(06-03-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

Got it. The National Review article is basically a compendium of the official Park Police statement. Any chance that the Park Police official statement could be prone to bias?

Perhaps you dont even note the Arlington County corroboration on those points. Funny that.

Quote:

Quote:As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

I thought I saw photos of cops in gas masks? I'll look when I have time. In any case it looks like we agree that it wasn't "smoke only" as you originally said.

And you seemingly insist that pepper balls are equivalent. The gas released as a wide dispersal was smoke only. And no, we dont agree that it "wasnt smoke only". I suggest you actually read. And, by the way, there are absolutely huge differences between pepper ball use and tear gas. Please read before you squawk. It might help.

Please link to the comment where I said they were the same thing. Are you saying that "just smoke" and pepper balls are equivalent?

(06-03-2020 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/rebtanhs/status/1267...60418?s=20

"Moreover, Washington Post reporters at the demonstration, including metro reporter Rebecca Tan, photographed National Guard members (though not Park Police officers) wearing gas masks, “moments before authorities started firing.” That certainly suggests they were preparing to deploy tear gas."

National Guard members but perhaps not cops.

When a force uses tear gas -- everyone on the side that employs it uses gas masks.

There are hundreds of photos of cops in the park without gas masks.

But please keep beating that drum.

Perhaps there wasn't time for adequate coordination among all units providing security? Sounds like it was a bit of a clusterf***. Why were the National Guard wearing masks? If there was a threat of chemical use from the protesters shouldn't the park police have been using masks as well?

(06-03-2020 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First of all, the photo I posted is from a right-wing protest, where protestors were in the face of law enforcement.

Look again at your photo. The guy with the beard is 'between' two cops... yelling at (I suspect) a legislator behind them. He is not waiving anything at anyone. He is not physically threatening the cops. They may be there, but I don't see any bats or sticks or rocks or umbrellas or water balloons or anything else. I don't even see any raised arms.

so your own photo demonstrates a loud, but peaceful protest.

The minute that guy picks up a stick, or engages in actions that makes the police feel that they, or the people they are protecting are being physically threatened, the rules of engagement for the police will change.

I'm not going to get too deep into the pointless argument about whether 'on the average' the left or right is more violent... but I think it pretty clear that the majority of the violence we're seeing today is coming from the left. Heck, even the whole 'no justice, no peace' chant implies violence as opposed to peaceful protest.

You’ve seen the images of these protestors with guns, right? Certainly more dangerous than a stick of umbrella.

My overall point is that there seems to be two issues driving the increase in violence between right-wing and left-wing protests. One is that there are more instigators involved with the left-wing protests. The other is that LEO’s appear to be far more willing to proactively engage left-wing protestors and use force, which escalates the situation.

My comment to OO was to show that right-wing protests can get testy and they can involve people brandishing dangerous weapons. Yet LEO’s act appropriately and don’t escalate.

(06-03-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way, you seem to want to go off on tangent about the use of pepperballs. I suggest you look it up, and then compare the use of a pepperball to the use of tear gas.

Hint: one is a specific target incapacitant.

The other is a wide dispersal incapacitant *and* wide area clearing agent. And when I say "wide" I mean one canister will knock the crap out of a street for about 20 yards upwind and about a block+ downwind. 3 canisters and the entirety of Lafayette Square is cleared out, and anyone unprotected in that space is so overcome with snot, saliva, and tears that they literally cannot think of anything else. The reason why the cops need both protective clothing *and* gas masks when using tear gas. Makes pepper spray look like a little kids birthday party with gossamer unicorns and elves throwing cotton candy in the air.

I will leave it up to you to figure which is which.

So yes, I did omit pepper balls. If you know what the fk one is, you wont wonder why that was omitted. Apparently you meet the test of not knowing what the fk one is, yet try to note that as a significant issue.

Comparing these items and trying to equate them as comparable is as 'enlightened' as a noting semi-automatic long rifles as "military style weapons".

I would put pepper balls somewhere on the continuum between "just smoke" and "tear gas".

From this link: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local...7d908139dd


“Tear gas” is a broad term, often defined as a synthetic chemical irritant. Pepper spray is a naturally derived chemical irritant that causes many effects similar to that of common types of tear gas, including temporary blindness and a burning sensation in the nose. Which means that, even if tear gas was technically not used — a claim that isn’t settled fact for reasons I’ll get into in a minute — police still used a very similar chemical weapon against peaceful protesters.

Still, facts matter, so the question of whether they used tear gas or not is important.

Nathan Baca, a reporter for WUSA9 in Washington, DC, picked up a canister used during the Monday assault. It’s not a smoke canister, but it does launch “OC” gas which “Causes same tears, tight breath and comes out green,” he reported.

The specific product used is a CM Skat Shell made by Defense Technology that "is widely used as a crowd management tool for the rapid and broad deployment of chemical agent," according to the company's website.

The OC gas causes the same tears and tight breath as tear gas, and comes out green.

"A paper in the British Medical Journal about riot control talks about different gas canisters.

Both natural OC and Tear Gas, which is an artificial compound that goes by the acronyms CS and CN gas, cause the same symptoms and have similar toxicity and health risks, according to the doctors writing that study.

The study shares that significant clinical effects are not anticipated when people come in contact with OC, CS or CN gas."

Funny, it doesnt note the fact that a pepper ball dispersal is highly limited in space.

Everyone admits pepper balls were used. They cause those symptoms to the person the ball strikes, and about a foot in either direction.

Again, they are an *individual* incapacitant. Think of it as macing an specific ******* in a crowd. And yes, it is absolutely a 'crowd management' tool. Funny that. It puts down individuals on an almost individualized basis.

You shoot one, and it throws down one person into a snot ball -- almost immediately. The rest around him smell the irritant, see their neighbor snotting himself, and run.

And, once anyone in the crowd starts to resist in a violent manner, you pop it out.

Or, if they are told to move along, and they dont, you use it as a very small, very selective indication of what you could do to clear them out. Again, I suggest you look into what a pepper ball is and how it is used -- that is a little bit more than a 10 sec google search. And, please dont use your 10 sec. google search to try and equate the use of pepper balls to tear gas on a crowd.

Gas was released on the crowd. Smoke.

Pepper balls were used in highly localized areas. In the manner they were intended and designed to be used.

But, please keep beating that drum.

Maybe if you tap your ruby slippers together three times your attempts to make 'pepper balls' into using tear gas as a wide area dispersion agent will succeed.

(06-03-2020 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First of all, the photo I posted is from a right-wing protest, where protestors were in the face of law enforcement.

Look again at your photo. The guy with the beard is 'between' two cops... yelling at (I suspect) a legislator behind them. He is not waiving anything at anyone. He is not physically threatening the cops. They may be there, but I don't see any bats or sticks or rocks or umbrellas or water balloons or anything else. I don't even see any raised arms.

so your own photo demonstrates a loud, but peaceful protest.

The minute that guy picks up a stick, or engages in actions that makes the police feel that they, or the people they are protecting are being physically threatened, the rules of engagement for the police will change.

I'm not going to get too deep into the pointless argument about whether 'on the average' the left or right is more violent... but I think it pretty clear that the majority of the violence we're seeing today is coming from the left. Heck, even the whole 'no justice, no peace' chant implies violence as opposed to peaceful protest.

You’ve seen the images of these protestors with guns, right? Certainly more dangerous than a stick of umbrella.

My overall point is that there seems to be two issues driving the increase in violence between right-wing and left-wing protests. One is that there are more instigators involved with the left-wing protests. The other is that LEO’s appear to be far more willing to proactively engage left-wing protestors and use force, which escalates the situation.

My comment to OO was to show that right-wing protests can get testy and they can involve people brandishing dangerous weapons. Yet LEO’s act appropriately and don’t escalate.

Maybe its because the right wingers dont go ape **** as a general rule. Standing around with a (horrors) gun in the Michigan State house is an absolutely legal activity.

Left wingers in that situation seemingly start down the violence path. Again --- Berkeley (many times), Sacramento (at least twice), Portland (numerous times), Seattle (numerous times), Ferguson, Baltimore, NYC (many times preceding this week).

Now we have the week long orgy of violence based in leftist protests.

Almost all of the above had zero instigation by police -- the moves were all on the 'protesters'.

But now you seemingly say, 'well golly gee willikers its only because LAW ENFORCEMENT ESCALATION' that the aforementioned happened. That doesnt fit the historical factual record.

(06-03-2020 04:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/rebtanhs/status/1267...60418?s=20

"Moreover, Washington Post reporters at the demonstration, including metro reporter Rebecca Tan, photographed National Guard members (though not Park Police officers) wearing gas masks, “moments before authorities started firing.” That certainly suggests they were preparing to deploy tear gas."

National Guard members but perhaps not cops.

When a force uses tear gas -- everyone on the side that employs it uses gas masks.

There are hundreds of photos of cops in the park without gas masks.

But please keep beating that drum.

Perhaps there wasn't time for adequate coordination among all units providing security? Sounds like it was a bit of a clusterf***. Why were the National Guard wearing masks? If there was a threat of chemical use from the protesters shouldn't the park police have been using masks as well?

Dude -- what does it take? If there was even a single tear gas canister used in that park, *anyone* caught out in that park unprotected would either be running for the next block, or be face down on the street in a pile of saliva, tears, and snot, or standing around helplessly, likely somewhat blinded temporarily, and hoping to heaven that someone had a massive stream of water to wash out their eyes and face.

God almighty, you seem amazingly dead set that tear gas is some mild mannered thing that causes just a slight incapacitation. It isnt that. It renders anyone in a very large dispersion area fundamentally unable to function, sometimes unable to even stand up.

The pictures of the park, with many cops/guards without masks, and hardly any 'occupiers' without masks still functioning in a normal manner says that no tear gas was used.

Seriously, tear gas really fks you up. It literally incapacitates you in almost every sense of the word.

But, you still keep bringing up these 'what abouts' (like above) when you simply do nto understand what tear gas does. Got it. You have an serious urge deep in those trousers of yours to score some TDS points, and by god you are *not* going to give up that opportunity.

And bluntly, everyone on a police force, and everyone who has served in the military gets the 'gas treatment' -- it is part of basic. They pop a can in large tent with the trainees inside, and tell them they get a steak dinner if they can stand in there for 15 secs. No one ever gets that steak, mind you.

So no, the cops and military *all* know how powerful the stuff is.

But, and again, please keep beating that drum.

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Birds-eye view: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comment..._happened/

Pink umbrella up close: https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1...68161?s=21

Umbrellas were likely meant to protect from projectiles/gas.

Ah, good. two views of one umbrella.

What I infer from this are two things:

1. the cop (singular) got tired of having the umbrella poked in his face. hardly instigation.

2. The protesters came prepared for battle.

I didn't see the Russians or the KKK.

What were they protesting, anyway?

Weird deflection there at the end.

So if a cop gets tired of me having something they can just confiscate it? The point of that video shows how law enforcement can escalate a peaceful protest into one that isn’t. One cops decision to grab an umbrella led to another pepper spraying the crowd, which led to the crowd reacting and more cops pepper spraying, which led to pandemonium.

Imagine if, during a right-wing protest, a cop got tired of a protestors yelling in their face, and move swiftly to subdue the individual. There is a good chance similar pandemonium would break out.



Again, I see two issues that clearly occur. Left-wing protests have been more likely to have people get violent. Cops at left-wing protests have been more likely to escalate the situation.

Sorry you see it as a deflection. I was just wondering what what being protested.

Still don't know.

So, this statement of your is biased and slanted:

"So if a cop gets tired of me having something they can just confiscate it?"

I don't think the cop was tired of her having an umbrella. Kind of a silly viewpoint. Really have to twist around to get to that viewpoint. I think he was tired of having it waved in his face.

But once again, you leftists are trying to make a single incident expand to cover all behavior by all police everywhere every time.

Yeah, if a right wing protester is yelling in a cop's face,I would expect eventually a reaction. I wouldn't think the cop was out of line for that. But it seems the RW protesters don't get in the cop's faces. Maybe that is the difference.

I know if I were to go to a right wing rally - maybe against high taxes - and there were cops there, I would look at them as there to protect me (from left wingers, who are prone to physical violence). I would feel no danger from them, and they would feel no danger from me. Thus no confrontation, no "instigation".

Typical of the left to blame cops for doing their job.

First of all, the photo I posted is from a right-wing protest, where protestors were in the face of law enforcement.

And I’ve been very clear that I’ve been talking about HOW the police do their job, not whether or not they do it. There are 1,000 ways to skin a cat, and some of those are more appropriate than others. LEOs carry a very heavy burden, and part of that is being able to determine the most appropriate action for a situation.

Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Finally, why lie and say left wingers are prone to violence?

Now that is FUNNNNNY, Lad accusing me of lying.

But on to some non-left wing violence...defend this, Lad

(06-03-2020 01:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Really? I dont see much support for Chauvin here. I suggest the following is better statement:

Typical of the right to support LEOs *when* they are performing lawful actions.

Sorry, your 'regardless of their actions' is another way too extreme exaggeration. But you are seemingly on that 'upcharge the comment to ridiculous levels' to a certain extent lately (i.e. the 'support war crimes' comment.)

It is a bald faced lie.

Just so our resident progressive are crystal clear on the effects of tear gas. Note that concentration in the room is achieved by a *very* small amount of smoke from the source. The levels that the recruits are experiencing is what one might expect 30 - 40 yards from a canister shot and smoking for about 5-10 secs.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekhB1WjLi4

No. No tear gas canisters were used in Lafayette Park. Nor anything anywhere in the same zip code. Notwithstanding 93's continued protestations to the contrary.

Perhaps the next step in this discussion is 93 saying the tear gas employed was 'nuanced'. Or perhaps the area limited irritant in the pepper ball is 'grossly overpowered'. He seems to make the steps to 'nuance' and 'inadequate' as a general course for retreat, so I wont be wholly surprised to hear him deign the irritant at Lafayette Park as such -- and those terms have the added cover of providing enough rhetorical angst *along* with the subjective determination of the speaker that must be taken at their face value.

I do like his retreat from Moscow 'no warning' to the highly and wholly subjective *and* indeterminate 'inadequate warning'. Kind of par for the course. Maybe we should start a 'nuance' countdown. My over/under is 5 days.

(06-03-2020 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Really? I dont see much support for Chauvin here. I suggest the following is better statement:

Typical of the right to support LEOs *when* they are performing lawful actions.

Sorry, your 'regardless of their actions' is another way too extreme exaggeration. But you are seemingly on that 'upcharge the comment to ridiculous levels' to a certain extent lately (i.e. the 'support war crimes' comment.)

It is a bald faced lie.

Did you not get I was mirroring your comment “typical of the left to blame cops for doing their jobs?”

(06-03-2020 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Really? I dont see much support for Chauvin here. I suggest the following is better statement:

Typical of the right to support LEOs *when* they are performing lawful actions.

Sorry, your 'regardless of their actions' is another way too extreme exaggeration. But you are seemingly on that 'upcharge the comment to ridiculous levels' to a certain extent lately (i.e. the 'support war crimes' comment.)

It is a bald faced lie.

Did you not get I was mirroring your comment “typical of the left to blame cops for doing their jobs?”

No, just thought you were lying again.

(06-03-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Really? I dont see much support for Chauvin here. I suggest the following is better statement:

Typical of the right to support LEOs *when* they are performing lawful actions.

Sorry, your 'regardless of their actions' is another way too extreme exaggeration. But you are seemingly on that 'upcharge the comment to ridiculous levels' to a certain extent lately (i.e. the 'support war crimes' comment.)

It is a bald faced lie.

Did you not get I was mirroring your comment “typical of the left to blame cops for doing their jobs?”

No, just thought you were lying again.

Yeah, I was being equally absurd given that this clearly is not a commentary about LEO’s just doing their jobs.

I found the following comment relating to the Rod Rosenstein testimony amazingly on point:

Quote: It’s a pretty grave thing to spy on an American citizen, to violate his Fourth Amendment rights, to not have a basis to do so, and to rely on a Russian dossier full of lies as the justification.

(06-03-2020 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Really? I dont see much support for Chauvin here. I suggest the following is better statement:

Typical of the right to support LEOs *when* they are performing lawful actions.

Sorry, your 'regardless of their actions' is another way too extreme exaggeration. But you are seemingly on that 'upcharge the comment to ridiculous levels' to a certain extent lately (i.e. the 'support war crimes' comment.)

It is a bald faced lie.

Did you not get I was mirroring your comment “typical of the left to blame cops for doing their jobs?”

No, just thought you were lying again.

Yeah, I was being equally absurd given that this clearly is not a commentary about LEO’s just doing their jobs.

Hard to tell when you are being "equally" absurd and just being absurd.

(06-03-2020 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 04:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/rebtanhs/status/1267...60418?s=20

"Moreover, Washington Post reporters at the demonstration, including metro reporter Rebecca Tan, photographed National Guard members (though not Park Police officers) wearing gas masks, “moments before authorities started firing.” That certainly suggests they were preparing to deploy tear gas."

National Guard members but perhaps not cops.

When a force uses tear gas -- everyone on the side that employs it uses gas masks.

There are hundreds of photos of cops in the park without gas masks.

But please keep beating that drum.

Perhaps there wasn't time for adequate coordination among all units providing security? Sounds like it was a bit of a clusterf***. Why were the National Guard wearing masks? If there was a threat of chemical use from the protesters shouldn't the park police have been using masks as well?

Dude -- what does it take? If there was even a single tear gas canister used in that park, *anyone* caught out in that park unprotected would either be running for the next block, or be face down on the street in a pile of saliva, tears, and snot, or standing around helplessly, likely somewhat blinded temporarily, and hoping to heaven that someone had a massive stream of water to wash out their eyes and face.

God almighty, you seem amazingly dead set that tear gas is some mild mannered thing that causes just a slight incapacitation. It isnt that. It renders anyone in a very large dispersion area fundamentally unable to function, sometimes unable to even stand up.

The pictures of the park, with many cops/guards without masks, and hardly any 'occupiers' without masks still functioning in a normal manner says that no tear gas was used.

Seriously, tear gas really fks you up. It literally incapacitates you in almost every sense of the word.

But, you still keep bringing up these 'what abouts' (like above) when you simply do nto understand what tear gas does. Got it. You have an serious urge deep in those trousers of yours to score some TDS points, and by god you are *not* going to give up that opportunity.

And bluntly, everyone on a police force, and everyone who has served in the military gets the 'gas treatment' -- it is part of basic. They pop a can in large tent with the trainees inside, and tell them they get a steak dinner if they can stand in there for 15 secs. No one ever gets that steak, mind you.

So no, the cops and military *all* know how powerful the stuff is.

But, and again, please keep beating that drum.

You have spent a ton of time today building up that straw man where I claimed that tear gas was used. I don't think they used tear gas. I never did. They apparently used something that was definitely more than your "just smoke" but I don't think that they used tear gas.

If this is how you like to spend your day, then be my guest and post about me and tear gas some more. The floor is yours. If you do so, please do me the favor of pointing out the part where I said that they used tear gas.

(06-03-2020 07:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You have spent a ton of time today building up that straw man where I claimed that tear gas was used. I don't think they used tear gas. I never did. They apparently used something that was definitely more than your "just smoke" but I don't think that they used tear gas.

If this is how you like to spend your day, then be my guest and post about me and tear gas some more. The floor is yours. If you do so, please do me the favor of pointing out the part where I said that they used tear gas.

You certainly did defend to your dying breath the issue that tear gas was used there, poindexter. Funny that.

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS the military fked up......

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS there wasn't time for adequate coordination among all units providing security?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS why were the National Guard wearing masks?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS shouldn't the park police have been using masks as well?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS pepper balls are JUST LIKE tear gas?

Got it. You never defended the issue of tear gas in the park. [buckwheat mode on] OHHHH-TAY!! [buckwheat mode off]

Edited to add: Honestly I would prefer that you expand on your grandiose comment about the systemic problems that you have yelped about, to be frank.

(06-03-2020 08:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You have spent a ton of time today building up that straw man where I claimed that tear gas was used. I don't think they used tear gas. I never did. They apparently used something that was definitely more than your "just smoke" but I don't think that they used tear gas.

If this is how you like to spend your day, then be my guest and post about me and tear gas some more. The floor is yours. If you do so, please do me the favor of pointing out the part where I said that they used tear gas.

You certainly did defend to your dying breath the issue that tear gas was used there, poindexter. Funny that.

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS the military fked up......

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS there wasn't time for adequate coordination among all units providing security?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS why were the National Guard wearing masks?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS shouldn't the park police have been using masks as well?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS pepper balls are JUST LIKE tear gas?

Got it. You never defended the issue of tear gas in the park. [buckwheat mode on] OHHHH-TAY!! [buckwheat mode off]

Edited to add: Honestly I would prefer that you expand on your grandiose comment about the systemic problems that you have yelped about, to be frank.

Are you going to show me where I did that? You keep saying that I said that but you have yet to give me that quote that you find so offensive. Where I said tear gas was used? Where I said pepper balls are JUST LIKE tear gas? Please... point to the specifics. As usual you make up things that we say and then you react to them with sheer belligerence(while throwing in your characteristic ad homs).

I didn't expand on systemic problems this morning because I was having pleasant discussion with the less belligerent right wingers. I was ignoring your goading efforts to engage on a less pleasant level until you threw in information that I didn't think was factual. My bad.

I guess you certainly went completely out of your way to distinguish the effects of pepper balls and tear gas. You were completely clear that the effects were completely different. Got it.

I dont find your conduct 'offensive', just evasive.

Here is what is said:

Me: the proof that tear gas was not used is that the authorities didnt use gas masks as they should.

You: some of them used gas masks (ohh, you werent talking about tear gas in that response to a comment about tear gas, completely clear now. You just made that response for ***** giggles I guess, just because it is some random thought about gas masks and not about the rationale in my comment. But, lets continue....)

Me: if you use tear gas, everyone on the deploying side will use a mask. Glad that some of them did. You dont even address that tear gas will totally screw up everyone that is unprotected.

You: but, but, but, but, PERHAPS the military fked up......

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS there wasn't time for adequate coordination among all units providing security?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS why were the National Guard wearing masks?

but, but, but, but, PERHAPS shouldn't the park police have been using masks as well?

Otay, Got it. All those comments *again* had zero to do with your stance that tear gas *could have been used*. All those protestations were again for ***** and giggles.

Is that enough of a synopsis for you?

On the issue of pepper balls, you adamantly *tried* to show the effect was like tear gas. Criminy you even bolded a section that you thought was proof positive. The problem is that you were pulling stuff out of your ass. Or, were you just pulling random articles about pepper balls out for the thrill of it? Were you highlighting items that you thought important for just strange random reasons?


Taking you at your word that you were never defending the position that tear gas was used, given all those random as crap actions (since they are not defenses of that position in the slightest, nor meant to be), next time just preface your post with a disclaimer. Something like, "I am not responding to the comment copied in my reply in the slightest, and I am posting 'what abouts' by the bushel, and pulling random articles and highlighting items that, while they appear a defense for a position, are actually just for ***** and giggles and purely random reasons." That will save us a lot of time there. Just saying.

--------

Edited to add: Honestly I would prefer that you expand on your grandiose comment about the systemic problems that you have yelped about, to be frank. Again. Actually for the third time.

But I see your response is that you are maddy poo, and you just wont do that. Predictable you would run away from that comment with that type of move.

On the question that you refuse to answer because you are now 'mad at me', it looks like OO is asking you that same question.

Or is OO another 'belligerent' right winger that you refuse to entertain any semblance of of opposition to your theology from?

And perhaps you might learn that if you simply dont lie about basic items (as you did in the post about the 'peaceful protesters' and the 'no warning'), maybe that act of simply not lying might not provoke such 'belligerence'. Just a thought.

(06-03-2020 09:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm trying to think of "right wing protests". I don't have time to google it this morning. I'm sure they are out there but the majority that I can immediately recall are the tea party ones. I think the numbers were much smaller and were primarily comprised of old people? The confederate statue protests got violent - perhaps largely to due counter-protesters.

What are some of the larger right wing protests recently?

Lately? I think lately there has been little for the right wing to protest. I too was thinking primarily of the Tea Party protests and the Tea party march on Washington.

My impression was that they were primarily composed of adults - people from 20-90, not people from 70-90.

But here are some links with pictures. See for yourself.

wiki

Taxpayer march


Charlotteville was peaceful until they were attacked by Antifa.

It probably depends on the point of the protest.

Protesting police violence when you have the police officers there to control the situation is certainly a recipe for getting out of hand.

Protesting taxes? Probably not a powderkeg.

In terms of left-wing protests, I don't think protests against gun violence or the Women's march were violent.

At no point did I say every left wing protest/march/whatever went to violence. I hope you didn't think that is what I was saying. If so, bad assumption.

But I will say that nearly every protest that results in violence/rioting/arson/vandalism is either a left wing protest or left wingers attacking a right wing protest. I cannot think of an exception to that statement, but there might be one or two.

Watts? Jefferson? Seattle? Portland? Berkeley? Minneapolis? Baltimore? Philadelphia x 2?

I'm sure I'm blanking on this one... besides the Tea Party protests and protesting the removal of Confederate statues, what have been the big right-wing protests over the past 40 years?

There is an annual March for Life on the Roe v. Wade anniversary that draws hundreds of thousands just to the DC march, and then there are local marches as well.

These marches are also, like the recent ones, protesting the immoral taking of human life and the dehumanization of an entire class -- the most serious and emotional issue on the whole protest spectrum. And moreover, unlike the recent protests (many of the basic points of which I can agree with, if shorn of the ridiculous rhetorical excesses), there is always active and vocal opposition to them, raising the temperature and potential for conflict.

Yet zero riots.

(06-03-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  IMO this was a major low point of this administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/po...quare.html
Unbelievably bad idea to use these methods to clear out peaceful protesters without warning and without giving the security team in that park much of a heads-up.

It's also apparently a lie.

Focusing on Trump is one symptom of TDS.

So you guys have no issues with the planning or execution of this photo op? The manner in which they cleared out peaceful protesters is OK?

I can take issue with the decision to go to the church for the op. But once the president decides to go anywhere, whether a photo op at a dam or a photo op at a factory or ...whatever, it is the job of the Secret Service and other law enforcement to protect the president, and the unwillingness of the protesters to co-operate makes the response correct. The exaggerations (lies?) about what was done and why seem to be same ol' same ol'. It's Trump, must be wrong. TDS.

This sums up my position as well. Trump should not have gone, and I don't think any individual in this country has ever looked more ridiculous brandishing a Bible. I'm long on record as a "Never Trump" Republican, and I feel his handling of this episode, like so many others, is going to end up setting the actual conservative cause -- for which Trump cares nothing, because it's not about him -- back very seriously, if not permanently.

But anyway, once he decided to go, the actions taken to ensure POTUS security all seem well within the bounds of reason. If anybody feels their civil rights were infringed, they're welcome to sue. My guess is we won't see any wins even in the fairly liberal jurisdiction of the DC federal and appellate courts.