is Seattle the new fort Sumter?

[The Grand Nudger]

Cmon now, I'm sure that he thought those domestic terrorists who protested covid restrictions were just awesome.

[Lek]

Cmon now, I'm sure that he thought those domestic terrorists who protested covid restrictions were just awesome.

I think what I've said in this thread is that I don't like the idea of people taking over my neighborhood and that I don't think all cops are bad.  As far as the covid-19 protests go, I think they were ok, but I never understood why they took their guns.  Those demonstrations were pretty peaceful.  I guess when you're talking about domestic terrorists, you're referring to the terrorists who burned and looted innocent peoples's business and cars. Or possibly the ones who barricaded off people's neighborhood.

[The Grand Nudger]

As expected. Just the tiniest bit of encouragement, man. You don't have to be such a ridiculous asshole about everything. That's a personal choice. I can tell that it doesn't sit well with you by your mealy mouthed responses.

Or...hell...just tell me to fuck off. I'm wrong, you really are every bit the asshole you make yourself out to be and it's not a lack of comfort I'm picking up, just plain old incompetence. I get that angling for hypocrisy when arguing with the other political party is a fetish for conservatives at present...but I'm not a dem and I don't reject the use of violence to effect political change. You're looking for a TQ where it's just you, no one else to bitch about. That's just weak and sad.

[Lek]

As expected.  Just the tiniest bit of encouragement, man.  You don't have to be such a ridiculous asshole about everything.  That's a personal choice.  I can tell that it doesn't sit well with you by your mealy mouthed responses.

Or...hell...just tell me to fuck off.  I'm wrong, you really are every bit the asshole you make yourself out to be and it's not a lack of comfort I'm picking up, just plain old incompetence.  I get that angling for hypocrisy when arguing with the other political party is a fetish for conservatives at present...but I'm not a dem and I don't reject the use of violence to effect political change.  You're looking for a TQ where it's just you, no one else to bitch about.  That's just weak and sad.

You can think what you want about me.  You're showing what kind of person you are.  The readers can decide for themselves.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I'm completely open and very comfortable with the kind of person I am. Is it too much to ask for the same from someone else in conversation? Hell, is it too much to expect from yourself?

[Lek]

Yes, I'm completely open and very comfortable with the kind of person I am. Is it too much to ask for the same from someone else in conversation? Hell, is it too much to expect from yourself?

I tend to argue the facts rather than feelings.
That's me. Tell me what it is that you think I'm trying to hide or avoid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you, though? You argue on the one hand that barricades and violence are called for, and on the other that they are not. You argue that domestic terrorists are peaceful on the one hand, and on the other that they are not.

What is the difference between the two aside from your party motivated feelings?

I doubt that you're trying to hide anything from me, and it would be pointless to try in any case. You do seem like a person very much trying to shove a square peg into the round hole of self, though. The first and most competent lies are always the ones we tell ourselves. Like the lie you told directly above. That wasn't for me. That was for you. You tell us all about what you would want.., in fact free rhetoric, if you were in seattle, but that you argue from fact rather than feelings. That wasn't for me. That was for you.

An audience of one.

[Lek]

Do you, though? You argue on the one hand that barricades and violence are called for, and on the other that they are not. You argue that domestic terrorists are peaceful on the one hand, and on the other that they are not.

What is the difference between the two aside from your party motivated feelings?

I doubt that you're trying to hide anything from me, and it would be pointless to try in any case. You do seem like a person very much trying to shove a square peg into the round hole of self, though. The first and most competent lies are always the ones we tell ourselves. Like the lie you told directly above. That wasn't for me. That was for you. You tell us all about what you would want.., in fact free rhetoric, if you were in seattle, but that you argue from fact rather than feelings. That wasn't for me. That was for you.

An audience of one.

It's true that barricades and violence are called for in some instances, but not in the instances I referred to. In the instance of CHOP I don't believe the barracades are warranted. Those who set them up had no right to infringe on the people who lived and conducted business there.
If they don't give it up I think force is required.

The covid protesters were not violent. The violence that has occurred during the current protests against innocent people is totally wrong. Many of the people hurt by this were also people who were recipients of the mistreatment that the burners and looters were protesting.

As far as domestic terrorists go, I don't believe that most of the demonstrators in either case are terrorists. I do believe that terrorists are involved in the ongoing unrest.

You seem to be trying to make it look like I believe something different or that I'm hiding my true feelings. Sorry. I'm not who you think I am.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps giving straight answers to softball questions would remove any ambiguity going forward. It's worth a try, wouldn't you agree?

For example, we can walk back every response you've given in this thread, to anything, to a single stock remark. You agree with whatever your guys are doing, and disagree with whomever you think their guys are, and what they are doing - even if they happen to be doing the same things..which is your standard retort to anything that might be brought to your attention.

We're not doing that, and if we are doing that it's a good thing.
If it's not a good thing it might still not be a bad thing.
If it's a bad thing the other guys are doing it too.

There is no underlying principled objection to anything. You're exactly who I think you are. Can you understand how that might seem like idiocy to others? Think of how you're certain that the dems are doing that too..and how you think of them. It's like watching a child get into a fight over a toy, and deciding at some point that they'd rather burn that toy to ash than let the other kid play with it.

If you want to condemn something, then do so. Condemn it when the other guy does it, and condemn it when your guy does it. Condemnation without integrity is pointless bickering. Be comfortable enough in your own condemnation that it extends to your own heroes. Do you think that's good advice?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes they were violent 




Harassing nurses is violence 




Blocking a hospital entrance when ambulances are trying to get in is violence 


https://globalnews.ca/news/6892207/coron...ald-trump/

Storming a government building is violence 

I could go on 

---

Perhaps giving straight answers to softball questions would remove any ambiguity going forward.  It's worth a try, wouldn't you agree?

For example, we can walk back every response you've given in this thread, to anything, to a single stock remark.  You agree with whatever your guys are doing, and disagree with whomever you think their guys are, and what they are doing - even if they happen to be doing the same things..which is your standard retort to anything that might be brought to your attention.  

We're not doing that, and if we are doing that it's a good thing.  
If it's not a good thing it might still not be a bad thing.
If it's a bad thing the other guys are doing it too.

There is no underlying principled objection to anything.  You're exactly who I think you are.  Can you understand how that might seem like idiocy to others?  Think of how you're certain that the dems are doing that too..and how you think of them.  It's like watching a child get into a fight over a toy, and deciding at some point that they'd rather burn that toy to ash than let the other kid play with it.

If you want to condemn something, then do so.  Condemn it when the other guy does it, and condemn it when your guy does it.  Condemnation without integrity is pointless bickering.  Be comfortable enough in your own condemnation that it extends to your own heroes.  Do you think that's good advice?

Your arguing with an unhinged partisan loon . His dear leader has declared people terrorists and there will be no contradiction.His talking heads at Fox have declared people terrorists and there will be no argument . His side are the heroic patriots the other are the evil doers who must be met with force . Nice and simple 

---

As expected.  Just the tiniest bit of encouragement, man.  You don't have to be such a ridiculous asshole about everything.  That's a personal choice.  I can tell that it doesn't sit well with you by your mealy mouthed responses.

Or...hell...just tell me to fuck off.  I'm wrong, you really are every bit the asshole you make yourself out to be and it's not a lack of comfort I'm picking up, just plain old incompetence.  I get that angling for hypocrisy when arguing with the other political party is a fetish for conservatives at present...but I'm not a dem and I don't reject the use of violence to effect political change.  You're looking for a TQ where it's just you, no one else to bitch about.  That's just weak and sad.

Apparently

Blocking hospital entrances

Threatening and harassing nurses (driving one to suicide )  

Storming a government building 

Calling for the death of Democratic Mayors 

Waving guns around to intimidate people

Blocking public roads (but barricades to keep hostile force out . bad )

Spreading misinformation about Covid that help spread it during peak infection

Aren't violence 

---

Do you, though?  You argue on the one hand that barricades and violence are called for, and on the other that they are not.  You argue that domestic terrorists are peaceful on the one hand, and on the other that they are not.  

What is the difference between the two aside from your party motivated feelings?

I doubt that you're trying to hide anything from me, and it would be pointless to try in any case.  You do seem like a person very much trying to shove a square peg into the round hole of self, though.  The first and most competent lies are always the ones we tell ourselves.  Like the lie you told directly above.  That wasn't for me.  That was for you.  You tell us all about what you would want.., in fact free rhetoric, if you were in seattle, but that you argue from fact rather than feelings.  That wasn't for me.  That was for you.

An audience of one.

The difference is he denies one group committed violence while other did .

---

Do you, though?  You argue on the one hand that barricades and violence are called for, and on the other that they are not.  You argue that domestic terrorists are peaceful on the one hand, and on the other that they are not.  

What is the difference between the two aside from your party motivated feelings?

I doubt that you're trying to hide anything from me, and it would be pointless to try in any case.  You do seem like a person very much trying to shove a square peg into the round hole of self, though.  The first and most competent lies are always the ones we tell ourselves.  Like the lie you told directly above.  That wasn't for me.  That was for you.  You tell us all about what you would want.., in fact free rhetoric, if you were in seattle, but that you argue from fact rather than feelings.  That wasn't for me.  That was for you.

An audience of one.

The difference is he denies one group committed violence while other did .