19 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidI would not see how you could actually say that man is inclined to believe in the natural rights of others. Historically, man is tribal, and oragnized along tribal/cultural basis, and the individual tends to be radically subservient to the demands of his kin-group and culture, and only when he is showing some form of obeisance to it is there an inclination towards liberty.
I'm a Non-Dualist which would make me more of a Non-theist than an atheist.
It's outside the scope of the thread, but there are scientific reasons to believe we are hardwired to accept certain moral principles which comprise the Natural Law. A God isn't required though you can believe he put them in us if you want.
I think a lot of this enlightenment era rationalism is losing relevance.
Of course, we can drop the topic of natural rights if you want.
I think it's really quite relevant in the broad picture of things, of course, but it seems doubtful that most people would want to read a lot about the discussion and would prefer to stick to the usual, small picture discussion about contemporary events. Honestly, I wouldn't mind breaking that up, but it probably requires its own thread.
19 Jul 20
@philokalia saidIn Nazi Germany, they were called the SS, Schutzstaffel, or 'Protection Squadron'.
It's normal to use plain clothes officers and special tactics to sweep up elusive suspects in difficult operations.
Tactics have been adjusted for the situation in Portland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
In Trump's Fascist America, they're called the FPS, the 'Federal Protective Service'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Protective_Service_(United_States)
Coincidence?
19 Jul 20
@sonhouse saidHaven't you heard?
Is it perfectly ok with you right wingers Trump uses federal troops with no ID's arresting peaceful demonstrators and whisking them away in unmarked vehicles?
So now the Gestapo is to be used to quell peaceful protests anywhere in the US?
What about that first amendment thingy?
Means nothing now in the era of Trump?
Trump has been wiping his ass with the Constitution for years now.
He's finally on to the Bill of Rights.
20 Jul 20
@suzianne saidYes.
In Nazi Germany, they were called the SS, Schutzstaffel, or 'Protection Squadron'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
In Trump's Fascist America, they're called the FPS, the 'Federal Protective Service'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Protective_Service_(United_States)
Coincidence?
They are not alike.
The FPS was also established in 1971.
20 Jul 20
@philokalia saidI can't think of a more incorrect view of Man's existence on Earth which for the vast majority of time was in socially egalitarian, empathetic bands. You would do well to take an Anthropology 101 course; Man is naturally free.
I would not see how you could actually say that man is inclined to believe in the natural rights of others. Historically, man is tribal, and oragnized along tribal/cultural basis, and the individual tends to be radically subservient to the demands of his kin-group and culture, and only when he is showing some form of obeisance to it is there an inclination towards liberty. ...[text shortened]... mporary events. Honestly, I wouldn't mind breaking that up, but it probably requires its own thread.
20 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidThe egg. Everyone knows this.
Which came first, sooth, the chicken or the egg?
Take whichever side you wish. It is clear in the article that the "protests" have
been going on for 50 days. If you think that burning down the building where
the police union meets is a proper response to federal thugs, go right ahead.
Two wrongs never make a right. But saying that the feds entered the fray with
no just cause is simply amusing.
20 Jul 20
@Earl-of-Trumps
The bottom line is you don't care HOW far Trump goes with his gestapo tactics.
He already said he was aiming at Chicago. and other urban centers.
You have no problem with federal troops attacking US citizens?
Or kidnapping them away in unmarked vehicles by unmarked soldiers whom we now find out have zero training in crowd control.
And it matters little to you the governor of Oregon and the Portland mayor did not call for those troops, so now states rights are out the window because of a would be dictator.
I guess all that is ok with you.
20 Jul 20
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidWhat "federal building was burnt down"?
@sonhouse
Brutal undue repression is certainly an issue to watch for.
But so is undue arson, looting, and cannibalism. The "peaceful" protesters blew it
when they burnt down a federal building, face it. For some reason you and others
have no problem with that.
Even if one was, this does not justify reprisals against ALL protesters in the city and the seizure of individuals without consideration of their Due Process rights.
20 Jul 20
@Earl-of-Trumps
I have a BIG problem with Trump using federal troops to kidnap peaceful demonstrators, whisking them away in unmarked vehicles and the troopers themselves with no ID, not even rank or what agency they are part of.
THAT is just another indication of the corruption of Trump.
Funny how you ultrarightwingnuts cry about states rights but when it comes to actions against states wishes and it is Trump doing it, now federal law 'trump's' state law.
Hypocrites, the lot of you.
20 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidTrump blew your "protecting federal property" excuse out of the water today:
Believe it or not, No1, the federal government has the right to protect federal
property. Ya, really. Not everyone thinks like the mayor of Portland.
And states rights is a good thing. But this is not state property or city property
that we are talking about, so states rights need not apply here.
"President Donald Trump on Monday said he plans to send law enforcement personnel to some major U.S. cities, as a federal crackdown on anti-racism protests including use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage in Portland, Oregon, angers people across the country.
“We’re sending law enforcement,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We can’t let this happen to the cities.”
Trump, a Republican, mentioned New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore and Oakland, California, as possible places for sending in federal forces, noting the cities’ mayors are “liberal Democrats.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-trump/trump-plans-to-send-federal-law-enforcement-personnel-to-democratic-led-u-s-cities-idUSKCN24L1ZN
There goes that one, Earl, the Donald admits he's doing it for nakedly partisan reasons and overriding the wishes of local and state government officials because they are not of the same political party he (now) is.
20 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidA courthouse
What "federal building was burnt down"?
Even if one was, this does not justify reprisals against ALL protesters in the city and the seizure of individuals without consideration of their Due Process rights.
https://www.wane.com/news/national-world/portland-protesters-gassed-after-setting-fire-at-courthouse/
Reprisals were not at all protesters.
As is the case almost always, when push comes to shove, innocent people get
treated unfairly, on BOTH sides, as Portland police have testified to.
You have a claim for a due process violation **at the moment**.
Wait until the feds have announced charges against specific individuals.
Personally, I think the feds worked with facial recognition software as a basis
to arrest people. Let's not forget, that courthouse and other buildings are likely
to have surveillance cameras.
But that is my opinion for now. We'll see how it works out
I am not cheering very loudly for the feds right now. But it is obvious that
someone has to break the bad news that the feds do have a right to protect
federal properties. And 50 days...? When does the existential threat end?
20 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidbig deal
Trump blew your "protecting federal property" excuse out of the water today:
"President Donald Trump on Monday said he plans to send law enforcement personnel to some major U.S. cities, as a federal crackdown on anti-racism protests including use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage in Portland, Oregon, angers people across the country.
“We’re se ...[text shortened]... f local and state government officials because they are not of the same political party he (now) is.
He is sending in troops to where the smoke is. Is it his fault that liberal cities
are the ones that foster protesters that loot, shoot, and destroy? Jeeeesh.
20 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidThat happened only this morning and, of course, the building wasn't "burnt down". It doesn't appear the building itself was set on fire and the fire was extinguished within 10 minutes:
A courthouse
https://www.wane.com/news/national-world/portland-protesters-gassed-after-setting-fire-at-courthouse/
Reprisals were not at all protesters.
As is the case almost always, when push comes to shove, innocent people get
treated unfairly, on BOTH sides, as Portland police have testified to.
You have a claim for a due process violation **at the moment* ...[text shortened]... o have a right to protect
federal properties. And 50 days...? When does the existential threat end?
"At 1:34 a.m. people lit a fire within the portico in front of the federal courthouse. Others gathered around the fire adding wood and other debris to make it larger.
At 1:42 a.m. federal law enforcement came out of the courthouse, dispersed the crowd and extinguished the fire."
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251010&ec=1&ch=twitter
We'll see; if they arrested people Friday or before and they still haven't been brought before a judge, they are probably in violation of Rule 5 as mentioned.
20 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidThen why did you make a post using "protecting federal property" to justify sending federal forces into a city over the objections of State and local officials?
big deal
He is sending in troops to where the smoke is. Is it his fault that liberal cities
are the ones that foster protesters that loot, shoot, and destroy? Jeeeesh.
It obviously didn't matter to you or do you just accept whatever rationale King Donald throws at you unquestionably?