Riots - Imagine that.

[sellersm]

And what's with the talk of calling in police from surrounding states?
Starting to look like a National Police Force is coming together - just as planned.

FIFY.

[rbeau30]

A National Police Force would be a great way to get the pesky Sherriffs that don't play nice out of the picture.


Every time stuff like this happens it is just another reason for people to be up in arms and allow more rights to be stripped from us.

[Irving]

Restate a position because 1 mother decided to impart some discipline? I don't think so, that 1 parent doesn't account for the thousands of others who dropped the ball.

Not to mention, her smacking her kid doesn't exactly make up for the 14-18 years of non-parenting that led her kid to that point, anyways. Far from being a hero, that lady is a huge part of the problem.

I believe you're both taking my funny post far too seriously.

[hollohas]

Marc Lamont Hill was on CNN last night and he said the folks should be doing this and he said it was a revolt NOT a riot. He said they need to revolt to get things changed.

IMO, I dont think there is as much racial oppression as the liberals say there is but that's a larger discussion for another day. What really struck me was his idea of what a justifiable revolt is. When he said that I immediately thought to myself, a revolt is not looting for 40's, stealing TP and burning cars. A revolt targets people or systems that the fed-up group sees as the authority. The tactics can be peaceful protests or can be violent mobs but a true revolt has a goal of changing/removing the system or people that the oppressed see as being the problem. A revolt is by definition an uprising against authority.

In this case, even if they feel justified to "revolt", the neighborhood CVS where your grandma picks up her diabetes meds is not the oppressor. The local construction site is not holding people down. The car they stole and burned in the street is not an uprising against authority. The targets of their destruction prove these people are not revolting. It proves that they are just opportunistic criminals. Marc Lamont Hill is a moron.

[CO Hugh]

Choot em. Choot em Clint!

Amen!!

[kidicarus13]

Marc Lamont Hill, whoever that is, is trying to incite a riot and should be charged accordingly.

[UrbanWolf]

Almost looks like Mogadishu. Good thing they don't have full auto AK-47s, or do they?

[Great-Kazoo]

Almost looks like Mogadishu. Good thing they don't have full auto AK-47s, or do they?

No they have laws against citizens owning Assault weapons

[davsel]

See kids, this is why daddy taught you how to shoot guns.

[crays]

Marc Lamont Hill was on CNN last night and he said the folks should be doing this and he said it was a revolt NOT a riot. He said they need to revolt to get things changed.

IMO, I dont think there is as much racial oppression as the liberals say there is but that's a larger discussion for another day. What really struck me was his idea of what a justifiable revolt is. When he said that I immediately thought to myself, a revolt is not looting for 40's, stealing TP and burning cars. A revolt targets people or systems that the fed-up group sees as the authority. The tactics can be peaceful protests or can be violent mobs but a true revolt has a goal of changing/removing the system or people that the oppressed see as being the problem. A revolt is by definition an uprising against authority.

In this case, even if they feel justified to "revolt", the neighborhood CVS where your grandma picks up her diabetes meds is not the oppressor. The local construction site is not holding people down. The car they stole and burned in the street is not an uprising against authority. The targets of their destruction prove these people are not revolting. It proves that they are just opportunistic criminals. Marc Lamont Hill is a moron.

Or maybe they are...