(05-30-2020 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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?

I think I hear Del Shannon warming up.

(05-30-2020 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl 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.

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.

OO, I was specific about "looters" because that's the term that Trump used in his tweet. And, especially in light of the powder keg were were/are sitting on, I felt that his hyperbolic language when it came to violence was an extremely bad idea.

Specific to looters, Owl#'s and I then had the following exchange (sorry, not sure how to embed past quotes):

Me: Separate this from the Minnesota situation. If a policeman sees a crook running out of a store with a stolen TV are you OK with said policeman killing that crook?

Owl#s: Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.

So I tried to drill down on that as I was surprised that he thinks that cops should shoot looters in general.

It was then made out to be that my thinking that the use of deadly force against looters (cops being judge, jury, and executioner as Lad said) somehow equated to a complete cluelessness as to how force is sometimes required in riots like we have going on currently. Yes... force is sometimes required when things get out of control. Even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened. Of course I get that.

Quote:President Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from acts of violence in communities across America, dismissing critics who point to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration or comfort for anyone acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate.

"I think my rhetoric brings people together," he said last year, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others.


But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/blam...d=58912889

protest "movement"

The police never stand up for us,” Mr. Green said, sipping on a beer. “With the Covid pandemic people are hungry and homeless. With no job, what do you expect? I think that’s going to happen to masses of people across this country. We could reach the point that it’s civil war.”

Civil war? Will 93 be OK with shooting then?

(05-30-2020 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl 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.

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.

OO, I was specific about "looters" because that's the term that Trump used in his tweet. And, especially in light of the powder keg were were/are sitting on, I felt that his hyperbolic language when it came to violence was an extremely bad idea.

Specific to looters, Owl#'s and I then had the following exchange (sorry, not sure how to embed past quotes):

Me: Separate this from the Minnesota situation. If a policeman sees a crook running out of a store with a stolen TV are you OK with said policeman killing that crook?

Owl#s: Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.

So I tried to drill down on that as I was surprised that he thinks that cops should shoot looters in general.

It was then made out to be that my thinking that the use of deadly force against looters (cops being judge, jury, and executioner as Lad said) somehow equated to a complete cluelessness as to how force is sometimes required in riots like we have going on currently. Yes... force is sometimes required when things get out of control. Even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened. Of course I get that.

First, glad you finally got the attribution on that statement right. I was tired of you saying it was me.

So, what part of Trump's statement makes you think he meant for police to shoot looters, but not arsonists? Ke did not mention arsonists at all did he? Must be OK with them.

He wanted to make a catchy rhyme, that's all. You take it literally.

This is what happens when, some of the time, you take his statement literally, and the rest of them, interpret them, with the results always being the same - bad for Trump.

Here's the way I see this working: Rioters enter a Target store and start looting. Cops say "stop or we'll shoot". At that point, the looters reply can be either "yessir" or "no you won't". If the threat of actually going to the last degree is absent,so is compliance. The deterrent doesn't deter.

I think this is another mountain the left has made out a molehill, because it suits their narrative in an election year when no issue, no goal, is above "get Trump".

Now, tell me, why are left "protests" so often violent, and right wing protest so rarely violent?

still calling them protesters

"Protesters in Houston blocked highway entrances and threw objects at officers at the end of what had been a day of largely peaceful demonstrations."

"After a brief melee, a police patrol car was spray-painted and a demonstrator leapt onto another one. First, a few rocks flew toward police, followed by bottles. An officer on a loudspeaker warned the throng to disperse or be arrested, then the gas flew. The demonstrators then turned their attention to Interstate 35E on the western edge of downtown, where dozens blocked traffic."

So, 93,if you had been caught in the "protests' and your car attacked, would you still be sympathetic? i would be scared to death.

BTW, can you send me some of that sourdough bread?

BTW, it will be slightly less impossible for people of color to get ID now. Maybe they can drop by on their way to or from a protest.

(05-30-2020 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  still calling them protesters

"Protesters in Houston blocked highway entrances and threw objects at officers at the end of what had been a day of largely peaceful demonstrations."

"After a brief melee, a police patrol car was spray-painted and a demonstrator leapt onto another one. First, a few rocks flew toward police, followed by bottles. An officer on a loudspeaker warned the throng to disperse or be arrested, then the gas flew. The demonstrators then turned their attention to Interstate 35E on the western edge of downtown, where dozens blocked traffic."

So, 93,if you had been caught in the "protests' and your car attacked, would you still be sympathetic? i would be scared to death.

BTW, can you send me some of that sourdough bread?

Please point out to me exactly where I expressed sympathy for the rioters/protesters.

DM me your address. Fair warning, it is a work in progress.

(05-30-2020 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  OO, I was specific about "looters" because that's the term that Trump used in his tweet.

Reason #1 at the forefront. Lolz.

Quote:Yes... force is sometimes required when things get out of control. Even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened. Of course I get that.

So in the context of last night, I guess thing weren't 'out of control' enough for you?

And then you also seemingly note that deadly force is *only* proper 'when innocent lives are threatened.'

What we are seeing now is the biggest threat to civil order in our country undoubtedly in the last 50 years; maybe even the last 150 years.

And your statement of "even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened" really is somewhat opaque. In an instance of civil lawlessness on vast scope (like last night), the mere act of the continued, endemic, and lawless actions foster a threat to 'lives'.

How does the team of ten cops act when they face a mob of hundreds, some of whom are streaming out with TVs, some of whom destroying property, and some of whom are tossing gas bombs here and there. Does your selective dogma of 'only when innocent lives are threatened' make much sense there?

The *real* danger (and the most substantial danger) of a riot (or continued civil disobedience) isnt simply 'a fire', or simply a 'beating', or simply a 'shot fired'.

The most pressing danger to the society is the fact of continued lawlessness.

And that is something that you dont seem horribly aware of, or have much concern over. *That* is the point that is germane to your nitpick behavior of 'looting' no force, 'rioting' maybe force, 'domestic terrorism (whatever the heck that is) definitely force', 'arson perhaps force' view of the issue.

Each of those individually has a 'danger to society', perhaps a 'danger to life' associated with it. In the midst of mass civil unrest, the danger of each of the above goes *far* beyond the danger of the individual act.

But you consistently try to avoid that context. I have a decent guess as to why. Three letters.

Do you have an issue with Governor Walz's promise to meet looting with 'overwhelming force'? If you are up in arms over Trump's tweet, you really should be just as torqued up over that one, mind you.

Walz is a Democrat. His statements need no interpretation.

(05-30-2020 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Walz is a Democrat. His statements need no interpretation. isnt Trump. QED

FIFY

(05-30-2020 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Walz is a Democrat. His statements need no interpretation. isnt Trump. QED

FIFY

It works either way.

(05-30-2020 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  OO, I was specific about "looters" because that's the term that Trump used in his tweet.

Reason #1 at the forefront. Lolz.

Quote:Yes... force is sometimes required when things get out of control. Even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened. Of course I get that.

So in the context of last night, I guess thing weren't 'out of control' enough for you?

And then you also seemingly note that deadly force is *only* proper 'when innocent lives are threatened.'

What we are seeing now is the biggest threat to civil order in our country undoubtedly in the last 50 years; maybe even the last 150 years.

And your statement of "even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened" really is somewhat opaque. In an instance of civil lawlessness on vast scope (like last night), the mere act of the continued, endemic, and lawless actions foster a threat to 'lives'.

How does the team of ten cops act when they face a mob of hundreds, some of whom are streaming out with TVs, some of whom destroying property, and some of whom are tossing gas bombs here and there. Does your selective dogma of 'only when innocent lives are threatened' make much sense there?

The *real* danger (and the most substantial danger) of a riot (or continued civil disobedience) isnt simply 'a fire', or simply a 'beating', or simply a 'shot fired'.

The most pressing danger to the society is the fact of continued lawlessness.

And that is something that you dont seem horribly aware of, or have much concern over. *That* is the point that is germane to your nitpick behavior of 'looting' no force, 'rioting' maybe force, 'domestic terrorism (whatever the heck that is) definitely force', 'arson perhaps force' view of the issue.

Each of those individually has a 'danger to society', perhaps a 'danger to life' associated with it. In the midst of mass civil unrest, the danger of each of the above goes *far* beyond the danger of the individual act.

But you consistently try to avoid that context. I have a decent guess as to why. Three letters.

Do you have an issue with Governor Walz's promise to meet looting with 'overwhelming force'? If you are up in arms over Trump's tweet, you really should be just as torqued up over that one, mind you.

What was Walz’s exact quote?

By the way, I was exceptionally impressed with the Secret Service at the White House last night. When bricks are thrown, that is very much use of life threatening force. The restraint shown by the Secret Service was superhuman.

Note I did not commend the DC police force. They were not there. There are conflicting reports of why not.

Perhaps it is related to the Chicago mayor's comment to Trump yesterday.

In that comment she accused Trump's tweet on 'looting' as: "His goal is to polarize, to destabilize local government and inflame racist urges. We can absolutely not let him prevail. And I will code what I really want to say to Donald Trump. It’s two words. It begins with F and it ends with U.”

I guess that isnt polarizing or inciteful in and of itself. Not at all.

Funny, Minnesota is now asking for Federal troops. I guess that racist, destabilization conspiracy is going smashingly well.

Minnesota attorney general and former deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee Keith Ellison, yesterday, his opening remarks at a press conference: “[a] riot is the way the unheard get heard.”

(05-30-2020 10:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  still calling them protesters

"Protesters in Houston blocked highway entrances and threw objects at officers at the end of what had been a day of largely peaceful demonstrations."

"After a brief melee, a police patrol car was spray-painted and a demonstrator leapt onto another one. First, a few rocks flew toward police, followed by bottles. An officer on a loudspeaker warned the throng to disperse or be arrested, then the gas flew. The demonstrators then turned their attention to Interstate 35E on the western edge of downtown, where dozens blocked traffic."

So, 93,if you had been caught in the "protests' and your car attacked, would you still be sympathetic? i would be scared to death.

BTW, can you send me some of that sourdough bread?

Please point out to me exactly where I expressed sympathy for the rioters/protesters.

DM me your address. Fair warning, it is a work in progress.

Just kidding. Don't take me literally, bro. I live 350 miles from Houston, where I assume you are. But the mere mention of sourdough made me lick my lips.

Your sympathy is implied. Doesn't have to be literal. 'Oh, don't shoot those people. All they are doing is looting."

I have spoken to a couple of other libs, who chorus "yeah, they shouldn't be doing that, but you have to consider ...". Making excuses. hey, they're mad. Somehow, that excuse is not accepted in DV situations.

Joe Biden's condemnation Friday: "This is a national crisis," Biden said. "We need real leadership right now. Leadership that will bring everyone to the table so we can take measures to root out systemic racism."

Joe Biden's condemnation of the violence to this point: (crickets)

Barack Obama's comment Friday on the death of Floyd: a full page.

Obama's mention of the violence that has ensued: (crickets)

All leading Democrats on the violence - crickets.

The rioters and arsonists are the exact same people they want to turn out and vote this fall. Can't alienate the voters by criticizing their behavior.

Biden, yesterday on the issues of systemic injustice:

“[This[ is going to require those of us who sit in some position of influence to finally deal with the abuse of power."

“With our complacency, our silence, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence.”

Uhh...... wasnt he Vice President for eight years? Wasnt he a US Senator for 34(?) years previous?

Who, exactly wrote the 1994 crime bill? You know, the one that the left now hates?

"you aint black"