Hey Seattle and Portland.....

[UNI88]

Still under investigation, so not quite sure of the narrative provided.

Thats how you deal with nazis. You kill them. We learned this back in the 40s. Lets see how tough these militia cunts are when they finally figure out that they aren't the only ones with guns. Looks like self-defense all the way.

Friends of Portland Man Slain Amid Protest Say He’s Been Falsely Portrayed

Aaron J. Danielson was not a radical, he was not a racist, he was not a fascist. He was a freedom-loving American who died expressing his beliefs, a right which is given to all of us through the Constitution.

[∞∞∞]

Almost did but figured it to be a troll similar to the right wing trolls of Gorillas in the Mist and extermination. Dback hardly strikes me as the vengeful pro violence type.

The violence and destruction the left wing has perpetrated is stupid. The activists screaming at the folks leaving the RNC are idiots.

For some reason however, that bothers me less than the willful ignorance of educated and seemingly smart people in my circle who buy into the bullshit from both sides.

Like I posted on FB in the Spring when the civil unrest from the left started and the Covid deniers were beginning their fearless charge to debunk reasonable precautions, science, and the experts:

“Go home America. You’re drunk.”

Dback doesn't strike me as a vengeful pro-violence type either but the number of people going full-idiot on both sides is increasing and I'd rather call him out and try to bring him back. It might be too late for Tripespierre.

I doubt you'll find any posts of mine which promote violence. I understand why people do it, but I can't call for it myself. There's quite a lot more guys here who actually call for violence - some who even seem eager for it - than whatever thought you've made up about me.

I'd probably be the first to die in some armed conflict, or declare asylum elsewhere if the US got to that point.

[UNI88]

Dback doesn't strike me as a vengeful pro-violence type either but the number of people going full-idiot on both sides is increasing and I'd rather call him out and try to bring him back. It might be too late for Tripespierre.

I doubt you'll find any posts of mine which promote violence. I understand why people do it, but I can't call for it myself. There's quite a lot more guys here who actually call for violence - some who even seem eager for it - than whatever thought you've made up about me.

I'd probably be the first to die in some armed conflict, or declare asylum elsewhere if the US got to that point.

Trip, I don't think you are a violent person but I do think that when you don't condemn it, you are tacitly approving the rioting and looting (silence is violence). I also think that the path you want this country to follow will lead to violence and death (and the loss of freedom and economic prosperity). You are too naive or myopic and too sure of the righteousness of your vision to be able to see this. Of course, this is all perception based on interaction on a football message board so I could very well be wrong. I would love to debate these things over a beer.

[∞∞∞]

I doubt you'll find any posts of mine which promote violence. I understand why people do it, but I can't call for it myself. There's quite a lot more guys here who actually call for violence - some who even seem eager for it - than whatever thought you've made up about me.

I'd probably be the first to die in some armed conflict, or declare asylum elsewhere if the US got to that point.

Trip, I don't think you are a violent person but I do think that when you don't condemn it, you are tacitly approving the rioting and looting (silence is violence). I also think that the path you want this country to follow will lead to violence and death (and the loss of freedom and economic prosperity). You are too naive or myopic and too sure of the righteousness of your vision to be able to see this. Of course, this is all perception based on interaction on a football message board so I could very well be wrong. I would love to debate these things over a beer.

Reading MLK made me realize there's a stark difference between promoting and understanding violence.

By your logic, I think you approve of violence by not condemning the systemic items in place which 'cause people to live sickly, meager, or oppressed lives. Of course I don't agree with your logic, but drawn out violence and immediate violence is still violence.

[SDHornet]

Trip, I don't think you are a violent person but I do think that when you don't condemn it, you are tacitly approving the rioting and looting (silence is violence). I also think that the path you want this country to follow will lead to violence and death (and the loss of freedom and economic prosperity). You are too naive or myopic and too sure of the righteousness of your vision to be able to see this. Of course, this is all perception based on interaction on a football message board so I could very well be wrong. I would love to debate these things over a beer.

It was reading MLK that I realized that there's a stark difference between promoting and understanding violence.

By your logic, I can say that you approve of violence as well by not condemning the systemic items in place which 'cause people to die, live sickly, meager, or oppressed lives. Of course I don't agree with your logic, but drawn out violence and immediate violence is still violence.

And which systemic items may that be?

[SeattleGriz]

Still under investigation, so not quite sure of the narrative provided.

Thats how you deal with nazis. You kill them. We learned this back in the 40s. Lets see how tough these militia cunts are when they finally figure out that they aren't the only ones with guns. Looks like self-defense all the way.

Fail.

[UNI88]

Trip, I don't think you are a violent person but I do think that when you don't condemn it, you are tacitly approving the rioting and looting (silence is violence). I also think that the path you want this country to follow will lead to violence and death (and the loss of freedom and economic prosperity). You are too naive or myopic and too sure of the righteousness of your vision to be able to see this. Of course, this is all perception based on interaction on a football message board so I could very well be wrong. I would love to debate these things over a beer.

Reading MLK made me realize there's a stark difference between promoting and understanding violence.

By your logic, I think you approve of violence by not condemning the systemic items in place which 'cause people to live sickly, meager, or oppressed lives. Of course I don't agree with your logic, but drawn out violence and immediate violence is still violence.

I've read MLK and Malcom X too.

I'm pointing out the left's failure to condemn the rioting and looting because I think it's hypocritical to focus on the violence committed by one side or group and ignore the violence committed by others. Violence is violence and should be condemned by all. The people who purport to represent BLM or Antifa who are destroying property and/or assaulting others are criminals who should be arrested and charged.

I'll finish by asking you the same questions I asked clenz on the Kenosha thread ...

Why are you angry? Why are black people angry? What are the issues (not symptoms) that are causing the anger? Draw attention to those issues, not with rioting and looting but with peaceful, non-violent protests. Let's try and solve those issues.

Protesting police brutality with rioting, looting, and violence is hypocritical and it's scaring people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause. It's increasing Trump's chances of winning in November.

[Baldy]

Thats how you deal with nazis. You kill them. We learned this back in the 40s. Lets see how tough these militia cunts are when they finally figure out that they aren't the only ones with guns. Looks like self-defense all the way.

Fail.

Houndy is just pissed that this guy will get life while the kid who took out the pedo and the wife beater will walk away scot-free and rich.

[∞∞∞]

It was reading MLK that I realized that there's a stark difference between promoting and understanding violence.

By your logic, I can say that you approve of violence as well by not condemning the systemic items in place which 'cause people to die, live sickly, meager, or oppressed lives. Of course I don't agree with your logic, but drawn out violence and immediate violence is still violence.

And which systemic items may that be?

An entire legal and economic system built by those in power. The simple fact is that law is not only created by those in power, but they choose who must follow it and how. That's the hard thing for many people to understand. We want to believe in the abstract notions of justice and fairness...that of a just world. The truth is, that can't exist until democracy reigns and hierarchic systems are removed.

And when you get the bogeymen of mob rule (which seems to pervade mostly conservative thoughts, but liberals too), it's often a form of projection. They themselves are the monsters who need the laws (and guess who bypasses those laws?).

As for MLK, I think this article sums up my thoughts: https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his- ... e177a8c87b

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena,” he told the assembled crowd of mostly white doctors and academics. “They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

Negro and white can be substituted (or not) for poor and privileged, and you get the same things. The experience of taking.

[Baldy]

And which systemic items may that be?

An entire legal and economic system built by those in power. The simple fact is that law is not only created by those in power, but they choose who must follow it and how. That's the hard thing for many people to understand. We want to believe in the abstract notions of justice and fairness...that of a just world. The truth is, that can't exist until democracy reigns and hierarchic systems are removed.

And when you get the bogeymen of mob rule (which seems to pervade mostly conservative thoughts, but liberals too), it's often a form of projection. They themselves are the monsters who need the laws (and guess who bypasses those laws?).

As for MLK, I think this article sums up my thoughts: https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his- ... e177a8c87b

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena,” he told the assembled crowd of mostly white doctors and academics. “They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

Negro and white can be substituted (or not) for poor and privileged, and you get the same things. The experience of taking.

"The experience of taking."
Sounds like something a sociopath would say.

So, the goal is democracy through anarchy?

[kalm]

And which systemic items may that be?

An entire legal and economic system built by those in power. The simple fact is that law is not only created by those in power, but they choose who must follow it and how. That's the hard thing for many people to understand. We want to believe in the abstract notions of justice and fairness...that of a just world. The truth is, that can't exist until democracy reigns and hierarchic systems are removed.

And when you get the bogeymen of mob rule (which seems to pervade mostly conservative thoughts, but liberals too), it's often a form of projection. They themselves are the monsters who need the laws (and guess who bypasses those laws?).

As for MLK, I think this article sums up my thoughts: https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his- ... e177a8c87b

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena,” he told the assembled crowd of mostly white doctors and academics. “They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

Negro and white can be substituted (or not) for poor and privileged, and you get the same things. The experience of taking.

Greed is good
He who dies with the most toys, wins.
All relationships are transactional

[∞∞∞]

I wish you the best Baldy.

I hope you're never in a position where all the laws, protections, and "fair" and "just" systems currently working in your benefit don't crush you later in life. It's an easy hole to fall into and a tough one to get out from.

Of course the most privileged are playing a different game altogether.

[SDHornet]

An entire legal and economic system built by those in power. The simple fact is that law is not only created by those in power, but they choose who must follow it and how. That's the hard thing for many people to understand. We want to believe in the abstract notions of justice and fairness...that of a just world. The truth is, that can't exist until democracy reigns and hierarchic systems are removed.

And when you get the bogeymen of mob rule (which seems to pervade mostly conservative thoughts, but liberals too), it's often a form of projection. They themselves are the monsters who need the laws (and guess who bypasses those laws?).

As for MLK, I think this article sums up my thoughts: https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his- ... e177a8c87b

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena,” he told the assembled crowd of mostly white doctors and academics. “They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

Negro and white can be substituted (or not) for poor and privileged, and you get the same things. The experience of taking.

"The experience of taking."
Sounds like something a sociopath would say.

So, the goal is democracy through anarchy?

Yeah, I had to smash and grab my way out of the hood and into a well paying stem degree field. Makes perfect sense.

Also notice how trips didn't provide any specific examples. Just more generalization Leftists and Marxists typically use to justify their flawed ideology.

[89Hen]

An entire legal and economic system built by those in power.

Who should create these systems?

[Ibanez]

And which systemic items may that be?

An entire legal and economic system built by those in power. The simple fact is that law is not only created by those in power, but they choose who must follow it and how. That's the hard thing for many people to understand. We want to believe in the abstract notions of justice and fairness...that of a just world. The truth is, that can't exist until democracy reigns and hierarchic systems are removed.

And when you get the bogeymen of mob rule (which seems to pervade mostly conservative thoughts, but liberals too), it's often a form of projection. They themselves are the monsters who need the laws (and guess who bypasses those laws?).

As for MLK, I think this article sums up my thoughts: https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his- ... e177a8c87b

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena,” he told the assembled crowd of mostly white doctors and academics. “They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

Negro and white can be substituted (or not) for poor and privileged, and you get the same things. The experience of taking.

In what successful societies do you see the weak, minority, etc... building the economic and judicial systems? I'm not saying it's a good thing that only the powerful is involved - but they are involved for a reason. They are the drivers of the events that have caused whatever systems to be built. The weak, poor, ordinary colonist didn't rise up against King George. It was community and state leaders. Men that had made names for themselves and were leaders in commerce, politics, law, etc... It wasn't a simple farmer with a small plot of land.


Mob rule isn't a boogeyman. It's all too real. Your quote from MLK is nice, but we've seen the rioters demand white people to turn over their homes. They are demanding representation. They are demanding those against them to resign. The time to "shock" the white community has passed. They are looking for action.

[∞∞∞]

Your first point alludes to the "great man" theory which I vehemently oppose (and may have mentioned before). There's a ton of criticism on it so I'm sure whatever you find, I probably agree with. If you ever read it, "War and Peace" criticizes the theory too.

As to your second point, mob rule is all too real except the people rioting are not the mob (but the mob projects it as such). And I can tell they've "shocked" you with their demands which are legit. But that's the thing, the system doesn't allow these demands to be "legitimate" because it's meant to protect the people who create the system, so it's "shocking" when people (which the system doesn't protect) make them.

[CID1990]

And which systemic items may that be?

The experience of taking.

That pretty much sums up every Marxist movement, ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Your first point alludes to the "great man" theory which I vehemently oppose (and may have mentioned before). There's a ton of criticism on it so I'm sure whatever you find, I probably agree with. If you ever read it, "War and Peace" criticizes the theory too.

As to your second point, mob rule is all too real except the people rioting are not the mob (but the mob projects it as such). And I can tell they've "shocked" you with their demands which are legit. But that's the thing, the system doesn't allow these demands to be "legitimate" because it's meant to protect the people who create the system, so it's "shocking" when people (which the system doesn't protect) make them.

Who should build the legal and economic system?

Why is your definition of mob any better than Ibanez's?

How is what you appear to support going to end better than Mao's Cultural Revolution or what Stalin did to the Kulaks?

If the revolution you support happens it is going to end badly for most of the survivors and for America as a whole.

It's easy to stand on a soapbox and blame the right, whites, the privileged, etc. Let's try to fix what we have rather than burning it all to the ground ...

• What are the underlying problems (not the symptoms) and how do you propose that we resolve them?
• Is defunding and dismantling the police going to make things better? There are bad people in this country. Who will protect citizens and businesses from them?
• Are reparations going to make things better? If you give poor people money without teaching them how to budget, spend it on education and/or invest it are your really making a difference in their future?

[∞∞∞]

I'll answer your first question only because the other two are dependent on it:

The underlying problem is the entire legal system, from the Constitution downwards. I can't continually repeat what I've said many times before, but in short, we should start over in a democratic way and craft a new Constitution and gov't. For centuries our Constitution has allowed for a flawed, unjust, unequal, and undemocratic government. It works for those it was crafted for, but it fails so many others.

Once a real and healthy democracy is established, the rest gets answered from there.

And I'm of the type that thinks it's ok that nations don't last forever. If there's a dissolution of the United States, that may possibly be an even more democratic solution to the problem at hand. There's little reason so many people need to share one federal government.

[UNI88]

I'll answer your first question only because the other two are dependent on it:

The underlying problem is the entire legal system, from the Constitution downwards. I can't continually repeat what I've said many times before, but in short, we should start over in a democratic way and craft a new Constitution and gov't. For centuries our Constitution has allowed for a flawed, unjust, unequal, and undemocratic government. It works for those it was crafted for, but it fails so many others.

Once a real and healthy democracy is established, the rest gets answered from there.

And I'm of the type that thinks it's ok that nations don't last forever. If there's a dissolution of the United States, that may possibly be an even more democratic solution to the problem at hand. There's little reason so many people need to share one federal government.

So your answer to my first question (Who should build the legal and economic system?) is everyone? We'll have a legislative body of 350+ million people?

[∞∞∞]

No, but certainly a lot better and equal representation.

[89Hen]

This should get good.

[UNI88]

No, but certainly a lot better and equal representation.

I don't disagree that the Constitution has created a flawed, not completely just, equal or democratic government but that I strongly believe that the government it has created is better than the alternatives. I am willing to work within that framework to improve the government to make it more just and equal. I will defend this country and the constitution with my life if necessary.

[CitadelGrad]

The only other options are acquiescence and submission. Fuck that.

When are you going to get from behind your keyboard and get it done?

You have no idea what I'm doing or not doing.

[CitadelGrad]

One side has no interest in settling things down. This is their revolution.

It's squishies like you who made Trump a necessity.

You just have to lash out after the beatdown you’re taking on here from your schoolmate.

Beatdown?