Arrests Were From OUT OF STATE!

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: ghostrager
Ever wonder why there are protest going on in Charlotte, NC and not Tulsa, OK?

Both had 'innocent' black men shot at the hands of police. The difference is that North Carolina is a swing state and 'protestors' are being bussed in from out of state. 70% of the arrests made during riots had OUT OF STATE IDS!

How does this have anything to do with George Soros?

it dosent, however the far right stupidly painted soros as a communist, while facts show he's anti-communist, he funded groups against the ussr, anc etc.
so they have to blame him for some bs every now and then.

its raining, damn you soros!
being a future headline of zerohedge.

Except for that inconvenient little fact that he funded BLM-- $650,000 to be exact.

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I browsed those threads and don't disagree entirely, but I don't think it's having a significant enough impact in the target group to offset the historically silent voter base that is going to turn out as a result.

If this is them playing their hand I think they are basing the response on a Rubio or Bush opponent. Trump may have twisted the electorate too fast for them to formulate a new plan, but this seems like suicide for the Democratic party.

He also happens to be one of Clinton's biggest donors. If you want more of this, elect Hillary.

It is a Federal Crime to cross state lines and incite, or participate in, a riot. The Obama Administration is NOT enforcing this law. Why?

Story: www.americanthinker.com...

This could be why a Black Charlotte prosecutor told CNN last night, "We need to get Trump in office, and fix this mess!". (CNN then quickly ended that live feed.)

a reply to: carewemust

Crossing state lines with any kind of criminal intent is purely FBI material. It's on them, per se.

a reply to: carewemust

Listen to this guy
truthfeed.com...

a reply to: ghostrager

I am not in favor or support of anyone, anywhere at any time using violence or destructiveness to make political statements.

(So don't bother to go there.)

HOWEVER,

1. George Soros gives money to political organizations as he chooses; his money, his right.

2. Let's say for a moment that there were people being "bussed in" to Charlotte and Tulsa for protests ... so? They're all Americans, all concerned about the same issues (whether you agree with their position on the issues or not.) They have a right as Americans to assemble and have their voices heard ... or are some of you suddenly against the First Amendment when you don't agree with the statements being made?

3. Referring to any protester as an "agitator" is so 1960s. (More specifically, it's nothing more than political pandering. It discredits your argument from the outset for anyone that isn't already a believer in your agenda.)

4. Whether some of you agree with the issues at hand or not, the fact remains that thousands of Americans believe that the government is overreaching its authority ... THAT is the issue here. And most of you that are the loudest complainers in these threads agree when it's YOUR issue at stake ... but you can't sympathize even a tiny bit when it's someone else's issue ... and that's because most of the right-wing is authoritarian to the CORE. You're glad to spout off about "law and order" as long as the right people are being abused. The fact is, government overreach is government overreach, and you should all be a lot more damned concerned with a highly militarized police force at your front doors abusing their authorities than the host of do-nothings in Washington that we're all regularly programmed to be enraged about via the media.

5. The solution here is not to tell people who are afraid of and angry at LEOs to "get over it." There is going to have to be a dialogue at some point, and that dialogue cannot be "Well, you folks are at fault anyway." (Either side.)

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: carewemust

Listen to this guy
truthfeed.com...

Interesting. Does Charlotte even have "hoods" like we see in the really big cities?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You make a very excellent point.

It appears that many people do not have a firm understanding of constitutional rights and only like to apply it's protections when the person exercising that right is doing so in a way they agree with.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The disclaimer is bunk as its plain to anyone that is the core problen, that being, property destruction, arson, looting and loss of business to those not involved - free speech and protesting involves none of the above nor does it involve physical assault.

It's called rioting, thuggery and chaos which needs to stop.

Your assertion that agitators are so 1960s made me laugh because records from fall of USSR showed just that going on with antiwar movement, once a dupe always a dupe is how I see that issue.

Twisting morality like a pretzel changes nothing when trying to assign 1st amendment rights to criminal activity.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
At what point does BLM recognize they're being used as pawns by an extremely wealthy white man for his own personal gain/agenda?

The lack of understanding is frankly, an embarrassment.

He's got a stranglehold on the stupid in this country.. That's a very scary powerful man when he can flood major cities with droves of rioters/looters/etc. from out of state, while maintaining a narrative with the media portraying them as peaceful protesters.. That's a very scary man when he decides to use that power..

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

You make a very excellent point.

It appears that many people do not have a firm understanding of constitutional rights and only like to apply it's protections when the person exercising that right is doing so in a way they agree with.

When I was learning about constitutional rights they left out the portions about arson, assault, and property damage. Can you quote the parts of the constitution that mention that?

So we can say Soros is one of the NWO faces?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There is:

www.tineye.com...

or

chrome.google.com...

This is called Reverse Image Search

a reply to: Phoenix

My disclaimer is "bunk" why? Because you say so?

Yes, rioting needs to stop. Any violence of any sort for political means needs to stop. On all sides, including assaults by rogue police officers against the American public.

You and yours are on record all over this site as ignoring the majority of the peaceful aspects of these protests in favor of the negative sides which are certainly there. You want to talk about twisting the argument??? That's all you just did.

You ignore the very reasonable issues that many Americans have with blatant abuse of government power unless it's some abstraction against the President of the United States (hmmm... what's the common factor here).

Do you really think I care that you think I'm a "dupe"? I can assure you, my opinion of you and yours makes that look like a supreme compliment.

You have zero basis to talk about morality or patriotism. If "Soros" and some hidden cabal is supporting the worst elements of these protests, you and yours are just as bad, because you want to reduce EVERY part of this issue to a very distinct matter of race.

You're not quite as subtle as you think.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

You make a very excellent point.

It appears that many people do not have a firm understanding of constitutional rights and only like to apply it's protections when the person exercising that right is doing so in a way they agree with.

When I was learning about constitutional rights they left out the portions about arson, assault, and property damage. Can you quote the parts of the constitution that mention that?

I did not say any of those acts were constitutional. Please read the conversation I was commenting on in order to see the context of my post.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Google image search: blm arrests mug shots

You'll probably find some familiar faces across the events.

Perhaps if there's some public domain facial recognition software?

Are those really the BLM freeway rioters? That's an awfully white group of inner-city protestors.

Maybe we should review footage of other riots (Ferguson, Baltimore) to see if the same faces keep popping up.

In any case, that list of conspiracy theories that were proven true (can be found by a simple internet search) had at least three examples of the authorities planting agitators in demonstrations to make sure they turned violent. This has happened during protests in Israel, Mexico, and Quebec.

a reply to: introvert

I followed the whole thread. Nobody has an issue with constitutional right to protest. It's the crime and violence, likely driven by outside agitators, that is the issue.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
At what point does BLM recognize they're being used as pawns by an extremely wealthy white man for his own personal gain/agenda?

The lack of understanding is frankly, an embarrassment.

well, as soon as any facts come forth to prove that theory on Soros, maybe then....otherwise it's right-wing BS

a reply to: ghostrager

Hmm... some might not think this is definitive proof, but it's good enough for me:

posted as it was ongoing