(10-09-2025 01:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-08-2025 11:05 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-08-2025 08:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-08-2025 08:27 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-08-2025 08:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When proof is presented in some court, Ill consider it.

You wanted details. So I gave you details. But now that's not enough for you to even consider. You are truly frivolous.

I cant find any primary sources on this WH announcement, aside from some tweetster named "Wall Street Apes".

A search on the quotes reveals nothing beyond that source.

When one searches *any* combination of the supposed 'found sources' -- nothing that backs that tweet comes up.

A direct search of WH announcements reveals no such announcement.

Finally, you might notice some really rank errors in the list itself. No official announcement listing named organizations from the Office of the President would have a typo of inserting capital letters into the middle of a name. Those announcements go through way too many layers of fact checking and grammar checking for that sophomore level mistake.

You call that 'details'? In fact, I think the claim, after that is pretty fing specious. For you, Id call it hook, line, and sinker.

Quote:At least we agree on the need to get answers and accountability for Antifa and their funding in a courtroom.

With what you presented, that level of crap wont even get that far. Hate to tell you, there simply was no such White House release above, at least per the WH release archive.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

Do you usually take everything "Wall Street Apes" says at face value, sir? Or is this a special one off case?

I'm not sure why you went through all of that, as I gave you the "starter list" link above to the actual original source video. Said link shows The Government Accountability Institution rep (with his White House issued nameplate in front of him) testifying in the White House to our President and others, including the press with the White House chyron clearly showing along the bottom.

It's not my fault that you couldn't find anything in the legacy media about it and we used WSA (an account with over 1.1M followers) to view it. You understand that doesn't make WSA the actual "starter list" info source, right? I'm sorry if this comes off as condescending, but your dramatic responses are getting increasingly more desperate and shallow.

Here is a question for you -- since you treat this White House meeting with reverence, do you similarly believe the transcripts and a full findings of the J6 committee with an equal vigor? Considering the far deeper substantiation in the record of the J6 committee proceedings, you should.

You can answer the question above with a simple 'yes / no'.

And you are absolutely correct I denote this with skepticism. Show their work. Not just self-serving conclusory statements.

Lets take a look at this "Government Accountability Institute".

Quote:The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative think tank[3][4] located in Tallahassee, Florida.[5][6] GAI was founded in 2012[7] by Peter Schweizer and Steve Bannon

Lolz. Steve Bannon. Double lolz.

Lets go further --

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich is a 2015 book published by GAI that makes false claims about donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities, paid speeches made by Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Clintons' personal enrichment since leaving the White House in 2001.[30]

GAI was central in pushing the debunked conspiracy theory concerning alleged involvement by Hillary Clinton in the sale of Uranium One.[31][32] Attorney General Jeff Sessions had John W. Huber investigate GAI's claims connecting the Clinton Foundation to the sale of the group of companies. Huber found no tangible evidence of impropriety.[33]

Bush Bucks: How Public Service and Corporations Helped Make Jeb Rich, an e-book published by GAI in October 2015, raises questions about millions of dollars received by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush after he left office. The money came from from companies which had benefited from Bush's policies while he was governor.[34][35]

Another debunked[36] book published by GAI is Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends. It was the first printed source of the false Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory,[1] which GAI was heavily involved in promoting.[37] When asked about GAI's role in media coverage of the allegations, Bannon replied, “It’s key. It was the predicate”.[38]

Quite the track record there.

Another goalpost move I see. Lolz. Followed by a completely impartial copy and paste from the leftists at wikipedia - double Lolz.

I don't take anything from the government with "reverence". Sometimes the government gets it right, sometimes they don't. I do trust this Administration as a whole more than any other I've seen in my adult life, at least.

In the end, I am in complete agreement that much more investigation, followed by full prosecution of Antifa and its financial backers, is warranted.

(10-09-2025 11:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 09:11 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 06:15 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Better than being a supporter of a terrorist movement that seeks to destroy the United States.

Kind of an asinine statement. Opposing military deployment is now 'supporter of a terrorist group'. That is probably the most vapid leap I have seen from you ever. And the funny thing is that you keep on yabbering at it.

You're trying to tell me that there's enough agents to handle it. YOU are telling ME that. It's f'n hilarious. So, yes either you don't know what you're talking about or you're an antifa sympathizer. Which one are you admitting?

There is a massive difference in the law between a situation where any single agency is impeded, and the rubicon of calling in the armed forces to do that job.

To label someone who is in favor of the reservation of the military being used on US soil in an active role to the stated "most extreme situations" as delineated in 10 USC 1246, the Insurrection Act, and few other places as 'a supporter or sympathizer of terrorism' is the epitome of stupid.

Im really fing sorry that the resources arent there for you to quell the ****** protests outside ICE facilities. That in no way brings the situation to calling up a State National Guard, let alone calling up a State National Guard without that state's cooperation and consent. Let alone bringing in troops from another state to another state again without the 'invaded' state's cooperation and consent.

That is the problem these days -- a really fked to **** view of federalism that the idiot right now readily and easily subscribes to.

And feels the need and overriding urge to labeling such federalism concerns as 'terrorist sympathizers'. What an amazing fked up asinine masterpiece of rhetoric.

So, which one? Or is it both?

Not a supporter of terrorists or terrorism.

Not a supporter of sending the US military into the streets on this, *or* for federalizing the Guard for this. *Unless* the target state governor and local authorities agree, and support that decision. Like what occurred in Memphis, mind you.

TN and Memphis said 'roll them in' -- thats all the legal predicate needed there. Not my job to second guess them.

And I support Trumps roll into DC. He is the actual commander of the DC Guard. The action was overblown imo, but still absolutely legal and proper.

And yes, it comes back to Do. It. The. Right. Way.

If the Chicago issue devolves to a Rodney King scenario - then the predicates are met. No sweat with that happening then.

Or if the Chicago police actively impedes the feds -- once again the predicate for *both* 10 usc 1246 *and* the Insurrection Act are met. And once again, no problem with rolling the military in.

Just saying it isnt a bright line 'if not a supporter of US military intervention at the current time in Portland and Chicago THEN an antifa supporter or antifa sympathizer.'
Just like it isnt a proper bright line by calling a critic of the Vietnam War at any time between '65 and '72 a 'communist', a commie sympathizer, or a Ho Chi Minh follower. One could easily be a critic of the Vietnam War without any of the former.

I simply dont agree with your former declaration of 'either /or'. Its simply a false premise, mainly because the only alternatives you present dont fit my viewpoint.

In fact, I have a stark disagreement with much of what that loose movement of antifa stands for in terms of 'end result' in the political system. The portion that I do agree with them is rooted in my very strong support of our Federalism and wish not to have an all powerful Executive. A subset that they seem to note quite prominently recently. And for the record, I will readily condemn any acts of violence perpetrated by them which are performed simply for the reason of creating violence in situations -- a history that they readily exhibit.

And yes, I know this is a subject part and parcel of your life. Its understandable how your response of 'either / or' might be an immediate response. But it is/ was just false.

And when you parse my position on mobilizing the military, it really is without any comment on the the actions and operations of ICE in the two cities. it simply is -- it doesnt appear to me that the legal basis is met, and that the introduction of the military is doen in an improper manner. End of story. With zero comment on any issue I might have with *some* of the manner that ICE and DHS operates in those cities (or others) at the present.

Thank you for the ratcheting down present in your last question.

0-200

“The president of Portland's police union said he's open to federal support to help the agency combat a "burst" in crime. It’s a war zone.”

(10-09-2025 12:12 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  In the end, I am in complete agreement that much more investigation, followed by full prosecution of Antifa and its financial backers, is warranted.

yep, we are in agreement that that such an investigation would be beneficial. I would hope that it would be an actual impartial one, and not one with an obvious goal to meet. As some groups might have -- in both directions.

(10-09-2025 12:17 PM)450bench Wrote:  0-200

“The president of Portland's police union said he's open to federal support to help the agency combat a "burst" in crime. It’s a war zone.”

Such a war zone that the Feds, when sued literally last week, can really denote any as evidence of such a war zone. Imagine that.

And honestly, that president of the union has an absolute right to include his two cents in that assessment. As does the governor, the adjutant general, the state AG, the state police, and a bevy of local authorities.

Which all came to the counter conclusion. A conclusion opposite of --- a President. Of. Portland's. Police. Union.

Im not sure, but that kind of seems like a pretty massive imbalance all in all.

But please try some individual dumb*** cherry picking to create win. Or try assessing the totality before flapping your lips like above.

(10-09-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 11:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 09:11 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Kind of an asinine statement. Opposing military deployment is now 'supporter of a terrorist group'. That is probably the most vapid leap I have seen from you ever. And the funny thing is that you keep on yabbering at it.

You're trying to tell me that there's enough agents to handle it. YOU are telling ME that. It's f'n hilarious. So, yes either you don't know what you're talking about or you're an antifa sympathizer. Which one are you admitting?

There is a massive difference in the law between a situation where any single agency is impeded, and the rubicon of calling in the armed forces to do that job.

To label someone who is in favor of the reservation of the military being used on US soil in an active role to the stated "most extreme situations" as delineated in 10 USC 1246, the Insurrection Act, and few other places as 'a supporter or sympathizer of terrorism' is the epitome of stupid.

Im really fing sorry that the resources arent there for you to quell the ****** protests outside ICE facilities. That in no way brings the situation to calling up a State National Guard, let alone calling up a State National Guard without that state's cooperation and consent. Let alone bringing in troops from another state to another state again without the 'invaded' state's cooperation and consent.

That is the problem these days -- a really fked to **** view of federalism that the idiot right now readily and easily subscribes to.

And feels the need and overriding urge to labeling such federalism concerns as 'terrorist sympathizers'. What an amazing fked up asinine masterpiece of rhetoric.

So, which one? Or is it both?

Not a supporter of terrorists or terrorism.

Not a supporter of sending the US military into the streets on this, *or* for federalizing the Guard for this. *Unless* the target state governor and local authorities agree, and support that decision. Like what occurred in Memphis, mind you.

TN and Memphis said 'roll them in' -- thats all the legal predicate needed there. Not my job to second guess them.

And I support Trumps roll into DC. He is the actual commander of the DC Guard. The action was overblown imo, but still absolutely legal and proper.

And yes, it comes back to Do. It. The. Right. Way.

If the Chicago issue devolves to a Rodney King scenario - then the predicates are met. No sweat with that happening then.

Or if the Chicago police actively impedes the feds -- once again the predicate for *both* 10 usc 1246 *and* the Insurrection Act are met. And once again, no problem with rolling the military in.

Just saying it isnt a bright line 'if not a supporter of US military intervention at the current time in Portland and Chicago THEN an antifa supporter or antifa sympathizer.'
Just like it isnt a proper bright line by calling a critic of the Vietnam War at any time between '65 and '72 a 'communist', a commie sympathizer, or a Ho Chi Minh follower. One could easily be a critic of the Vietnam War without any of the former.

I simply dont agree with your former declaration of 'either /or'. Its simply a false premise, mainly because the only alternatives you present dont fit my viewpoint.

In fact, I have a stark disagreement with much of what that loose movement of antifa stands for in terms of 'end result' in the political system. The portion that I do agree with them is rooted in my very strong support of our Federalism and wish not to have an all powerful Executive. A subset that they seem to note quite prominently recently. And for the record, I will readily condemn any acts of violence perpetrated by them which are performed simply for the reason of creating violence in situations -- a history that they readily exhibit.

And yes, I know this is a subject part and parcel of your life. Its understandable how your response of 'either / or' might be an immediate response. But it is/ was just false.

And when you parse my position on mobilizing the military, it really is without any comment on the the actions and operations of ICE in the two cities. it simply is -- it doesnt appear to me that the legal basis is met, and that the introduction of the military is doen in an improper manner. End of story. With zero comment on any issue I might have with *some* of the manner that ICE and DHS operates in those cities (or others) at the present.

Thank you for the ratcheting down present in your last question.

"TN and Memphis said 'roll them in'"

You are wrong about what you just said. The people that run Memphis were against this in the beginning, no ifs or buts about it. The people that run Memphis are starting to get behind it after seeing the results. All said and done you need to get your facts in order.

(10-09-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 11:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 09:11 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Kind of an asinine statement. Opposing military deployment is now 'supporter of a terrorist group'. That is probably the most vapid leap I have seen from you ever. And the funny thing is that you keep on yabbering at it.

You're trying to tell me that there's enough agents to handle it. YOU are telling ME that. It's f'n hilarious. So, yes either you don't know what you're talking about or you're an antifa sympathizer. Which one are you admitting?

There is a massive difference in the law between a situation where any single agency is impeded, and the rubicon of calling in the armed forces to do that job.

To label someone who is in favor of the reservation of the military being used on US soil in an active role to the stated "most extreme situations" as delineated in 10 USC 1246, the Insurrection Act, and few other places as 'a supporter or sympathizer of terrorism' is the epitome of stupid.

Im really fing sorry that the resources arent there for you to quell the ****** protests outside ICE facilities. That in no way brings the situation to calling up a State National Guard, let alone calling up a State National Guard without that state's cooperation and consent. Let alone bringing in troops from another state to another state again without the 'invaded' state's cooperation and consent.

That is the problem these days -- a really fked to **** view of federalism that the idiot right now readily and easily subscribes to.

And feels the need and overriding urge to labeling such federalism concerns as 'terrorist sympathizers'. What an amazing fked up asinine masterpiece of rhetoric.

So, which one? Or is it both?

Not a supporter of terrorists or terrorism.

Not a supporter of sending the US military into the streets on this, *or* for federalizing the Guard for this. *Unless* the target state governor and local authorities agree, and support that decision. Like what occurred in Memphis, mind you.

TN and Memphis said 'roll them in' -- thats all the legal predicate needed there. Not my job to second guess them.

And I support Trumps roll into DC. He is the actual commander of the DC Guard. The action was overblown imo, but still absolutely legal and proper.

And yes, it comes back to Do. It. The. Right. Way.

If the Chicago issue devolves to a Rodney King scenario - then the predicates are met. No sweat with that happening then.

Or if the Chicago police actively impedes the feds -- once again the predicate for *both* 10 usc 1246 *and* the Insurrection Act are met. And once again, no problem with rolling the military in.

Just saying it isnt a bright line 'if not a supporter of US military intervention at the current time in Portland and Chicago THEN an antifa supporter or antifa sympathizer.'
Just like it isnt a proper bright line by calling a critic of the Vietnam War at any time between '65 and '72 a 'communist', a commie sympathizer, or a Ho Chi Minh follower. One could easily be a critic of the Vietnam War without any of the former.

I simply dont agree with your former declaration of 'either /or'. Its simply a false premise, mainly because the only alternatives you present dont fit my viewpoint.

In fact, I have a stark disagreement with much of what that loose movement of antifa stands for in terms of 'end result' in the political system. The portion that I do agree with them is rooted in my very strong support of our Federalism and wish not to have an all powerful Executive. A subset that they seem to note quite prominently recently. And for the record, I will readily condemn any acts of violence perpetrated by them which are performed simply for the reason of creating violence in situations -- a history that they readily exhibit.

And yes, I know this is a subject part and parcel of your life. Its understandable how your response of 'either / or' might be an immediate response. But it is/ was just false.

And when you parse my position on mobilizing the military, it really is without any comment on the the actions and operations of ICE in the two cities. it simply is -- it doesnt appear to me that the legal basis is met, and that the introduction of the military is doen in an improper manner. End of story. With zero comment on any issue I might have with *some* of the manner that ICE and DHS operates in those cities (or others) at the present.

Thank you for the ratcheting down present in your last question.

On your newest take you're now saying the Governor has to be ok with it. So, what you've just told us now is that you were not in favor of President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalizing the Arkansas National Guard and sent in federal troops to protect nine black students to enforce the desegregation order after Ark Governor Orval Faubus use the Arkansas National Guard first to block those Black students from entering the school.

Or when George Wallace tried to physically block desegregation and JFK nationalized the NG to move him aside. I mean far less violence than we're seeing now.

So interesting that you only support this when the Governor says its ok. Kind of puts you on the wrong side of history don't ya think?

tanq, the only person that needs to create a win is you. You’re wrong on every subject you choose to champion. The hills you choose to lie on have made you winless.

Your affinity for picking winning topics is as bad as your social skills.

(10-09-2025 12:06 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The bottom line is that when it comes to federalizing the NG, this is hardly groundbreaking.

To enforce integration in the 50s and 60s the NG was federalized several times to squash mobs angered over desegregation. When riots broke out in '67 in Detroit, the NG was federalized. Same after MLK was assassinated and LA riots in '92.

Actually it is quite different. All the bolded were done with the support and consent of the state and locals.

For the italicized, Both Eisenhower and Kennedy federalized to enforce Federal rights, mandated by Brown v Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, and to varying degrees the 5th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were federalized to counter the states of Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi who not only said that they would refuse to abide by the statutes, rulings, and amendments -- but would also said they would use state police power to actually arrest and prosecute any school official who did. That is the 'third prong' in the various 'send in the Army' and 'call up the Guard' acts/

In short, they were federalized to provide force of law for a state that was actively denying Civil Rights across the board.

Quote:And it should have been done following the catastrophe of people on left fomenting the violence after George Floyd.

And many state governors did. Properly. That was the states' choices. A few times it was done much later than it should have. But that is seriously the major province of the state and local officials. The Guard is *literally* their state militia.

Quote:And Trump probably learned his lesson by not doing it, because it could have gotten further out of control than it already was. That's the path we're headed on now, if these a-holes that are continuing to propagate and escalate these attacks are not dealt with. And especially the facilitators and funders of these actions. Antifa is increasingly getting more violent and better organized. All you have to do is look at the antifa of the 80's in Europe with Red Brigade, Red Army Faction, Grapo, etc., to understand what belies this and what's going to happen next if left unchecked. Charlie Kirk is just the beginning.

And the law that enables to the President to do it is a 'break glass ONLY in the event of present and ongoing danger'. Not 'break glass *if* there is a chance of it developing'.

Quote:This is why federalizing Guard in cities that refuse to enforce its own laws and allow attacks against federal law enforcement is necessary. It's not even that difficult of a concept. Well, it shouldn't be but here we are.

Shoving military into US cities is dumb*** idea imo in all but the most extreme of times. And when being done prior to that -- is evocative of the exact and precise warnings of the the literal Founding Fathers and the issues that they had with the concepts of the limits of Executive power, and the sharp misgivings they had over a powerful national central military.

Look, if / when the proverbial '**** hits the fan' (Rodney King, Arkansas '57, US Virgin Islands after Hugo) -- no problem.

I criticize Minnesota in the summer of '20 for waiting three nights -- but that is imo the state decision. End of story. Rodney King and VI were done *with* the consent and cooperation of the locals. When you get to doing it with the refusal of a state, and with and without the cooperation of the state -- it better be a fing rebellion by that state, an invasion where the state cannot operate, or an utter and complete breakdown in the state to enforce law.

(10-09-2025 12:33 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 11:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 09:11 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're trying to tell me that there's enough agents to handle it. YOU are telling ME that. It's f'n hilarious. So, yes either you don't know what you're talking about or you're an antifa sympathizer. Which one are you admitting?

There is a massive difference in the law between a situation where any single agency is impeded, and the rubicon of calling in the armed forces to do that job.

To label someone who is in favor of the reservation of the military being used on US soil in an active role to the stated "most extreme situations" as delineated in 10 USC 1246, the Insurrection Act, and few other places as 'a supporter or sympathizer of terrorism' is the epitome of stupid.

Im really fing sorry that the resources arent there for you to quell the ****** protests outside ICE facilities. That in no way brings the situation to calling up a State National Guard, let alone calling up a State National Guard without that state's cooperation and consent. Let alone bringing in troops from another state to another state again without the 'invaded' state's cooperation and consent.

That is the problem these days -- a really fked to **** view of federalism that the idiot right now readily and easily subscribes to.

And feels the need and overriding urge to labeling such federalism concerns as 'terrorist sympathizers'. What an amazing fked up asinine masterpiece of rhetoric.

So, which one? Or is it both?

Not a supporter of terrorists or terrorism.

Not a supporter of sending the US military into the streets on this, *or* for federalizing the Guard for this. *Unless* the target state governor and local authorities agree, and support that decision. Like what occurred in Memphis, mind you.

TN and Memphis said 'roll them in' -- thats all the legal predicate needed there. Not my job to second guess them.

And I support Trumps roll into DC. He is the actual commander of the DC Guard. The action was overblown imo, but still absolutely legal and proper.

And yes, it comes back to Do. It. The. Right. Way.

If the Chicago issue devolves to a Rodney King scenario - then the predicates are met. No sweat with that happening then.

Or if the Chicago police actively impedes the feds -- once again the predicate for *both* 10 usc 1246 *and* the Insurrection Act are met. And once again, no problem with rolling the military in.

Just saying it isnt a bright line 'if not a supporter of US military intervention at the current time in Portland and Chicago THEN an antifa supporter or antifa sympathizer.'
Just like it isnt a proper bright line by calling a critic of the Vietnam War at any time between '65 and '72 a 'communist', a commie sympathizer, or a Ho Chi Minh follower. One could easily be a critic of the Vietnam War without any of the former.

I simply dont agree with your former declaration of 'either /or'. Its simply a false premise, mainly because the only alternatives you present dont fit my viewpoint.

In fact, I have a stark disagreement with much of what that loose movement of antifa stands for in terms of 'end result' in the political system. The portion that I do agree with them is rooted in my very strong support of our Federalism and wish not to have an all powerful Executive. A subset that they seem to note quite prominently recently. And for the record, I will readily condemn any acts of violence perpetrated by them which are performed simply for the reason of creating violence in situations -- a history that they readily exhibit.

And yes, I know this is a subject part and parcel of your life. Its understandable how your response of 'either / or' might be an immediate response. But it is/ was just false.

And when you parse my position on mobilizing the military, it really is without any comment on the the actions and operations of ICE in the two cities. it simply is -- it doesnt appear to me that the legal basis is met, and that the introduction of the military is doen in an improper manner. End of story. With zero comment on any issue I might have with *some* of the manner that ICE and DHS operates in those cities (or others) at the present.

Thank you for the ratcheting down present in your last question.

On your newest take you're now saying the Governor has to be ok with it. So, what you've just told us now is that you were not in favor of President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalizing the Arkansas National Guard and sent in federal troops to protect nine black students to enforce the desegregation order after Ark Governor Orval Faubus use the Arkansas National Guard first to block those Black students from entering the school.

Just answered above. You missed my comment previous to that. I explicitly limited the situation 'on this" (i.e.right now Portland and Chicago) Ill highlight that for your convenience. And Ill refer you to my answer in full re: Arkansas and the other integration issues directly above.

"Not a supporter of sending the US military into the streets on this, *or* for federalizing the Guard for this. *Unless* the target state governor and local authorities agree, and support that decision."

A fuller explanation is provided directly above to when you first bring up the instance.

Quote:Or when George Wallace tried to physically block desegregation and JFK nationalized the NG to move him aside. I mean far less violence than we're seeing now.

Again answered and addressed above.

The law is crystal clear. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy federalized to enforce Federal rights, mandated by Brown v Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, and to varying degrees the 5th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were federalized to counter the states of Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi who not only said that they would refuse to abide by the statutes, rulings, and amendments -- but would state power to actually prosectute any school official who did.

In short, they were federalized to provide force of law for a state that was actively denying Civil Rights across the board. In short, a state openly defying Federally based basic civil rights under the color of law. Which is actually addressed in the callup provisions.

Quote:So interesting that you only support this when the Governor says its ok. Kind of puts you on the wrong side of history don't ya think?

Nope. But please make that leap for me, whydoncha.

(10-09-2025 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  or an utter and complete breakdown in the state to enforce law.

Exactly. Just like in Portland, LA, and Chicago.

I don't have to make that leap. You already said it. It's right there in red. Now you're lying again. You said unless the state governor and local authorities agree and then two posts later say you didn't say that LMAO.

When are you going to get real and be a legitimate human? Is it ever going to happen. If not just let us know now.

(10-09-2025 12:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  or an utter and complete breakdown in the state to enforce law.

Exactly. Just like in Portland, LA, and Chicago.

Funny, your responses in the courts really dont make that a factual reality. Funny that.

The scope of evidence *you all* brought forth in the contention of that conclusory statement you repeat above in the Portland case is (literally) : one dude who brought out a paper maiche guillotine, two people shing flashlights into cars, and one case of doxxing.

Which one of those tips it into "an utter and complete breakdown in the state to enforce the law" in your mind? The paper mache guillotine? Yeah has to be the fake guillotine.

(10-09-2025 12:29 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  "TN and Memphis said 'roll them in'"

You are wrong about what you just said. The people that run Memphis were against this in the beginning, no ifs or buts about it. The people that run Memphis are starting to get behind it after seeing the results. All said and done you need to get your facts in order.

You beat me to it. Tanq says so many wrong things that if you aren't familiar with the specific situations, they can slide right by and sound legit.

I'm still trying to figure out if he knows it's wrong and tries to get away with it anyway, or if he really is that misinformed. It has to be one or the other.

Quote:Organized Chaos: Portland “Protest Stations” Exposed

Footage from Portland shows protest setups with pre-made signs, food stations, water cases, grills, and traffic cones—all neatly organized. Observers point out logos, paperwork, and supplies that suggest NGO involvement. “This is clearly funded,” one said. “These aren’t random protesters—this is paid coordination.”

Quote:Portland Has Fallen to ANTIFA (FULL VIDEO):
Trump has declared Portland as "war ravaged" as Portland is home to one of the main locations to the newly named domestic terrorist group ANTIFA. Despite what the governor says as she marches with them in the streets of Portland... at an ICE Detention Facility ANTIFA has been protesting outside for over 100 days straight often assaulting officers and reporters.

In this video you'll see the realities as I speak with ANTIFA and the locals around about the truth of Portlands ANTIFA takeover.

If you find this video important, like and share it with others!

(10-09-2025 12:51 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I don't have to make that leap. You already said it. It's right there in red. Now you're lying again. You said unless the state governor and local authorities agree and then two posts later say you didn't say that LMAO.

When are you going to get real and be a legitimate human? Is it ever going to happen. If not just let us know now.

Well English Major wannabe -- my *exact comment* was that "for this" matter I dont agree unless the state governor and local authorities agree or consent. The term "for this" actually means something. Look it up if you are confused.

My first post was limited explicitly to Portland and Chicago *now* ("for this"). Which *you* didnt pick up on. Even *after* I pointed that out. To which I compared that *same* situation (that is, to be crystal clear, the same situation on the ground *right now* ("for this") ) to those where the governments agreed and consented. Again, to the same situation on the ground, right now ("for this" for the fourth fing time).

Word are important. Try them.

When you later evoked Little Rock and Kenendy in the 60s, I clarified why those came about. And why they dont fit "this situation". ("for this", now for the fifth fing time).

I suggest you learn to read, *before* caterwauling. Or try to have a back and forth, again *before* caterwauling like you do above. Or just make ****** accusations like your crappy 'you are either for the military intervention, or an antifa sympathizer' that you *just* tried to move into a razor sharp observation.

(10-09-2025 12:29 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 11:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 09:11 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're trying to tell me that there's enough agents to handle it. YOU are telling ME that. It's f'n hilarious. So, yes either you don't know what you're talking about or you're an antifa sympathizer. Which one are you admitting?

There is a massive difference in the law between a situation where any single agency is impeded, and the rubicon of calling in the armed forces to do that job.

To label someone who is in favor of the reservation of the military being used on US soil in an active role to the stated "most extreme situations" as delineated in 10 USC 1246, the Insurrection Act, and few other places as 'a supporter or sympathizer of terrorism' is the epitome of stupid.

Im really fing sorry that the resources arent there for you to quell the ****** protests outside ICE facilities. That in no way brings the situation to calling up a State National Guard, let alone calling up a State National Guard without that state's cooperation and consent. Let alone bringing in troops from another state to another state again without the 'invaded' state's cooperation and consent.

That is the problem these days -- a really fked to **** view of federalism that the idiot right now readily and easily subscribes to.

And feels the need and overriding urge to labeling such federalism concerns as 'terrorist sympathizers'. What an amazing fked up asinine masterpiece of rhetoric.

So, which one? Or is it both?

Not a supporter of terrorists or terrorism.

Not a supporter of sending the US military into the streets on this, *or* for federalizing the Guard for this. *Unless* the target state governor and local authorities agree, and support that decision. Like what occurred in Memphis, mind you.

TN and Memphis said 'roll them in' -- thats all the legal predicate needed there. Not my job to second guess them.

And I support Trumps roll into DC. He is the actual commander of the DC Guard. The action was overblown imo, but still absolutely legal and proper.

And yes, it comes back to Do. It. The. Right. Way.

If the Chicago issue devolves to a Rodney King scenario - then the predicates are met. No sweat with that happening then.

Or if the Chicago police actively impedes the feds -- once again the predicate for *both* 10 usc 1246 *and* the Insurrection Act are met. And once again, no problem with rolling the military in.

Just saying it isnt a bright line 'if not a supporter of US military intervention at the current time in Portland and Chicago THEN an antifa supporter or antifa sympathizer.'
Just like it isnt a proper bright line by calling a critic of the Vietnam War at any time between '65 and '72 a 'communist', a commie sympathizer, or a Ho Chi Minh follower. One could easily be a critic of the Vietnam War without any of the former.

I simply dont agree with your former declaration of 'either /or'. Its simply a false premise, mainly because the only alternatives you present dont fit my viewpoint.

In fact, I have a stark disagreement with much of what that loose movement of antifa stands for in terms of 'end result' in the political system. The portion that I do agree with them is rooted in my very strong support of our Federalism and wish not to have an all powerful Executive. A subset that they seem to note quite prominently recently. And for the record, I will readily condemn any acts of violence perpetrated by them which are performed simply for the reason of creating violence in situations -- a history that they readily exhibit.

And yes, I know this is a subject part and parcel of your life. Its understandable how your response of 'either / or' might be an immediate response. But it is/ was just false.

And when you parse my position on mobilizing the military, it really is without any comment on the the actions and operations of ICE in the two cities. it simply is -- it doesnt appear to me that the legal basis is met, and that the introduction of the military is doen in an improper manner. End of story. With zero comment on any issue I might have with *some* of the manner that ICE and DHS operates in those cities (or others) at the present.

Thank you for the ratcheting down present in your last question.

"TN and Memphis said 'roll them in'"

You are wrong about what you just said. The people that run Memphis were against this in the beginning, no ifs or buts about it. The people that run Memphis are starting to get behind it after seeing the results. All said and done you need to get your facts in order.

great -- Memphis didnt want them. The point is who had the legal authority to implement them, mind you. But hey, thank you for that fairly irrelevant aside. Had you looked the issue was 'consent' and 'agreement'. I guess that thrust eludes you. Glad to know Memphis didnt want them.

Ill give you one guess who has the legal authority to make that call, champ. Which is the main point.

(10-09-2025 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2025 12:29 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  "TN and Memphis said 'roll them in'"

You are wrong about what you just said. The people that run Memphis were against this in the beginning, no ifs or buts about it. The people that run Memphis are starting to get behind it after seeing the results. All said and done you need to get your facts in order.

You beat me to it. Tanq says so many wrong things that if you aren't familiar with the specific situations, they can slide right by and sound legit.

I'm still trying to figure out if he knows it's wrong and tries to get away with it anyway, or if he really is that misinformed. It has to be one or the other.

He's a lawyer. He knows its wrong. Just advocating for his side. I've long had him on ignore. I rarely respond even when he's quoted. There's no rational discussion to be had when he's involved.