Author Topic: DNC on twitter: 4th of July Celebrations glorify white supremacy.. Wait *delete*  (Read 1459 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
https://news.yahoo.com/dnc-claims-trump-glorifying-white-132944526.html

Quote
In a since-deleted tweet, the Democratic National Committee accused President Trump of “holding a rally glorifying white supremacy” by attending the fireworks display at Mount Rushmore on Independence Day.

“Trump has disrespected Native communities time and again. He’s attempted to limit their voting rights and blocked critical pandemic relief. Now he’s holding a rally glorifying white supremacy at Mount Rushmore — a region once sacred to tribal communities,” the DNC tweeted early Tuesday morning. The tweet linked to a story by The Guardian, which reported that some Native American groups are planning protests at Mount Rushmore in response to Trump’s expected attendance on July 3.

An archive of the tweet can be found here:
https://archive.is/ows8u

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
I'll wait to hear more before commenting with my opinion - is this verified?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
I have no doubt it's true, and that somebody in the communication team thought it was a good idea... until it became really obvious that it wasn't.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
I have no doubt it's true, and that somebody in the communication team thought it was a good idea... until it became really obvious that it wasn't.

It's my understanding that the 4 monument faces will be wearing masks.  They may not need them, but What do they have to lose?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 08:01:40 AM by Kasandra »



DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
So, is it time to reconsider the global legacy of July 4, and did USA independence help further colonialism and white supremacy? That does seem to be the debate raging through the USA at them moment.  What is your analysis, TheDaemon?  And what do you think about what those black communities referenced in the BBC who are stating that the 4th of July doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to those who celebrate unquestioningly?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
So, is it time to reconsider the global legacy of July 4, and did USA independence help further colonialism and white supremacy? That does seem to be the debate raging through the USA at them moment.  What is your analysis, TheDaemon?  And what do you think about what those black communities referenced in the BBC who are stating that the 4th of July doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to those who celebrate unquestioningly?

You're not American, so you've probably never "properly experienced" a 4th of July celebration. An attack on the 4th of July is an attack on the Declaration of Independence itself, not an attack on Whites, or an attack on the United States itself, or an attack on the people who wrote the document. (And in several cases, their own comments on the subject of Slavery at or near the time -- they weren't happy about Slavery either, even then. Which was way ahead of their time, yes they fell short of where we, and they, would have liked, but they did the best they could.)

Any "Black Community" that feels the 4th "doesn't mean the same thing to them" are quite  frankly idiots and don't know enough about history, or the Declaration of Independence and its drafting. The United States may have the dubious distinction of being one of the last western nations to end the practice of Slavery within its borders, but the United States is also only second to the United Kingdom in its role in helping end the commercial international slave trade, and the resulting consequence of making the practice too expensive for many nations to sustain.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/exhibits/anti-slave-trade-patrols.html

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

I know deconstructionism is in vogue and all of that, but sorry. If you have a gripe with the Declaration of Independence, you're either Native American(who do have grounds for legitimate gripes, but only up to a point), uninformed, or you're someone that has no business in the United States without respect to what your skin color, or history is.

It also is a very interesting, alternate history question to ask, "What does the world look like if the Declaration of Independence was never written?"

The Americans likely fail to rally the French to their cause. The French Revolution either never happens(some could argue that a plus) or takes a very different form. Numerous other European colonies in the Americas don't gain independence on the same timeline, as they now lack both the American Monroe Doctrine, or the British Empire tacitly supporting said doctrine because it suited their own trade interests of the time(as the American Revolution soured them on the whole colonialism thing, they weren't about to try conquering somebody else's rebellious colony).

But the changed course for France also means a changed course in the Americas. Haiti's history changes, their slave revolt likely sees a very different outcome. The fate of the Louisiana Territory becomes much less certain as it continues to bounce between Spain, France, and possibly eventually Britain.

Britain's outlook on Slavery probably changes as well, rather than banning it in 1807(Which incidentally, also coincides with when the United States declared the importation of Slaves to be an Act of Piracy), it probably takes a fair bit longer. While the Brits may be reticent to admit it, the Declaration of Independence did influence thinking in Britain as it relates to Civil Rights.

The ripples just continue to extend out from there. Without the United States providing the example of how a colony can rebel, assume an independent role or at least the appearance of it(such as the US ignoring the Monroe Doctrine when it came to the British interdicting slave ships heading to Brazil), fewer colonies are "inspired" to rebel, and even fewer manage to be either as stable, or free, as they were, as there was no "American template" for them to draw from. Which means they would instead be emulating European monarchies instead more likely than not.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You're not American, so you've probably never "properly experienced" a 4th of July celebration. An attack on the 4th of July is an attack on the Declaration of Independence itself, not an attack on Whites, or an attack on the United States itself, or an attack on the people who wrote the document. (And in several cases, their own comments on the subject of Slavery at or near the time -- they weren't happy about Slavery either, even then. Which was way ahead of their time, yes they fell short of where we, and they, would have liked, but they did the best they could.)

Any "Black Community" that feels the 4th "doesn't mean the same thing to them" are quite  frankly idiots and don't know enough about history, or the Declaration of Independence and its drafting. The United States may have the dubious distinction of being one of the last western nations to end the practice of Slavery within its borders, but the United States is also only second to the United Kingdom in its role in helping end the commercial international slave trade, and the resulting consequence of making the practice too expensive for many nations to sustain.

Wow, just wow.  You're not as openly one-sided as wmLambert and Crunch are, but this comment is the sort of thing I would expect them to say.  I am an American, and I resent your attitude that others who have suffered the insults and crimes committed by our government and society over the past 400 years should somehow have the same burnished pride that you have.  I am totally disappointed.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You're not American, so you've probably never "properly experienced" a 4th of July celebration. An attack on the 4th of July is an attack on the Declaration of Independence itself, not an attack on Whites, or an attack on the United States itself, or an attack on the people who wrote the document. (And in several cases, their own comments on the subject of Slavery at or near the time -- they weren't happy about Slavery either, even then. Which was way ahead of their time, yes they fell short of where we, and they, would have liked, but they did the best they could.)

Any "Black Community" that feels the 4th "doesn't mean the same thing to them" are quite  frankly idiots and don't know enough about history, or the Declaration of Independence and its drafting. The United States may have the dubious distinction of being one of the last western nations to end the practice of Slavery within its borders, but the United States is also only second to the United Kingdom in its role in helping end the commercial international slave trade, and the resulting consequence of making the practice too expensive for many nations to sustain.

Wow, just wow.  You're not as openly one-sided as wmLambert and Crunch are, but this comment is the sort of thing I would expect them to say.  I am an American, and I resent your attitude that others who have suffered the insults and crimes committed by our government and society over the past 400 years should somehow have the same burnished pride that you have.  I am totally disappointed.

Hello, Mormon here. I have ancestors who experienced the mob activities in both Ohio and Missouri, which meant they also had the subsequent experience of also being chased out of Nauvoo, Illinois, and being placed under Military Rule under Lincoln, and the numerous other anti-Mormon acts that were pursued. I am within a handful of removes from Mormon Missionaries who had plenty of harrowing stories about doing missionary work in the Deep South as a Mormon prior to the 1960's and the CRA.

If that's not enough, I also have ancestors who immigrated into the United States between 1867 and 1875 as Catholics from Eastern Europe. So I get another shot of discrimination I could point to.

The United States is a different thing in a lot of respects from its founding document the Declaration of Independence. You can take issue with US History all you want, we certainly have plenty of negative marks against us. But on the 4th of July, the centerpiece is the Declaration of Independence, not the United States.

And I'll stand by the previous statement. If you have a problem with "All men are created equal"(Or the more modern gender neutral form of it), then I have a problem with you, and you have questionable business in the USA.

If you have problem with "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then the same applies to you as before.

If you cannot grasp and agree with "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" then we are at fundamental odds with one another.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Is a bigger one to unpack, but again, if you take issue with the idea as presented, then we have a problem.

This part here is conservative mantra 101:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Oddly:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Seems to be the assertion of activist groups right now. But the very document which was one of the first documents to elucidate such ideas as they're alleging to "honor" is the very same document they're attacking? That does not compute.

Of course, many, even among their own number, would dispute their having been placed under "absolute Despotism" under the system as it currently exists. Although can certainly be counter claimed that many so called "Social Justice Warriors" are in fact seeking to become despots themselves, their way or the highway. In which case the DoI stands as a stark witness against them, which makes it no small wonder they'd be trying to discredit the document. And again, another reason to take strong issue with the people conducting such assaults on said document.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 12:19:55 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You're not American, so you've probably never "properly experienced" a 4th of July celebration. An attack on the 4th of July is an attack on the Declaration of Independence itself, not an attack on Whites, or an attack on the United States itself, or an attack on the people who wrote the document.

Wow, just wow.  You're not as openly one-sided as wmLambert and Crunch are, but this comment is the sort of thing I would expect them to say.  I am an American, and I resent your attitude that others who have suffered the insults and crimes committed by our government and society over the past 400 years should somehow have the same burnished pride that you have.  I am totally disappointed.

I decided to circle back to this in case you keyed to the "You're not American" part rather than the rest. People who have no, or minimal experience with a particular celebration that is unique to a specific culture group not their own rarely get "all the details" about what those events are about.

I'm not going to hazard a guess at observances of Guy Fawkes Day/Night for example, it's simply not a thing in most of the US, even if it predates the American Revolution by 170 years.

The 4th of July also includes celebrations and commemorations for veterans, pow/mia, and in many cases celebration of the Constitution as well. But at its core, the 4th of July remains a celebration of what happened on the 4th of July, 1776. The Declaration of independence, as everything else followed from that. So I will hold very firm to the idea that an assault on the 4th of July is an assault on the Declaration of Independence, not the ancillary items that are often attached.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Rather than go back and forth, I'll just say that the principles of said document allow and encourage you to feel the pride that you do, despite hardships and maltreatment suffered by your ancestors.  It does not encourage you to disparage or denigrate those who also have suffered and continue to do so despite the principles of said document.  They are not you, and they have grievances that they continue to suffer today because the principles of said document haven't applied as equally to them as they do to you.  In other words, they object because they also believe in those principles.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Rather than go back and forth, I'll just say that the principles of said document allow and encourage you to feel the pride that you do, despite hardships and maltreatment suffered by your ancestors.  It does not encourage you to disparage or denigrate those who also have suffered and continue to do so despite the principles of said document.  They are not you, and they have grievances that they continue to suffer today because the principles of said document haven't applied as equally to them as they do to you.  In other words, they object because they also believe in those principles.

Most of the people protesting? I'd agree.

For a substantial fraction of them? I don't see it, or they wouldn't be trying to deconstruct the document. Instead they'd be pointing out how we've failed to adhere to our own ideals. They're not doing that, they're attacking the document instead.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
It's not your document and not yours to defend, but let's move on since you can't set that self-serving righteous indignation aside.  How do you feel about the hundreds of armed 2Aers who showed up at Gettysburg to defend the honor of the Confederacy?  Do they have the right to be vigilantes and shoot people who they think are violating their documents?  FWIW, they were there specifically because of a web hoax alleging that Antifa would be there to damage the place.  As even you have to admit, so far nobody has actually seen any Antifa, but the right keeps using them as a boogeyman to accuse the left of harboring violent intentions.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
I'm not going to debate what the 4th of July and independence means to USA citizens with USA citizens, but TheDaemon you posted two links without any explanation, so I literally just copied the headlines from those two links and asked for your analysis.

What do either link have to do with me not being from the USA? Secondly, the first headline was about a) "[reconsidering] the global legacy of July 4", and b) whether "USA independence help[ed] further colonialism and white supremacy".

I am not going to suggest that, being from the USA, you are incapable of reconsidering the global legacy of July 4.  However, the global legacy of July 4 is not limited to the wording of the declaration of independence, and the first headline was not actually limited to only referencing the DOI, anyway - limiting your response to that is a bit of a red herring.  Taken as a whole, that headline has to do with the USA being a "shining beacon of liberty", and inasmuch as it does have to do with the DOI internationally, the challenge is that it has become clear that the country did not live up to the ideals set forth in that document, so was that document then actually a failure, from a global perspective, in that it actually supported/extended colonialism, slavery and white supremacy in ways that other countries put aside earlier?

But the real question is - why did you post those links?  Do you support the analyses referenced in those links, to which you never actually made reference?  Do you disagree?  A bit of both, maybe?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
I'm not going to debate what the 4th of July and independence means to USA citizens with USA citizens, but TheDaemon you posted two links without any explanation, so I literally just copied the headlines from those two links and asked for your analysis.

What do either link have to do with me not being from the USA? Secondly, the first headline was about a) "[reconsidering] the global legacy of July 4", and b) whether "USA independence help[ed] further colonialism and white supremacy".

Pretty sure I addressed "A" very directly in my response to your initial response.

The global legacy of the Declaration of independence is huge, and very hard to quantify. It's legacy inside our own borders are a lot more mixed for obvious reasons, as we failed to live up to our own standards.

As to furthering colonialism and white supremacy? Certainly not with regards to the DoI. If anything, it heralded the end of colonialism in the the New World, although the same couldn't be claimed for Africa, Asia and Australia.

You need look no further than Canada to see that the American Revolution did nothing to halt the continued westward march of European powers in North America. All the Revolution did is shift a lot of that control to powers located in North America. But this gets into definition games, as the protesters trying to burn down the "colonial imperialist" Federal Courthouse in Portland show. The Westward expansion of the Unites States isn't colonialism, that was expansionism because the United States existed there as a nation in its own right. Unlike what happened in British Controlled Canada, where Canada expanded westward as a colony.

Quote
I am not going to suggest that, being from the USA, you are incapable of reconsidering the global legacy of July 4.  However, the global legacy of July 4 is not limited to the wording of the declaration of independence, and the first headline was not actually limited to only referencing the DOI, anyway - limiting your response to that is a bit of a red herring.

Welcome to psychological warfare, its an assault on the DoI, a very thinly veiled one, but an assault on DoI by means of guilt through association. Marxist groups have been trying for decades to deconstruct the DoI, and this has been one of their favored means of doing so. Seeing it get top-line attention by the Guardian (Which the DNC Twitter feed agreed with before deleting), then the BBC and the Washington Post just demonstrates how far down the leftist rabbit hole the media has fallen.

Quote
Taken as a whole, that headline has to do with the USA being a "shining beacon of liberty", and inasmuch as it does have to do with the DOI internationally, the challenge is that it has become clear that the country did not live up to the ideals set forth in that document, so was that document then actually a failure, from a global perspective, in that it actually supported/extended colonialism, slavery and white supremacy in ways that other countries put aside earlier?

That isn't how they sold it, they weren't billing it as "America failed to live up to its own standard" it was about how "The Declaration of Independence isn't for me because we're black" and that couldn't be further from the truth. That is grade A propaganda.

Quote
But the real question is - why did you post those links?  Do you support the analyses referenced in those links, to which you never actually made reference?  Do you disagree?  A bit of both, maybe?

I was hoping for someone to engage the articles one way or another, as I viewed them to be beyond the pale, and further support of the OP where the MSM and the cultural left of the English Speaking world have completely lost the plot.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
It's not your document and not yours to defend, but let's move on since you can't set that self-serving righteous indignation aside.  How do you feel about the hundreds of armed 2Aers who showed up at Gettysburg to defend the honor of the Confederacy?  Do they have the right to be vigilantes and shoot people who they think are violating their documents?  FWIW, they were there specifically because of a web hoax alleging that Antifa would be there to damage the place.  As even you have to admit, so far nobody has actually seen any Antifa, but the right keeps using them as a boogeyman to accuse the left of harboring violent intentions.

I see you're very comfortable in that rabbit hole you're in. Suspected AntiFa members have been getting apprehended, but as they're very good at 5th Generation Warfare, it's very difficult to pin them down as being part of one specific group or another, especially when working off of arrest reports alone. They'll have to be charged and go to trial before many of their affiliations are understood, but as the courts are largely shut down due to Covid19 (convenient that), it's hard to produce any documentation to support it.

Which also ignores the entire matter that a lot of these activities are happening in areas where the local prosecutor's office is a Soros funded/backed Democrat, and the game of smoke and mirrors becomes frustrating to say the least. Which basically leaves us waiting for them to commit an offense which can allow for a federal prosecutor to get involved.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
It's not your document and not yours to defend, but let's move on since you can't set that self-serving righteous indignation aside.  How do you feel about the hundreds of armed 2Aers who showed up at Gettysburg to defend the honor of the Confederacy?  Do they have the right to be vigilantes and shoot people who they think are violating their documents?  FWIW, they were there specifically because of a web hoax alleging that Antifa would be there to damage the place.  As even you have to admit, so far nobody has actually seen any Antifa, but the right keeps using them as a boogeyman to accuse the left of harboring violent intentions.

I see you're very comfortable in that rabbit hole you're in. Suspected AntiFa members have been getting apprehended, but as they're very good at 5th Generation Warfare, it's very difficult to pin them down as being part of one specific group or another, especially when working off of arrest reports alone. They'll have to be charged and go to trial before many of their affiliations are understood, but as the courts are largely shut down due to Covid19 (convenient that), it's hard to produce any documentation to support it.

Which also ignores the entire matter that a lot of these activities are happening in areas where the local prosecutor's office is a Soros funded/backed Democrat, and the game of smoke and mirrors becomes frustrating to say the least. Which basically leaves us waiting for them to commit an offense which can allow for a federal prosecutor to get involved.

That's the most orthogonal response I've ever seen to anything on Ornery, bordering on a non-sequitur, coupled with a bunch of vague conspiracy oriented statements.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/06/06/3-members-of-anti-government-group-antifa-arrested-after-looting-a-target-in-austin-fbi-says/

Quote
AUSTIN – Three people have been arrested for looting, burglarizing and damaging property at an Austin Target store, according to the FBI.

The three individuals are known members of the anti-government group ANTIFA, FBI officials said.

And with regards to the Portland "protests" that have been trying to burn down the Federal Building there... Saying those guys aren't likely to be connected to AntiFa is probably quite the stretch goal, given how large their presence is in the area.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-arrests-man-alleged-vandalism-andrew-jackson-statue/story?id=71578899

Quote
Jason Charter, who self identifies in social media profiles as a supporter of the anti-fascist movement antifa, was charged Friday with two counts of destruction of federal property based on videos that appear to show him participating in the vandalism of both the statue of Confederate general Albert Pike as well as the Jackson statue.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
OOH, so scary! Breaking windows, no less! Such horrors! Soros is about to get his way and overthrow the government! I'm no fan of the loose affiliation of antifa, but describing a bunch of mostly unarmed teenage vandals with no leader and no organization as some kind of existential threat is one of the dumbest things I've heard.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
OOH, so scary! Breaking windows, no less! Such horrors! Soros is about to get his way and overthrow the government! I'm no fan of the loose affiliation of antifa, but describing a bunch of mostly unarmed teenage vandals with no leader and no organization as some kind of existential threat is one of the dumbest things I've heard.

They broke the windows, then moved away for awhile. A couple hours later they came back and started to shoot fireworks into the building on a couple occasions, and even managed to start a fire on one of those attempts.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Good lord! They managed to start a FIRE?!!!! I'm heading to the gun store right now I'm so scared.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
I see you're very comfortable in that rabbit hole you're in. Suspected AntiFa members have been getting apprehended, but as they're very good at 5th Generation Warfare, it's very difficult to pin them down as being part of one specific group or another, especially when working off of arrest reports alone. They'll have to be charged and go to trial before many of their affiliations are understood, but as the courts are largely shut down due to Covid19 (convenient that), it's hard to produce any documentation to support it.

This is the same reasoning by which we know Clinton killed Vince Foster, Hillary routes trafficked children through a pizza parlor, Obama was conspiring with the UN to take guns away from all US citizens, and let's toss in every single thought that crosses the minds of people who follow QAnon.  In other words, the reason we know - beyond any doubt - that Antifa exists and is carrying out attacks is because no one ever admits to being party of that ultra-shadowy "organization".  We know it.  WE KNOW IT!  That's how we know it!  Boogaloo?  Not a radical right wing organization, even though they advertise themselves and have identified themselves when they are arrested....just proof that there is a hoax perpetrated by the Communist Network News.

Good grief!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
I see you're very comfortable in that rabbit hole you're in. Suspected AntiFa members have been getting apprehended, but as they're very good at 5th Generation Warfare, it's very difficult to pin them down as being part of one specific group or another, especially when working off of arrest reports alone. They'll have to be charged and go to trial before many of their affiliations are understood, but as the courts are largely shut down due to Covid19 (convenient that), it's hard to produce any documentation to support it.

This is the same reasoning by which we know Clinton killed Vince Foster, Hillary routes trafficked children through a pizza parlor, Obama was conspiring with the UN to take guns away from all US citizens, and let's toss in every single thought that crosses the minds of people who follow QAnon.  In other words, the reason we know - beyond any doubt - that Antifa exists and is carrying out attacks is because no one ever admits to being party of that ultra-shadowy "organization".  We know it.  WE KNOW IT!  That's how we know it!  Boogaloo?  Not a radical right wing organization, even though they advertise themselves and have identified themselves when they are arrested....just proof that there is a hoax perpetrated by the Communist Network News.

See thing is, I presented a means of falsifying my claim. They need to not only have been arrested, they need to have charges formally filed in court. It's highly unlikely to say the least that they're going to volunteer that information to the arresting officer.

This would also apply to violent right-wing groups as well. They're not likely to tell the cops they're part of the Aryan Brotherhood, or any other such group. The police will have to figure it out on their own.

The matter of many of these offenses also happening to be taking place in Jurisdictions that have Democrats sitting in the Prosecutor Chair also means "prosecutorial discretion" belongs to a Democrat, many of whom do have campaign finance records which do demonstrate strong backing by Soros funded/backed political groups. So that isn't tin foil hattery, it's public record.

And as they're unlikely to pursue charges against "their side" in any kind of timely manner(before November), if at all, and most of the charges would be city or state legal violations. We're stuck with a black hole of reliable public records of who these people are beyond "predominately white" in many areas, arrested, bailed out, and no further prosecutor action taken.

Which should be a significant red flag in terms of trying to claim those people were right-wingers. As there is little doubt that the Prosecutor for St. Louis (she's pushing for an investigation of the couple who defended their home when the protesters came marching through their private gated community. Or the prosecutor for Minneapolis or Minnesota(their state AG has previously proudly posed in front of AntiFa signage in the past) as another example, would jump on the chance to go after anyone connected to a right-wing group. Hundreds of arrests, no prosecutions? Weird.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Soros puts out a lot of money everywhere, and obviously to support his causes. It doesn't prove anything about his intent that some of the money falls into the hands of people who may or may not identify as antifa and do bad things. Yeah, maybe 50% of prosecutors might be linked to Soros money. That doesn't prove that they have violated their oath of office, or that they were particularly influenced at all. I felt the same way about the Koch brothers.

Nobody needed to go out on their lawn to threaten people to defend their little mansion. They put themselves at risk on the outside chance that somebody might damage their fully insured property. They were willing to kill people rather than have their bird bath toppled. That's messed up.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Soros puts out a lot of money everywhere, and obviously to support his causes. It doesn't prove anything about his intent that some of the money falls into the hands of people who may or may not identify as antifa and do bad things. Yeah, maybe 50% of prosecutors might be linked to Soros money. That doesn't prove that they have violated their oath of office, or that they were particularly influenced at all. I felt the same way about the Koch brothers.

Nobody needed to go out on their lawn to threaten people to defend their little mansion. They put themselves at risk on the outside chance that somebody might damage their fully insured property. They were willing to kill people rather than have their bird bath toppled. That's messed up.

Thing is, that was a private road the protesters were marching through.

Can you say "Private property" and "trespassing?" Those protesters were not on a public right-of-way. This isn't comparable to someone on your front sidewalk. It is more comparable to someone walking through your backyard, in a neighborhood without alleys.

This also ignores the matter that Missouri has Castle Doctrine enshrined in statutory law, so the home owners had no legal duty to retreat.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Did I say they didn't have the right? I did not. I'm saying you don't need to threaten to kill somebody, no matter how justifiable, just because they decided to walk down your driveway. I'd personally let someone steal every single thing from my house before I'd end a life over it. I'd let someone spraypaint my garage, tip my car over, and piss in my cheerios and I still wouldn't kill someone over it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Also on the Boogaloo front:
Compare(1 minute run):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ3P7Jmv-y4

The CBS station goes to great lengths to make it look right wing by framing and editing their shots to not show the (peaceful) BLM presence among their number. And where couldn't do so, try to claim the BLM presence was there to counter protest(they weren't).
 
Meanwhile The Daily Mail in the UK reports(they also provide 3 minutes of video to support it):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490489/Armed-Black-Lives-Matter-activists-right-wing-groups-unite-gun-rights-rally.html
Quote
Armed Black Lives Matter activists and right-wing groups came together in Richmond, Virginia on Saturday in a united show of support for the 2nd Amendment at an Open Carry rally.

At least 200 people, the majority proudly toting rifles, semi-automatic weapons and other firearms, gathered outside Capitol Square to protest against gun control and the violation of constitutional rights.

The rally, organized by activist group Virginia Knights, also served as a memorial for Duncan Lemp, a 21-year-old man who was fatally shot in his Maryland home in March during a no-knock police raid. ...

There is a more complete 10 minute video of coverage that was posted to Youtube by Ford Fischer, but they've evidently taken it down for "violating community standards"
https://t.co/W0sPcClrnS?amp=1

Looking for the "root tweet" with a compilation to the various video clips he posted.
Here's one that works, how about some Boogaloo boys joining BLM is a "White Supremacy sucks!" chant: (109 seconds in, in case the time stamped link breaks)
https://youtu.be/IQd-iQC7Uzo?t=109
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 12:04:10 AM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Any use of force to execute a warrant against a non-violent offender is morally repugnant.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Good lord! They managed to start a FIRE?!!!! I'm heading to the gun store right now I'm so scared.

https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/1279614404233961472

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Good lord! They managed to start a FIRE?!!!! I'm heading to the gun store right now I'm so scared.

https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/1279614404233961472

And your point here is what?


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
I don't get the leap from "I want to make a statement by burning cloth" to "I'm ready to take up arms against the United States." I took an oath that never expires, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I will defend with my life the right of any citizen to criticize our government. In any form that takes. I will also take arms to stop anyone who decides that they are going to subvert our duly elected government, no matter how much I might disagree with their policies.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Yeah, maybe 50% of prosecutors might be linked to Soros money.

???

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/06/06/3-members-of-anti-government-group-antifa-arrested-after-looting-a-target-in-austin-fbi-says/

Quote
AUSTIN – Three people have been arrested for looting, burglarizing and damaging property at an Austin Target store, according to the FBI.

The three individuals are known members of the anti-government group ANTIFA, FBI officials said.

And with regards to the Portland "protests" that have been trying to burn down the Federal Building there... Saying those guys aren't likely to be connected to AntiFa is probably quite the stretch goal, given how large their presence is in the area.

A single comment from the FBI is ricocheting around the conservative blogosphere and suddenly Antifa is behind this and other violent events.  I searched google for the names of the three people who were arrested & Antifa and can't find anything.  To be honest, I'm not willing to give full credence to the FBI claim at this point.  I'll need some sort of confirmation that isn't suspect.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-arrests-man-alleged-vandalism-andrew-jackson-statue/story?id=71578899

Quote
Jason Charter, who self identifies in social media profiles as a supporter of the anti-fascist movement antifa, was charged Friday with two counts of destruction of federal property based on videos that appear to show him participating in the vandalism of both the statue of Confederate general Albert Pike as well as the Jackson statue.

=https://twitter.com/JasonRCharter/status/1279938763272183811?s=20Jason Charter:

Quote
Antifascism is an idea not group. It means to be against fascism. No one can be a leader of a group that does not exist.

No hard evidence of Antifa.

Quote
Inciting a riot. Hurling a Molotov cocktail. Plotting to sow destruction. Those are some of the most serious charges brought by federal prosecutors against demonstrators at protests across the country in recent weeks.

But despite cries from President Trump and others in his administration, none of those charged with serious federal crimes amid the unrest have been linked so far to the loose collective of anti-fascist activists known as antifa.

A review of the arrests of dozens of people on federal charges reveals no known effort by antifa to perpetrate a coordinated campaign of violence. Some criminal complaints described vague, anti-government political leanings among suspects, but a majority of the violent acts that have taken place at protests have been attributed by federal prosecutors to individuals with no affiliation to any particular group.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 09:17:06 AM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Thing is, that was a private road the protesters were marching through.

Can you say "Private property" and "trespassing?" Those protesters were not on a public right-of-way. This isn't comparable to someone on your front sidewalk. It is more comparable to someone walking through your backyard, in a neighborhood without alleys.

A private road is not private property.  The marchers did not destroy the iron gates to gain entrance (they were open, as they always are), did not step on anyone's private property, did not approach or threaten the owners of the mansion.  Castle doctrine doesn't require someone to retreat, but that only applies to their privately owned property.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 09:34:26 AM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Also on the Boogaloo front:
Compare(1 minute run):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ3P7Jmv-y4

The CBS station goes to great lengths to make it look right wing by framing and editing their shots to not show the (peaceful) BLM presence among their number. And where couldn't do so, try to claim the BLM presence was there to counter protest(they weren't).
 
Meanwhile The Daily Mail in the UK reports(they also provide 3 minutes of video to support it):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490489/Armed-Black-Lives-Matter-activists-right-wing-groups-unite-gun-rights-rally.html
Quote
Armed Black Lives Matter activists and right-wing groups came together in Richmond, Virginia on Saturday in a united show of support for the 2nd Amendment at an Open Carry rally.

At least 200 people, the majority proudly toting rifles, semi-automatic weapons and other firearms, gathered outside Capitol Square to protest against gun control and the violation of constitutional rights.

The rally, organized by activist group Virginia Knights, also served as a memorial for Duncan Lemp, a 21-year-old man who was fatally shot in his Maryland home in March during a no-knock police raid. ...

There is a more complete 10 minute video of coverage that was posted to Youtube by Ford Fischer, but they've evidently taken it down for "violating community standards"
https://t.co/W0sPcClrnS?amp=1

Looking for the "root tweet" with a compilation to the various video clips he posted.
Here's one that works, how about some Boogaloo boys joining BLM is a "White Supremacy sucks!" chant: (109 seconds in, in case the time stamped link breaks)
https://youtu.be/IQd-iQC7Uzo?t=109

Why do you have a problem with armed BLM supporters doing exactly what hundreds of armed militia and 2A activists did on Saturday at Gettysburg?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Also on the Boogaloo front:
Compare(1 minute run):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ3P7Jmv-y4

The CBS station goes to great lengths to make it look right wing by framing and editing their shots to not show the (peaceful) BLM presence among their number. And where couldn't do so, try to claim the BLM presence was there to counter protest(they weren't).
 
Meanwhile The Daily Mail in the UK reports(they also provide 3 minutes of video to support it):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490489/Armed-Black-Lives-Matter-activists-right-wing-groups-unite-gun-rights-rally.html
Quote
Armed Black Lives Matter activists and right-wing groups came together in Richmond, Virginia on Saturday in a united show of support for the 2nd Amendment at an Open Carry rally.

At least 200 people, the majority proudly toting rifles, semi-automatic weapons and other firearms, gathered outside Capitol Square to protest against gun control and the violation of constitutional rights.

The rally, organized by activist group Virginia Knights, also served as a memorial for Duncan Lemp, a 21-year-old man who was fatally shot in his Maryland home in March during a no-knock police raid. ...

There is a more complete 10 minute video of coverage that was posted to Youtube by Ford Fischer, but they've evidently taken it down for "violating community standards"
https://t.co/W0sPcClrnS?amp=1

Looking for the "root tweet" with a compilation to the various video clips he posted.
Here's one that works, how about some Boogaloo boys joining BLM is a "White Supremacy sucks!" chant: (109 seconds in, in case the time stamped link breaks)
https://youtu.be/IQd-iQC7Uzo?t=109

Why do you have a problem with armed BLM supporters doing exactly what hundreds of armed militia and 2A activists did on Saturday at Gettysburg?

In that specific case, I'm condemning what CBS did in their reporting of the Richmond protest. What really happened and what they reported on were very different things.

Richmond was actually one of the bright spots in all of this as you had two different groups which everyone expects to have wildly divergent views on things. Who instead peacefully and casually co-mingling and coming together in common cause(even as the two groups agree to disagree on some items). It is a nice change from the hyper-partisan atmosphere that CBS and the rest of the MSM wants to push.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
It is a nice change from the hyper-partisan atmosphere that CBS and the rest of the MSM wants to push.

Perhaps they should try to be more fair and balanced like FOX.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Did I say they didn't have the right? I did not. I'm saying you don't need to threaten to kill somebody, no matter how justifiable, just because they decided to walk down your driveway. I'd personally let someone steal every single thing from my house before I'd end a life over it. I'd let someone spraypaint my garage, tip my car over, and piss in my cheerios and I still wouldn't kill someone over it.

Would you even let them take the crystal ball in your house - the one enabling you to know they'd be friendly while taking these things and wouldn't rape your wife and kill you?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Did I say they didn't have the right? I did not. I'm saying you don't need to threaten to kill somebody, no matter how justifiable, just because they decided to walk down your driveway. I'd personally let someone steal every single thing from my house before I'd end a life over it. I'd let someone spraypaint my garage, tip my car over, and piss in my cheerios and I still wouldn't kill someone over it.

Would you even let them take the crystal ball in your house - the one enabling you to know they'd be friendly while taking these things and wouldn't rape your wife and kill you?

Kill them. Kill them all.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who said I was going to stick around? Why couldn't I leave my own property and let the invader do whatever they wanted?
 
Not even germane to the conversation about this particular incident, because nobody invaded anyone's home. It's hard to get raped by someone when they are 10m from your front door.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who said I was going to stick around? Why couldn't I leave my own property and let the invader do whatever they wanted?
 
Not even germane to the conversation about this particular incident, because nobody invaded anyone's home. It's hard to get raped by someone when they are 10m from your front door.

I think the issue is more one of the fear of letting things get out of control with an unknown potential assailant in a place they shouldn't be. I am no fan of lethal force, especially involving the police, but there is no purpose in making general claims about what people should do if those fundamentally go against human nature in some respects. It is not normal to feel 'ok' with abandoning your home and letting people have their way with it, nor it is even obvious to someone to flee from the place that is generally the place they feel is their safe base. Holing up and defending is a far more natural response to a potential invasion. Not saying there's no merit to your idea, but I wouldn't say it as if anyone should be expected to actually do this.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who said I was going to stick around? Why couldn't I leave my own property and let the invader do whatever they wanted?
 
Not even germane to the conversation about this particular incident, because nobody invaded anyone's home. It's hard to get raped by someone when they are 10m from your front door.

The issue you have here is mutliple:

IIRC,
1) Their home is a historic landmark, and (reasonably) well known.
2) They have spent last couple of decades restoring the house.

You might be fine with people trashing your house and seeing if your insurance covers rioters(it probably doesn't). But they're protecting a bit more than "just a house."

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who said I was going to stick around? Why couldn't I leave my own property and let the invader do whatever they wanted?
 
Not even germane to the conversation about this particular incident, because nobody invaded anyone's home. It's hard to get raped by someone when they are 10m from your front door.

The issue you have here is mutliple:

IIRC,
1) Their home is a historic landmark, and (reasonably) well known.
2) They have spent last couple of decades restoring the house.

You might be fine with people trashing your house and seeing if your insurance covers rioters(it probably doesn't). But they're protecting a bit more than "just a house."

And yet, nobody was in the house. Tactically, it would have made much more sense to stay inside the house to defend it. Their purpose was to intimidate, not defend. There was no indication that anyone was headed up to the front door.

For what it is worth, most policies will cover vandalism, including riots.

Quote
Standard homeowners policies will cover damage to the property caused by fire, an explosion, a riot or civil commotion, vandalism or malicious mischief. This would include coverage to the structure of the home, as well as any personal possessions. If you cannot live at your home because it was damaged by an insured disaster, standard home (and renters insurance policies) provide coverage for additional living expenses (ALE). This pays for the cost of living away from home above and beyond traditional expenses. For instance, ALE covers hotel bills and restaurant meals incurred while a home is being repaired or rebuilt.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who said I was going to stick around? Why couldn't I leave my own property and let the invader do whatever they wanted?
 
Not even germane to the conversation about this particular incident, because nobody invaded anyone's home. It's hard to get raped by someone when they are 10m from your front door.

I think the issue is more one of the fear of letting things get out of control with an unknown potential assailant in a place they shouldn't be. I am no fan of lethal force, especially involving the police, but there is no purpose in making general claims about what people should do if those fundamentally go against human nature in some respects. It is not normal to feel 'ok' with abandoning your home and letting people have their way with it, nor it is even obvious to someone to flee from the place that is generally the place they feel is their safe base. Holing up and defending is a far more natural response to a potential invasion. Not saying there's no merit to your idea, but I wouldn't say it as if anyone should be expected to actually do this.

I don't disagree. Most people would find it perfectly natural to kill somebody over property. I won't even call it immoral, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought people should meet my standard. I even stipulated that they have the right.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
And yet, nobody was in the house. Tactically, it would have made much more sense to stay inside the house to defend it. Their purpose was to intimidate, not defend. There was no indication that anyone was headed up to the front door.

I'm not going to disagree, their tactics were horrible aside from being a decent showing of "security theater" by letting the protesters know their house wasn't "a soft target."

The trigger discipline of the wife sucked, although the husband seemed to have a clue. They both also get poor marks of muzzle discipline and awareness of where their gun was pointed.

The wife actively brandishing the gun and (seemingly) aiming it at people is of concern, but again comes back to questions about how their actions relate in regards to Castle Doctrine and how the courts would rule.

Hubby should be safe enough, I don't recall him doing anything that should get him placed before a judge or jury. His wife is likely to be another matter, if only because there is potentially new precedent to be set with respect to Castle Doctrines.