Unless you're a white supremacist going on a shopping trip to Wal-Mart. Or storming state capital demanding the governor be hanged and beheaded. Nothing wrong with that!
Almost as if showing up with riot gear and tear gas wasn't the right approach.
Unless you're a white supremacist going on a shopping trip to Wal-Mart. Or storming state capital demanding the governor be hanged and beheaded. Nothing wrong with that!
What is it ? What didn't start with sanctuary cities ?
I keep not hearing any kind of admission that there is violence originating from the protester side of this problem, let alone expressing any objections to it. . â´ you are endorsing it by refusing to admit its existence by calling it something else.
You are the one who said it started with sanctuary cities. I took that to mean the violence, perhaps you want to clear that up?
But we were specifically talking about the federal actions and that what they are doing would be considered war crimes if taken against a foreign adversary. Somehow you leapt from there to sanctuary cities, which I find bizarre.
I'm not endorsing violence, I'm trying to talk about the war crime issue, which btw you haven't responded to.
So I'll put you on the list of those who endorses two wrongs makes a right ... Ya, I know that would mean you agreeing that there is some violence going on there from more than one side. Impossible, right ?
So with that you may now shoot me for thinking that possible.
Considering it was me, it would be considered justifiable. A mercy killing, eh ?
No jury in Portland would convict you ...
Sorry, I said nothing of the sort. I said itdidn't start with sanctuary cities.
What is it ? What didn't start with sanctuary cities ?
I keep not hearing any kind of admission that there is violence originating from the protester side of this problem, let alone expressing any objections to it. . ∴ you are endorsing it by refusing to admit its existence by calling it something else.
So I'll put you on the list of those who endorses two wrongs makes a right ... Ya, I know that would mean you agreeing that there is some violence going on there from more than one side. Impossible, right ?
So with that you may now shoot me for thinking that possible.
Considering it was me, it would be considered justifiable. A mercy killing, eh ?
No jury in Portland would convict you ...
Sorry, I said nothing of the sort. I said it didn't start with sanctuary cities.
And like I said earlier but was ignored, this all has its roots in the Sanctuary City Movement and this is the end product of that movementhundreds of years of violence against black people by governments at all levels in the US.
fixed
So I'll put you on the list of those who endorses two wrongs makes a right ... Ya, I know that would mean you agreeing that there is some violence going on there from more than one side. Impossible, right ?
So with that you may now shoot me for thinking that possible.
Considering it was me, it would be considered justifiable. A mercy killing, eh ?
And like I said earlier but was ignored, this all has its roots in the Sanctuary City Movement and this is the end product of that movementhundreds of years of violence against black people by governments at all levels in the US.
I can address that, but quite frankly, I'm not in the mood to go in that direction right now.
Especially based on the way it was thrown at me on a highly personal level.
And the referenced post seems to now have been deleted ....
Just tryna get through to you. I realize it doesn't fit your narrative. Wake up. Or not.
I am not naive. I know and have known for a very long time that the area "under siege" is indeed a very small area consisting of a dozen or so city blocks around various parks. The whole town is not up in flames. That is the case in most places btw. I've been eyewitnessing this stuff since my early childhood in Berkeley. I know how this works from first hand.
Even though concentrated in a small area it does not change the fact that there is some very serious and violent stuff happening. There is a vibe throughout the whole town, same as in Berkeley and many other hot spots. And in ordinary towns, they all have a vibe that has a direct relationship to what is tolerated and not tolerated within the town.
I consider myself very street smart. I know that one wrong turn can have you out of normal in less than a block. The neighborhood I lived in on the West Side of Cleveland was like that. The whole town is like that actually. Pockets of nice and pockets of nasty right next to each other. I lived a couple of blocks from the Burger King where the guy was kidnapping all those girls that were recently found alive.
FWIW, I have a coffee mug with the Portland riverfront skyline filled with pens next to the keyboard of my music puter I bought at PDX on one of my trips to Portland 13 and 14 years ago to visit hippie and learn how to work with music. I am looking right at it. I do have a lay of the land there from tooling around town with him for a couple of weeks. It's a beautiful place. Glad I was there then. Last time through there before then was in 62 on the way to the Seattle World's Fair. Have no desire to go back given the current state of affairs. Hippie booked several years ago and went south on 5 to Roseburg. He had had enough. He was born and raised there.
Now if you wish to act like what is happening in Portland is insignificant because it is primarily happening in a small area, then go ahead, I can't stop you. If you believe that only the feds are being violent, then that is what you believe. But something is going on there and it seems that most of the causalities have been suffered by the feds. Someone is physically harming the federal agents. It is not the PPD.
And like I said earlier but was ignored, this all has its roots in the Sanctuary City Movement and this is the end product of that movement.
Yeah, I didn't want to get into that but I have read quite a few accounts of the Portland Police not enforcing the laws equally against protesters and counter protesters. And certainly the mayor has taken a lot of flack from the BLM and associated protesters for his response in keeping order. But Kurt's statement just illustrates how people profile others and try to polarize the situation. Pretty hard to be a centrist these days. Although I suppose the Moms and Dads supporting BLM are best described as radical centrists. Hmm.
A segment of them appear to be actively working with the counter protestors (white supremacists), tipping them off to actions and helping them avoid arrest. This is where calls to defund are coming from. Frankly, if true I don't know how you keep the command structure and trust in the force.
Yeah, I didn't want to get into that but I have read quite a few accounts of the Portland Police not enforcing the laws equally against protesters and counter protesters. And certainly the mayor has taken a lot of flack from the BLM and associated protesters for his response in keeping order. But Kurt's statement just illustrates how people profile others and try to polarize the situation. Pretty hard to be a centrist these days. Although I suppose the Moms and Dads supporting BLM are best described as radical centrists. Hmm.
It's not about reading comprehension. It's a bogus argument from its inception.
a)Why are your posts always so gorked up when you try to reply? b) You don't get to declare "bogus argument" just because you don't like that it exposes the hypocrisy on your part. But why are you so upset, you wanted to burn it all down. You were the protester before protesting was cool.
As always you try to make the discussion about something that it isn't. Saying it is reading comprehension was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The original point was that the feds actions would be considered war crimes if they were part of a war outside the borders, against foreigners, rather than being taken against US citizens. And you appear to be saying you are ok with that.
So if someone who was there to protest but not trying to burn down the courthouse gets hurt but the agents have destroyed medical supplies that could treat them, you seem to be ok with that.
And if someone who was there as an observer, from a newspaper, from ACLU or similar group gets hit with teargas, munitions aimed at them by the feds, or hurt in some other way, you appear ok with the government making it so they can't be given first aid.
f you want to argue that Federal forces violated the Geneva Conventions, then you have to argue that the protesters in Portland are an organized armed force engaged in protected violence against the United States. And you are defending people who are trying to burn down a federal courthouse and the people inside.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. I don't know how to explain any clearer that that is not what they are arguing.
And who says I'm defending people who are trying to burn down a federal courthouse (with some pieces of cardboard up against a concrete wall)?
Seriously, learn to read.
It's not about reading comprehension. It's a bogus argument from its inception.
And if you think that there is no serious assault on that courthouse underway, then you are misinformed, imo.
This particular courthouse has been under attack for the past couple of years. This is not something new in the past 2 months or with the recent arrival of additional federal protection services. The people trying to burn it down are not a bunch of warm and cuddly housewives either. But they do hide behind them. And the warm and cuddly housewives out in front don't seem to have any problem with providing them cover to facilitate this goal. The mayor doesn't seem to have a problem with burning it down as well. The whole town is in on it. While not everyone is down there protesting and whatnot, no one is getting in the way of it or trying to officially put a stop to it. Other than the feds.
The roots of all of this go back to Sanctuary City policies. This is the natural progression of these policies. Total and open utter defiance of the federal government and then government in general. Burning down a federal courthouse is the height of the expression of this defiance. Short of killing cops people.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that you disagree with every word I just wrote above.
f you want to argue that Federal forces violated the Geneva Conventions, then you have to argue that the protesters in Portland are an organized armed force engaged in protected violence against the United States.
And you are defending people who are trying to burn down a federal courthouse and the people inside.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. I don't know how to explain any clearer that that is not what they are arguing.
And who says I'm defending people who are trying to burn down a federal courthouse (with some pieces of cardboard up against a concrete wall)?
