Hold on a sec.    Does BL think it's a viable option or does he simply see how protesters can view it as a viable option?  Or is he just so busy stepping on his own dick that he no longer knows what he believes?

I still love the idea of him thinking it is ok to knock out small businesses in riot prone areas because they won't be able to afford paying the insurance for their business.

maybe business owners should just move away from the riot prone areas and let the residents survive without any supplies unless they have a car to get out of the area themselves. 

BL loves blight.

Posted by raucous on 1/25/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I still love the idea of him thinking it is ok to knock out small businesses in riot prone areas because they won't be able to afford paying the insurance for their business.

Where did I say that?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/25/2016 3:41:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't be ok with it because of insurance. I'd be ok with it because the benefit to society would outweigh the cost. But I'd rather that benefit be acheived through a less violent and destructive way.

Here.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/24/2016 6:00:00 PM (view original):
This is where I referenced insurance:

Quote post by bad_luck on 4/29/2015 10:55:00 PM:

The police already admitted that they ****** up. I'm sure they didn't mean to sever his spine. They didn't intend to kill him. But they did **** up. They did abuse him. And they did neglect to get him medical treatment in time to save his life.

This is where the majority of the outrage should be directed. Cars can be replaced. Buildings are insured.

Here.

...and the first one was only an hour ago!!!!

Posted by raucous on 1/25/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I still love the idea of him thinking it is ok to knock out small businesses in riot prone areas because they won't be able to afford paying the insurance for their business.

So, in your mind, me saying those things equals "it is ok to knock out small businesses in riot prone areas because they won't be able to afford paying the insurance for their business?"

In my mind, you are incapable of thinking things through to a logical conclusion.

If your business isn't profitable enough to have your facility and any inventory you have insured, you probably weren't going to be around for long anyway.  Who the hell doesn't have insurance on their business?

If you're shot dead in the street by cops, you were probably doing something wrong.  Who the hell acts so poorly around people with guns, and the authority to use them, that they get shot?


See how that works?

Well, your idiocy has been established so that's not surprising.

Posted by raucous on 1/26/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):
In my mind, you are incapable of thinking things through to a logical conclusion.

I still don't know what your point is. I'm not saying riots are ok because businesses have insurance, I'm saying the damage caused by riots is mitigated, at least partially, by insurance.

Riots are not good. But they aren't a tragedy if the outcome is some broken glass and damaged buildings.