]

(07-22-2020 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Think about the big picture - is the federal government abusing its power against US citizens more concerning than citizens abusing the federal government? I think the former could result in a much bigger issue in the long run.

Then I suggest you turn your full attention to the 20,000 or more far more egregious examples of government overreach instead of this one.

This

The government using 'quick in and out' (can't think of better terms, feel free to replace that with another, so long as it is consistent with the facts) tactics with zero allegations of injury or brutality... merely the exact sort of "I was caught by surprise and wasn't prepared to resist being detained" they intended to get information from specific people (not random ones) about crimes (not peaceful protests, but crimes that occurred during/surrounding those protests) that they are suspected to have been involved in of have specific information about, in an area where the police have been rendered ineffective......

You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.... but what they're doing is in direct response to ILLEGAL activities involving actions by the people they are detaining.

Yes, I am much more concerned with the government infringing upon the rights of people who have done nothing illegal, have no knowledge that would help them apprehend people who have done illegal things, etc etc etc


Much of the left agrees with or at least understands this, which is why they are so quick to claim that these people 'weren't doing anything, didn't know anything, were being 'randomly' targeted, and at worst, were 'peacefully' protesting'.

Those specific claims make all the difference in the world. It is the same argument about how the left wants to take guns away from 100mm law abiding citizens to address the problem of... oh I don't know... 1mm? criminals.... only in reverse.

It's not unprecedented

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

How many here would support the imposition of a graduated 'wealth' tax on college endowment funds?

Is it fair that Rice has so much and Prairie View so little?

(07-23-2020 08:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Think about the big picture - is the federal government abusing its power against US citizens more concerning than citizens abusing the federal government? I think the former could result in a much bigger issue in the long run.

Then I suggest you turn your full attention to the 20,000 or more far more egregious examples of government overreach instead of this one.

You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 08:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Think about the big picture - is the federal government abusing its power against US citizens more concerning than citizens abusing the federal government? I think the former could result in a much bigger issue in the long run.

Then I suggest you turn your full attention to the 20,000 or more far more egregious examples of government overreach instead of this one.

You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

I think we know why.

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 08:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Think about the big picture - is the federal government abusing its power against US citizens more concerning than citizens abusing the federal government? I think the former could result in a much bigger issue in the long run.

Then I suggest you turn your full attention to the 20,000 or more far more egregious examples of government overreach instead of this one.

You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

So what is bad about unmarked cars?

What is bad about detainment procedures?

All you can do is point to one fing video and jump and down from what I can see.

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

The bar has fallen only on the left end.

If I were to wander into a protest/riot area, nobody would see MY handicaps either, as I am not in a wheelchair... yet. I do have a handicap sticker on my car - maybe the they would notice that as they beat it with bats and torched it. I think I would likely be attacked based on my skin color and expressed thoughts, though. How wonderfully American to allow, even praise that.

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

Let me say it more plainly...
I was honestly and truly repulsed by the stories being told.... see my first gut response to the allegation. When I look more closely at the facts, I find that they make a whole lot more sense and thus while I still may not like them, I accept that I am not an expert in such police matters and that it DOES make some sense to me for police to behave in this way under SOME circumstances... like a no-knock 2am warrant... as dangerous and at risk for error or innocent lives being lost as they are, I can see where a criminal might otherwise make things even MORE dangerous... like killing a bomb-maker at home with his wife and kids as opposed to the shop where he actually builds the bombs, that is in the basement of an elementary school.

Now, while I may still be bothered by the actions of the police, I am equally (and often more) bothered by the press and people who didn't ask the simple questions I did, but instead engaged in tabloid journalism techniques to grab headlines and attention.... especially if they continue to try and sell me the same false narrative in light of the facts.... and even more so if their attempts to 'win' degrade into assigning support for fascism or other such foolishness.

Governments lead by acquiescence. They do what we allow them to do. When our citizens engage in violence against innocent people or their property... regardless of whom the 'outrage' was really directed at... they have 'invited' a response from the government. It's like the guy who buys a pit bull to protect his house... who then hits his wife and the dog bites him... and he blames the dog. No. He bought the dog specifically for its power and protective traits... and he engaged in violence against someone he charged the dog to protect. If he wants to get rid of the dog or train it to be something other than what it has been bred/designed to do... then there are ways to do that. Specifically baiting the dog to bite you so that you can feel justified in killing it, that's even worse.

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

Oh **** off with that - I've not been engaging in intentional misrepresentation and this condescending lecture about "reasonable discussions" requires you to jump to a lot of conclusions about my responses, and ironically, ignore that I actually acknowledge what Tanq has said, and incorporate those statements into my responses.

My criticism is valid, regardless of whether or not the protesters had been violent previously, because I wasn't trying to argue who was the first to act violently. But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

If we want to talk about whether or not those who are resorting to violence are egging on the feds - of course they are. And did their actions invite the feds to come to Portland - of course they did. But the Feds also made the decision which has really set the tinderbox ablaze.

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

I think it is the misrepresentation and fabrication of the press that is striking a nerve. I see it in the repeated words of those opposing, such as "picking up people off the streets". Where should they pick them up from - is there a depot where they will wait?Just tell me what you think the Feds should have done other than picking up people off the streets? Mailing summonses? Blowing bubbles at them? Serving tea and cookies?

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

Oh **** off with that - I've not been engaging in intentional misrepresentation and this condescending lecture about "reasonable discussions" requires you to jump to a lot of conclusions about my responses, and ironically, ignore that I actually acknowledge what Tanq has said, and incorporate those statements into my responses.

My criticism is valid, regardless of whether or not the protesters had been violent previously, because I wasn't trying to argue who was the first to act violently. But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

If we want to talk about whether or not those who are resorting to violence are egging on the feds - of course they are. And did their actions invite the feds to come to Portland - of course they did. But the Feds also made the decision which has really set the tinderbox ablaze.

The most violent protest seemingly occurred prior to the van incident.

And no, the tinderbox being 'ablaze' is due really to the refusal of the Portland government to do anything to defuse the issue. Oh, and I forgot --- the shitbirds committing the violence there has a lot to do with it as well.

(07-23-2020 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

Oh **** off with that - I've not been engaging in intentional misrepresentation and this condescending lecture about "reasonable discussions" requires you to jump to a lot of conclusions about my responses, and ironically, ignore that I actually acknowledge what Tanq has said, and incorporate those statements into my responses.

My criticism is valid, regardless of whether or not the protesters had been violent previously, because I wasn't trying to argue who was the first to act violently. But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

If we want to talk about whether or not those who are resorting to violence are egging on the feds - of course they are. And did their actions invite the feds to come to Portland - of course they did. But the Feds also made the decision which has really set the tinderbox ablaze.

The most violent protest seemingly occurred prior to the van incident.

And no, the tinderbox being 'ablaze' is due really to the refusal of the Portland government to do anything to defuse the issue. Oh, and I forgot --- the shitbirds committing the violence there has a lot to do with it as well.

Yes, there is no doubt that Portland has had more violent protests than other cities, which is why the Feds arrived.

But based on videos I've seen of the protests/riots the last week or so, things look to be worse than they were before. Can you send some videos from before for comparison? It sounds like we've seen different things.

Again, I know there was vandalism/arson before, but the issues seem to have gotten worse.

And I don't think the Portland police didn't try anything - they've attempted to disperse protesters before. I think the Portland police have just absolutely failed, in a similar manner, at defusing the situation. If we notice a trend, violent response by law enforcement really only reinforces the narrative of why people are out there protesting in the first place.

(07-23-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

I think it is the misrepresentation and fabrication of the press that is striking a nerve. I see it in the repeated words of those opposing, such as "picking up people off the streets". Where should they pick them up from - is there a depot where they will wait?Just tell me what you think the Feds should have done other than picking up people off the streets? Mailing summonses? Blowing bubbles at them? Serving tea and cookies?

So the big bad thing is 'picking up people off the streets'.

The Fed has exactly three options, mainly due to the city of Portland tacitly supporting the shitbirds.

a) marching into the crowd to make arrests;

b) simply accepting the actions like Saturday night (with incendiary devices being
directed at the courthouse, the active assault on the federal building, the arson of a police building, the commission of assaults on Federal officers by acts that are even banned by the Geneva convention, not to mention the literal scores of solid projectiles, each of which is an aggravated assault);

c) enforcing the law with targeted, away from the immediate vicinity detentions and/or arrests (an actual better description than your rhetorically labeled one above, mind you).

So for all your yabbering, which of the three is best in lad-world? I have asked this now four times.....

And all we can get in response is 'The FEDS made it worse' schtick....

(07-23-2020 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

Oh **** off with that - I've not been engaging in intentional misrepresentation and this condescending lecture about "reasonable discussions" requires you to jump to a lot of conclusions about my responses, and ironically, ignore that I actually acknowledge what Tanq has said, and incorporate those statements into my responses.

My criticism is valid, regardless of whether or not the protesters had been violent previously, because I wasn't trying to argue who was the first to act violently. But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

If we want to talk about whether or not those who are resorting to violence are egging on the feds - of course they are. And did their actions invite the feds to come to Portland - of course they did. But the Feds also made the decision which has really set the tinderbox ablaze.

The most violent protest seemingly occurred prior to the van incident.

And no, the tinderbox being 'ablaze' is due really to the refusal of the Portland government to do anything to defuse the issue. Oh, and I forgot --- the shitbirds committing the violence there has a lot to do with it as well.

Yes, there is no doubt that Portland has had more violent protests than other cities, which is why the Feds arrived.

I didnt say 'had more'. I said they have been increasing in ferocity. To a local maxima Saturday, the events that sparked the van arrests.

Quote:But based on videos I've seen of the protests/riots the last week or so, things look to be worse than they were before. Can you send some videos from before for comparison? It sounds like we've seen different things.

I think the fact that Saturday was actually declared a riot by the spineless as **** Portland police is a good objective indication. That declaration had not been made in a substantial amount of time.

Quote:Again, I know there was vandalism/arson before, but the issues seem to have gotten worse.

See above.

Quote:And I don't think the Portland police didn't try anything - they've attempted to disperse protesters before.

Point out any Portland police in any shots from the courthouse on Saturday. Or most any other day. The only cops in view at pretty much any time in and around the courthouse for the last three weeks have been of the Federal variety.

Quote:I think the Portland police have just absolutely failed, in a similar manner, at defusing the situation.

The Portland city government is tacitly supporting the protests at the Federal buildings. Anyone with half a brain can denote this.

Quote:If we notice a trend, violent response by law enforcement really only reinforces the narrative of why people are out there protesting in the first place.

So do like Seattle and cede the Federal building? I mean that is the ultimate act of non-violence.

I am sorry, the Federal officers at the Federal courthouse have every fing right to enforce Federal law there. I guess you havent noticed that the Feds, up until Saturday, hadnt responded. Yet the violence *has* increased there -- all without active Federal intervention. That kind of blows the fk out of your thesis.

I dont guess you notice how much you are ghosting the amazing ethos of Neville Chamberlain above.

Let me say it more plainly...
I was honestly and truly repulsed by the stories being told.... see my first gut response to the allegation. When I look more closely at the facts, I find that the actions make a whole lot more sense and thus while I still may not like them, I accept that I am not an expert in such police matters and that it DOES make some sense to me for police to behave in this way under SOME circumstances... like a no-knock 2am warrant... as dangerous and at risk for error or innocent lives being lost as they are, I can see where a criminal might otherwise make things even MORE dangerous... like killing a bomb-maker at home with his wife and kids as opposed to the shop where he actually builds the bombs, that is in the basement of an elementary school.

Now, while I may still be bothered by the actions of the police, I am equally (and often more) bothered by the press and people who didn't ask the simple questions I did, but instead engaged in tabloid journalism techniques to grab headlines and attention.... especially if they continue to try and sell me the same false narrative in light of the facts.... and even more so if their attempts to 'win' degrade into assigning support for fascism or other such foolishness.

Governments lead by acquiescence. They do what we allow them to do. When our citizens engage in violence against innocent people or their property... regardless of whom the 'outrage' was really directed at... they have 'invited' a response from the government. It's like the guy who buys a pit bull to protect his house... who then hits his wife and the dog bites him... and he blames the dog. No. He bought the dog specifically for its power and protective traits... and he engaged in violence against someone he charged the dog to protect. If he wants to get rid of the dog or train it to be something other than what it has been bred/designed to do... then there are ways to do that. Specifically baiting the dog to bite you so that you can feel justified in killing it, that's even worse.

The whole reason why people are supposed to 'register' for a parade/protest is so that at least an attempt at adequate police PROTECTION is available... because of course when one side appears, so too often does the other.

The police aren't there to help you nor prevent you from protesting. They are there to make sure that others allow you to peacefully protest, and that the protest remains peaceful. The moment either one of those things stops... the police have to react to what they see or know in the moment which is quite often only part of the story.... and most often the police start by detaining both the instigator and the retaliator... because they don't know who did what first.... and there are usually more of 'them' than there are police.... so just like the guy who called police to report someone with a gun is often treated initially as if they COULD be that person, innocents can get caught up.

It seems often that your solutions involve the police knowing in the moment what you know (or believe you know) after the fact... often, whom did what first... remember the 'fine people' comment? The cops might not even know or care which 'side' someone was on... they just see one guy swing, so they take that guy down... and you're upset with them for not knowing in the moment that 'the other guy' swung first or that he was a member of a church that preaches 'hate'.

Let's be honest... If you had a sibling or if you have kids, you probably know that people somewhat inherently know how to instigate a fight and then feign innocence/act like they're nothing but compliant with enforcement... and that the 'wronged' party often responds with emotion and non-compliance... after all, they didn't do anything/didn't start it...

but if your job is to keep the peace, you address in the moment what you see in the moment... you require compliance, which you MAY be getting from the aggressor... and then you let the courts adjudicate (or discuss) after the fact, who did what.

If you have a solution to this, I'm all ears.

(07-23-2020 10:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Portland city government is tacitly supporting the protests at the Federal buildings. Anyone with half a brain can denote this

Not just tacitly

Anyone literate can read this.

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.

This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.

But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.

Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.

An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.

I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.

Oh **** off with that - I've not been engaging in intentional misrepresentation and this condescending lecture about "reasonable discussions" requires you to jump to a lot of conclusions about my responses, and ironically, ignore that I actually acknowledge what Tanq has said, and incorporate those statements into my responses.

My criticism is valid, regardless of whether or not the protesters had been violent previously, because I wasn't trying to argue who was the first to act violently. But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.

If we want to talk about whether or not those who are resorting to violence are egging on the feds - of course they are. And did their actions invite the feds to come to Portland - of course they did. But the Feds also made the decision which has really set the tinderbox ablaze.

And you can eff off with this sort of response. Thank you for once again, demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.

I gave two options. One is that you're aware of the situation and doing it anyway... which you respond to. The other is that you have simply not challenged the story as told... and then chastised people who do challenge the story as told. You ignore that one completely and act as if I gave only the one option.

And when I tell you that, you tell me to eff off and call me condescending. It's only condescending because you ignore option two and/or take issue with me believing that you haven't challenged the story... That's not condescension... especially when you do just as i described in response to it.

Show me where I said your criticism wasn't valid? You can't. Your criticism being valid doesn't mean that you aren't doing exactly what I said you are doing... I see no evidence that you challenged the stories as being told. You in fact directly defended them... I believe you said something like... "like the guy would lie about that' or similar when I challenged the story as being his impression, rather than a neutral observation. You then (talk about irony) acted as if my not having seen a filing.... 'WAIT FOR IT' (talk about condescending) invalidated my questioning of the lack of outrage.

I wonder how many of those protesting, especially any protesting violently.... erroneously believe that people who are of no value in a legitimate criminal investigation are being randomly picked up off of city streets in order to intimidate them into not protesting? That's what has been alleged... That's what is in the lawsuit. None of that is a 'fact'. The lawsuit doesn't even allege that it is fact. It merely says it has been reported and in belief of that, we ask for relief.

Once again, you focus on the pedantic (my supposed condescension towards you, who is pure as the driven snow) and ignore the questions that matter...

So what is your suggestion for what should happen when a peaceful protest about SYSTEMIC police violence turns into physical assaults on citizens of the US and/or their property?

Should police not attend protests where violence (from either side) could erupt? That would certainly keep the police from escalating the situation, but I'm 100% convinced that it wouldn't stop them from being sued/blamed for failing to protect citizens there. If violence and damage occurs, should police not investigate and detain people who are 'persons of interest'? What if 'defenders' showed and injured protesters?

I suspect that your gut response right now is to argue the facts with me... but neither of us have the facts... so you'd only be arguing opinions. I'm asking you as a police policy... how you think things should have played out the moment protesters started damaging private property and throwing rocks and incendiary devices at law enforcement... which it SEEMS (and you are more than welcome to correct me if you disagree) we agree happened first.... when I've not even seen an allegation that the police at the time were keeping protestors from engaging in lawful protest... Maybe you have?

Many on the left AND the right have suggested that the feds all pull out and let 'whatever happens' happens... and I would begrudgingly support that... so long as there is no cost to the Federal taxpayer for anything associated with it, including insurance premiums for building/business insurance. Now the question would be, just as it would be for say poor people living in public housing in large cities... what if people who own businesses there under the expectation that they would be protected from looting etc. don't want to leave? Even if they do, who will pay to relocate them?

You take issue with what they did, but I'm asking you to address what they SHOULD have done. 'Don't escalate' is far too generic. A significant purpose of the non-peaceful protestors actions toward police was to either harm them or to elicit a response. Police shouldn't be required to simply risk bodily harm so as not to escalate, IMO

(07-23-2020 11:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Many on the left AND the right have suggested that the feds all pull out and let 'whatever happens' happens... and I would begrudgingly support that... so long as there is no cost to the Federal taxpayer for anything associated with it, including insurance premiums for building/business insurance. Now the question would be, just as it would be for say poor people living in public housing in large cities... what if people who own businesses there under the expectation that they would be protected from looting etc. don't want to leave? Even if they do, who will pay to relocate them?

This is addressed by the newly introduced Ted Cruz bill. It would give private parties the ability to sue a local or state government that abdicates their Constitutional duty to protect the citizens from the lawlessness that seems to be adopted by the leftists these days.

Further, the Federal law would strip them of sovereign immunity in these suits, and would provide a 3x damages.

I think the removal of Feds to 'let the cities burn', along with 3x damages, would stiffen the spine of a lot of the shitbird local politicians on actually managing the protests.