(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You were the one that said to use deadly force against looters and then Hambone came to your defense to say that you meant domestic terrorists. I specifically mentioned you in my subsequent comment to point out that I am pretty sure you know the difference between the two.

The looters that I saw in the videos looked pretty much like domestic terrorists to me.

Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

always murder with you, eh? How do you feel about abortion?

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You were the one that said to use deadly force against looters and then Hambone came to your defense to say that you meant domestic terrorists. I specifically mentioned you in my subsequent comment to point out that I am pretty sure you know the difference between the two.

The looters that I saw in the videos looked pretty much like domestic terrorists to me.

Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

always murder with you, eh? Any killing of a human being. How do you feel about abortion?

A lot of people think that is murder. I am not one of them. I do think it is a legal killing of a human being. But legal killings are not murder.

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You were the one that said to use deadly force against looters and then Hambone came to your defense to say that you meant domestic terrorists. I specifically mentioned you in my subsequent comment to point out that I am pretty sure you know the difference between the two.

The looters that I saw in the videos looked pretty much like domestic terrorists to me.

Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I wonder how many 'good people' there were in the mob that assaulted the 5th precinct building in Minneapolis tonight?

I wonder how Trump voters there were in the mob that looted and burned the post office and the Wells Fargo branch there?

If you listen to the people in Lafayette Park whom are throwing glass bottles, bricks, and liquids at the Secret Service officers in riot gear, it is all Trump's fault.

Amazing that it only took 3 and half years to reach Argentina level.

According to some, no, there is no such thing as TDS.

Goodness, nobody who reads this board denies there is TDS. I mean earlier today, we had a poster question if Trump really lies any more than Obama did.

Anyway,

Holy smokes....

watching the Governor of Minnesota on TV at 1:40 am admitting that they have the largest contingent of personnel that they can muster activated, and yet they are being 'overwhelmed'. (Yes, direct quote of 'overwhelmed' by the Governor).

He stated that they simply dont have enough personnel to maintain order, to enforce a curfew, or to arrest any rioters, looters, or arsonists.

I have never seen a Governor of a state in the United States note that they are in discussions with the Pentagon on what steps can be extended to bring this under control.

Baghdad in the United States it seems.

I am sure this is all Trump's fault for some. I note that the whack a mole has a post prior to this. I have the (myna)bird (I edited out my first word before 'bird') on 'ignore' now, but I will bet you dollars to donuts he is ranting about the riots and Trump. Hell, he's probably blaming Trump for the choke kneel on Floyd... Kind of his throw everything and the kitchen sink style.

Edited to add: in Q&A he came a razor's width from saying he is going to declare martial law in certain areas when asked about using Federal troops in the situation. he started talking in that direction, then suddenly just shut up on the subject, stating 'everything is on the table'.

Edited to add: Wow, he just popped over into stuff I have *never* heard a US Governor say. He just dropped a statement discussing the implications of invoking the Insurrection Act and the implications of the Posse Comitatus Act. Holy mother of god. This is a *Governor* of a state talking on live TV on this.... the fact that a US Governor is even mentioning these aspects, let alone noting they are 'discussing' them is absolutely amazing....


I am sure its Trumps fault.

In a similar vein:

Quote:The Pentagon took the rare step of ordering the Army to put several active-duty U.S. military police units on the ready to deploy to Minneapolis, where the police killing of George Floyd sparked the widespread protests.

Soldiers from Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Drum in New York have been ordered to be ready to deploy within four hours if called, according to three people with direct knowledge of the orders. Soldiers in Fort Carson, in Colorado, and Fort Riley in Kansas have been told to be ready within 24 hours. The people did not want their names used because they were not authorized to discuss the preparations.

Quote:The person said the military units would be deployed under the Insurrection Act of 1807,

Fox News print story

I just noted that the time on the story is right at the time the Governor of Minnesota went on air.

Im sure its all Trump's fault.

(05-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The looters that I saw in the videos looked pretty much like domestic terrorists to me.

Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I don't think the President of the United States should threaten to shoot looters. I argued that looting in general is not an offense that should be met with deadly force. I made it clear that I was discussing looting and not domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.

And you unsurprisingly took this and turned it into my somehow taking the position that this terrible situation rolling out all over the country does not need to be addressed? Like I think these rioters should just be allowed to burn down police buildings? With some ad homs thrown in for good measure even though you clutch pearls when others use them?

OK... looks like you had a big night last night. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You should probably get some sleep at this point.

(05-30-2020 07:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I don't think the President of the United States should threaten to shoot looters. I argued that looting in general is not an offense that should be met with deadly force. I made it clear that I was discussing looting and not domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.

And you unsurprisingly took this and turned it into my somehow taking the position that this terrible situation rolling out all over the country does not need to be addressed? Like I think these rioters should just be allowed to burn down police buildings? With some ad homs thrown in for good measure even though you clutch pearls when others use them?

OK... looks like you had a big night last night. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You should probably get some sleep at this point.

Yeah, and the difference between you and me is that for some strange reason I think the threat of force is something that needs to be on the table in the face of uncontrolled rioting and the literal breakdown of civil order like we see in the Twin Cities. You ostensibly disagree.

First, I am not questioning whether you care if something is done -- that is your bull**** construct. You may very well 'want it to be addressed'. I am not challenging that.

I *am* asking you what the fk you would do? I mean, the threat of force is off the table because, you know, Trump Statement Bad.

So please do tell what you would do? Its an honest question, not a statement that you 'dont care' like you cry about above.

I like the fine line you are dancing. Based on a previous question of 'which rioters would you shoot' I would surmise that the rioting per se is off your table, yet 'domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.' are not. What is the difference between a domestic terrorist and the shitbirds that are ransacking businesses en masse with the cover of large scale civil unrest? I hope that you note that the act of ransacking by itself promotes such large scale civil unrest as a byproduct.

I am sure that you will work extra extra hard to make sure that 'looting' in no way adds to the civil unrest in a riot, solely to preserve that Orange Man Bad status that you work so hard to bleat.

Your laundry list that you put out that you say you are fine with force being used, you do realize that list pretty much covers all of the attributes of a riot -- that is all but the one that Trump mentioned. Imagine that, your one sole and solitary problem with the threat of force just *magically* happens to be the one singular attribute of a riot that Trump called out. Amazing coincidence there. Who says this isnt a magical world. Cha cha cha.

(05-30-2020 07:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 07:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I don't think the President of the United States should threaten to shoot looters. I argued that looting in general is not an offense that should be met with deadly force. I made it clear that I was discussing looting and not domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.

And you unsurprisingly took this and turned it into my somehow taking the position that this terrible situation rolling out all over the country does not need to be addressed? Like I think these rioters should just be allowed to burn down police buildings? With some ad homs thrown in for good measure even though you clutch pearls when others use them?

OK... looks like you had a big night last night. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You should probably get some sleep at this point.

Yeah, and the difference between you and me is that for some strange reason I think the threat of force is something that needs to be on the table in the face of uncontrolled rioting and the literal breakdown of civil order like we see in the Twin Cities. You ostensibly disagree.

First, I am not questioning whether you care if something is done -- that is your bull**** construct. You may very well 'want it to be addressed'. I am not challenging that.

I *am* asking you what the fk you would do? I mean, the threat of force is off the table because, you know, Trump Statement Bad.

So please do tell what you would do? Its an honest question, not a statement that you 'dont care' like you cry about above.

I like the fine line you are dancing. Based on a previous question of 'which rioters would you shoot' I would surmise that the rioting per se is off your table, yet 'domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.' are not. What is the difference between a domestic terrorist and the shitbirds that are ransacking businesses en masse with the cover of large scale civil unrest? I hope that you note that the act of ransacking by itself promotes such large scale civil unrest as a byproduct.

I am sure that you will work extra extra hard to make sure that 'looting' in no way adds to the civil unrest in a riot, solely to preserve that Orange Man Bad status that you work so hard to bleat. I mean, with your laundry list that you put out, that pretty much covers all of the attributes of a riot, except for the one that Trump mentioned. Imagine that, your one sole problem with the threat of force just *magically* happens to be the one sole attribute of a riot that Trump called out. Amazing coincidence there.

Look at the toxic language that you use. Not sure why I would choose to engage in a conversation on this topic when you behave this way.

Better idea... I'll go make some sourdough and you continue down this line of telling me exactly what I think and then responding to those thoughts. I imagine you could go another twelve hours down this path. Have a great Saturday!

(05-30-2020 08:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 07:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 07:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I don't think the President of the United States should threaten to shoot looters. I argued that looting in general is not an offense that should be met with deadly force. I made it clear that I was discussing looting and not domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.

And you unsurprisingly took this and turned it into my somehow taking the position that this terrible situation rolling out all over the country does not need to be addressed? Like I think these rioters should just be allowed to burn down police buildings? With some ad homs thrown in for good measure even though you clutch pearls when others use them?

OK... looks like you had a big night last night. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You should probably get some sleep at this point.

Yeah, and the difference between you and me is that for some strange reason I think the threat of force is something that needs to be on the table in the face of uncontrolled rioting and the literal breakdown of civil order like we see in the Twin Cities. You ostensibly disagree.

First, I am not questioning whether you care if something is done -- that is your bull**** construct. You may very well 'want it to be addressed'. I am not challenging that.

I *am* asking you what the fk you would do? I mean, the threat of force is off the table because, you know, Trump Statement Bad.

So please do tell what you would do? Its an honest question, not a statement that you 'dont care' like you cry about above.

I like the fine line you are dancing. Based on a previous question of 'which rioters would you shoot' I would surmise that the rioting per se is off your table, yet 'domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.' are not. What is the difference between a domestic terrorist and the shitbirds that are ransacking businesses en masse with the cover of large scale civil unrest? I hope that you note that the act of ransacking by itself promotes such large scale civil unrest as a byproduct.

I am sure that you will work extra extra hard to make sure that 'looting' in no way adds to the civil unrest in a riot, solely to preserve that Orange Man Bad status that you work so hard to bleat. I mean, with your laundry list that you put out, that pretty much covers all of the attributes of a riot, except for the one that Trump mentioned. Imagine that, your one sole problem with the threat of force just *magically* happens to be the one sole attribute of a riot that Trump called out. Amazing coincidence there.

Look at the toxic language that you use. Not sure why I would choose to engage in a conversation on this topic when you behave this way.

Better idea... I'll go make some sourdough and you continue down this line of telling me exactly what I think and then responding to those thoughts. I imagine you could go another twelve hours down this path. Have a great Saturday!

I have asked you some simple questions. You seemingly cannot answer them. Amazing that. Your choice entirely to run away from those questions, which you take. Good job....

When something beyond 'Orange Man Bad' is required you...... pack up your bags and leave. I am in awe.

Just noting that the questions asked are still out there when you deign to bother to answer them (or even attempt to do so), but I dont think I'll be holding my breath on that (unlikely) event.

(05-30-2020 12:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wonder how many 'good people' there were in the mob that assaulted the 5th precinct building in Minneapolis tonight?

According to the way I have defined "good people", there were probably some. Maybe a lot.

But the leftists here make fun of my definition of 'good people' and turn a deaf ear to any discussion of it. Good/bad turns one one thing, and is contagious from the company one keeps, so the only question for the leftists, is looting, burning, and rioting in opposition to racism good or bad?

If forced to answer, I think their mouths will say one thing but their hearts will say another.

(05-30-2020 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  certain areas

"certain areas"? Isn't that racist?

(05-30-2020 07:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I don't think the President of the United States should threaten to shoot looters. I argued that looting in general is not an offense that should be met with deadly force. I made it clear that I was discussing looting and not domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.

And you unsurprisingly took this and turned it into my somehow taking the position that this terrible situation rolling out all over the country does not need to be addressed? Like I think these rioters should just be allowed to burn down police buildings? With some ad homs thrown in for good measure even though you clutch pearls when others use them?

OK... looks like you had a big night last night. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You should probably get some sleep at this point.

93, I notice that you confine your comments to "looters", as though they were somehow different from the rioters and arsonists. They are all different aspects of the same crowd. Not everyone protesting is a looter, and not every looter is an arsonist, but as y'all have pointed out in the Charlottesville discussions, you are known by the company you keep.

How do you use the threat of being arrested to calm the riot, if they know you cannot/will not? How do you back up that threat with the gun on your hip if they know they are forbidden to use it? IMO, that is all that is meant when the Prez says when the looting starts, the shooting starts - that life and property will be protected from the forces of anarchy to the full ability of law enforcement. It was not a directive to shoot on sight, as you and the MSM are making it out to be. It was not a directive at all. It was saying we will do what is necessary, do not make us do that.


I am interested to hear from you what the left-wing contingent thinks should be the reaction and reply to the rioting, arson, vandalism, and (eventually), killing of bystanders and/or cops.

Our law enforcement have firearms for a reason. It is the last resort for deadly situations and/or to protect people from further lawbreaking.

And now a question for the lefties - why do left wing protests so often involve rioting, mayhem, arson, etc., and right wing protests are so peaceful and organized? What is it about progressives that leads them straight to violence?

This is not a protest

Not my words, this time, but those of a black female mayor being touted for VP. (because she is black and female, natch)

(05-30-2020 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so the only question for the leftists, is looting, burning, and rioting in opposition to racism good or bad?

But threat of force is proper for arson and 'domestic terrorism', maybe for 'rioting', but completely off the table for 'looting' according to some here.

Funny thing is that Governor Walz just this morning directly said the course of conduct of last night, and explicitly noted the burning, the shots fired, *and* the looting, as 'domestic terrorism'.

So I am horribly confused --- threat of force for looting BAD. Threat of force for domestic terrorism that speaker is all on board with.

I noted the continued acts of looting are, in the course of a riot situation or civil unrest, equivalent to domestic terrorism. And I asked him to note that issue and give us his esteemed opinion on the difference. He ran away, apparently.

In light of that question, interestingly Governor Walz of Minnesota addressed that directly just a short while ago -- he said that the "current looting" in the course of this is explicitly "domestic terrorism."

I guess if I were that speaker I would start to be a little confused now. But heavens to mercy, how dare I make that assumption; how horrible of me.

Walz revealed that he has now fully mobilized the Minnesota National Guard -- it has never before been fully mobilized. And, he noted that Governors of adjacent states will be supplying further National Guard help.

More pointedly, he has promised to meet this specific "domestic terrorism" with "overwhelming force". Hmmm... he says that the continued 'looting' is part of that 'domestic terrorism" issue.

Maybe perhaps we should now have Walz Man Bad as an an adjunct hue and cry. Perhaps that wont happen.