Have to disagree with Rush on the semantics. By definition of "riot," what happened in Ferguson was a riot. There were the same kind of criminal activities going on - although to lesser extent in terms of quantity - as went on, for example, during the riots of the 1960s in predominantly black areas of cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, Newark, Washington, etc.: burning, looting, throwing bricks and bottles, overturning cars, vandalism, and the like. (Fortunately, no deaths were reported in Ferguson to the best of our knowledge, but then again it is a small town compared to the riot cities of the 1960s.)
To use "civil disobedience" to describe Ferguson is unfortunate. "Civil disobedience" was a term used in the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement to define peaceful, admittedly illegal actions under the Jim Crow laws of the place and time, such as sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and refusing to go to the back of segregated buses. The people who planned and engaged in the "civil disobedience" back then were not only non-violent, but principled and knew they would likely pay a price in the form of arrest and jail time. Obviously, this is not the case with Ferguson.
Planned or not, Ferguson WAS a riot, and WAS NOT civil disobedience.
‘To use “civil disobedience” to describe Ferguson is unfortunate.’
Good catch. Vast difference between riot and civil disobedience.
civil.....they were not
these people HATE the WORD CIVIL
CIVILIZATION....they hates every iota of it ......except for the BLING
There were some deaths but the msm refuse to report them as related. One, the eye witness friend of Johnson’s who had a bullet through his head. The big news outlets took a day or two before publishing his name and then failed to say exactly who he was and why he was killed. Gotta stick to the script.
Spot on.