# Rioting makes me want ‘normal’ covid life back.



## shaner

I can’t believe I just said that


----------



## KineKilla

AMEN!

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## johnrr65

shaner said:


> I can't believe I just said that


+1


----------



## goosefreak

Rioting was the cure to Covid, wont be long until we have the "cure" for rioting.


----------



## Jedidiah

Wait'll they all get sick next week. Gonna be a whoooooole lotta quarantine going on.


----------



## JerryH

I was in total disbelief when I turned on the tv.

I still wonder what the guy was thinking with the bow? He didn't think his situation through very well. He got a good beatdown and his car torched. Does Farmer's cover a self inflicted loss of a car like that?


----------



## High Desert Elk

JerryH said:


> I was in total disbelief when I turned on the tv.
> 
> I still wonder what the guy was thinking with the bow? He didn't think his situation through very well. He got a good beatdown and his car torched. Does Farmer's cover a self inflicted loss of a car like that?


Self inflicted? He didn't torch his car...


----------



## JerryH

He pointed his bow into the crowd = self inflicted 

Go looking for a fight and you'll find one. And he did. 

I don't agree by any means to what the crowd did to his car. He made a stupid decision to get out of his car and wave his bow around. He found his fight and lost.


----------



## Vanilla

That dude got exactly what he deserved. It’s not often that justice gets to be so swift.

Did you see his interview with Fox 13 where he claimed he got injured by two “African American” men that attacked him through his window while he was sitting in his car? This dude is the worst of the worst in this situation.


----------



## Critter




----------



## Fowlmouth

JerryH said:


> I was in total disbelief when I turned on the tv.
> 
> I still wonder what the guy was thinking with the bow? He didn't think his situation through very well. He got a good beatdown and his car torched. Does Farmer's cover a self inflicted loss of a car like that?


I'm still wondering how he was going to shoot a left handed bow right handed...:-?:-?:-?:-?


----------



## backcountry

Didn't he actually shoot an arrow into the crowd, not just point it? I also believe I saw a video of him brandish a knife and another weapon at a different location earlier in the day.


----------



## Gordon

The interview he did on tv in his lds underwear was the topper. That dude is the mayor of crazytown.


----------



## Vanilla

I didn't see that one! 

Ha.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

backcountry said:


> Didn't he actually shoot an arrow into the crowd, not just point it? I also believe I saw a video of him brandish a knife and another weapon at a different location earlier in the day.


He did not shoot the arrow but he asked for what he got


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Wait, some guy aimed a bow at a mob? I missed that. I was out of town when all this went down.


Details? I find this hilarious.


From a tactical standpoint, using a bow is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Dude is lucky he didn't earn a darwin award. What kind of mental hygiene that guy must have if he thinks a bow is going to do anything against a mob of people.


----------



## High Desert Elk

JerryH said:


> He pointed his bow into the crowd = self inflicted
> 
> Go looking for a fight and you'll find one. And he did.
> 
> I don't agree by any means to what the crowd did to his car. He made a stupid decision to get out of his car and wave his bow around. He found his fight and lost.


Reason I'm going to disagree, again, on the "insurance claim comment" is the response to being threatened is to fight or flight. Not destroy personal property.

However, I do agree if somebody is going to brandish a weapon in a threatening manner, they'd better be willing to go through with it or realize my defense will not follow any rules.


----------



## colorcountrygunner

Gordon said:


> The interview he did on tv in his lds underwear was the topper. That dude is the mayor of crazytown.


 hahaha


----------



## JerryH

He is a big guy, it took the crowd seconds to take control of him. He came back about an hour later and just about got his a$$ kicked twice. Not a smart guy but he's got some stones!


----------



## Vanilla

And the crowd got a hold of his arrows. And some were used against law enforcement. 

I’ll reiterate, that bozo got what he deserved. Now he’s going to get charged in it too, which is fantastic in my mind.


----------



## backcountry

Looks like they are charging him with 3 felonies.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

After watching the news, and 3rd party news analysis; I'm left wondering if this could potentially be the start of the unraveling of our society. Too early to say, and saying so is kind of over the top at this point. Still, it is a thought. The only thing that seems clear is we're sitting on a powederkeg. 

I've also heard certain politicians in other states want to defund the police. That idiot move will plunge those areas into anarchy and vigilantism.


On the other hand, the public has a short memory, in two weeks the news cycle will be back to COVID-19 24/7.


----------



## KineKilla

The beginning of unraveling? I think this ball of yarn has been unraveling for a long time.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry

There are definitely a ton of threads unraveling here and now. Our country is a tinder box, but it has been for at least a decade. 

I hope the citizens seeking sincere redress and a better country carry the day and not the few who want destruction.


----------



## middlefork

History is a great subject. Too bad it is not taught anymore. Takes a lot of time to re learn past lessons.


----------



## Vanilla

middlefork said:


> History is a great subject. Too bad it is not taught anymore. Takes a lot of time to re learn past lessons.


A-friggin-men! Amen to that one.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Heh, Oh.. ive already been drawing my own conclusions based upon history. 

I'll all say is right now:
- in terms of upper garments, black is synonymous with brown.
- news sources like CNN or MSNBC have a lot in common with "information ministers".

If I sat here long enough, I'm sure I could go on with that.

Personally, I'm trying not to arrive at the conclusion of society breakdown, or even a second civil war. It's an extreme conclusion, and if ever true, there is no turning back. Some lines, once crossed, there is no going back. Some people out there have no idea what they are trying to incite, instigate, or hope for. They might think they do, but they really don't.


----------



## backcountry

No need to compare activity of Americans to brown shirts. We can keep pretending that we don't have our own history of overt state and civilian violence and ultra legal force but it's plain as day. It's in the history books and communities. I sure hope any "upper garment" analysis includes the white supremacist organizations that continue to operate right now and the federal government continues to charge. We've none the danger they pose for decades and even Fox News is reporting on their use of fake Antifa accounts recently to stir fear in the suburbs. 

Speaking of which....I have no love for cable news like MSNBC and CNN but hard to point fingers at them without highlighting the original ring leader of misinformation and "fake news" that is FOX. Their infotainment continues to rank #1 in the category. 

These protests are exposing why we don't need to compare to such foreign moments in history. This is America. We can't hide from that ugly truth. We are only extraordinary in the fact that when given the chance we have most often CHOSEN not to go to physical battle with each other because we know we actually share common dreams. If we ignore the cries of fellow citizens to be included fully in those ideals than the discrete minority of citizens that seek violence will likely win the day.

Right now we don't know who is going to win. I hope it's not the handful of citizens catalyzing violence and then cowardly running from accountability. I hope it's not the unmarked riot officers from federal prisons who seem to be the ones shooting tear gas into peaceful crowds. I hope it's not the citizens choosing to carry bats and projectiles into protests. I hope its not the officers pushing protestors to the ground so hard they end up in critical care. I hope it's not the politicians given platforms to ask for "no quarter" or "total domination" against US citizens. 

We can be better than those "bad apples" but it means understanding that phrase fully. You don't keep the bad apples in the bushel because they can "spoil the whole bunch". But we can't deal with the bad apples without demanding change and accountability more thoroughly throughout society.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Antifa are basically the same brown shirts. There is no getting around that. From what I'm seeing, the biggest difference between our own homegrown Antifaschistische Aktion and the Sturmabteilung of Germany circa 1930's ; is the uniform, and democratic socialism vs national socialism. 

Either one are street thugs using violence to advance a political agenda. Like the KKK during Grant's administration (great documentary btw), they should be hunted down one by one.


----------



## backcountry

Lone_Hunter said:


> Antifa are basically the same brown shirts. There is no getting around that. From what I'm seeing, the biggest difference between our own homegrown Antifaschistische Aktion and the Sturmabteilung of Germany circa 1930's ; is the uniform, and democratic socialism vs national socialism.
> 
> Either one are street thugs using violence to advance a political agenda. Like the KKK during Grant's administration (great documentary btw), they should be hunted down one by one.


A) Antifa (America, 2020) isn't even organized and therefore aren't a special police/military force being used by aspiring politicians. It's not close to scale or content of SA.

B) There are violent individuals acting in the name of Antifa, can't deny that and I myself am against them. But comparing them to brown shirts literally ignores history. America's Antifa coopted the name because of civilian resistance against political fascists. They aren't remotely comparable from history or purpose to Nazis. They are at their core a counter force, not one with aspirations like Nazis.

C) The KKK is not dead and for years bipartisan groups have been bringing report after report that white supremacists are organized and threatening violence. Why aren't you providing similar disdain for the chaos they, actual organizations, are bringing to American cities right now as well? And their goals are actually fascist in nature.

D) Antifa, as shown in point A, isn't easily claimed to be pushing "democratic socialism". They aren't even organized beyond some loose idea to fight fascism and you somehow link them to DS? But it's even if we accept your comparison for argument sake, you just exposed how they aren't comparable. NS or Nazi's are fascists by decree; an imaginary band of democratic socialist Antifa would be fighting said fascists. That distinction matters whenever raising the spectre of one of Nazism's autrocious methods.

E) A liberal democracy that cares about maintaining it's values and freedoms against fascist forces doesn't "hunt down" citizens which as we all know here doesn't end well for the target. Instead, we arrest them with proportional techniques if they break the law and bring them to trial for the justice system to do its job. I support doing exactly that against any Antifa who uses violence for anything other than legal self defense. However, "Hunted down" is antithetical to our constitution and founding values.

F) Did you just advocate weaponizing state force against democratic socialist? I ask as you are directly comparing an armed police/military force of Nazism to Antifa who you call democratic socialist. We don't just condemn brown shirts but all Nazis hence my concern that you linked democratic socialism to Antifa. The comparison isn't taken lightly. And the similarity between your logic and Antifas can't be ignored.

Your post is full of the misinformation you previously condemned and actually advocates something as dangerous and I submit unconstitutional as "hunting down" citizens.

*Side note: I find Antifa problematic and condemn any violence they use, including against property. I just refuse to accept the misinformation against them that predictably leads to this dangerous path of being labeled "domestic terrorist" (no such legal term) and advocating for state response like "hunt down" and "no quarter".


----------



## goosefreak

Here ya go..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

***edit***
Dang it!! That's not the link I wanted! It didn't attach but BC look it up. You wrong boy!

*** double edit***
It's there, just click on the link and then click on " do you mean: Antifa (United States)


----------



## backcountry

goosefreak said:


> Here ya go..
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
> 
> ***edit***
> Dang it!! That's not the link I wanted! It didn't attach but BC look it up. You wrong boy!


Not exactly a compelling argument.

Your link supports my claims.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

backcountry said:


> A) Antifa (America, 2020) isn't even organized and therefore aren't a special police/military force being used by aspiring politicians. It's not close to scale or content of SA.


That is what some people are claiming, however they are showing a level of organization and sophistication that counters that narrative. I would posit that if you dig far enough into ANTIFA, you will find foreign state actors involved, or influencing their actions. We are not the only country to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.



> B) There are violent individuals acting in the name of Antifa, can't deny that and I myself am against them. But comparing them to brown shirts literally ignores history. America's Antifa coopted the name because of civilian resistance against political fascists. They aren't remotely comparable from history or purpose to Nazis. They are at their core a counter force, not one with aspirations like Nazis.


All I'm going to say to this is, where ANTIFA is concerned, the irony is of epic proportions.



> C) The KKK is not dead and for years bipartisan groups have been bringing report after report that white supremacists are organized and threatening violence. Why aren't you providing similar disdain for the chaos they, actual organizations, are bringing to American cities right now as well? And their goals are actually fascist in nature.


The only mention I make of the KKK, is the fact that president Grant hunted the bastards down, and I think the same should be applied to ANTIFA because they are inciting violence and civil unrest. The act I'm referring to is called the "Third Enforcement act".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Enforcement_Act



> D) Antifa, as shown in point A, isn't easily claimed to be pushing "democratic socialism". They aren't even organized beyond some loose idea to fight fascism and you somehow link them to DS? But it's even if we accept your comparison for argument sake, you just exposed how they aren't comparable. NS or Nazi's are fascists by decree; an imaginary band of democratic socialist Antifa would be fighting said fascists. That distinction matters whenever raising the spectre of one of Nazism's autrocious methods.


I'm going to hazard a guess you view ANTIFA in some sort of a positive light. If so, i think you are misguided in that. Aside from that "Democratic socialism" is a kind way in saying communism. Vladimir Lenin himself once said, "Communism is the goal of socialism". The hammer and sickle flags they have been seen flying is hard to rebuke. In any event, communism and socialism are on the extreme ends of leftwing politics, and I would say fall under the Democratic party tent at this point.



> E) A liberal democracy that cares about maintaining it's values and freedoms against fascist forces doesn't "hunt down" citizens which as we all know here doesn't end well for the target. Instead, we arrest them with proportional techniques if they break the law and bring them to trial for the justice system to do its job. I support doing exactly that against any Antifa who uses violence for anything other than legal self defense. However, "Hunted down" is antithetical to our constitution and founding values.


Two thoughts:
- We have always been a constitutional republic with democratic tendencies. We have never been a liberal democracy in the modern definition of those terms.
- I have no iota of pity nor compasison for any group of people that are in fact actual fascists whose goal is the destruction of this country. Of which I have given some of the best years of my life in service to, and would gladly do so again if called upon.

The rest of your post I'm not going to answer by item because I'm pretty sure I'm answering the rest of it already. That said, Yeah ANTIFA should be hunted down, and made to answer for their crimes. But that does not mean denied due process and their day in court. Hunted down, as I'm using it, does not mean shot in the street. Now if we continue going down this road of rioting, and rule of law evaporates, and another civil war breaks out, then that's a whole different animal. That's when things will get ugly. This is just my opinion, but there is a seed of darkness in everyone if you push them hard enough.


----------



## backcountry

What about condemn and problematic do you take as positive? That's patently absurd.

The claims you make in this issue are farcical at best. 

A) There is no evidence of your claims about Antifa organization. It appears you don't actually know much about anarchist movements. Making allegations without evidence is borderline useless. 

B) If you want to take the time to explain yourself than fine but as it stands you haven't remotely succeeded at justifying how a bunch of people running around in black are anything like a highly organized fascist police force like the SA. Once again, farcical and exposes the very outcome of misinformation campaigns you condemned.

C) I think using an act that suspended habeas corpus as your example undermines your claim about "hunting down" later on, as "due process" includes the pretty important element of habeas corpus. Your post doesn't actually expose a healthy understanding of protections we grant citizens under a liberal democracy, ie the classical type. We don't just hunt citizens down like Grant did especially with flimsy claims about Antifa's exact role in the current unrest. The only thing we even know that has been evidenced is allegations of involvement; the irony is one of the most pernicious aspects of autonomous anarchist "groups" is it helps their lack of structure helps them evade legal accountability but that reality is mutually exclusive from the organizational structure you claim exists. One of the reasons we literally have organizations is direct accountability to individuals or discrete groups of them.

D) It's appears your understanding of socialism and communism are pretty flimsy. Democratic socialism is not communism as it stands alone in the spectrum of political philosophies. Yes, it has adopted some of socialism's economic ideas but situates them in a democracy, ie not an authoritarian regime like we traditionally understand and ridicule in socialism. Nor have you provided any evidence to link Antifa to it despite long established evidence pointing to the fact that they don't have a single uniting economic or political policy. You have created a Boogeyman and not actually accounting for Antifa as it is.

D) If you haven't noticed, the DNC hasn't exactly been kind to it's far left wing. But I'm not shocked you make such claims given your deficit in criticizing groups like FOX in their blatant misinformation. 

E) We have always been a liberal democracy. I recommend you study the classical term as it's the basis for much of the founder's ideas and fueled our revolution.

Linking a loosely organized group like Antifa with the SA isn't exactly what someone does when they value due process. The SA were literally fascist nationalists we hunted down with impunity in the battle field. This tendency to compare actual civilians and citizens to our foreign enemies is not consistent with the foundations that underpin our country and constitution. What you have said is founded on falsehoods and patently dangerous. We can bring individuals causing violence, including Antifa members, to justice without resorting to false comparisons to foreign enemies or illegal combatants. 

I find it rather unfortunate that in the middle of the national crisis in which we actually have evidence that show white nationalist are participating, and have for years, in an organized fashion you focus exclusively on one of the least organized political actors around. You also inaccurately link the distinct political ideology of democratic socialism with Antifa and communism. It's ahistoric and flagrantly untrue. 

I am against Antifa's violence. I am against groups and citizens unilaterally creating their idea of justice on the streets. I am against the white nationalist currently creating false narratives about violence in the suburbs. I am against police and national guard escalating violence and using munitions on peaceful crowds. 

And for each of those groups of individuals I submit we peacefully enforce the laws, not "hunt down" anyone like Grant did the KKK. Your post escalates the narrative against fellow citizens in a fundamentally dangerous way and we know that doesn't bode well in these moments. 

Use the law properly. Arrest and enforce it in actual proportion to the behavior on site. And provide equal justice in our courts. That's what our constitution demands and we need more citizens protecting those values and liberties instead of the inflammatory rhetoric you have employed. 

*A not so subtle difference between the SA and Antifa.....they actually stand up for minority groups the likes of which Nazis scapegoated and murdered. Comparing any group to such a hideous organization has to take that into account in scale and content if it wants to be accurate.


----------



## backcountry

This is ultimately why politicians using language like "total domination" and "no quarter" against citizens is so dangerous. The rhetoric finds its way into society and normalizes scapegoating our fellow citizens. The more we move toward the language of "hunt down" the further we move from the language of "justice for all".


----------



## Lone_Hunter

BC, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree where politics are concerned. I have no illusions that either of us will convince the other of anything where politics and world view is concerned. These are heated subjects because when you get down to it, are derived from core beliefs. Convincing someone their view is incorrect, is forcing them to examine their core beliefs, and most people have to do that on their own. They can't be made to do it, and not many will.

I've examined and reexamined my core beliefs many times over the years. While I am staunchly conservative, and thus probably viewed as an ignorant ******* because of it, I'm actually fairly intelligent and I dare say well traveled. I used to be a little left of center in my political views at one time. That, obviously has changed, and if you heard the things I would have said in the past, you'd probably wonder how someone could do such a 180 in their views. In summary, my view of the left, and their politics has become extremely harsh and i find I have no patience for it. The best thing I can say is that liberalism is a lot like alcohol, best enjoyed in moderation, lest you end up schittfaced drunk.


----------



## backcountry

I'm sorry to say when you use a public platform to recommend we "hunt down" fellow citizens and link to a strategy that included suspension of habeas corpus I will not "agree to disagree". That is anything but a traditional conservative approach, ie based on the classical liberalism that founded our country. 

I too am pretty classically conservative as evidenced by actually using the language here properly and advocating for it, unlike your posts. So what I am unwilling to do is disregard broad swaths of citizens as legitimately deserving of equal protection and justice, which you seem to do in your comparisons to the SA, "hunt down" and comparing them to drugs. Your negative partisanship just discounted half of American citizens.

What you have stated in your recent posts aren't traditional core beliefs but rationalizations that harm fellow citizens in a disproportionate manner inconsistent with the actual evidence and I will not sit quietly by while such blatant misinformation (unironically) is shared. I am someone who sincerely values the confident pluralism a republic (a subtype of a liberal democracy) inherently is designed to protect but all opinions shared on the interwebs don't deserve equal treatment. Your direct statements and comparisons threaten pluralism and condone disproportionate state force ("hunt down") against broad swaths (you seem to again broaden your rhetorical attacks not against just Antifa and democratic socialism * but now the "left") of society you view as enemies and expecting others to just to sit by idly isn't representative of conservative values in the least.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

I'm done talking politics. You can interpret and misinterpret me all you like, I don't care anymore.


----------



## backcountry

I think there is wisdom in not talking politics if you can't restrain comparisons of US citizens to brown shirts, randomly attack the political ideology of much of the country or use phrases like social justice warriors.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Too funny. I claim the first, but in your world, words are equivalent to violence right? Don't answer that, I'm mocking the ideology. The thing is, I don't care enough to write a 12 paragraph essay full of caveats and exceptions, articulating my position for clarity, because arguing on the internet with someone I will never meet is just not important to me. I've done this song and dance since 14.4 modems were start of the art, and forums were called a BBS. Back and forth, back and forth until someone gets the last word in, so they can claim a "win" or walk away feeling morally superior. I'm done, You win at the Internets, the quarters on me.


----------



## backcountry

Cute but lame.

Never said words equaled actual violence nor is that my worldview. Your posts have included such fabrications at least twice now. Mocking strawmen must be fun given how often you do it.

I get a good laugh when people have time to drop useless insults like social justice warrior but mock actual nuance and we'll reasoned ideas.

I'll actually clarify yet again.... rhetoric may not be violence (without a component of incitement) but comparisons to one of the most inhumane, organized police forces in modern western history often leads to escalating rhetoric just like you did in your ownpost, ie advocating our government "hunt down" citizens directly related to a fashion that suspended habeas corpus. Your comparison, your words. 

And we have plenty of video documentation now of what happens when we escalate rhetoric of protesters. And that includes civilians showing up with weapons to "defend" police from protestors. 

And all of that without a shred of evidence to support your claim or even that we know Antifa is responsible for the majority of violence. The Ministry of Misinformation comment is rather ironic.

*Even more ironic since we do have arrests of dozens of rioters directly linked to white nationalist organizations and know white nationalist are spreading misinformation about Antifa under false accounts.

*No one is morally superior here. You know, from evidence on this very site , that despite disagreements on ideas voluntarily shared I'll go out of my way to offer unconditional gestures (just did with COVID-19 and your household and I've done it multiple times on protest thread) and wishes of safety. Critiquing ideas isn't about the person, it's about the idea.


----------



## DallanC

Lone_Hunter said:


> I've done this song and dance since 14.4 modems were start of the art, and forums were called a BBS.


Hey I ran on of those for fun back in the day. Crazy to think back on those compared to todays internet. Mine first started at 2400 baud... sloooooowww  14.4 was the bomb... as was adding a cdrom full of files for people to download. 650mb? that was such an insane amount of storage on a machine with 2MB of ram. 8)

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter

DallanC said:


> Hey I ran on of those for fun back in the day. Crazy to think back on those compared to todays internet. Mine first started at 2400 baud... sloooooowww  14.4 was the bomb... as was adding a cdrom full of files for people to download. 650mb? that was such an insane amount of storage on a machine with 2MB of ram. 8)
> 
> -DallanC


Things sure have come a long way haven't they? I couldn't remember what came before 14.4. I do remember 28.8 and 56K modems. Remember all the mom and pop ISP's? Seems ages ago now. I remember the first time I got a cable modem. Thought I had died and gone to heavan. Nowadays, I'm no longer in love with technology. When it's all you do for work and play, it feels like being trapped in the matrix. Give me a mountain, and a chill morning air any day.


----------



## backcountry

One of the reasons we see people run from the expectation of evidence to support their claims about Antifa is because it often doesn't exist. Sadly they doesn't stop fear mongering about the. Here are a few examples how fear mongering turned out to be hoax.

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/04...m-viral-videos-prove-antifa-plotting-violence

Our very own Whitehouse appears to be the purveyor of misinformation, which Lone condemned, in this case. And it was used to provoke the very type of responses he vocalized.

Luckily in the face of police violence and attacks on the free press our journalist keep doing their jobs. Without them we wouldn't have fact checking like this which is why the are often one of the first targets of authoritarian figures and demagogues.


----------



## APD

so how's the fishing been lately?>>O


----------



## Lone_Hunter

'Cops' won't 'return' after 32 seasons in wake of protests, network says

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cops-no-plans-return-protests

EDIT:
I might be pulling an Oli, but I find this somewhat relevant during these times of rioting and "autonomous zones".


----------



## backcountry

> Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?
> 
> - President Trump on Twitter
> 
> KNOW THE SIGNS: HOW TO TELL IF YOUR GRANDPARENT HAS BECOME AN ANTIFA AGENT
> 
> For your birthday, she knits you an unwanted scarf. To be used as a balaclava?
> 
> She belongs to a decentralized group with no leadership structure that claims to be discussing a "book," but no one ever reads the book and all they seem to do is drink wine.
> 
> Is always talking on the phone with an "aunt" you have never actually met in person. Aunt TIFA????
> 
> Always walking into rooms and claiming not to know why he walked into the room. Likely.
> 
> He "trips" over and breaks your child's Lego police station when walking through the living room in the dark.
> 
> Total and bewildering lack of nostalgia for good old days.
> 
> Gathers with loose-knit, disorderly group of figures you have never met to play "mah-jongg," governed by mysterious "rule cards" issued annually from a nebulous central authority.
> 
> Suddenly, for no reason, will appear or pretend to be asleep.
> 
> Insists on producing container of nuts whenever there is company. Why? Code of some kind?
> 
> Carries peppermints (chemical irritant?) in purse at all times.
> 
> Is taking Centrum Silver. But for what reason? Surely to build up strength for the coming confrontation.
> 
> Keeps forwarding you what appear on the surface to be emails of jokes someone has typed out from a Reader's Digest; claims to think you would "enjoy"; must be some sort of recruitment or propaganda or hidden message.
> 
> Hired a clown for your child's birthday - part of the Juggalo command structure?
> 
> Big tin of Christmas popcorn mysteriously replenishes itself. WHO IS HELPING?!
> 
> You gave her a Precious Moments figurine of a law enforcement officer, but she hasn't displayed it.
> 
> Remembers things from the past in incredible, exhausting detail, but recent ones only sporadically? Cover of some kind.
> 
> She claims not to know how to use her phone, yet always appears upside-down on FaceTime, which should be impossible without hacking capabilities.
> 
> If he is to be believed, he spends hours playing bridge.
> 
> He is walking non-threateningly at a public protest.


One of the best political satire Opinion pieces I've ever read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nt-has-become-an-antifa-agent/?outputType=amp


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Not just something in some distant state now apparently. I hope our Law Enforcement is on top of this; and squash's this BS fast, quick, and in a hurry. This is a cancer and if left alone, it will metastasize, and the situation will deteriorate quickly. I loath the idea of civil unrest and having to defend my neighborhood, home, and family with a rifle in the streets.


----------



## bowgy

I hope they find those two guys, the one that fired and the one at the end that just pointed his gun.


----------



## Vanilla

#peaceful


----------



## Critter

The imports/natives are restless in happy valley.


----------



## CPAjeff

I love the dude in the blue beanie trying to stop the car . . .


----------



## bowgy

I guess we can't call it "Happy Valley" anymore.

We need a combination of Porter Rockwell and Chris Kyle in the Temple bell tower.


----------



## Critter

CPAjeff said:


> I love the dude in the blue beanie trying to stop the car . . .


It just shows the intelligence level of some of these folks..


----------



## Vanilla

Police are reporting the moron that fired the shot continued protesting and used his firearm to break out the window of another vehicle 5 blocks away shortly after this. 

Time for protesters to start policing their own or to shut it down completely. I'm a fan of the 1st Amendment, but my family ought to be able to drive down the street in Provo without someone pulling a gun on us for no reason.


----------



## bowgy

After seeing this happen in Provo I am thinking more on this line.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

bowgy said:


> After seeing this happen in Provo I am thinking more on this line.


Heh, your more direct then I am.

I shouldn't say this because it could be construed as some sort of threat of violence. It is nothing of the sort. What I will say depends on the continued existence of rule of law. So long as their is law enforcement, so long as the thin blue line exists, I will do nothing except complain on a messageboard.

If/ When rule of law devolves, If/when the thin blue line is no longer there THEN, and only then - I will fight. I know by doing so, means most likely I would be a dead man who has temporary use of his arms and legs. I am reminded that when I was younger, I was convinced I would die before I was 25. Ever since I got out of active duty, ive been on a slow decompression train and I've been killing time, living one day at a time ever since. One thing I learned while in the military, the thing MOST worth fighting for is your home. America isn't perfect, but it's home, and you've got to make a stand somewhere. What most people don't know or don't realize, is you won the freaking world lottery by being born here.

I'm 46 years old with a DD-214 and I've a child I want to see live her life in peace with all the freedoms and liberties that I did. I also want to see her grow up, and walk her down the isle when she is ready.

Civil war 2? It's become plausible in my mind.

So if I am forced to choose between seeing her grow up, or ensuring her freedom, I will choose the later. I may not be there to see her grow up, but ensuring her freedom is the most precious gift I could give her. I could only hope her mother makes sure she knows this.

This is the best country in the world, don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

Let not our forefathers sacrifices be in vain.


----------



## Fowlmouth

There are so many street protests going on everywhere, how do we motorists know when and where to avoid these areas?
Just saying, if a large group of people were to beat on my truck and try to open my doors, I'm hitting the gas. If I crunch a few of them in the process, Oh well!


----------



## Vanilla

Fowlmouth said:


> Just saying, if a large group of people were to beat on my truck and try to open my doors, I'm hitting the gas.


I had a discussion about this today with some colleagues. I'm 100% in agreement with you. I'm not going to sit there to see how bad the intentions of the mob are.


----------



## bowgy

*


Lone_Hunter said:



Heh, your more direct then I am.

I shouldn't say this because it could be construed as some sort of threat of violence. It is nothing of the sort. What I will say depends on the continued existence of rule of law. So long as their is law enforcement, so long as the thin blue line exists, I will do nothing except complain on a messageboard.

If/ When rule of law devolves, If/when the thin blue line is no longer there THEN, and only then - I will fight. I know by doing so, means most likely I would be a dead man who has temporary use of his arms and legs. I am reminded that when I was younger, I was convinced I would die before I was 25. Ever since I got out of active duty, ive been on a slow decompression train and I've been killing time, living one day at a time ever since. One thing I learned while in the military, the thing MOST worth fighting for is your home. America isn't perfect, but it's home, and you've got to make a stand somewhere. What most people don't know or don't realize, is you won the freaking world lottery by being born here.

I'm 46 years old with a DD-214 and I've a child I want to see live her life in peace with all the freedoms and liberties that I did. I also want to see her grow up, and walk her down the isle when she is ready.

Civil war 2? It's become plausible in my mind.

So if I am forced to choose between seeing her grow up, or ensuring her freedom, I will choose the later. I may not be there to see her grow up, but ensuring her freedom is the most precious gift I could give her. I could only hope her mother makes sure she knows this.

This is the best country in the world, don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

Let not our forefathers sacrifices be in vain.

Click to expand...

*


Lone_Hunter said:


> I too took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, when I was discharged it was impressed upon me that that oath stands with me for life. I pretty much agree with what you have stated.
> 
> I am somewhat older and my kids have grown and I have more patience in some things but much less patience in other things.
> 
> My dad, a WWII vet would quote the old saying: "Don't mess with an old man, if he is too old to run and too tired to fight, he will just kill you".
> 
> As you said, this country is not perfect but it is the best one in the world and even those that have been somewhat oppressed this country has offered great opportunities, it is up to you to take those opportunities and make something of them. Many people from all walks of life have.
> 
> Keep your powder dry.


----------



## 2full

The "mobs" have NO right to harass innocent people who are minding their own stinking business. 
They think they are the only only ones with a right to an opinion. Any other opinion is not allowed. 
If they pull and point guns at me or my family, they better be ready to use them. 
This has gotten wayyyyy beyond a joke. Why is every agency and political person bowing to them ??
This garbage needs to be ended. No matter what it takes. 
The rest of us Taxpayers have rights as well. That fact is being ignored at every level. 

They are trying to start a civil war. 
I don't think that would turn out well for anyone. 

Just my 2 cents. I've tried to stay out of it, but it is getting way out of control. 
Go ahead and rip me.......:mrgreen:


----------



## Fowlmouth

Just sayin'...


----------



## Bax*

Well fellas, I’m not sure what to do with this thread. 

Everyone has been respectful which I appreciate but given the nature of the topic, it’s technically something we’d normally lock down. 

I’m going to avoid doing that for now. But please continue with the level of mutual respect I’ve grown to love about this forum to avoid any conflicts on such a sensitive topic.


----------



## bowgy

Glad that they got the guy.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/30/man-is-shot-he-drives/


----------



## Jedidiah

2full said:


> Why is every agency and political person bowing to them ??


This is exactly the part that is perplexing. It's like the mayor and governors of every state are participating in a conspiracy to facilitate further conflict. State and city leadership in many states is actively prohibiting police intervention even where people (and children) are dying in the streets. The state of Utah would be well advised to stay out of that game, they're lucky that the more likely scenario didn't happen in Provo with multiple people having concealed carries on their person and stopping the shooter with equal force.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

bowgy said:


> Glad that they got the guy.
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/30/man-is-shot-he-drives/


 Great news! Our local LEO's won't let us down. Other day I thought to myself, how cool it would be if i went into my local Cafe Rio where they hang out and bought them all lunch to say "Thank you for your service". Then I remembered COVID, and scrapped the idea.

In other news, according to other sources I've read, this "protest" was organized by ANTIFA via facebook. I am not surprised.

edit:


Jedidiah said:


> they're lucky that the more likely scenario didn't happen in Provo with multiple people having concealed carries on their person and stopping the shooter with equal force.


HEH.. Yeah. I always carry these days. Lots of Utahns have a CFP. One reason why I have faith this will only go so far in Utah. In this case, the trouble with this would-be murder is he was in a large crowd. It would be impossible to reciprocate without hitting an unarmed person. They are probably aware of this. Insurgents like to hide like that.


----------



## Vanilla

The thing that is the craziest to me about the shooting is watch the reaction from people in the video after the shot. Or should I say, watch the complete LACK of a reaction. 

If someone shoots off a round next to me and it surprises me, even in a situation where I am expecting it (IE duck blind, shooting range, etc.), I react. This guy pops off a round in downtown Provo and none of the people around him seem to even realize it or else they expected it and didn't care. Weird, for sure. Very weird.


----------



## shaner

Don’t lock it down, we need to be reminded that those of us that have something to live for need to stick together and to prepare to take back the greatest Country in the world.
Thirty years ago I lived in the UK for a two year church mission.
America was respected and held in high regard, everyone was jealous of me for living in such an incredible Country.
I went back to the UK last september and the general consensus is that the USA is now a joke.
Moral of my story:
Don’t tread on me.


----------



## bowgy

They got the other guy with a gun.
https://kutv.com/news/local/another-gunman-arrested-in-connection-to-shooting-at-provo-protest

They weren't locals, the investigation should include why these people from Salt Lake and Ogden were in Provo.


----------



## bowgy

Another one from Ogden, man what is going on up there?
https://www.ksl.com/article/46772534/ogden-man-accused-of-burning-flags-at-several-homes


----------



## Lone_Hunter

An honest, and complete answer to that question is liable to ruffle a couple of feathers.


----------



## Jedidiah

Vanilla said:


> This guy pops off a round in downtown Provo and none of the people around him seem to even realize it or else they expected it and didn't care.


Both the guys with guns had been threatening people with them for hours, and continued to threaten people with them after the shooting in the same place. So yeah, I'd say they expected the shooting.

By the way nothing against police here but they didn't even show up for the shooting, they first arrived to investigate what was later determined to be a false report of a hit and run called in by the rioters. Not their fault, they had been told to stay away by the mayor. That's why the police never showed up to prevent the shooting, they had been getting calls for hours about the riot but were just telling people to stay away because they had been told to stay away.


----------



## backcountry

Wow, wouldn't have expected that outcome in Provo. 

Glad to hear police are collaborating to round up folks involved. Sounds like they have arrested three people so far. SLC is saying the primary individual is a known "instigator". Given the event I hope they throw the book at 'em.


----------



## treysi

like there was no such precaution as 'stay home and far from crowded places' and people decided to riot anyways..


----------



## shaner

Who has just about had enough of these riots?????


----------



## Fowlmouth

shaner said:


> Who has just about had enough of these riots?????


It NEVER should have been allowed to get out of hand tonight. There wasn't a large crowd, and the police could have gained control quickly. Did the Mayor request police stand down again? People are going to get tired of this bull$hit.


----------



## backcountry

Bad in SLC?


----------



## backcountry

Just read up on the entire series of events. I didn't know they had released their decision today; I've been sympathetic to the protests but I have to say the review process and choice seem legit on this one. I feel for his family but it's hard to ignore the issue of the firearm and his priority to pick it up three times, according to video.

Sucks it turned into rioting. I hope for citizens sake that cities start to find better ways to protect free speech while also limiting damage and apprehending rioters before crowds turn violent.

Stay safe folks!


----------



## Lone_Hunter

This "movement" lost *all *validity a long time ago.


----------



## DallanC

Lone_Hunter said:


> This "movement" lost *all *validity a long time ago.


Thats how I feel too. Very disappointing what its turning into. I'm fully in agreement with "treat everyone fairly and courteously".

I feel encouraged however, with some minorities who are coming forward criticizing BLM. I loved the recent tweets from Terry Crews over it, conversely the response from Don Lemon was extremely disappointing. That exchange however made for great fodder for the Hodge Twins (my new favorite youtube channel)






-DallanC


----------



## shaner

It blows my mind these rioters are not smart enough to see the financial burden they are placing on us/them, we all pay for it!
The money/resources wasted on control/cleanup could be used for so many higher purposes.
Do these rioters enjoy living in destroyed cities?
Follow up question:
Who paid for all that paint, stimulus money?


----------



## backcountry

Lone_Hunter said:


> This "movement" lost *all *validity a long time ago.


To be fair, did you personally ever think it had validity? From your previous posts I'm making the educated guess you have been consistently critical of the movement.

I think it's a mistake for people to compare cases like the SLC one to those of unarmed people of color being killed by police for non-violent offenses. But I also didn't see any evidence of BLM organizing yesterdays response. I would wager the loose organization of community groups that make up these protests largely know the difference between a George Floyd atrocity and the unfortunate police shooting of an individual allegedly running away from an armed robbery and video showing them stopping multiple times to pick up their firearm. I still believe we need to always be considerate of use of force policy but the situations are clearly different.

I saw a video of the caliber of a few individual protestors yesterday and don't believe it reflects the cause. The video of the 20ish year old white guy harassing Channel 2 with vulgarities I think shows how some people are exploiting this moment to play anarchist. I "know" one person who is posting videos of their involvement (elsewhere) and it proves the point well. He's a spoiled child who has never suffered the full consequence of his behavior. He always thinks he's the victim even though he admitted to us that he committed fraud in his mortgage application (federally backed), appearantly trespasses on public lands with commercial activity and has had legal action filed against him by at least one federal agency. He confuses being an ally with being a liability.

Whatever the situation I hope we don't see further escalation like what happened in Provo. I'm grateful the police and state attorneys are seeking legal action against such "instigators". There is peaceful protest, which still appears to be the bulk of activity, and then illegal, unjustifiable violence.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

We're now making the news cycle. Happy happy joy joy.


----------



## backcountry

The culture war is strong in that one.

My favorite part is his ironic claim that he's "pushing the stone up the hill". You should probably understand mythology when you reference it. Sisyphus wasn't exactly an admirable man or voluntarily pushing that stone for eternity but it seems to fit Tim Pool pretty well. Rioters deserve Tim Pool and Tim Pool deserves a life of covering rioters; these parasites are a perfect match.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Someone please explain to me why it's okay to assault officers when it's a protest? (riot) Name another time or place when you can just walk up to officers and push them and fight with them and not get arrested for assault? I would think that at the moment you put your hands on an officer in an offensive manner you get cuffed and stuffed. I watched the riot yesterday where multiple people were pushing and hitting cops and nobody was getting arrested. This doesn't send a clear message to these thugs.


----------



## backcountry

They still might get arrested. From reporting it's been obvious that municipalities are building cases against individuals who step way out of line at moments like this. I wouldn't be shocked to see arrests or warrants trickle in for such conduct and especially for any provable act of clear and meaningful assault on a police officer. Sometimes you take minor hits on the chin to prevent escalation but I'm guessing someone is taking numbers when it goes beyond that. 

I know I wouldn't be sleeping well if I was doing what you described but that's one of the many reasons I would suck as a criminal.


----------



## Jedidiah

It's ok to pepper spray police for the same reason it's ok for a couple guys to brandish weapons and later shoot an innocent bystander in Provo: one political party wants to scare you with their rabid dogs.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

I submit that the rabid dogs are evidence that history is cyclical. The colors may change, but the tactics appear to be the same. 

These are interesting times. I'm reminded how in the past some people in society would postulate how "such and such" doesn't happen anymore because "this is the 21st century". As if we have somehow arrived at the enlightened age of rainbows and unicorns. Technology will change, but human nature hasn't, and probably never will.


----------



## Jedidiah

Right, we can be moderately successful in making sure history doesn't repeat itself but if the bad actors who profit from hurting society and progress try hard enough, they can at least make history rhyme.


----------



## backcountry

They are making arrests and changing strategy on enforcement. Couple people arrested for assaulting officers from aforementioned unlawful assembly.

https://kutv.com/news/local/slcpd-w...-vandalism-after-100k-in-damage-at-das-office


----------



## backcountry

This is America.

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-j...ents-portland-border-patrol-chad-wolf-statues

This goes against so many democratic and constitutional norms.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Ordinary I would agree with you, and seeing people being silently taken away in an unmarked vehicle would alarm me greatly.

However, given the context of the situation.
- Democratic law makers refusing to enforce the laws.
- rioting in the streets for 40 some odd days
- "autonomous zones", where "warlords" quickly assume control.
- An large uptick in street crime, and multiple people being shot in the streets. ("oh your still alive?" BAM BAM BAM,)
- businesses being shut down and ran out of business.

and anything else I'm probably forgetting... seeing this, in context with what has been going on, makes me giddy, and I had a good laugh. I absolutely love seeing these people get smacked upside the head with the reality (and repercussions) of their actions.





Now, if all the above wasn't the case...
then yes, i'd be greatly concerned. As it is, i'm not. I'm glad someone is finally doing something to restore law and order, since the local politicians are bending the knee to the outrage mob.


----------



## Ray

Lone_Hunter said:


> Ordinary I would agree with you, and seeing people being silently taken away in an unmarked vehicle would alarm me greatly.
> 
> However, given the context of the situation.
> - Democratic law makers refusing to enforce the laws.
> - rioting in the streets for 40 some odd days
> - "autonomous zones", where "warlords" quickly assume control.
> - An large uptick in street crime, and multiple people being shot in the streets. ("oh your still alive?" BAM BAM BAM,)
> - businesses being shut down and ran out of business.
> 
> and anything else I'm probably forgetting... seeing this, in context with what has been going on, makes me giddy, and I had a good laugh. I absolutely love seeing these people get smacked upside the head with the reality (and repercussions) of their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if all the above wasn't the case...
> then yes, i'd be greatly concerned. As it is, i'm not. I'm glad someone is finally doing something to restore law and order, since the local politicians are bending the knee to the outrage mob.


Classic case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Personally, I hope the justice system comes throws the book at these idiots. Literally!


----------



## Vanilla

I would submit that taking over communities, causing chaos and confusion, and yes, damaging public and private property have nothing to do with the democratic process. I’m all for allowing protests. Riots, on the other hand, and continuing riots, have to stop somehow. 

Who is supposed to stop them when the people doing them won’t stop themselves?


----------



## 2full

It's kind of funny. Things have mellowed quite a bit since a line was finally drawn. 
It won't change until there is consequences for their actions.


----------



## DallanC

That video at 6:50 is amazingly awesome, hammer due got steamrolled. INSTANT KARMA :mrgreen:





-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> I would submit that taking over communities, causing chaos and confusion, and yes, damaging public and private property have nothing to do with the democratic process. I'm all for allowing protests. Riots, on the other hand, and continuing riots, have to stop somehow.
> 
> Who is supposed to stop them when the people doing them won't stop themselves?


I agree with your concerns in your first sentence. But we have legitimate, time tested ways of successfully prosecuting such crimes.

I assume you know the answer to your question is not the Border Patrol (USBP) ? That is who the context of my link is about. The article highlights some pretty unacceptable policing and pretty blatant disregard for constitutional protections. My conservative influences always taught me to verify federal power was flexed justly and lawfully, even if its with people I don't align with. Its especially suspect when that federal authority isn't coordinating with local or state authorities and is operating under some bogus "protecting a federal court" justification. There are ways to do that without abandoning our systems, values and traditions.

The video linked it telling about the levels of injustice being wrought upon citizens. The citizen was "cuffed and stuffed" (one of the least conservative and constitutional phrases I've heard in a while but one that seems to come from modern conservatives) with no identification of the federal authorities or explanation of reason. He was released soon thereafter after being taken to an undisclosed location. Yep, "law and order" as a campaign slogan was always a cover. Bread and circuses is about catharsis not healthy governance.

Make no mistake, as I've said multiple times here, I fully support the lawful and just arrest and prosecution of rioters. Throw the book at them.But this approach isn't conservative, democratic, remotely in the spirit of the constitution or just. This is authoritarian cosplay that quickly can become normative. (This is why we don't militarize domestic police forces in functional liberal democracies).

Its telling how individuals are expressing a sort of blood lust against fellow Americans, as long as they are on what's perceived as opposite sides. This is how you kill a democracy; you bleed its people of equal justice and make them believe without extreme measures against citizens they aren't safe. Its a pretty simple and predictable recipe playing out right in front of us. Its not us versus them, its us vs us.

And a caveat, criticisms about abandonment of democratic norms and justice are contextually about government practice, not individual citizens.

Its disheartening to watch people to either political side of me abandoning pretty basic tenets of justice and decency. On the "left" I have friends taken pleasure in social media icons dying from Covid-19 because they happened to post conspiracies and anti-mask rhetoric. And on the "right" I'm seeing more and more abandonment of speaking truth to federal power and righteously defending fundamental liberties when it comes to individuals they assume fit some negative stereotype (antifa, neo-marxist, or whatever boogeyman helps explain away the disruption is happening nationally). Neither of those approaches preserves our nation's fundamental values as they actively erode the foundations they rest upon.

PS....ever looked at a map of how many people live under the potential operationally authority of USBP? Its nuts. It was never meant to be used as an enforcement arm against citizens in this fashion. Its a gross expansion and abuse of what were supposed to be limited and specific powers.


----------



## Ray

DallanC said:


> That video at 6:50 is amazingly awesome, hammer due got steamrolled. INSTANT KARMA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


My thoughts exactly! I hope he got 20 years that crap


----------



## backcountry

Trump's rhetoric isn't conservative on this very issue



> "We'll be doing things that you'll be, I think, very impressed with. Numbers are going to be coming down *even if we have to go in and take over cities*, because we can't let that happen.... We're not supposed to -- you're supposed to wait for [local officials] to call, but they don't call."


After four years we can't separate his rhetoric from his policy. It only took four years for "go in and take over cities" to become politically acceptable in this country.

He even lays out why this is beyond the pale in his own statement, "you're supposed to wait for [local officials] to call". This is complete abandonment of American tradition and norms. Whatever happened to states rights being a core tenet of conservatism?


----------



## Vanilla

Backcountry, you went on a really long diatribe there against who YOU are perceiving as the “other side,” but you never answered my question.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> Trump's rhetoric isn't conservative on this very issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We'll be doing things that you'll be, I think, very impressed with. Numbers are going to be coming down *even if we have to go in and take over cities*, because we can't let that happen.... We're not supposed to -- you're supposed to wait for [local officials] to call, but they don't call."
> 
> 
> 
> After four years we can't separate his rhetoric from his policy. It only took four years for "go in and take over cities" to become politically acceptable in this country.
> 
> He even lays out why this is beyond the pale in his own statement, "you're supposed to wait for [local officials] to call". This is complete abandonment of American tradition and norms. Whatever happened to states rights being a core tenet of conservatism?
Click to expand...

We get it bro, you hate Trump, good for you


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's rhetoric isn't conservative on this very issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We'll be doing things that you'll be, I think, very impressed with. Numbers are going to be coming down *even if we have to go in and take over cities*, because we can't let that happen.... We're not supposed to -- you're supposed to wait for [local officials] to call, but they don't call."
> 
> 
> 
> After four years we can't separate his rhetoric from his policy. It only took four years for "go in and take over cities" to become politically acceptable in this country.
> 
> He even lays out why this is beyond the pale in his own statement, "you're supposed to wait for [local officials] to call". This is complete abandonment of American tradition and norms. Whatever happened to states rights being a core tenet of conservatism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it bro, you hate Trump, good for you
Click to expand...

Nope, I hate abuse of federal power but nice try. I hate abandoning basic tenets of long standing American values of governance.

It's funny that the moderate is the one holding the conservative line here when it comes to actual law and order.


----------



## Ray

Those people got what they deserve


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Backcountry, you went on a really long diatribe there against who YOU are perceiving as the "other side," but you never answered my question.


Nope, I grossly generalized from actual statements I've seen but they aren't the other side, they are "us". That's my point. We are willfully allowing a federal response that doesn't match our country's traditions and norms. Those people making those statements are my fellow Americans, not the other side.

I did not answer your rhetorical question because I don't believe it's a justified federal response. Trump literally said and then literally decided to "take over cities" and his spokesman said they refuse to leave at the request of the state. It's not my job to layout the proper plan but it is in the American spirit to call it out the government when they abuse their authority.

As a lawyer you understand basic issues of discretion in when and how agencies enforce the law. You understand jurisdiction. And you know the oversight of these events is the pervue of state and local authorities according to Anerican tradition and norms.

A bunch of militarized USBP/CBP agents roaming way away from actual federal property and "cuffing and stuffing" civilians isn't just. But it's clearly being applauded as American now.

And yes, I'll diatribe about stuff this serious.


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> Those people got what they deserve


Even the one who was released without charges, ie the one I linked to, after being abducted by unmarked federal agents and without even an explanation of why? I guess we don't care about the constitution anymore then?

The CBP statement doesn't align with video footage at all.

The type of sentiment you just expressed is how government abuse becomes normal and justified. Instead of starting from a place of critical analysis of such authority we start from a place that we assume it was deserved and civilians have to prove their innocence. Like I said, this is an abandonment of basic American principles. History has shown us what happens to perceived political enemies can and will happen to us through those exact types of rational. Once we erode basic foundations they no longer exist for anyone.

History is full of political theater like this in which presidents (or the like) use real crisis and events to expand power and use of force against their own people. Fear is the easiest but least precise tool to wield by presidents.


----------



## Vanilla

My question is not a rhetorical question at all. And even if I agree with you that there should not be this type of federal response, WHO should be stopping these people?

Because, they should be stopped. There is no rational argument to be made that groups of anarchists should be allowed to terrorize a city for a month, continually damaging public and private property, harming businesses ability to operate, infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens continually. These are the things that are happening in Portland. Who is going to stop it? The local authorities have refused to do so. I would sum it that is every bit as un-American, not democratic, a violation of our norms, and an abuse of power as what the federal response here is. Why no criticism for them from you on this one? 

Heck, one bad incident in Provo and I won’t take my family anywhere near busy places after 5 pm anymore. I’m not going to put my need to make decisions like that into the hands of a mob, even if they’re claiming to be “peaceful.” I’ll drive down the street in the worst gang areas in Utah (and have done so) and not worry because even those monsters disguised as people won’t just randomly shoot a car driving down the road. I’m not dealing with these anarchists disguised as peaceful protesters or being anywhere close to them if I can avoid it. That was ONE incident that caused me to feel this way. Can you imagine what the residents of Portland, or Seattle feel? (Just two of many examples) 

So I’ll ask again, who should be stopping them? And I’ll wait patiently for an equal measure of criticism for those people are not acting how they should, since you’re so neutral on this and all.


----------



## Vanilla

And let me be clear, I don’t consider an anarchist being quoted in a Mother Jones article as a reputable source. I trust that just as little as I do our president. (Which isn’t much)


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> My question is not a rhetorical question at all. And even if I agree with you that there should not be this type of federal response, WHO should be stopping these people?
> 
> Because, they should be stopped. There is no rational argument to be made that groups of anarchists should be allowed to terrorize a city for a month, continually damaging public and private property, harming businesses ability to operate, infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens continually. These are the things that are happening in Portland. Who is going to stop it? The local authorities have refused to do so. I would sum it that is every bit as un-American, not democratic, a violation of our norms, and an abuse of power as what the federal response here is. Why no criticism for them from you on this one?
> 
> Heck, one bad incident in Provo and I won't take my family anywhere near busy places after 5 pm anymore. I'm not going to put my need to make decisions like that into the hands of a mob, even if they're claiming to be "peaceful." I'll drive down the street in the worst gang areas in Utah (and have done so) and not worry because even those monsters disguised as people won't just randomly shoot a car driving down the road. I'm not dealing with these anarchists disguised as peaceful protesters or being anywhere close to them if I can avoid it. That was ONE incident that caused me to feel this way. Can you imagine what the residents of Portland, or Seattle feel? (Just two of many examples)
> 
> So I'll ask again, who should be stopping them? And I'll wait patiently for an equal measure of criticism for those people are not acting how they should, since you're so neutral on this and all.


You know I'm not neutral and haven't been on this very thread. That's complete BS and you know it. Multiple times I've said they should be arrested and prosecuted. I refuse to take pleasure in watching civilians tackled by authorities but I fully support using the law properly against the criminals rioting. But it's not my job to define which exact state or local agency is responsible for that measure. Sorry, that's twisted logic in the face of actual abuse of power.

I'm sorry you no longer feel safe enough to travel the way you describe. That sucks and obviously light-years from ideal in any imaginable fashion. And I have no doubt that's how people feel in cities across America right now. It sucks.

But we are literally watching videos of innocent civilians (released without charges) being abducted by secret police without any explanation for why. And someone on this very thread stated "those people" deserved it. Full stop.

Reverse the scenario and tell me how people would be responding:

A democratic president says they'll "take over" an American city and that city just happens to be one grossly stereotyped as conservative. There is legitimate unrest by extreme conservative groups but said president has said they are ignoring local and state requests to leave They are removing department insignia from their heavily militarized uniforms and snatching up innocent civilians, alongside ones clearly documented to have caused damage to federal property or attacking federal personnel. They are operating way outside federal property and outside the scope of policy that justifies the agency. But you know, there is always a CFR to justify such expansion of power and said president signed another EO, again. In said EO he explicitly names right wing factions as threats to America.

How do you think these secret police would be perceived by conservatives?


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> And let me be clear, I don't consider an anarchist being quoted in a Mother Jones article as a reputable source. I trust that just as little as I do our president. (Which isn't much)


The CPB fully admitted he was released without charges and the video evidence doesn't support the documented claims they made as an organization. Conservative tradition = question the heck out of that discrepancy and force accountability. Conservative tradition is innocent until proven guilty. Conservative tradition is protecting fundamental, explicit constitutional protections in the face of federal over reach.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla,

You said "Who is going to stop it? The local authorities have refused to do so."

That is false. The Portland Police have been out in force as evidenced by tons of reporting. They've been declaring unlawfully assemblies at night and attempting to stop further damage like you describe. And I'm not criticizing that level of response on purpose even if I think there are unfortunate errors made in the process.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

I have to mention something.

Years ago, the Democrat's (the party of big government mind you) started floating the idea of a "nationalized police force", the premise being to improve law enforcement. Kinda of like what some people are calling for now - better Policing. The law enforcement community back then immediately spoke out against it. Why? Because a nationalized police force isn't from your local community. It's tantamount to having the fed's come in - kinda like what is going on in seattle.

So I find it hilarious that Democrat's are throwing a fit over Trump bringing the Feds in to protect federal property because this is what a Nationalized police force would look like, and probably what would happen if the Democrat's were in charge.

Call it a tin foil hat, but I suspect that this "defund the police" bit, is the Democrat's playing the long game. To get what they want, the first have to get rid of what they don't want.

And people will fall for it because their stupid, or can't believe that our politicians would be like that. I used to think "this is America, that can't happen here".. BS, it can.

As for Trump, he wasn't my pick, and I don't like the "cult of personality", or "idoltry" people bestow upon him. Doing that, regardless of the individual or political party is dangerous. That said, I do believe he is the right man, in a pivotal moment for our country. If Trump hadn't appeared when he did, we'd already be well on our way down a path from which there is no recovery from without bloodshed.


----------



## backcountry

Curious what evidence you have for this federal police force and what it's actual context/mission was? I ask as it's a vague enough claim that it's not ringing a bell for me.

I love the double bind being placed by your comment. Either the DNC wants to defund the police, which is bad in your book (let me know if I'm remembering previous comments wrong), or they a playing a long game to create a new federal police force, which is also bad in your book? 

I'm against a full defunding of police agencies as I've said before. I do see benefit in funding other agencies for things that aren't about enforcement of violent crime; at this point I think that's a fair argument and has benefits. But I believe in better training, better standards and then more accountability for law enforcement which all require more funding. 

It's still amazing to me that conservatives are being relatively quiet if not supportive of this abuse and expansion of federal police power right now. And make no mistake it's playing out as I stated, ie he's promised to deploy more this week solely to "democrat run" cities. He's not subtly targeting his partisan opposition and playing to his base. This is the most dangerous type of political theater there is in a liberal democracy. And if doesn't bode well for maintaining our constitutional republic.

PS...rioters are in the wrong but our founders constrained tyrannical Federal behavior for exactly moments like this, ie they knew we could find ways to quell non-peacable assembly without resorting to what the executive branch is currently doing. It's not on accident that Trump is fascinated with strong men in illiberal democracies.


----------



## backcountry

At this point it's going to take conservatives and republicans to condemn Trump full-throatedly to end this behavior. And not just for this moment but to form a bulwark against future use as well. 

If not we'll have a very discreet moment in time that we can to point to in which states rights and a constrained federal power were no longer a foundational value in conservative politics. It's never too late to turn back but there is a point it highly unlikely. This is the moment conservative values can be harnessed. If not than future attempts at constraining a democratic or progressive executive from using power similarly to play yo their base will just ring hollow and hypocritical. And that cycle is self-destructive. 

Countries get to show what they truly believe at moments like this and our country is revealing much of it's claims don't matter in the face of political catharsis. Once you take this genie out of the bottle, one that our founders worked hard to contain, it's really hard to put back in. We are seeing how a Constitution doesn't protect us if we continually erode actual democratic norms (ie how government is held accountable and in check).


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> At this point it's going to take conservatives and republicans to condemn Trump full-throatedly to end this behavior. And not just for this moment but to form a bulwark against future use as well.
> 
> If not we'll have a very discreet moment in time that we can to point to in which states rights and a constrained federal power were no longer a foundational value in conservative politics. It's never too late to turn back but there is a point it highly unlikely. This is the moment conservative values can be harnessed. If not than future attempts at constraining a democratic or progressive executive from using power similarly to play yo their base will just ring hollow and hypocritical. And that cycle is self-destructive.
> 
> Countries get to show what they truly believe at moments like this and our country is revealing much of it's claims don't matter in the face of political catharsis. Once you take this genie out of the bottle, one that our founders worked hard to contain, it's really hard to put back in. We are seeing how a Constitution doesn't protect us if we continually erode actual democratic norms (ie how government is held accountable and in check).


I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted, it's turned into pure politics and honestly the constant blaming Trump for everything is getting old


----------



## Lone_Hunter

backcountry said:


> Curious what evidence you have for this federal police force and what it's actual context/mission was? I ask as it's a vague enough claim that it's not ringing a bell for me...


I doubt there is anything I could say that would ring any bell at all. I could go google searching 5-10 years back when the topic of nationalizing local police first came up, but all you'd do then is question the veracity of the information provided.

So do your own homework, and educate yourself. I've learned awhile ago, you cannot argue with, nor dissuade a liberal from the viewpoint. It is a complete, and utter 100% waste of time. They have to discover and learn things on their own. I ought to know, i *was *left of center on a number of topics in the past. I changed my mind on my own, nobody did it for me. Then again, I was never vested into any one political ideological bubble.


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point it's going to take conservatives and republicans to condemn Trump full-throatedly to end this behavior. And not just for this moment but to form a bulwark against future use as well.
> 
> If not we'll have a very discreet moment in time that we can to point to in which states rights and a constrained federal power were no longer a foundational value in conservative politics. It's never too late to turn back but there is a point it highly unlikely. This is the moment conservative values can be harnessed. If not than future attempts at constraining a democratic or progressive executive from using power similarly to play yo their base will just ring hollow and hypocritical. And that cycle is self-destructive.
> 
> Countries get to show what they truly believe at moments like this and our country is revealing much of it's claims don't matter in the face of political catharsis. Once you take this genie out of the bottle, one that our founders worked hard to contain, it's really hard to put back in. We are seeing how a Constitution doesn't protect us if we continually erode actual democratic norms (ie how government is held accountable and in check).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted, it's turned into pure politics and honestly the constant blaming Trump for everything is getting old
Click to expand...

Critiquing government officials is about as American as it gets and this thread started political and stayed that way. I just happen to be criticizing the actions of a politician you seem like. Each of these threads has had multiple references to political figures or ideologies that has been critiqued, even the what have you learned one started with a massive broadside to all democrats.

I've been explicit in what I critique the POTUS for and it's relevant to the thread. It's not close to blaming him for everything as even I'm disappointed in places like Seattle for not quelling some of these illegal behaviors sooner.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> I've been explicit in what I critique the POTUS for and it's relevant to the thread. It's not close to blaming him for everything as even I'm disappointed in places like Seattle for not quelling some of these illegal behaviors sooner.


Just an observation here. And definitely one I'm sure you won't agree with, but I'm giving it anyway. Speaking of ringing hollow...if your criticism of the latter part of this statement was even close to the former, I might buy that you care about anything but picking a side right now.

Since you've been basically silent on all that criticism throughout this, though, it rings hollow. Just my perspective.

If you were a citizen of a town, city, county that was being terrorized daily by these "peaceful" protests that have shut down businesses, damaged property (both public and private) and your local elected officials stood by idly watching, what would you do? You might have seen the auto part store fiasco up in the CHAZ last month. We are very lucky that didn't turn into a blood bath. Hat are law abiding citizens supposed to do when their local government won't protect them or their property?

Not rhetorical questions here. I'm legitimately curious what your opinion here is.


----------



## backcountry

Lone_Hunter said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious what evidence you have for this federal police force and what it's actual context/mission was? I ask as it's a vague enough claim that it's not ringing a bell for me...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there is anything I could say that would ring any bell at all. I could go google searching 5-10 years back when the topic of nationalizing local police first came up, but all you'd do then is question the veracity of the information provided.
> 
> So do your own homework, and educate yourself. I've learned awhile ago, you cannot argue with, nor dissuade a liberal from the viewpoint. It is a complete, and utter 100% waste of time. They have to discover and learn things on their own. I ought to know, i *was *left of center on a number of topics in the past. I changed my mind on my own, nobody did it for me. Then again, I was never vested into any one political ideological bubble.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm against an idea that hideous as it's not constitutional in my book. I just have never heard that claim nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever. If the DNC wanted to create tye federal police force that had expansive broad powers that you vaguely describe than I would (1) be shocked and (2) be vocally against it. As is obvious, I have no problem going against currents.

But it's not my job to prove your claim. At best it's unsubstantiated right now but given your resistance I'm guessing you know it might be untrue. And as I've made clear time and time again I have a penchant for challenging misinformation.

I think it's fair to say I'm anything but liberal as I am someone actually holding the conservative line right now while people acqueice to exactly what conservatives have been claiming to fight against for decades. I'm literally trying to protect conservative values in this thread instead of letting them be trampled.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been explicit in what I critique the POTUS for and it's relevant to the thread. It's not close to blaming him for everything as even I'm disappointed in places like Seattle for not quelling some of these illegal behaviors sooner.
> 
> 
> 
> Just an observation here. And definitely one I'm sure you won't agree with, but I'm giving it anyway. Speaking of ringing hollow...if your criticism of the latter part of this statement was even close to the former, I might buy that you care about anything but picking a side right now.
> 
> Since you've been basically silent on all that criticism throughout this, though, it rings hollow. Just my perspective.
> 
> If you were a citizen of a town, city, county that was being terrorized daily by these "peaceful" protests that have shut down businesses, damaged property (both public and private) and your local elected officials stood by idly watching, what would you do? You might have seen the auto part store fiasco up in the CHAZ last month. We are very lucky that didn't turn into a blood bath. Hat are law abiding citizens supposed to do when their local government won't protect them or their property?
> 
> Not rhetorical questions here. I'm legitimately curious what your opinion here is.
Click to expand...

You keep saying I've been silent which is patently false. I very much do not play culture games in which I take pleasure in watching these rioters hurt but I have spoken out against them, consistently. It's in this and the BLM centered thread as public record. But I also know the narrative that cities aren't doing anything is propaganda. They are fighting back every night. Maybe not in the way we want but they are definitely fighting against most unlawful assemblies (we all know Seattle failed at CHAZ).

What are they supposed to do? What every citizen does when the system isn't working the way they want, participate. Educate yourself on the facts. Advocate to your elected officials and organize locally. That's all we have in a republic. At least according to conservative values and ideology.

But that question can easily become justification for allowing a system to warped into abuse of power which is happening as we speak. You know this as well as I do. When we allow the system to be abused to "solve" the problems we want solved then we tacitly approve of the means and the ends. And they will be used against our own causes and values.

For years the conservative line has been protecting liberty even when it means accepting problems persist. We've told children they have to live with gun violence because of constitutional liberties but somehow fundamental liberties don't matter for these cities and citizens caught up in this federal abuse?

This whataboutism hurts every one of us. It's not my job to define the exact measures a city or state takes but you can guarantee it's my civic duty to speak out against such blatant and wanton abuse of federal power. And right now we are watching exactly what conservatives claimed to fear most play out in front of eyes and for the most part choosing to roll over because it fits the partisan narrative. I'm not going to be quiet about that because no matter what you believe, I sincerely value these foundational liberties. I value them more than a single president or seeking catharsis in moments of unrest.


----------



## Vanilla

Can you point me to your posts criticizing Seattle’s elected officials on the failures with the CHAZ the same way you’re criticizing the president? I must have missed those. 

And you keep saying it isn’t your job to dictate local response, but you are fine doing so with the feds? Let me be clear, you won’t hear me defend much this president has done or unfortunately will do, but I believe the local INACTION is every bit as much as an abuse of power as the current federal actions are. Both are doing this to score political points with their own. Both are leaving the vast majority of us hanging high and dry. I will criticize both in the process equally.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Can you point me to your posts criticizing Seattle's elected officials on the failures with the CHAZ the same way you're criticizing the president? I must have missed those.
> 
> And you keep saying it isn't your job to dictate local response, but you are fine doing so with the feds? Let me be clear, you won't hear me defend much this president has done or unfortunately will do, but I believe the local INACTION is every bit as much as an abuse of power as the current federal actions are. Both are doing this to score political points with their own. Both are leaving the vast majority of us hanging high and dry. I will criticize both in the process equally.


I'll look, I'm not positive on Chaz but that's not my claim. I think I did but not positive. But I don't live in Seattle and don't hold much civic sway with local politicians there do I?

Ironically, CHAZ is Seattle, not Portland. It kind of proves my point. Even look at the press release from CBP and you'll see they only pointed to graffiti incidents in Portland. Hardly a situation that requires the jackbootery we are seeing. Not to mention it was an estimated $50k in damage. That's probably less than one night of overtime for these militarized federal law enforcement personnel.

And no...it's not the same abuse. Constitutionally we know local and state agencies have discretion. Can you honestly not see the difference? This gets right to the marrow of conservative ideology. Is the federal government constitutionally restrained or not in these moments? Choose wisely as it affects our entire national framework.

Are we going to justify secretive federal police forces beating the crap out of peaceful protestors (video evidence of them absolutely walloping a veteran this weekend) and/or abducting civilians without cause way outside their jurisdiction? Is that conservatism now? Because that is the level of abuse being documented. It's not the same as poorly quelling rioters. Not in kind or degree.


----------



## backcountry

PS....plenty of quality journalism showing most of us aren't high and dry. These aren't isolated events but neither are they happening to the scale being exploited for partisan gain. Even look to journalism within Portland to see how most people are living a "normal" life under COVID-19. The propaganda of militarization the executive branch is using, constant use of "under siege", is working beautifully against our fellow citizens. They've turned this into us vs us.


----------



## backcountry

Yep, I didn't mention CHAZ here. But not shockingly I never said I did nor was it referenced by others from what I can tell.

But as I said I did full-throatedly condemn violent protest multiple times. Applauded agencies working together to arrest the actual criminals in SLC and Provo. And went as far as to call rioters parasites. 

It's almost like I've critiqued the rioters and publicly support using law enforcement and the justice system properly against these violent acts. Odd.

PS (edit)...read through the 3 relevant threads and I think your recent post was the first one to mention CHAZ by name and I agreed immediately. Maybe I missed others?


----------



## Lone_Hunter

backcountry said:


> N
> But it's not my job to prove your claim. At best it's unsubstantiated right now but given your resistance I'm guessing you know it might be untrue..


I've been "arguing on the internet" since before that meme was first made.

You remember the one?









I Honestly do not care if you believe me. Your going to believe what you want anyway. It makes ZERO difference in my life if I've convinced you of anything or not. I've wasted too much time going back and forth with some random dude on the internet.

I started to dig up the info... the I realized, and remembered, it was a waste of my time. The amount of time it took me to type this (3 mins) is all your going to get from me.

I don't care anymore, been doing this for too many years.


----------



## backcountry

Really going to post some hideous joke about the Special Olympics? That reveals more about you than anything else. I didn't stay long on list servs or forums in which that garbage was commonplace.

Sorry you are unable to justify your claim. I'll continue to assume it's in the line of your other hyperbole and misinformation in the political realm.


----------



## Vanilla

I can see this will be another topic that you get so laser focused on the minutia and talking in circles that you refuse to eye anything other than your own way, so I’ll respectfully bow out now. 

Continue on your Trump bashing. I don’t like the guy anyways.


----------



## backcountry

It's funny how people oversimplify criticisms of behavior to "trump bashing'. It's a pretty convenient excuse for ignoring the content of his policy and behavior that's actually being criticized. Funny thing I was accused of the same, in liberal speak, when I criticized Obama's imperialistic behavior (excessive use if EOs, like DACA; ignoring sovereignty of other nations; etc). 

I just don't fall for whataboutisms. You may not like his actions but they will continue without more citizens demanding better. And we've become so polarized and sorted that our leaders only seem to respond when their base calls them out. That's a hideous feedback loop. 

But yep, I'm just Trump bashing. There is nothing of substance or foundational values to look at here. It's not like constraining central power is why our nation exists or anything. Just a bunch of minutia. (Team Sarcasm)


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> I can see this will be another topic that you get so laser focused on the minutia and talking in circles that you refuse to eye anything other than your own way, so I'll respectfully bow out now.
> 
> Continue on your Trump bashing. I don't like the guy anyways.


To be fair when in our interaction have you behaved any different? I've actually shown were I am in agreement with you multiple times yet somehow it's just "minutia" and "talking in circles".

Like I've said multiple times you and I are probably the most similar of most on this thread. Except this time it's evidently too much to be laser focused on criticizing our federal government's choices from an objectively and accurately portrayed conservative perspective? (A hint: I'm one of Trump's constituents; I'm not one of Seattle's officials).


----------



## Lone_Hunter

And the rioting not only continues, but has been escalating. If what this guy says is true, it's going downhill fast.


----------



## backcountry

There is a marked climb in resistance since federal agents arrived. That is a definite fact. The vast majority remains peaceful but sadly the level of violence in the crowd had also increased.

But...we have known this cycle for ages. It's why state responses have largely not matched rioters 1 to 1. When enforcement escalates past a certain point than peaceful citizens become more aggrevated. We may not like it but it's a truism. 

In Portland analysis shows rioting was decreasing the week before Feds arrived. There were calls within the protest community to self-limit activity for the time being. But when peaceful citizens saw federal agents shooting completely peaceful protestors directly with "non-lethal" rounds (hospitalized and we're in critical condition) the situation escalated. And continues to as feds shoot tear gas and flash bangs at peaceful "moms" and beat veterans with batons. 

The federal response is creating the recent insurgency and it was predictable. It's why local policing is so restrained in comparison. You don't gas, kidnap and beat the crap out of citizens unless you want a fight. It's clear the federal government wants this reaction.

Fascist leaders use aggressive policing and the response to it to justify their policy. It's happening here as we speak. 

Suddenly all those militia types claiming to protect citizens from such federal violence are nowhere to be seen. It was always cosplay and hollow.

PS...you also don't send in undertrained officers unless you want chaos. Even the CBP internal memos document that awareness but they went forward with their aggressive tactics anyways.


----------



## backcountry

This is what happens when you have an "acting" cabinet member with no criminal law experience acting out a president's worst impulses. Wolf would normally barely be qualified to be a West Wing intern but fits the bill of yes man for an authoritarian looking to literally beat American citizens. Remember, only "the best people".


----------



## brisket

Ray said:


> I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted


#metoo. While we're at it, please shut down the Coronavirus thread as well.


----------



## backcountry

Peaceful protestor shot in head and severelyly injured by federal officers:

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/202...th-impact-weapon-causing-severe-injuries.html

Veteran with the audacity to use first amendment wantonly beat by federal officers:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-david-federal-officers-oregon-a9627466.html

Group of peaceful "mom's", one clearly pregnant, directly shot at with "non-lethal" rounds despite protocol being to not shoot such rounds directly at people as they then can be life threatening (see first link):

https://www.today.com/parents/wall-moms-portland-protests-tear-gas-violence-t187393

There is immense irony in a user asking for threads to be closed after they themselves said some of the most inflammatory political statements (imaginary Nazis asking for papers) since this all started. Interesting when actual federal abuse happens what people really do.


----------



## backcountry

Finally some conservatives standing up to this abuse.

Rand Paul yesterday:



> "We cannot give up liberty for security," Paul said. "Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will."


Don't always agree with his tactics but at least he is consistent in defending fundamental conservative ideals.


----------



## backcountry

Here's what it looks like when a peaceful protestor is shot directly in the head with an "impact round" by a federal agent. All for playing a boom box across the street from a federal courthouse. Who is the criminal here?

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland...ury-after-being-shot-by-feds-sister-says.html

This is the injury and assault that catalyzed the most recent round of protests.


----------



## Critter

There always have been bad cops and there always will be bad cops. 

But, there is a difference between protest and what is happening in these cities now. 

Is it a protest when the protesters break into privately owned businesses and take it upon themselves to haul everything that they can out of the business? How about blocking off a dozen blocks and creating their own society where there is no rule but the rule of the strongest? 

Have you ever seen the movie "Lord Of The Flies" In my opinion this is what is going on right now. Protest all you want but the second you start destroying property or start ignoring lawful orders you opened yourself up to a lot of ramifications that actually neither side wants to happen. 

I'm not condoning what the whoever did in the article that you cited but when you run with the herd you better expect to get ran over.


----------



## backcountry

I agree that rioters deserve legal repercussions but you lost me with the absolutism. I truly believe you don't condone the violence on either side but here is peaceful protest happening even if some others are or eventually do riot. They aren't mutually exclusive. They often happen side by side wether we like it or not. And police are constitutionally bound to respect peaceable assembly. Plain and simple. 

Not only that but a better analogy would be that wolves sneak into the herd and run with them. That doesn't mean the herd is illegitimate. The burden is on the state and law enforcement to either differentiate between peaceable protestors and criminals or properly justify an "unlawful assembly" and then proportionately disperse them. But the burden is on the "state" not peaceable protestors. 

Ironically organizers had been reducing conflict even if it wasn't their burden. They tried and often did deescalate the situation until the federal forces, who were known to be improperly trained in riot control by as documented by the agency in charge, started on the war path against peaceable protestors like La Belle, whose crime was pulling a "Say Something" boom box move. And then the feds chose to escalate further by going all secret police far away from federal property and abducting citizens. At this point they have fueled the response.

Another caveat....much of even the state response has been problematic enough that courts had to intervene. The abuse of non-lethal rounds got so bad that courts limited them severely which is partially why declaring "riots" became more common as that was the new legal threshold. 

The situation sucks but peaceable protestors are not to blame nor is violence against such legal assembly ever justified. Our constitution is designed to protect us from state force like them getting metaphorically "ran over" as you stated. And recourse should be swift and precise when federal agencies fail to live up to that standard.

Instead they are threatening to expand this operation to more "democratic run" cities.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> And police are constitutionally bound to respect peaceable assembly. Plain and simple.


Speaking of absolutism, it's really not that plain and simple. There are constitutional limits placed even on peaceable assembly, and police have constitutional authority to enforce those limits.

So, this is a good example why absolutism regularly fails.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> And police are constitutionally bound to respect peaceable assembly. Plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of absolutism, it's really not that plain and simple. There are constitutional limits placed even on peaceable assembly, and police have constitutional authority to enforce those limits.
> 
> So, this is a good example why absolutism regularly fails.
Click to expand...

There are legally justified limits placed on peaceable assembly but they aren't laid bare in the constitution. They would fall under the powers I admitted to above that you cherry-picked out. It is on the burden of police to differentiate and respond accordingly within the restraints of the law.

In the context of this series of links do you actually believe that the veteran, the "mom's", LaBelle or other peaceable protestors were treated with such constitutional protections properly? Does it appear from evidence that shooting impact ammunitions, flash bangs and tear gas directly at protesters meets that standard? If not then your point doesn't hold much weight and seems to be a red herring.

Like I said, the local police have powers to disperse "unlawful assembly". But it's on them to do so properly. These cases don't have evidence they did, as it was feds literally shooting civilians on streets, and in fact evidence points to excessivessive and unjustified force. And as someone who values conservatism I firmly believe we protect citizens from such abuse. Sadly we are seeing that standard inverted at the moment and our fellow citizens are literally being hurt because of it.


----------



## Vanilla

Yes, I cherry picked. Something you do as well. I just simply pointed out a constitutional reality that your “plain and simple” claim is not so plain and simple. And if we’re being honest here, your statement I quoted was pretty absolute. 

But, whatever.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Yes, I cherry picked. Something you do as well. I just simply pointed out a constitutional reality that your "plain and simple" claim is not so plain and simple. And if we're being honest here, your statement I quoted was pretty absolute.
> 
> But, whatever.


Yes, I said "plain and simple" in context of "peaceable assembly" in reference to, and later justified in the same comment, in reference to laws regarding "lawful assembly" and therefore "unlawful assembly" being enforceable. It's almost like I was referencing a degree of legal discretion and US jurisprudence? It's almost like I started with a generalized opening and then defended it with more nuance in following paragraphs, ie why cherry-picking is considered a rhetorical fallacy. Gasp. So yes, the cherry-picked quote is absolutist but not the entire argument. It's almost like that's why people cherry pick.

But please do show me where I cherry-picked here and I'll actually apologize for the inconsistency. I sincerely try to avoid it. But right now you are just doing a nice little game of "I know you are but what am I" sort of deflection.


----------



## Vanilla

Critter said:


> There always have been bad cops and there always will be bad cops.
> 
> But, there is a difference between protest and what is happening in these cities now.
> 
> Is it a protest when the protesters break into privately owned businesses and take it upon themselves to haul everything that they can out of the business? How about blocking off a dozen blocks and creating their own society where there is no rule but the rule of the strongest?
> 
> Have you ever seen the movie "Lord Of The Flies" In my opinion this is what is going on right now. Protest all you want but the second you start destroying property or start ignoring lawful orders you opened yourself up to a lot of ramifications that actually neither side wants to happen.
> 
> I'm not condoning what the whoever did in the article that you cited but when you run with the herd you better expect to get ran over.


Backcountry, this is what you called absolutism. He also gave specific instances to nuance what he's talking about. You won't ever admit you've ever done anything other than be right in these discussions, I have learned that. It is like I said, you want to talk in circles around the minutia. But you did exactly what you called out Critter for, so I called you out. "Plain and simple."

Have a good day.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There always have been bad cops and there always will be bad cops.
> 
> But, there is a difference between protest and what is happening in these cities now.
> 
> Is it a protest when the protesters break into privately owned businesses and take it upon themselves to haul everything that they can out of the business? How about blocking off a dozen blocks and creating their own society where there is no rule but the rule of the strongest?
> 
> Have you ever seen the movie "Lord Of The Flies" In my opinion this is what is going on right now. Protest all you want but the second you start destroying property or start ignoring lawful orders you opened yourself up to a lot of ramifications that actually neither side wants to happen.
> 
> I'm not condoning what the whoever did in the article that you cited but when you run with the herd you better expect to get ran over.
> 
> 
> 
> Backcountry, this is what you called absolutism. He also gave specific instances to nuance what he's talking about. You won't ever admit you've ever done anything other than be right in these discussions, I have learned that. It is like I said, you want to talk in circles around the minutia. But you did exactly what you called out Critter for, so I called you out. "Plain and simple."
> 
> Have a good day.
Click to expand...

That's a swing and a miss. I assume you know how to build an argument better than that given your career.

His statement did include nuance but ultimately concluded with this "but when you run with the herd you better expect to get ran over." That conclusion backs up the most absolutist claim that "there is a difference between protest and what is happening in these cities now". His statements conflate protestors with rioters when he stated "when the protesters break into privately owned businesses and take it upon themselves to haul everything that they can out of the business". We all agree (at least in this thread) those are rioters and looters, not protestors. Differentiating is key and grossly generalizing the "herd" as primarily engaging in illegal behavior is problematic, not just because the facts don't show that but also from conservative ideals (innocent until proven guilty and most aren't being charged or arrested).

I actually think he supports protestors but his argument is built around and concluded with the notion that what is happening in cities right now isn't peaceable protest. Its a gross generalization that doesn't hold up to the complex realities. But I've said multiple times I sincerely believe he respects peaceful protest which would be an admission that undermines that use of cherry-picking in the first place.

You like to come into threads and focus primarily on the person instead of anything about the topic. Best of luck with that as you've mentioned you don't value petty bickering but seem to employ it as a strategy on the regular.

From your response above it's seems like I was right to name your distraction for what it was, ie red herring.

PS....cherry picking tends to actually require taking a quote out of context. I didn't, it was a counter to argument in totality, hence why I never used a quote in the initial response.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> You like to come into threads and focus primarily on the person instead of anything about the topic. Best of luck with that as you've mentioned you don't value petty bickering but seem to employ it as a strategy on the regular.


This is actually objectively false. I came in and quoted a statement you made and showed why it was incorrect. I said NOTHING about the person making the statement, just that said person was wrong in what he said. Which he was. It's not that "plan and simple."

But there you go again, doing exactly what you are falsely accusing someone else of doing. Why?


----------



## backcountry

You literally just did it again. Nothing about rioting or police response, solely about your perception of my comments and assumptions about my behavior. That's that definition of an ad hominem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem



> You won't ever admit you've ever done anything other than be right in these discussions, I have learned that. It is like I said, you want to talk in circles around the minutia.


Do you actually have any criticism at it relates to the topic?


----------



## Vanilla

Yes, I did. And was constitutionally accurate. But you’ve ignored it and turned it into another one of your circular moronic arguments. 

Do you, man. Do you.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Yes, I did. And was constitutionally accurate. But you've ignored it and turned it into another one of your circular moronic arguments.
> 
> Do you, man. Do you.


Which was never in question, which we agree on nor was it anything relevant to the topic at hand as evidenced by your complete abandonment to tying into the thread.

It was a red herring used to distract the topic.

Want to actually answer the questions I asked in relevance to your claim? To you sincerely believe that the federal government is acting in the spirit or law of peaceable assembly right now?


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Yes, I did. And was constitutionally accurate. But you've ignored it and turned it into another one of your circular moronic arguments.
> 
> Do you, man. Do you.


It's untrue to claim I "ignored it" when I responded immediately to your claim:



> There are legally justified limits placed on peaceable assembly but they aren't laid bare in the constitution. They would fall under the powers I admitted to above that you cherry-picked out. It is on the burden of police to differentiate and respond accordingly within the restraints of the law.
> 
> In the context of this series of links do you actually believe that the veteran, the "mom's", LaBelle or other peaceable protestors were treated with such constitutional protections properly? Does it appear from evidence that shooting impact ammunitions, flash bangs and tear gas directly at protesters meets that standard? If not then your point doesn't hold much weight and seems to be a red herring.
> 
> Like I said, the local police have powers to disperse "unlawful assembly". But it's on them to do so properly. These cases don't have evidence they did, as it was feds literally shooting civilians on streets, and in fact evidence points to excessivessive and unjustified force. And as someone who values conservatism I firmly believe we protect citizens from such abuse. Sadly we are seeing that standard inverted at the moment and our fellow citizens are literally being hurt because of it.


The questions stand and answering them would get it off the track of your red herring, cherry-picking and continued ad hominem fallacies that have actually created a circular conversation. Feel free to do so as I'm guessing you don't actually support the logic of restricting assembly given your past responses.


----------



## backcountry

Finally another conservative calling this out and naming it for what it is:



> This is how totalitarianism begins. The feds claim that federal property needs protection and the folks assigned to do so need help. When help arrives, it does so by surprise, under cover of darkness and shielded by anonymity. Then, the reinforcements beat and arrest and harm protestors because their bosses in Washington do not approve of the protestors' message.
> 
> Public dissent against the government is a core personal freedom. It is as American as apple pie. It was integral to the creation of our republic. Government repression of dissent is totalitarian. It is as un-American as the governments against which we fought world wars to preserve our core freedoms.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/portland-protests-judge-andrew-napolitano


----------



## Vanilla

The “mostly” peaceful protests in Portland continue after feds leave. That’s weird...weird indeed! 

They were “mostly” peacefully protesting when they tried to torch the police building and barricaded the exits with people inside. 

These people are not protesters. Heck, they aren’t even rioters anymore. They’re turning into terrorists.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Vanilla said:


> The "mostly" peaceful protests in Portland continue after feds leave. That's weird...weird indeed!
> 
> They were "mostly" peacefully protesting when they tried to torch the police building and barricaded the exits with people inside.
> 
> These people are not protesters. Heck, they aren't even rioters anymore. They're turning into terrorists.


----------



## backcountry

Sadly there are still peaceful protestors but the rioters continue to up the ante. I think the protests have lost the narrative and would benefit from forfeiting for a while. It's a lose lose in the short term but it's better than being associated with this level of crime in the long run. 

Anybody that was involved with lighting that precinct on fire with people inside should face attempted murder charges and the stiffest of sentencing.

Tough times. I don't envy anyone in these situations.


----------



## backcountry

Prager's apocalyptic propaganda videos are part of this vicious cycle.


----------



## Vanilla

Here is the problem with what has been happening in Portland now for over a month:

A “mostly” peaceful protest is like a “mostly free of poop” cookie. If I made you a delicious looking chocolate chip cookie and told you I put one very small piece of dog crap in the cookie dough, would you eat it? No, you wouldn’t. Why? Because it’s no longer a chocolate chip cookie, it’s a poop cookie. It’s not the sugar’s fault. Or the eggs. Or the butter, flour, or semi-sweet chocolate chips either. But there is still crap in the cookie, which makes it inedible. (Except for maybe Goob. He’s probably got a recipe.) 

There is no such thing as a “mostly peaceful” protest. It’s either peaceful, or it’s not. These have not been peaceful for many weeks. Trying to pretend that “most are good” is no better than saying we shouldn’t be protesting at all because “most police officers are good.” 

I’m so sick and tired and totally done with this false narrative so many are pushing about these terrorists in Portland (and other places).


----------



## backcountry

That's a fairly black and white take. It's also one that extreme partisan media and Black Bloc type instigators use to their advantage.

Did you see the report that the person who broke the windows in Minneapolis was a white supremacist instigator? How does that fit in with your narrative and completely impossible standards? 

Protests aren't cookies. The ingredients never even got baked together other than by imperfect media representations and our own minds.

Sorry to hear you've gone down the terrorists name calling route. I think we both know that term doesn't benefit anyone and was introduced on purpose months ago to ruin any chance of dialogue. Calling people terrorists doesn't exactly bode well for law or justice; we tend to employ it as a country when we are trying to rationalize the possibility of deploying ultralegal activities by the state. 

Sadly that narrative is winning. And it is the fault of the criminals as well as a few bad political actors who only care about discord. I haven't followed much news about Portland in a week and haven't followed the live stream feeds for even longer. I do know from unedited footage (not Prager's edited garbage) that previous events shifted radically between "mostly" peaceful to outright criminal after a certain time of night. Sadly, from the reporting I have sourced, the arsonists and anarchists seem to muddying the water even more by pushing their activities further and further into actual protests. That's definitely a turn for the worse.

I don't see a way forward for anyone legitimately protesting under the current dynamic. Trump succeeded in his media spectacle, the one skill he's actually good at (see Amanda Carpenter's "Gaslighting America" to understand that trend from a classic conservative). And now these lawless punks are giving him more and more B Roll. 

Each day seems more like V for Vendetta. The violence is largely localized to a few small areas but plays to our national insecurities on so many levels. Commercial media has warped the perception of journalism and people either run to their infotainment bubbles or right it all off as "fake news" if it doesn't fit their perspective. The protestors have legitimate grievances but not enough unity to consolidate into an actual political cause that can withstand the processes needed to foster Justice and Equality under the law. Journalist have never learned to adapt to our Trumpian era and so cable news talking heads drive the narrative with a "if it bleeds it leads" partisan mantra that is focused on making generic groups of political opponents look illegitimate. "Both sides" are falling for the polarization largely fueled by social media that doesn't benefit from nuance or grey. 

We are being encouraged to radicalize against each other instead of recognizing we are in this experiment together. But I sincerely fear polarization has fueled a negative partisanship that is burning the tenuous fibers that bind us. There really couldn't be a much worse set of variables to play out during one of country's most turbulent elections. 

This is very similar to how Turkey, Hungary, and several other country's suddenly shifted to illiberal democracies. This process doesn't benefit us in any fashion but it takes getting out of our hyper partisan cycle and remember most of us want the same foundational things. If we don't get past believing those citizens with differing political views are our enemies than we will be responsible for the end of a centuries long experiment that has fueled the world. I'm losing hope in that possibility daily and fear we are entering a stage in which a handful of bad political actors actually want American to hate American. 

It's not just Bannon's politics at fault but four years ago many of us were trying to amplify the dangerous realities of his strategy and it seems to be coming to fruition. His words should haunt all of us for their rapidity and prescience: "I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment".


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> That's a fairly black and white take. It's also one that extreme partisan media and Black Bloc type instigators use to their advantage.
> 
> Did you see the report that the person who broke the windows in Minneapolis was a white supremacist instigator? How does that fit in with your narrative and completely impossible standards?
> 
> Protests aren't cookies. The ingredients never even got baked together other than by imperfect media representations and our own minds.
> 
> Sorry to hear you've gone down the terrorists name calling route. I think we both know that term doesn't benefit anyone and was introduced on purpose months ago to ruin any chance of dialogue. Calling people terrorists doesn't exactly bode well for law or justice; we tend to employ it as a country when we are trying to rationalize the possibility of deploying ultralegal activities by the state.
> 
> Sadly that narrative is winning. And it is the fault of the criminals as well as a few bad political actors who only care about discord. I haven't followed much news about Portland in a week and haven't followed the live stream feeds for even longer. I do know from unedited footage (not Prager's edited garbage) that previous events shifted radically between "mostly" peaceful to outright criminal after a certain time of night. Sadly, from the reporting I have sourced, the arsonists and anarchists seem to muddying the water even more by pushing their activities further and further into actual protests. That's definitely a turn for the worse.
> 
> I don't see a way forward for anyone legitimately protesting under the current dynamic. Trump succeeded in his media spectacle, the one skill he's actually good at (see Amanda Carpenter's "Gaslighting America" to understand that trend from a classic conservative). And now these lawless punks are giving him more and more B Roll.
> 
> Each day seems more like V for Vendetta. The violence is largely localized to a few small areas but plays to our national insecurities on so many levels. Commercial media has warped the perception of journalism and people either run to their infotainment bubbles or right it all off as "fake news" if it doesn't fit their perspective. The protestors have legitimate grievances but not enough unity to consolidate into an actual political cause that can withstand the processes needed to foster Justice and Equality under the law. Journalist have never learned to adapt to our Trumpian era and so cable news talking heads drive the narrative with a "if it bleeds it leads" partisan mantra that is focused on making generic groups of political opponents look illegitimate. "Both sides" are falling for the polarization largely fueled by social media that doesn't benefit from nuance or grey.
> 
> We are being encouraged to radicalize against each other instead of recognizing we are in this experiment together. But I sincerely fear polarization has fueled a negative partisanship that is burning the tenuous fibers that bind us. There really couldn't be a much worse set of variables to play out during one of country's most turbulent elections.
> 
> This is very similar to how Turkey, Hungary, and several other country's suddenly shifted to illiberal democracies. This process doesn't benefit us in any fashion but it takes getting out of our hyper partisan cycle and remember most of us want the same foundational things. If we don't get past believing those citizens with differing political views are our enemies than we will be responsible for the end of a centuries long experiment that has fueled the world. I'm losing hope in that possibility daily and fear we are entering a stage in which a handful of bad political actors actually want American to hate American.
> 
> It's not just Bannon's politics at fault but four years ago many of us were trying to amplify the dangerous realities of his strategy and it seems to be coming to fruition. His words should haunt all of us for their rapidity and prescience: "I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment".


There's a lot of pointing the finger at conservatives in your statements and blaming Trump/Prager for the criminal acts of these extremist liberals.

Call a spade a spade for Pete's sake, these criminals are violent thugs that need to be dealt with, swiftly and with extreme prejudice. These extreme liberals are handling Trump the election, thank god.

#MAGA


----------



## backcountry

Untrue. I 100% blame the criminals for the arson and damage they are causing. I consistently call for their prosecution; I think it's a disservice to everyone when states don't. No one else is responsible, including the peaceful protestors. 

I only blame Trump for what he has done, which is plentiful. He obviously isn't rioting but he doesn't even try to hide that he benefits from exploiting the tension. 

I only blame PragerU for the ridiculous propaganda they produce. 

All of those types of elements come together to create our current crisis which I obviously think is a threat to our republic.


----------



## backcountry

Different note:

These rioters/anarchist are to "liberal" AS gassing peaceful protestors for an awkward photo op with a Bible is to Christianity.

These rioters are to "liberal" AS Trumpism is to traditional conservatism/(l)iberalism.

Given Trump deployed the term it's fair to highlight that anarchist despise all government, including modern liberal politics and classical (l)iberalism.


----------



## backcountry

It only took one post from Ray to provide the evidence of my hypothesis on why language like terrorist is introduced into these issues. We don't treat criminals with "extreme prejudice" in the united states. That's the opposite of the (l)iberal ideals conservatives protected for ages.



> these criminals are violent thugs that need to be dealt with, swiftly and with extreme prejudice


Since when does conservatism support "seemingly senseless or irrational hostility" or more commonly and directly assasination and/or murder of alleged criminals? I don't think Ray accidentally used the term and those are its actually meanings.

This is how dangerous hyperpartisan rhetoric has become and why I am fundamentally against its escalation.

*also fair to highlight I didn't finger point at conservatives. the only time I used the term was actually a positive reference as I clearly value its influence on American ideals.


----------



## Ray

Alleged criminals? There’s account after account of their violence, they’ve murdered people, little kids even, burnt one man alive, violently beaten innocent people, destroyed people’s livelihoods and robbed them into bankruptcy. sh!t, just on Friday they tried trapping people in a building and setting it on fire. These people need to be treated with equal/greater aggression. [email protected] ‘em, they don’t deserve to be in our society. Lock ‘em up and throw away the key.

What about every single leftist news network? They’re just as divisive as you claim prager to be, yet you remain silent. Is that because it doesn’t further your agenda/point? How is it divisive to post videos of the actual crimes they’re committing? Last I checked, that’s called reporting the news.

I don’t even know why you’re on this site anymore, the only thing you post about is leftist propaganda and try to stir the pot while simultaneously putting the blame on everyone who’s political views don’t align with yours. Then, you claim to be an independent or a centralist while regurgitating every leftist talking point. It’s old bro


----------



## backcountry

Do you even read my posts?



> Commercial media has warped the perception of journalism and people either run to their infotainment bubbles or right it all off as "fake news" if it doesn't fit their perspective.


I am against all infotainment, including CNN and MSNBC, and condemned it all above. I don't cite them, nor do people here, hence why I don't criticize them. That sort of whataboutism is just plain silly. I engage with the ideas shared here not some imaginary concept of fairness or "both-sidism".

I've held a very conservative line here, not a liberal one. Your absurd claims makes me laugh. My liberal friends are pissed that I'm staring at the leaves, not the forest on fire, as I criticize the rioters and call out their disinformation that their aren't illegal activities going on. But I'm guessing from your post you think I'm some sort of "extreme liberal". Ha. The middle starts to look pretty wild the further to the poles one goes.

Funny that you claim I don't post anything else. I've been involved in multiple hunting and fishing threads recently; heck, just started one a few hours ago. Yet another mistruth from Ray. Gasp. Shock.

"Alleged criminal" is the phrase I use at it respects the American conservative tradition of innocent until proven guilty. I have this radical idea that citizens should actually face a justice system in which the state has the burden to prove the criminality. It was a pretty common stance. Sadly its been inverted and we rationalize and defend government abuse while prejudging and calling for retaliation against our fellow citizens. But I'm not shocked given your statements about stop and frisk.

And no, the PragerU video is not news. But that reveals alot. The PragerU video is a highly edited "gotcha" style of partisan entertain in which the talking head asks loaded questions because of a preconceived goal. Its why I don't watch cable news but its fair to say organizations like PragerU have taken it to a new level.

I don't criticize political views that aren't voluntarily shared here. I recommend anyone with fragile political views to voluntarily opt out of these conversations. But when you call for something as unAmerican and illiberal as treating alleged criminals with "extreme prejudice" than expect to be called out. That's dangerous and barbaric "politics".

Feel free to make up more stuff though because it ultimately just reveals more about your own views than mine.


----------



## Brettski7

Ray said:


> Alleged criminals? There's account after account of their violence, they've murdered people, little kids even, burnt one man alive, violently beaten innocent people, destroyed people's livelihoods and robbed them into bankruptcy. sh!t, just on Friday they tried trapping people in a building and setting it on fire. These people need to be treated with equal/greater aggression. [email protected] 'em, they don't deserve to be in our society. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.
> 
> What about every single leftist news network? They're just as divisive as you claim prager to be, yet you remain silent. Is that because it doesn't further your agenda/point? How is it divisive to post videos of the actual crimes they're committing? Last I checked, that's called reporting the news.
> 
> I don't even know why you're on this site anymore, the only thing you post about is leftist propaganda and try to stir the pot while simultaneously putting the blame on everyone who's political views don't align with yours. Then, you claim to be an independent or a centralist while regurgitating every leftist talking point. It's old bro


Terrorist. You had it right the first time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> Do you even read my posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commercial media has warped the perception of journalism and people either run to their infotainment bubbles or right it all off as "fake news" if it doesn't fit their perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> I am against all infotainment, including CNN and MSNBC, and condemned it all above. I don't cite them, nor do people here, hence why I don't criticize them. That sort of whataboutism is just plain silly. I engage with the ideas shared here not some imaginary concept of fairness or "both-sidism".
> 
> I've held a very conservative line here, not a liberal one. Your absurd claims makes me laugh. My liberal friends are pissed that I'm staring at the leaves, not the forest on fire, as I criticize the rioters and call out their disinformation that their aren't illegal activities going on. But I'm guessing from your post you think I'm some sort of "extreme liberal". Ha. The middle starts to look pretty wild the further to the poles one goes.
> 
> Funny that you claim I don't post anything else. I've been involved in multiple hunting and fishing threads recently; heck, just started one a few hours ago. Yet another mistruth from Ray. Gasp. Shock.
> 
> "Alleged criminal" is the phrase I use at it respects the American conservative tradition of innocent until proven guilty. I have this radical idea that citizens should actually face a justice system in which the state has the burden to prove the criminality. It was a pretty common stance. Sadly its been inverted and we rationalize and defend government abuse while prejudging and calling for retaliation against our fellow citizens. But I'm not shocked given your statements about stop and frisk.
> 
> And no, the PragerU video is not news. But that reveals alot. The PragerU video is a highly edited "gotcha" style of partisan entertain in which the talking head asks loaded questions because of a preconceived goal. Its why I don't watch cable news but its fair to say organizations like PragerU have taken it to a new level.
> 
> I don't criticize political views that aren't voluntarily shared here. I recommend anyone with fragile political views to voluntarily opt out of these conversations. But when you call for something as unAmerican and illiberal as treating alleged criminals with "extreme prejudice" than expect to be called out. That's dangerous and barbaric "politics".
> 
> Feel free to make up more stuff though because it ultimately just reveals more about your own views than mine.
Click to expand...

I know you fancy yourself a freethinker and you got this holier than now complex going on but I assure you, you're not, on either account. You're a puppet, good sir, sh!t, we all are.

I'm sure you're a nice guy in real life, but what you do is no different than what you claim to be against which is further the divide.


----------



## Ray

Brettski7 said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alleged criminals? There's account after account of their violence, they've murdered people, little kids even, burnt one man alive, violently beaten innocent people, destroyed people's livelihoods and robbed them into bankruptcy. sh!t, just on Friday they tried trapping people in a building and setting it on fire. These people need to be treated with equal/greater aggression. [email protected] 'em, they don't deserve to be in our society. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.
> 
> What about every single leftist news network? They're just as divisive as you claim prager to be, yet you remain silent. Is that because it doesn't further your agenda/point? How is it divisive to post videos of the actual crimes they're committing? Last I checked, that's called reporting the news.
> 
> I don't even know why you're on this site anymore, the only thing you post about is leftist propaganda and try to stir the pot while simultaneously putting the blame on everyone who's political views don't align with yours. Then, you claim to be an independent or a centralist while regurgitating every leftist talking point. It's old bro
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorist. You had it right the first time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

&#128514;&#128076; **** right!


----------



## backcountry

Glad you think I'm a puppet, Ray. I'm definitely not holier than thou, I'm an imperfect gentile. Definitely a free thinker though, stubbornly so. 

I think of you no less for your politics even I find your concepts like "extreme prejudice" a zombified corpse of true "law and order". But one of my flaws is that I actually believed deep down that such a phrase could means justice despite it's long history of abuse. Instead it's just grievance politics wrapped in shiny paper. I fear that ideal will be disproven as much as my hope that the center will hold. I sure hope history is kinder than current affairs in that regard.

Reality is I don't consider anyone an enemy or illegitimate. I vehemently disagree with Lone, more often than not, but still recognize him as a citizen strolling through this experiment with his fellow citizens even when he doesn't provide that same courtesy to his perceived political opposition. I'd assume you are the same even though you support ultralegal concepts like "stop and frisk" or going after alleged criminals with "extreme prejudice". 

The "I know I am but what are you" retort is too pathetic to spend time on. My politics are imperfect but at least I can stand strong knowing when I had the chance to stand up for basic (l)iberal ideals that for years the conservative platform rested upon I did so with courage. I refuse to engage in these Faustian bargains that leave our foundations hollowed out corpses. And if calling out a president's illiberal abuses "divides" in your perspective than I'll own that. I criticized Obama and was criticized with similar partisan twisting of logic and survived. The only irony is when boiled down to some core values the conservative platform use to fight against presidential imperialism while now it's seems to be an acceptable outcome as long as it makes us feel good for "owning the libs". 

Best of luck, Ray. I sincerely hope we don't have to watch Trump continue to dance on the corpse of conservatism. At some point the catharsis is going to wear off and we'll be stuck living in the shell of a (l)iberal Republic if this continues much longer. Sadly if this is the road enough Republicans take conservatism down than it's only going to get more bleak. And vis versa, if "liberals" continue to sweep criminality under the rug than it will escalate. Those two forces feed off of each other, hence the V reference.

*A point of clarity, I think we both know Trump and Bannon aren't conservative. I'm not willing to forfeit that ground to those two narcissists. PragerU is conservative but more "socially conservative", which I'm definitely not. But their motivations are political power, hence calling them propaganda. I'll at least appreciate PragerU doesn't hide their lust for power or their negative partisanship. They are like Ben Shapiro, who I do listen to, but without the radical transparancy to their bias or intelligence. At least when I listen to Shapiro I know I'm getting unfiltered political id that doesn't try to disguise itself.


----------



## Vanilla

I thought I posted something to this effect earlier. Maybe I didn’t hit post? Maybe it got deleted by the Russians? Oh well, I’ll try again. 

Oxford defines terrorism as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

So someone can tell me I’m being partisan or using harmful language or anything else. But all I’m doing is accurately describing events and actions taking place based upon simple dictionary definitions. You can also go to the FBI’s website and read how they define it if you need more information on the topic. 

Backcountry, you can call it whatever you’d like. It’s America, after all. But I’m going to call it what it is. All these people you’re citing as negatives I’ve never even heard of. So maybe you’re being partisan here more than you realize? Just maybe.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla,

It's fair to use the dictionary term. I assume you recognize the political ramifications of using such terms during periods of unrest. How does that bode for citizens? You aren't using it in a vacuum. The president wants to legally classify them as "terrorist organizations" and stated so weeks ago. It preceded his imperialistic demand that Seattle "Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will." Given his penchant for unilateral force I think it's fair to highlight the terms historical and legal usage that comes with horrible consequences. It's broader implications matter. (PS... I'm also guessing you understand why the federal police state has been largely restrained from classifying broad, loosely affiliated domestic groups as terrorists and why it's been limited mostly to international organizations).

Per your partisan idea...are you arguing that because you don't recognize the names that it's partisan? Odd argument.

Here's a refresher...

PragerU was introduced by LoneHunter, see his video above. Once it was introduced it was fair play for criticism. They are trying to become a major player in politics and are producing some of the most blatant propaganda on the internet. Real shame how quickly Dennis Prager abandoned the middle (center-right) for Trumpism. 

Bannon was Trump's chief strategist for his campaign and then first months in office. He created Trump's faux populism and was the architect of Trump's underlying politics strategy; that matters as Trump has always been, and remains, a political parasite without an underlying interest in governance beyond self-interest. Highlighting Bannon's view of modern (l)iberal democracies and his role in completely eroding them matters as it's playing out in Trump's political strategies. 

I assume you recognize Trump.

It would be negative partisanship if I completely disregarded the legitimacy of large swaths of political ideologies. I don't. I unabashedly attack individual politicians corrupt and abusive power but not the actual political ideology they claim to have. Big difference. 

I am also unabashedly centrist. Boringly so. I'm starting to question it's viability in our nation but I still hold hope. But as a centrist I by definition am neither a "hyper" or "negative" partisan as I sincerely believe our diverse historical ideologies, and their tensions, benefit us. This mess we are in right now? Not so much.

I didn't call you partisan in the response above, I said it's the language hyper-partisan media has deployed. I actually think you legitimately know how dangerous that language is given recent American history. I sincerely doubt you value the sort of ultra-legal behavior governments employ against "terrorists", along the lines of acting with the "extreme prejudice" Ray advocated. Language like that escalates fast, as we just saw. But how many citizens do you think it takes using such language before we, ie our federal government, irrevocably starts using that as justification to treat citizens as such? And even if it's cathartic in the interim I think we both realize that once we start treating American criminals as such that the tenuous limits placed on state policing will be dangerously eroded.

I'm guessing you also realize that things like "justice" and "law" need protecting not just by a constitution but also by democratic norms and citizens willing to stand up for it on principle. And it often takes accepting short term political discomfort to be the bulwark that protects the structures of governance that matter.


----------



## Ray

Fair to use the dictionary term? Political ramifications? Dude, by definition, they’re literally terrorists, Just because you don’t like the word, doesn’t make it less true. What political ramifications are there for using a word the way it’s meant to be used?

For months now, your primary contributions to this forum have been negative and political. You’re obsessed, it’s not healthy, frankly, it’s old and tired.

As I’ve said before, I’m sure you’re a nice dude and that we would get along in person. I’m just sick of the constant political bull. It’s hunting season, let’s focus on that.


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> Fair to use the dictionary term? Political ramifications? Dude, by definition, they're literally terrorists, Just because you don't like the word, doesn't make it less true. What political ramifications are there for using a word the way it's meant to be used?
> 
> For months now, your primary contributions to this forum have been negative and political. You're obsessed, it's not healthy, frankly, it's old and tired.
> 
> As I've said before, I'm sure you're a nice dude and that we would get along in person. I'm just sick of the constant political bull. It's hunting season, let's focus on that.


It sounds to me like you'd benefit from either ignoring political threads or putting me on your ignore list of you primarily see my posts that way. But coming into a thread titled "rioting makes me want" and complaining about "political bull" is a bit ironic.

Maybe use the "forum index" view instead of the main splash page? Why come into an "everything else" sub forum and gripe about tone you dislike when there are a dozen plus other sub forums specifically about hunting and fishing. It's not my fault you choose to read and participate in conversations you appearantly find "negative and political" or "unhealthy".

Sorry you continue to go down the road of personal attacks. That's an unfortunate strategy. I personally consider that significantly more "negative" and "bull" than passionately disagreeing about political ideas. I wouldn't pretend to know when you are "obsessed" or "unhealthy" even when I disagree with you comments. In fact I tend to assume the opposite even when you resort to such petty insults.

Back to the point....I clearly understood Vanilla's use of the dictionary definition. I obviously have a tendency to do the same. But the political ramifications are written into our history. We haven't traditionally touched that term with domestic violence because it's been fraught with political abuse. We have plenty of statutes, and relevent legal terms, on the books that deal with such violence acutely without diving into those treacherous waters. That should be self-evident to anyone versed in US history and liberty (reminder: it was conservatives who vehemently sounded these alarms until recently).

I didn't call his use of the dictionary term untrue in any fashion. I challenged its implications during these tumultous times because it's too easy to open up that Pandoras Box and much harder to close it. I literally appealed to broader issues of classical conservatism even if their actions meet the broader definition.

But let me guess... speaking to issues of liberty, justice and proportionality are just "liberal propaganda" and "political bull"?


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair to use the dictionary term? Political ramifications? Dude, by definition, they're literally terrorists, Just because you don't like the word, doesn't make it less true. What political ramifications are there for using a word the way it's meant to be used?
> 
> For months now, your primary contributions to this forum have been negative and political. You're obsessed, it's not healthy, frankly, it's old and tired.
> 
> As I've said before, I'm sure you're a nice dude and that we would get along in person. I'm just sick of the constant political bull. It's hunting season, let's focus on that.
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds to me like you'd benefit from either ignoring political threads or putting me on your ignore list of you primarily see my posts that way. But coming into a thread titled "rioting makes me want" and complaining about "political bull" is a bit ironic.
> 
> Maybe use the "forum index" view instead of the main splash page? Why come into an "everything else" sub forum and gripe about tone you dislike when there are a dozen plus other sub forums specifically about hunting and fishing. It's not my fault you choose to read and participate in conversations you appearantly find "negative and political" or "unhealthy".
> 
> Sorry you continue to go down the road of personal attacks. That's an unfortunate strategy. I personally consider that significantly more "negative" and "bull" than passionately disagreeing about political ideas. I wouldn't pretend to know when you are "obsessed" or "unhealthy" even when I disagree with you comments. In fact I tend to assume the opposite even when you resort to such petty insults.
> 
> Back to the point....I clearly understood Vanilla's use of the dictionary definition. I obviously have a tendency to do the same. But the political ramifications are written into our history. We haven't traditionally touched that term with domestic violence because it's been fraught with political abuse. We have plenty of statutes, and relevent legal terms, on the books that deal with such violence acutely without diving into those treacherous waters. That should be self-evident to anyone versed in US history and liberty (reminder: it was conservatives who vehemently sounded these alarms until recently).
> 
> I didn't call his use of the dictionary term untrue in any fashion. I challenged its implications during these tumultous times because it's too easy to open up that Pandoras Box and much harder to close it. I literally appealed to broader issues of classical conservatism even if their actions meet the broader definition.
> 
> But let me guess... speaking to issues of liberty, justice and proportionality are just "liberal propaganda" and "political bull"?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ dude, get off your [email protected] high horse.


----------



## Ray

Backcountry’s new name is soapbox and just in case there’s any confusion about the definition, here ya go.

“soapboxing, a term stemming from an era when a person would literally stand on a soapbox crate as a stage and scream to the world that he or she knew the right way — the only way — to do anything.”


----------



## backcountry

Oh come on, you can do better than that Ray. If you've chosen to completely abandon rational dialogue than at least give it all you've got. Others have tried this game and failed. You'll find I could care less about School yard taunts. So at least put it all out there and be done with it.


----------



## Dunkem

Mr Backcountry and Mr Ray. Kindly take it elsewhere. Thanks.


----------



## backcountry

I have no beef with Ray, just his name calling. With that in mind I'll bring it back to the topic of rioters and coding them terrorists.

I don't always agree with Turley but the man holds a consistent line of reasoning on why a nation should be cautious with the term terrorist as it has severe constitutional implications:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/...rrorism-for-breaking-windows-during-protests/

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-01/antifa-protests-donald-trump-terrorist-group

He also highlights a similar logic I have regarding handing the administration political justification. I don't agree with labeling them terrorists but the rioters are playing a losing game:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/...n-may-have-its-first-domestic-terrorism-case/

Sadly the more rioting happens the more citizens start using the phrase more freely and the more the state clamps down. That never bodes well for citizens or speech. We are already seeing truly innocent citizens ensnared in the dragnet that is being deployed against "domestic terrorism" the last month.


----------



## Ray

#terrorists


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Sadly the more rioting happens the more citizens start using the phrase more freely and the more the state clamps down. That never bodes well for citizens or speech.


Disagree. This absolutely has to be clamped down upon. When the first round of criminal acts and rioting happened the end of May, I in some ways understood why it was happening. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm not saying I condone it. Not even saying they should be free of consequence, as they should be held accountable. I'm just saying I understood. We're two months down the road, it can't continue. It simply can't. And it definitely can't be allowed to escalate. The very best thing for citizens of Portland right now would be to put an end to this madness and to start rebuilding their city. Of course, it wouldn't be great for the citizens that are committing the terroristic acts, but does anyone care? I sure don't at this point.

While what the feds did in Portland is inappropriate and likely unconstitutional in some ways, what the local government has NOT done in Portland is no less of an atrocity. There are sins of commission in life, and there are sins of omission. And Portland's government is stained in scarlet right now. It's a complete joke and a total abuse of the public trust.

What is happening in Portland is not speech. It's terrorism. You can get hung up on word play and political implications all you want, but I'm going to call it what it is. If that leads to wide sweeping and severe penalties for these dangerous criminals, then good. Someone needs to do something about it. Allowing this to continue is the greatest abuse of power that a government could possibly do. If a government can't insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense (even from ourselves), or promote the general welfare of its citizens, then what exactly is that government good for?


----------



## backcountry

I think we actually agree it has to be clamped down upon; it's the limits on that clamping we disagree on. We also disagree that lawlessness means peaceful protest can't also be happening (once again, it's that very logic that states, especially authoritarian ones, use to justify the radical curtailment of speech and liberty). 

I just happen to believe that there are plenty of specific laws that don't require the spectre of terrorism. Arson, attempted murder and rioting all carry significant penalities and deal with the acute issues at hand.(I imagine there are better ones directly dealing with some of these events). And they are easier to justify arrests and prosecute than the language of terrorism. It's not like the FBI, who you referenced, has a stellar record in this regard. 

It's a slight of hand to ignore the principal argument of mine: actually defining this as terrorism opens up the floodgates to immense police state power. That awesome power rarely is to scale and even less commonly defined specifically enough to only capture actual terrorists. The task forces are already ensnaring innocent civilians since Trump's release of his Twitter policy. Even your language includes broad indictments of imprecise events in Portland. 

Do you recognize terrorism policy's broad powers and abilities to infringe on free speech? Can you admit American history is frought with abuse of such strategies? You've admitted on this forum that abuse of power exists within policing; do you believe that those same agencies, currently unreformed, will act with restraint when it comes to respecting personal liberty in the face of political pressure to capture "terrorists"? Do you think the current administration will act with any constitutional restraint given your admissions above? 

I am curious what media people are consuming in which you believe Portland is under such widespread threat of terrorism? Don't get wrong, burning down a police precinct is hideous but in depth analysis doesn't show a city "under siege" or a "war zone", as it's been claimed elsewhere. 

The notion that Portland hasn't done anything meaningful is also demonstrably false. The city has fought back pretty regularly since the first protests started; they actually reacted so problematically that the courts restricted their wanton use of non-lethal munitions. Doesn't mean they have been successful (or commendable) but they aren't sitting on their hands either. 

Ultimately Vanilla I think most conservatives recognize the legitimacy of these criticisms and that they are anything but word games. And right now we have a federal administration knowingly using it in the most partisan way possible and wether you like it or not that will influence how it's deployed against citizens. The sudden call to label violent criminals as terrorists wasn't a political accident. And it's already not being used in precise, limited fashion by our fellow citizens. We literally saw Ray use a phrase just yesterday normally used in battlefield talk that means to murder or assassinate ones enemies. We've seen similar language deployed by congressman in op eds and policy discussions (like "no quarter" or using military to quash domestic events). 

Every day we escalate and militarize the rhetoric against our fellow citizens the more likely we are to see violent and non-proportional force used against innocent civilians. I dare say conservatism was founded on slowing this very tendency of states and political factions.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Huh? Did somebody say something? :mrgreen:



Ray,

Ever keep a CB in your truck? Turn up the squelch, it cuts down on the background noise.

I've turned up the squelch on my "radio" awhile ago. I turned it back down in the name of "second chances" not too long ago, but found myself quickly turning the squelch back up again, and it will likely remain that way for a long time to come.

Makes visiting a forum a lot easier. Of course others are free to do the same to me. I won't mind, nor care.

Ignore lists help keep the peace, their not foolproof, but it helps. No muss, no fuss, just turn up the dial, and be done with it.


----------



## shaner

The rioters in Portland are our enemies, they should be yours also.
I’ll bet if you lived in Portland right now you would be humming a much different tune.


----------



## backcountry

I have friends in the area who are confused by the national narrative. For the most part, if they aren't randomly cruising downtown after midnight, they don't know what's going on in these clashes. They aren't terrorized.

Same for Chicago. Same for Seattle. Same in NYC. And it was the same for people in DC.

I don't consider fellow Americans enemies. I consider certain political figures fundamental dangers to my values but rarely civilians. I fully recognize crime as crime and fully support prosecution. But historically we don't preserve much justice for "enemies". Your comment does prove my larger hypothesis well though.


----------



## Ray

Lone_Hunter said:


> Huh? Did somebody say something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray,
> 
> Ever keep a CB in your truck? Turn up the squelch, it cuts down on the background noise.
> 
> I've turned up the squelch on my "radio" awhile ago. I turned it back down in the name of "second chances" not too long ago, but found myself quickly turning the squelch back up again, and it will likely remain that way for a long time to come.
> 
> Makes visiting a forum a lot easier. Of course others are free to do the same to me. I won't mind, nor care.
> 
> Ignore lists help keep the peace, their not foolproof, but it helps. No muss, no fuss, just turn up the dial, and be done with it.


Yes sir I have and I'm picking up what you're putting down. I just need to figure out how to do that on here &#128514;

Soapbox and his 5 paragraph posts are enough to drive a man insane


----------



## Critter

The problem with ignore list is that you have no idea of what the conversation is about.

a lot like just listening to one side of a phone conversation and then being asked to comment on what you didn't hear


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> Yes sir I have and I'm picking up what you're putting down. I just need to figure out how to do that on here &#128514;
> 
> Soapbox and his 5 paragraph posts are enough to drive a man insane


You can't be in enhanced mobile view.

Click the user's name, mine in this case, in desktop mode and then user list drop down menu.

Hope you are able to get your sanity under control. It's a great tool but can lead to disjointed threads, as Critter highlighted. Another option is bookmarking the "main forum index" page as it doesn't focus on the most recent post like the main slash page does; makes it easier to skip the political threads in "everything else".


----------



## Critter

Actually the easiest is to just ignore who you have a beef with and not participate in the discussion. 

Just read the comments and go on your way. 

I myself wish that we would just get back to a outdoor forum and not dribble in these type of discussions. This thread is also why a lot of forums do not allow political or religious discussions. 

They usually start out fine but by the second page all is lost. No one is saying anything different than what was said on the first page and no ones minds are going to be changed.


----------



## backcountry

A lot of truth to that assessment. Most sites are all or nothing. But actually policing the "nothing" approach requires a lot of energy from moderators. It's not easy work to hold a consistent line. Being a moderator is a pretty thankless job.


----------



## Critter

It is actually quite easy.

All a member has to do is to click on the "Report Icon "









Then a short message, a moderator will get it and be able to deal with it. As they say a thousand eyes are better than two..


----------



## backcountry

The forum I helped had a report icon, it was still hard work and thankless. My understanding is that's pretty standard. There is a shocking amount of sideband discussion about the proper response. Our site had a moderators only area and it often had 20-30 reports a day that each required a convo. 

If everybody was bought in I think it would be easy. But I haven't seen too many forums where that is the case. But clearly mileage varies and moderators on other forums could have different experiences.


----------



## Dunkem

Well goodnight guys


----------

