Not secret. Not military. Not kidnapping.
And it's only necessary because the dumbass mayor and Brown are derelict in their duties.
The federal government should be as hands off as is possible, but when the local authorities cannot carry out their duties, or abandon them, someone needs to defend the life, liberty, and property of lawful, taxpaying citizens under siege by anarchists and criminals.
And it ain't just the government we need to defend our rights from. For fuck's sake, those rioting fucktards bashed a man's skull in with a goddamned sledge hammer! Burning courthouses and assaulting not just officers, but anybody they don't like the look of, tearing their own goddamned city apart!
Frankly, they should be thankful the feds stepped in before locals decided to neutralize the threat themselves.
▼
deleted
· 3 years ago
Swiping peaceful protesters off the streets in unmarked vehicles with no identification or idea as to who is taking them is not protecting liberty. Not all the protesters are peaceful, but why is it okay to group them all together as thugs when you yourself have defended “not all cops” when one is outed as a piece of shit
To your first, we already addressed those points. Would you like me to paste the conversation over for you?
To your second, the peaceful protesters become accomplices when they prevent authorities from putting out fires, protect those who started the fires, and refuse to disperse or cooperate when some of their own do turn violent.
And that doesn't even begin to cover the larger group that were never peaceful, but the media still tries to call protesters.
deleted
· 3 years ago
I don’t need you to copy and paste anything for me since there’s no justification for the government kidnapping it’s citizens. If this was happening in any other country, you would be against it full force and agreeing with the protesters for “taking back their freedom”. But now that it’s America committing these human rights violations, it’s suddenly okay? What happened to protecting your rights? What happened to the freedom to assemble? You’re a hypocrite
Detaining and arresting criminals and anarchists is not kidnapping. Freedom of assembly does not protect looting, arson, assault, battery, or obstruction of justice and resisting arrest.
This happens in every country, including America, all the time. Criminals think they can get away with hurting people, and then they act surprised when they get caught. Though I will admit, it is abhorrent and inexcusable that my birth state, Oregon, allowed over 50 days of this bullshit to go on unopposed.
The feds wouldn't have stepped in if the state did their duty.
So just to be clear:
.
If the federal agents were inside a building, saw someone breaking the law across the street, bumrushed the fuck over there in full uniform and arrested the person... that would be kidnapping because the building they were in was not marked as containing police officers?
.
Just trying to make sure I follow the logic
.
Side note: show me where setting a bank on fire is the equivalent of "taking back your freedom." ?
.
Admittedly there is a video of a guy being chased down in the street with a bunch of people screaming "I'm gonna fucking KILL you." They caught up to the guy. The police weren't there.
.
They backed off real fast after the guy shot one of them.
OH! Nvm! Taking back your freedom involves kneeling on the neck of a child while someone holds the kid's hand behind their backs for social media clout! I forgot about that. My mistake.
.
Maybe it involves swarming a guy just trying to drive his van down the street, trying to pull him from the vehicle, and then aiming a gun or some shit INSIDE the vehicle, forcing the guy to speed off down the street.
.
I guess freedom also involves blocking major roadways from allowing people to use them or pass by without any kind of approval. I could be wrong, but isn't preventing people from being able to leave an area also a form of "kidnapping" ? No? We don't want to play by that rulebook today?
.
Okay, fine. I guess just the decimation of public and private property makes a statement. Not like it's literally every other citizen of the country that has to pay for the damage you do
But... that is the key isn’t it? “They should be thankful the cards stepped in before the locals were able to neutralize....” No body of authority elected to represent the “locals” requested this be done. There has been no formal declaration that those rioting are terrorists to be considered such legally- enemy combatants subject to military law or any such thing. No state of emergency was declared on a Federal or State level. So regardless of wether one believes things are or were out of hand, wether the “locals can’t handle it” or not- the checks and balances out in place to safeguard liberty and prevent abuse of power have not been followed there.
We shall see what the legal ruling is officially- but wether they were marked or unmarked is really irrelevant- is it scarier when the federal government hides their identity- or when they openly show it while brazenly overstepping jurisdiction? DHS has consolidated everything from immigration to federal emergency relief and more. It doesn’t take a genius to see a real danger when a single agency is given broad powers to “protect the United States” inside and outside its borders, with unquestioned authority in disasters and terrorism- when the latter of which couldn’t be defined by the government beyond “well let you know what is and isn’t case by case...” and the former is... well... if we don’t have any criteria formally on what is an “emergency” or how or who makes that call- that’s scary.
I'd guess fighting for freedom also involves defacing the streets with things like "fuck the police." Which is why NONE of the protestors have any reason to complain when someone spraypaints "MAGA" on a building. Dammit, that's also a rule we don't want to play by? I have a hard time keeping the double-standards straight.. There's so many of them.
.
Alright. Well, if fighting for freedom ISN'T bashing someone's head in with a sledgehammer, it MUST be dragging someone into a tent and trying to rape them.
.
Or pelting objects AT the police.
.
.
I gotta admit, none of these situations sound like the EXACT reason the police exist in the first place. I can see how everyone's gotten so much justified moral outrage about this now.
@famousone my hoodie Is bright pink, do you think I can still be a member?
.
Also I love you guys but you fuck you for interrupting my tirade just when I got a decent mad worked up >.>
Worse yet when the president of the United States seems to be the one pulling the strings of this agency with these broad and ill defined sweeping powers. That’s quite literally tyranny. Hoover was bad enough just with the FBI.
The federal agents are defending federal property since the local authorities have failed to do so. That they must also apprehend criminals and defend the public is the nature of being law enforcement.
Oregon is in a declared state of emergency.
Nobody is using military forces or war laws.
So it’s semantics wether they were marked or not, wether they were protecting people or being fascist, blah blah. The important things here are that we have a giant organization with broad reach and powers, without checks or balances, acting not just unilaterally for federal powers- but a domestic army that “totally isn’t an army” so gets around all those pesky rules about using those guys... acting at the whims of a CIC- that’s a problem no matter who is the president.
And states abilities to refuse to follow federal law is an important part of the system of checks and balances- it is part of the system which allows, if enough estates find the federal government wrong and all refuse, for states and more importantly citizens to have veto power and provides a necessary safety against tyranny. Don’t get so lost in the trees that you forget there is a whole forest.
@xvarnah, no offense taken- ironically, my interruption of your tirade was actually me finishing my original tirade. I did not mean to interrupt. For the record I do not think you or famousone are “klansmen” nor do I think it’s an appropriate allegation. As I said in another post, extremism is extremism and un ironic hyperbole or exaggeration is the same hung regardless of the morality or philosophy behind it.
As for hypocrisy- you are making false comparisons. I am not a looter nor a protestor, nor a resident of Portland. Many who are upset over this are not. So it is not looters and rioters who are upset. It is not simply those who deface political symbols upset at others who do the same under a different ideology.
One can believe that BOTH are wrong. One am also believe that- again- regardless of wether they were uniformed and in public or disguised as nuns- federal agents intervened in local civil unrest without coordination with local authorities. That is something that should be avoided for simple reasons of balances of power and jurisdiction.
Let alone the state of the union. Not only is there a very real possibility that regardless of the facts the perception of such acts as sending federal agents can stir more unrest and escalate situations- but as a union not playing nice with the states is a very good way to cause division in our own government and weaken our internal cooperation.
To put it simply- a leader can inspire and cooperate, bribe and coerce, or manipulate and force. The latter is a major concern. A president who gets their way not through cooperation and compromise, but by wielding force and power over people to get their way. That’s very problematic. Especially in a system of government intended to prevent one commander from being able to secure their ends through force domestically-
This is one that is open to disagreement, but the central question if we say: “the states weren’t defending federal property! The feds had a right to defend it!” Well... we an say yes. But is the response proportional to the threat? It’s not directly quantifiable- but for all the ill will and unrest and unease and such the decision caused and was bound to cause- is the response worth what was defended? I personally do not feel it to be so.
Seattle let some people “declare independence” and left them alone. In a short time- that petered out as causes are want to do when you don’t give them an adversary to galvanize against. It’s terrible what many people are doing- the violence and destruction, and police should be diligent against that- but.... for all the horror we make of it- how many people are killed or hurt daily when there isn’t a protest going on?
Where were the federal agents or such when cities like Camden were tearing themselves apart? Many still are. Flint Michigan still doesn’t have its water straightened out. The fed has been slow to step in and take care of that one because the states can’t... it isn’t about protecting property or anything like that. It’s a political move, a message, and arguably a troll being a troll. The man is petty and that is not debatable. Most politicians tend to be. But he’s petty and this isn’t about protecting federal property it is about instilling fear and a dick waving.
And it's only necessary because the dumbass mayor and Brown are derelict in their duties.
The federal government should be as hands off as is possible, but when the local authorities cannot carry out their duties, or abandon them, someone needs to defend the life, liberty, and property of lawful, taxpaying citizens under siege by anarchists and criminals.
Frankly, they should be thankful the feds stepped in before locals decided to neutralize the threat themselves.
To your second, the peaceful protesters become accomplices when they prevent authorities from putting out fires, protect those who started the fires, and refuse to disperse or cooperate when some of their own do turn violent.
And that doesn't even begin to cover the larger group that were never peaceful, but the media still tries to call protesters.
This happens in every country, including America, all the time. Criminals think they can get away with hurting people, and then they act surprised when they get caught. Though I will admit, it is abhorrent and inexcusable that my birth state, Oregon, allowed over 50 days of this bullshit to go on unopposed.
The feds wouldn't have stepped in if the state did their duty.
.
If the federal agents were inside a building, saw someone breaking the law across the street, bumrushed the fuck over there in full uniform and arrested the person... that would be kidnapping because the building they were in was not marked as containing police officers?
.
Just trying to make sure I follow the logic
.
Side note: show me where setting a bank on fire is the equivalent of "taking back your freedom." ?
.
Admittedly there is a video of a guy being chased down in the street with a bunch of people screaming "I'm gonna fucking KILL you." They caught up to the guy. The police weren't there.
.
They backed off real fast after the guy shot one of them.
.
Maybe it involves swarming a guy just trying to drive his van down the street, trying to pull him from the vehicle, and then aiming a gun or some shit INSIDE the vehicle, forcing the guy to speed off down the street.
.
I guess freedom also involves blocking major roadways from allowing people to use them or pass by without any kind of approval. I could be wrong, but isn't preventing people from being able to leave an area also a form of "kidnapping" ? No? We don't want to play by that rulebook today?
.
Okay, fine. I guess just the decimation of public and private property makes a statement. Not like it's literally every other citizen of the country that has to pay for the damage you do
.
Alright. Well, if fighting for freedom ISN'T bashing someone's head in with a sledgehammer, it MUST be dragging someone into a tent and trying to rape them.
.
Or pelting objects AT the police.
.
.
I gotta admit, none of these situations sound like the EXACT reason the police exist in the first place. I can see how everyone's gotten so much justified moral outrage about this now.
.
Also I love you guys but you fuck you for interrupting my tirade just when I got a decent mad worked up >.>
Oregon is in a declared state of emergency.
Nobody is using military forces or war laws.