Trump’s Gestapo in Portland

[Rougarou 594]

What is it with the obsession with being smart. Did I wander upon the incel-investmentbank-finance-nerd board where being smart or perceived as smart is the goal for every single post? It's like every other post is about "you aren't smart" or "you think you are smart" and "but you are really a moron / idiot / dummy / unintelligent person". 

We all went to the same school and probably all have a pretty small standard deviation between us regarding our cognitive abilities, except for those who were really slumming it up among us. Further, we all went to the same school back in the 80's/90's before a lot of the rigid guardrails for admittance were put in place, so nobody is likely to be a rocket surgeon, unless you guys are Gen Z, c/o 2011-2020 when UT got all world class on us.

Anyways, just find it odd that we are resorting to the ole "you think you are smart but you really not smart" lines when there are way more and better personal insults to lob at each other, if you are trying to make people actually feel insulted.

[hpslugga 4096]

41 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

How many people are even paying attention to this? Yesterday (Sunday) I turned on the news stations to see what they were saying about Portland. Both CNN and MSNBC we rehashing the same stuff about Covid and then transitioned to something else unrelated to Portland. They remain lazy and hostile to news. I'm guessing that they're waiting for print journalists and local TV crews to provide them with grist for their opinion panels.

Interestingly, back in the days when there were only three network who could fund news departments, there might be wall to wall coverage of Portland and more aggressive live reporting from hospitals about Covid. 

I genuinely have no idea where this story ranks with the general public or if half of the public even knows about it. Maybe Wolf's oddball pronouncements will make people think they're watching a Harrison Ford thriller where he save the country from the Russians or Arabs or the Cartels.

Remember what the media are: corporations that are owned by even bigger conglomerates. 

"In essence, the private media are major corporations selling a product (readers and audiences) to other businesses (advertisers). The national media typically target and serve elite opinion, groups that, on the one hand, provide an optimal “profile” for advertising purposes, and, on the other, play a role in decision-making in the private and public spheres. The national media would be failing to meet their elite audience’s needs if they did not present a tolerably realistic portrayal of the world. But their “societal purpose” also requires that the media’s interpretation of the world reflect the interests and concerns of the sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and private institutions dominated by these groups.”- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

In that context, we should perfectly well expect that kind of pathological behavior you're describing. This image that we have of the media as "investigative journalists" that are "out to discover the truth" has no application to the outlets to which you're referring. That description is only applicable to independent outlets, which refer to those that are consumer-controlled, not state or corporate-controlled. It's the same problem with our government, too. It's the same problem because they're beholden to the same interests, albeit for different reasons. We're seeing a staggering level of unemployment, a massive increase in the disparity of income and wealth (which already was a problem), a pandemic which is wiping people out like nothing we've seen in 100 years...and the only thing half our congress cares about seems to be more tax breaks and bailouts to large concentrations of capital. Our president cares more about his own personal interests and image (playing golf, posing for pictures with Goya products, bragging about "acing" a fucking cognition test, etc). 

Watching our government's attitude towards servility to corporate interests is like watching the dying emperor clutch his staff in The Dark Crystal.

 

[Captainant 28380]

10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Edit to add: We should have had protests in the street in 2017 and 2018.  It's too late now to save things.  Those moms who are showing up in Portland, as well as the rest of us, should have been out there for kids in cages, Puerto Rico, etc.  

 

First they came for the immigrants, and I did not speak out because I was not an immigrant.

Then they came for the protesters, and I did not speak out because I was not a protester.

Sound familiar?

[Rougarou 594]

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

So apparently to the Trump right, taking 14-year-olds to what are supposed to be peaceful protests amounts to child abuse, but sending 18-year-olds to Afghanistan to be killed by the Taliban who was paid by the Russians, is A-Ok.

^^ This is the messageboard version of the game of telephone and is a microcosm of the communication problems we have as a people. Brisket originally posted a picture of 8 and 9 year olds, in an impassioned appeal to bring them to a protest-cum-riot, and have them been roughed up with a bit of ultraviolence from the jackboot thugs, but somehow we get the above post after getting a couple of pages of arguing about getting posters who don't like each other into a car together and driving to Portland to protest and TikTok it or something?

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

First they came for the immigrants, and I did not speak out because I was not an immigrant.

Then they came for the protesters, and I did not speak out because I was not a protester.

Sound familiar?

Well, yes.  But also, by the time there are armed government goons assaulting and kidnapping people, peaceful protests are too late.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

^^ This is the messageboard version of the game of telephone and is a microcosm of the communication problems we have as a people. Brisket originally posted a picture of 8 and 9 year olds, in an impassioned appeal to bring them to a protest-cum-riot, and have them been roughed up with a bit of ultraviolence from the jackboot thugs, but somehow we get the above post after getting a couple of pages of arguing about getting posters who don't like each other into a car together and driving to Portland to protest and TikTok it or something?

Ok.  I'll change the hypothetical to an 8-year-old.  Or even a 2-month old.  If you're more angry that their parents took them to a peaceful protest, exercising their Constitutional rights than older teenagers being sent to be killed by the Taliban, you may want to reconsider your values.  At best the GOP has lost absolutely all moral authority.

[Rougarou 594]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Ok.  I'll change the hypothetical to an 8-year-old.  Or even a 2-month old.  If you're more angry that their parents took them to a peaceful protest, exercising their Constitutional rights than older teenagers being sent to be killed by the Taliban, you may want to reconsider your values.  At best the GOP has lost absolutely all moral authority.

Objection: Loaded language.

[wildcat09 29555]

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/19/in-further-sign-of-tension-portland-fire-rescue-bans-federal-cops-and-portland-cops-from-using-its-stations/

Portland's fire department is antifa.

[bad_teammate 13479]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You claimed that I did not offer to meet to protest together in person.

You didn't.

Quote

But your claim was not that I gave an insincere offer.   Your claim was that I did not offer, which I did. 

How could an insincere offer actually be an offer?

If I say, "I will buy your truck for $10M" and you know I have no intention of doing that and my actual purpose is to demean you, how could that be rationally construed as an "offer"? It can neither be accepted or rejected. It has none of the functions of an offer.

Please explain.

[Brisketexan 106610]

10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Ok.  I'll change the hypothetical to an 8-year-old.  Or even a 2-month old.  If you're more angry that their parents took them to a peaceful protest, exercising their Constitutional rights than older teenagers being sent to be killed by the Taliban, you may want to reconsider your values.  At best the GOP has lost absolutely all moral authority.

Birmingham.  1963.  Children.  Facing monsters.

Quote

As the campaign continued that month, SCLC leader James Bevel started to enact plans for a “Children’s Crusade” that he and other leaders believed might help turn the tide in Birmingham. Thousands of children were trained in the tactics of non-violence, and on May 2, they left the 16th Street Baptist Church in groups, heading throughout the city to protest segregation peacefully. One of their goals was to talk to the mayor of Birmingham about segregation in their city – they were not met with a peaceful response. On the first day of the protest, hundreds of children were arrested. By the second day, Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor ordered police to spray the children with powerful water hoses, hit them with batons and threaten them with police dogs.

Despite this harsh treatment, children continued to participate in the demonstrations over the next few days. Footage and photographs of the violent crackdown in Birmingham circulated throughout the nation and the world, causing an outcry. Businesses in downtown Birmingham were feeling the pressure. On May 5, protestors marched to the city jail where many of the young people were still being held. They sang protest songs and continued their tactics of non-violent demonstration. Finally, local officials agreed to meet with civil rights leaders and hash out a plan to end the protests. On May 10, an agreement had been reached. City leaders agreed to desegregate business and free all who had been jailed during the demonstrations. 

Weeks later, the Birmingham board of education announced that all students who had been involved in the Children’s Crusade would be expelled. This decision was ultimately overturned by the court of appeals.

Despite a setback later in the year, the crusade carried on

The Children’s Crusade marked a significant victory in Birmingham. The city was in the world spotlight, and local officials knew that they could no longer ignore the civil rights movement. Yet the struggle for equality in Birmingham continued. Later that year, in September 1963, four little girls were killed by bombs planted by white supremacists at the 16th St. Baptist Church, and over 20 more were injured. 

The horrific bombings sent shock waves through the nation. Despite this violent reaction to the movement for equality and justice, everyday people in Birmingham continued their efforts. And thousands of children, some of them as young as seven or eight years old, had kept the momentum of the struggle going in its most pivotal hour.

Want to know what it takes to bring about change when facing the forces of hate and violence?

There it is, in literal fucking black and white.

You're goddamned right children have a role in this fight.  Lord willing, their presence will cause the regime to back down and treat we the people like what we are: the rulers of this Republic, and the people they answer to.  If not, then they'll go Bull Connor on them.  On children.  Which changed the world.

The biggest mistake when you are in an existential fight is to outline rules of decorum and norms that you will follow, but your opponent won't.  When you realize how gruesome this process already is, then shit becomes real clear.  We don't win this fight without all of us being in it.  All of us.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Rougarou 594]

You're goddamned right children have a role in this fight.  Lord willing, their presence will cause the regime to back down and treat we the people like what we are: the rulers of this Republic, and the people they answer to.  If not, then they'll go Bull Connor on them.  On children.  Which changed the world.

Can't make an omelette without some broken eggs, eh? Sheesh.

I'mma go ahead and bow out here by saying, I don't understand some of you, but that doesn't mean you guys aren't valuable, good people, probably. I hope it all works out in Portland and elsewhere. Good luck everyone!

[Brisketexan 106610]

5 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

 

 

Can't make an omelette without some broken eggs, eh? Sheesh.

I'mma go ahead and bow out here by saying, I don't understand some of you, but that doesn't mean you guys aren't valuable, good people, probably. I hope it all works out in Portland and elsewhere. Good luck everyone!

Just tell me this.  Was the SCLC's Children's Crusade morally wrong, or morally right?  That's it.  That's the question.

[Rougarou 594]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Just tell me this.  Was the SCLC's Children's Crusade morally wrong, or morally right?  That's it.  That's the question.

The ideal/ends to which they were organized to achieve, was morally right. The SCLC Children's Crusade was morally wrong, in my opinion. You clearly think that the ends justifies the means and that using adolescents, as young as 7, as political chess pieces is above board. That's cool-- reasonable minds can disagree. I think that is not something that is okay in my book; in my morals and ethics. Guess what? MLK himself was divided upon it. Also, it was a controversial topic. And yes, the strategy worked and children were hurt and jailed, but it got the national attention and ultimately the morally right conclusion was had.

That said, you can read the below and see just how manipulative the adults were in planning this (e.g. kids could use peer pressure to attract more kids; kids can go to jail without missing work, etc.). So it is either dramatic overstatement and exaggeration on your part to act like your impassioned views on children being used by jackboot thugs to get national attention is unanimous or you are falling for revisionist history.

Quote

Previously, King and other civil rights leaders had refused to allow school-aged children to participate in their efforts. Many found the suggestion of exposing children to the violence of Commissioner of Public Safety

 T. Eugene "Bull" Connor's police force morally reprehensible. During the meeting, King wavered on the issue of child demonstrators as the Central Committee argued against Bevel and Reynolds' proposal. Nevertheless, Bevel and Reynolds convinced King to allow them to host a rally on May 2 in which adolescents would skip school and join together at several local churches.

Bevel immediately began to advertise the event, which he billed as a youth "summit meeting," rather than a "rally" or "march," to avoid any controversy surrounding the participation of school-aged marchers. In particular, Bevel recruited popular African American students, such as athletes and prom queens, reasoning that these individuals could most effectively motivate and unify Birmingham's adolescent population around the school boycott so as to make it more effective. Responding to concerns in the days preceding the youth rally that young people would not be enthusiastic or turn out in great numbers, Bevel argued that child marchers could be more effective than adult demonstrators because children would be influenced by peer pressure to join their friends. Bevel also added that the adolescents' lack of financial obligations would make them more eager than adults to serve jail time because they would not be jeopardizing their jobs. Many parents and school administrators disagreed with the school boycott and spoke out against the effort, the ACMHR and SCLC, and King and Shuttlesworth. Such dissension prompted King to doubt his decision to allow Bevel to organize the youth rally.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Rougarou

[hpslugga 4096]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The biggest mistake when you are in an existential fight is to outline rules of decorum and norms that you will follow, but your opponent won't.  When you realize how gruesome this process already is, then shit becomes real clear.  We don't win this fight without all of us being in it.  All of us.

Absolutely this.

[hpslugga 4096]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

The ideal/ends to which they were organized to achieve, was morally right. The SCLC Children's Crusade was morally wrong, in my opinion.

What should they have done that would have resulted in the same ends?

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

What should they have done that would have resulted in the same ends?

I have no idea. Are you asking me to come up off the cuff with a strategy that beguiled MLK, etc., or else using children as the marches did was morally right? 

Like I said, I think there is room for disagreement on tactics and x's and o's, while still having the same overall and overarching ideals.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Rougarou

[Brisketexan 106610]

5 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

The ideal/ends to which they were organized to achieve, was morally right. The SCLC Children's Crusade was morally wrong, in my opinion. You clearly think that the ends justifies the means and that using adolescents, as young as 7, as political chess pieces is above board. That's cool-- reasonable minds can disagree. I think that is not something that is okay in my book; in my morals and ethics. Guess what? MLK himself was divided upon it. Also, it was a controversial topic. And yes, the strategy worked and children were hurt and jailed, but it got the national attention and ultimately the morally right conclusion was had.

That said, you can read the below and see just how manipulative the adults were in planning this (e.g. kids could use peer pressure to attract more kids; kids can go to jail without missing work, etc.). So it is either dramatic overstatement and exaggeration on your part to act like your impassioned views on children being used by jackboot thugs to get national attention is unanimous or you are falling for revisionist history.

I'm not falling for anything.

The fate of the Republic and its people hangs in the balance.  That includes the fate of the children y'all would wring your hands about.

I'm playing to win.  Because the long-term results of losing are even worse than kids getting teargassed today.  It's an ugly fucking world, we're engaged in an ugly fucking game, with ugly fucking choices to make.  Goddamned right it's shitty.  That's the fucking point.

And remember, there's only one fucking villain in the Children's Crusade: Bull Connor.  That's it.  It was ultimately his choice, and he chose to turn the hoses and dogs on children.  Fuck letting the Bull Connors of the world dictate the outcome by being so fucking horrific and so unbound by the law and human decency that we let them intimidate humanity right off the playing field.

We're facing a regime that's evil enough to teargas women and children.  Just like Bull Connor.  They are the villains.  That's it.  Full stop.  All they have to do is follow the law and basic rules of humanity.  If they don't, it's on them.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not falling for anything.

The fate of the Republic and its people hangs in the balance.  That includes the fate of the children y'all would wring your hands about.

I'm playing to win.  Because the long-term results of losing are even worse than kids getting teargassed today.  It's an ugly fucking world, we're engaged in an ugly fucking game, with ugly fucking choices to make.  Goddamned right it's shitty.  That's the fucking point.

Fair enough. Do with your pre-adolescent and adolescent kids as you will. For me and mine? We are Johnson & Johnson; that's tear free, baby.

Onward, onward.

[Rougarou 594]

It's 5p, I'm punching the clock and putting my hard hat up. God bless you all.

[Brisketexan 106610]

Just now, Rougarou said:

Fair enough. Do with your pre-adolescent and adolescent kids as you will. For me and mine? We are Johnson & Johnson; that's tear free, baby.

Onward, onward.

I don't begrudge you of your choice.  Like b_t said, there's many ways to fight here.

But make no mistake.  If we want to win, if we want basic humanity to triumph over violent and repressive government forces, it's going to be ugly as hell.  

[UpperWestside 6262]

I posted this in the John Lewis thread. This young man started protesting at 10 years of age. TEN. He is out there because the generations that have come before him mostly failed at actually achieving true equality in this country for everyone. 
 

His hero is John Lewis and damned if it doesn’t make me proud to see someone so young realize just what he is up against in this country. He could not have picked a better person to model his life after. It is a little sad at the same time that this young man is out there at the age of 12 doing the work that the people who failed him do not want to do.

[BrickHorn 18424]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The war you fear has already started. 

You’re using the word “war” rather loosely. There is certainly open partisan and cultural hostility. But we are not yet in a shooting war. And that outcome is not yet inevitable. It’s just more likely than it ever has been in any of our lifetimes.

I believe we can possibly avoid an actual (not rhetorical or metaphorical) civil war. But we have to be extremely careful. We’re basically defusing a bomb at this point. Every move must be made with utmost caution and calculation. Get impatient and accidentally clip the wrong wire and the whole fucking thing could explode.

The near term goal: get Biden elected and inaugurated. That won’t be easy and we will almost certainly face some shenanigans. As I see it, there are three possible paths and two lead to a second Trump term. (1) Trump rigs the election or prevents inauguration, possibly through oppression; (2) some damned foolish thing in Portland kicks off a shooting war, and Trump becomes de facto emperor; and (3) Biden wins and Trump fails to stop the transition. The latter is a realistic outcome and, if we can make it happen, it buys us some breathing room to try to work on the very serious structural issues in this country. But we won’t get there by taking to the streets and spoiling for a fight at every Trumpism instigation. That’s Path 2, and it leads to a big fat GAME OVER screen. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

It's 5p, I'm punching the clock and putting my hard hat up. God bless you all.

 

[BevoSwag 272]

On 7/17/2020 at 4:46 PM, mcbrisket said:

Those LSU board comments. Um, wow. This country really is fucked if there is a large population that thinks that way.

Hey. At least they elected a Democrat as Governor.  

[hpslugga 4096]

23 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I have no idea. Are you asking me to come up off the cuff with a strategy that beguiled MLK, etc., or else using children as the marches did was morally right? 

Like I said, I think there is room for disagreement on tactics and x's and o's, while still having the same overall and overarching ideals.

Off the cuff? We've had 57 years to review this. How much longer do you need?

Again, if your concern is kids participating in marches and not why the marches are happening to begin with, you're looking at it backwards. Much as you might hate Brisket's suggestions, the administration will never rise to a loftier level than that and it's beyond fantasy to speculate otherwise. What he said is correct: we're being forced to consider such things because that's how fucking low this insane power system has sunk. It's not about right and wrong any more; it's about better and worse. Yeah, we'd like to be able to settle this in a manner acceptable according to the tenets of Emily Post's Etiquette in Society, but that horse left the barn a long time ago, and with this latest bit of intellectual and moral bankruptcy in Portland, it ain't comin' back.

Edited July 20, 2020 by hpslugga

[Brisketexan 106610]

13 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

You’re using the word “war” rather loosely. There is certainly open partisan and cultural hostility. But we are not yet in a shooting war. And that outcome is not yet inevitable. It’s just more likely than it ever has been in any of our lifetimes.

I believe we can possibly avoid an actual (not rhetorical or metaphorical) civil war. But we have to be extremely careful. We’re basically defusing a bomb at this point. Every move must be made with utmost caution and calculation. Get impatient and accidentally clip the wrong wire and the whole fucking thing could explode.

The near term goal: get Biden elected and inaugurated. That won’t be easy and we will almost certainly face some shenanigans. As I see it, there are three possible paths and two lead to a second Trump term. (1) Trump rigs the election or prevents inauguration, possibly through oppression; (2) some damned foolish thing in Portland kicks off a shooting war, and Trump becomes de facto emperor; and (3) Biden wins and Trump fails to stop the transition. The latter is a realistic outcome and, if we can make it happen, it buys us some breathing room to try to work on the very serious structural issues in this country. But we won’t get there by taking to the streets and spoiling for a fight at every Trumpism instigation. That’s Path 2, and it leads to a big fat GAME OVER screen. 

It's already a shooting war.

Go to El Paso.

Go to Charlottesville.

Go to a Federal Judge's house.

Hell, come right her to Austin.

And I can keep doing this, all day long.

Don't get violent with the irregular paramilitary forces loyal to the regime.  Protest peacefully.  They WILL commit acts of violence.  It's their nature and their hard wiring.  They can't react any other way.  The choice here is to destroy their legitimacy, or embolden them to shut down any part of society (including voters and election activities) they see as a threat to the regime.  There is no middle path.  That's where you are mistaken.

De-legitimize the Stasi, or the Stasi will prevent a fair election and/or a peaceful transfer of power.  You don't get the things you want with a free-ranging Stasi doing what they want.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Brisketexan

[BrickHorn 18424]

Ad hoc violence by individual nuts is NOT a “shooting war.” It’s not a good situation and it’s an ominous sign indicating a heightened risk of war. But it’s not a fucking war, and you know that. So stop with the hyperbolic freak-out. 

That said, I don’t necessarily oppose continuing to protest. And I’m certainly not in favor of just letting the administration oppress people (that’s more hyperbole on your part). My concern is that continued escalation from our side is counterproductive. And unlike you, I’m under no illusion that the left could win a war against a regime that controls the world’s most powerful military. Running headlong into a fight at this point is fucking stupid and reckless.

We need to be working toward a Biden presidency. The best way to make that happen is to keep a cool head over the next seven months while working to protect the electoral process. 

[Cacti 191]

17 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

So stop with the hyperbolic freak-out. 

But that’s what Surly does best. If you remove over-dramatic characterizations and the sky-is-falling  predictions—along with words like Nazi, fascist, jackboot, brown shirts, Stasi, etc.—then the gloom-and-doom crowd can’t communicate with each other.

[Brisketexan 106610]

22 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Ad hoc violence by individual nuts is NOT a “shooting war.” It’s not a good situation and it’s an ominous sign indicating a heightened risk of war. But it’s not a fucking war, and you know that. So stop with the hyperbolic freak-out. 

That said, I don’t necessarily oppose continuing to protest. And I’m certainly not in favor of just letting the administration oppress people (that’s more hyperbole on your part). My concern is that continued escalation from our side is counterproductive. And unlike you, I’m under no illusion that the left could win a war against a regime that controls the world’s most powerful military. Running headlong into a fight at this point is fucking stupid and reckless.

We need to be working toward a Biden presidency. The best way to make that happen is to keep a cool head over the next seven months while working to protect the electoral process. 

Do you remember the open information provided about senior military officials when they had reason to fear that Trump would order active duty military to attack American citizens and "dominate the battlespace?"  We don't have to win a war against the regime if we win over the military.  Put them in a position where senior officers side with the people, and not with the fascist regime, and Trump's war is over before it begins. 

Continue peaceful protests.  Put clear vulnerable innocents out there, like the Portland moms.  No need to escalate a thing.  That's what the Stasi will do.  Let the Stasi attack them, in full view of the world.  And know that our active duty generals will be on the side of the people, not the Stasi.  

You have hope in the electoral process.  I think our plan to make sure it happens, fairly and without Stasi interference and intimidation, needs to be more robust.  Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[JimmyJames 12271]

I think I’ll join a college specific message board and call myself the plural of cactus complete with a cactus photo.

[JBJ 3780]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They WILL commit acts of violence.  It's their nature and their hard wiring.  They can't react any other way.  The choice here is to destroy their legitimacy, or embolden them to shut down any part of society (including voters and election activities) they see as a threat to the regime.  There is no middle path.  That's where you are mistaken.

You could just as easily be talking about the protesters here.

So middle path is the only path.

Edited July 20, 2020 by JBJ

[Huckleberry 34404]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

You could just as easily be talking about the protesters here.

lulz what a stupid take

[cactusflinthead 27626]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Come on, man, isn't your gimmick that you're the smart one who can deconstruct logic? Like Escriva's act used to be?

If he's not Escriva he's a damn close imitation.

[Brisketexan 106610]

Just now, JBJ said:

You could just as easily be talking about the protesters here.

So, yeah, middle path is the only moral path.

Except that's false.

Unless you think naked ladies and moms are hard wired for violence.

So, fuck off with your false equivalencies.

[JBJ 3780]

How many times have they set fire to the federal buildings in Portland over the last month?

[Nivek 17330]

You could just as easily be talking about the protesters here.
So middle path is the only path.

I stole a piece of candy for my sister when I was about 3 or 4. Epstein ran a child sex ring which involved 40+ underaged children. Both are crimes I suppose.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

5 hours ago, Bojack said:

Axiom, you dumbshit, stop posting about taking a road trip to Portland.  It was a stupid thing to say when you first said it.  It's been answered 10 times and you just refuse to acknowledge it.  

This right here is the Escriva playbook. Ask a question ten thousand times and not once acknowledge that it has been answered and never ever ever admit you were wrong. 

I'll burn up every bit of rep negging him. Had enough. 

[workswithseed 2201]

22 minutes ago, JBJ said:

How many times have they set fire to the federal buildings in Portland over the last month?

I haven't heard fireworks in at least 2 days which is nice.

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

23 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Massive quantums of bullshit 

Fuck off. That's all the reply you're going to get.

[Huckleberry 34404]

36 minutes ago, JBJ said:

How many times have they set fire to the federal buildings in Portland over the last month?

Good question. How many times?

[formermav43 4607]

40 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

If he's not Escriva he's a damn close imitation.

Nah, he’s been posting under that name a long time. Long before Escriva disappeared.

Besides, he lacks Escriva’s characteristic obsessions with things like unmarried men destroying society.

[workswithseed 2201]

10 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Nah, he’s been posting under that name a long time. Long before Escriva disappeared.

Besides, he lacks Escriva’s characteristic obsessions with things like unmarried men destroying society.

Also Escriva is Catholic, Axiom is CoC.

[JBJ 3780]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Good question. How many times?

4?  It's hard to keep up.

Edited July 21, 2020 by JBJ

[Huckleberry 34404]

I thought you knew. I don't know of any off the top of my head, I know of vandalism of federal buildings and arson of local buildings (county courthouse, police station).

[TwiceHorn 31983]

Escriva was also more than a bit of a dick.

He would also drive-by, drop something provocative, and never show up again.

Edited July 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[staboner 5066]

goddamn this thread escalated. did cops start posting up in this bitch or something? lawd i gotta catch up is

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

How many times have they set fire to the federal buildings in Portland over the last month?

How many arrests have been made for setting fire to buildings?  If they’re breaking the law, then arrest them and stop rolling around town cracking skulls.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

30 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Nah, he’s been posting under that name a long time. Long before Escriva disappeared.

Besides, he lacks Escriva’s characteristic obsessions with things like unmarried men destroying society.

I know it's not him. He's running a similar playbook. It's all predicated upon never addressing the replies to the questions and absolutely not admitting that you're wrong. 

 

[RDCanecutter 26851]

3 hours ago, Rougarou said:

What is it with the obsession with being smart. Did I wander upon the incel-investmentbank-finance-nerd board where being smart or perceived as smart is the goal for every single post? It's like every other post is about "you aren't smart" or "you think you are smart" and "but you are really a moron / idiot / dummy / unintelligent person". 

We all went to the same school and probably all have a pretty small standard deviation between us regarding our cognitive abilities, except for those who were really slumming it up among us. Further, we all went to the same school back in the 80's/90's before a lot of the rigid guardrails for admittance were put in place, so nobody is likely to be a rocket surgeon, unless you guys are Gen Z, c/o 2011-2020 when UT got all world class on us.

Anyways, just find it odd that we are resorting to the ole "you think you are smart but you really not smart" lines when there are way more and better personal insults to lob at each other, if you are trying to make people actually feel insulted.

I don't get it.