Portland, Ore

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mathman, Jul 21, 2020.

  1. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Well, that's how I understood it. If I'm wrong then tell me exactly what you meant when you said this.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    The primary difference between terrorists and revolutionaries is that revolutionaries won the war.

    The people protesting in Portland and other places are neither. They are not trying to terrorize people to achieve their goals, nor are they trying to overthrow the government. What they ARE doing is protesting (and rioting) to get the change in government that they want.

    Peaceful protests about this have been going on for decades. They don't work. When there's a peaceful protest, there is no coverage. When there are peaceful protests in places where there is already coverage, the people protesting are silenced and removed. (Kapernick for example.) So people have been getting louder and louder. They have been blocking roads, breaking windows and starting bonfires. And it's been working - their protests are now reported on and discussed, and change is (slowly) happening.

    There are people who take it too far, of course, and injure (or even kill) other people and threaten lives via arson and rash actions. These have been partly common criminals, partly overzealous protesters, and partly counterprotesters wishing to give the movement a bad name. I don't agree with their actions.

    MLK once said that a riot is the voice of the unheard. And unfortunately riots are what have been required to get these people heard. I wish it wasn't like that; that as a society we could hear protesters without having to have fires, broken windows, tear gas and dramatic video to get that stuff into the public eye, and that we could have peaceful protests without firing and exiling the people who perform them. But we can't. And until we can, the people who are unheard will raise their voices (through protests and then rioting) until they are heard.

    So to be clear, they are not revolutionaries. They are not terrorists. They are protesters and in some cases rioters.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    A riot is violent public disorder. That’s what we’ve seen in Portland.

    What you’ve just described is the legal definition of domestic terrorism.
    You’ve made it crystal clear all right. You believe that rioting is more effective than protesting. Protesting is a constitutional right. Rioting is a crime. So technically, you are a criminal apologist.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    OK. By that definition ANY large public protest is terrorism, since it is intended to affect the conduct of government, and generally they are held to retaliate against government conduct.

    In that case I'm a terrorist too. In 2016 I was involved in a March for Science; we blocked the roads for hours, and the march was largely in retaliation for Trump's decimation of federal sciences funding.
    I am fine with you thinking that - and am also fine with sharing that appellation with MLK.
  8. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    I thought it was in 2017 but it makes no difference because we were discussing the violence and destruction of government property, remember?


    Key word here being 'offense', as in illegal offense.

    Did you notice any scientists looting, vandalizing, or damaging government property? How about arson? Did you see any burning buildings?

    You can obtain a permit for road blocks. The protests for science were well organized. My guess is that someone applied for and obtained a permit for the entire event.
  9. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member


    September 27, 1966: MLK—A riot is the language of the unheard
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    On the part of the Federal "law enforcement".
    Before they showed up there wasn't much violence, and most of the disorder was graffiti.
    That stuff wasn't part of your definition of terrorism. (If it had been, you would have had to acknowledge that the Portland demonstrators were not initially terrorists, and the terrorism did not start until the police showed up ).
    We did see scientists doing things that fit your proposed definition of "terrorism". We also see such things at regular Fourth of July parades, at least in my neck of the woods.
    It doesn't cover State terrorism - which is also domestic, and is a major component as well as primary instigator of the trouble in Portland, Minneapolis, and similar places.
    Most of the demonstrations and protests, especially the peaceful majority, were against State terrorism, especially police violence and disorder and lawbreaking.
    We have arrived at an assertion that whether or not someone is a terrorist depends on whether or not the organizers of their demonstration, street party, parade, whatever, got a permit.
    Choking a handcuffed man to death on the public street is an example of such an offense. So is firing rubber bullets at point blank range to injure people who are no threat, beating them with clubs, spraying toxic chemicals into their eyes, and kidnapping them in unmarked vans.
    So you are including the police in your category "terrorist", right?
    - - - -
    "Counterprotesters" is not an accurate term for agents provocateur.

    Also: don't forget the major initial contributing faction, especially to the serious injuries and deaths: the police.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  11. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Most everyone agrees that we need to come up with a solution to police brutality. In my humble opinion, I believe that the left-wing cultural revolutionaries are hijacking the concept of the BLM movement.

    It’s shocking when you look at the list of monuments and buildings being destroyed, renamed or removed. If this is the new normal, we should remove the entire democratic party altogether. You never hear about their involvement in slavery or racists policies. Why is that?

    "The Democratic Party opposed the abolition of slavery. Democrats have voted for racists policies for more than 100 years."

    "The Republican Party itself was founded as the "anti-slavery party" in 1854. The party subsequently gave us President Abraham Lincoln and ultimately, the Emancipation Proclamation which led to the liberation of slaves."

    "Over the last 100 years, Republicans have stood up for African Americans while Democrats not only stood on the sidelines, but in fact served as obstructionists to civil liberties."

    "The Democratic Party was responsible for passing Jim Crow laws, in addition to Black Civil Codes that forced Americans to utilize separate drinking fountains, swimming pools, and other facilities in the 20th century."

    "The truth about who was on the right side of history and who was in the wrong lies in the voting records and those records lie in the National Archives and the Library of Congress. No amount of statue-toppling nor spin from the Left can ever erase it."

    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Well then the Republican Party has changed.
  13. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    And that all changed in the 1960s, when the Democratic party decided to embrace civic rights. Meanwhile, the Republican party welcomed with open arms those Democrats who could not accept this.
    We are talking about the Republican party as it is today, not how it was over a 150 years ago, or even 60 years ago.
    Bringing up what the Republicans were like back then is like arguing that your team is going to win the Superbowl this season because, 30 yrs ago, they won it two years in a row.

    It is actually telling that you have to go so far back in history to find an example that puts the Republican party in a good light when it comes to race issues.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, we were discussing your definition of terrorism. You chose a definition which defined terrorism as an act "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct." Thus we were terrorists since we were certainly retalitating against government policy.

    If that makes me a terrorist in your eyes- well, then, I'm proud to be one.

    I didn't. Apparently one store window got broken but I didn't see it.

    If you were watching FOX News coverage, of course, it would have shown that broken window 24/7, interspersed with unrelated videos of fires and violence, with a "TERROR IN SAN DIEGO" chyron.
  15. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    I wonder who helped write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yep, it was a Rebuplican.


    I wonder who tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yep, just as I thought, all democrats.
    The democrats have had control over Minneapolis and Chicago for a long time. What have they accomplished?

    You know the 'tough on crime' attitude that continues to harm communities of color?

    I wonder who signed that act into law. Yep, Clinton.

    I wonder who drafted it. Yep, Biden. Although, he probably doesn’t remember doing it.


    {Golf clap for the Dems}
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    but primarely pushed and written by democrats

    all southerners. more northen democrats than republicans supported to the civil rights act

    prevented them from getting worse.

    but is now primarely supported by republicans. your biases and double standards are showing. you come across as a sock puppet for another right wing nutter who loved the dixiecrat fallacy
  17. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Unlike you "traditionalists" or "conservatives" or however you fancy yourself, those of us living in the real world recognize that things actually change--especially over the course of 3+ generations.
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Do you hate your country?
  19. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    The only team that I belong to are the Homo Sapiens. Latin for wise man. So you can call me Wiseguy if you want.

    This sad story has been floating around.

    A Louisiana man will continue to spend his life in prison for stealing a pair of hedge clippers, after the state's Supreme Court denied his request to review a lower court's sentence.
    And let me remind you that the democrats were responsible for the Black Codes.

    But guess what? They're responsible for this, too. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which Biden drafted and Clinton signed, included a three-strikes provision addressing repeat offenders.

    The democrats overwhelmingly voted for the three strikes law. Washington state was the first to enact it, followed by California.

    Way to go Dems. {Golf-clap}
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. And look what happened to them since then. It's sad.
  21. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    What’s sad is that Dems have hijacked the concept of the BLM movement. The virtue signaling is out of control.

    Rep. Louie Gohmert suggested that the democratic party change its name, saying that "that is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur."

    After looking through your history and current events, I wholeheartedly agree.

    What should we call you? Maybe we could work with the founder’s name.

    Opps! The Portland protesters rioters damaged his statue. We’ll have to come up with something else. Any other ideas?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    They haven't.
    Yep. And Trump referred to white supremacists as "fine people."
    Your attempted insult is unclear. Perhaps try again?
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    What is a "golf clap"?

Share This Page