Did this really just happen?

[_Chap]

In fairness, many of those same advocates rejected proposals to have representation in parliament because they would've been systematically outvoted.

The last time I discussed this with a US academic (in Lexington, as it happened ...) he made the point that if the British government had been well advised, they would have conceded parliamentary representation, and thus removed a major part of the support for independence. Those advocating independence knew this was unlikely, and so continued to use the very useful 'no taxation without representation' slogan despite the risk of getting what they did not actually wish for. I merely report what I was told.

If you get one of those AP US history questions that asks you to take the side of the British, this is a point you should be prepared to make and support.

The implied notion, if that is your intention, that I would have any interest in defending the policy of a particular British ministry well over two centuries ago is ... odd. Do you feel at all connected with the policies of long past US governments?

The American revolution had nothing to do with an opposition to taxes generally, though. That's true. Its not like the newly formed USA did not have taxes.

Er, yes. It would take an ajax18 to think otherwise. (He could have cited Washington's crushing of the the Whiskey rebellion, I suppose, but that was about a pretty specific issue for the most part)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Does Breitbart have an article on the Whiskey Rebellion Ajax18 can pretend to read and then link here? One where we then actually read the article he didn’t read, find all the errors in it, post thoughtful commentary that he will just scroll past where his dim bulb brain will eventually rest on the last sentence where he then can post some non sequitur in response?

- Doc

[_ajax18]

EAllusion have you ever thought of getting out of what you're doing now and running for sherriff. Don't get me wrong I'd never wish to live in such a place, but it would be interesting to observe the results from afar.

[_EAllusion]

[quote]The implied notion, if that is your intention, that I would have any interest in defending the policy of a particular British ministry well over two centuries ago is ... odd. Do you feel at all connected with the policies of long past US governments?[/quote]

That's not the implied notion. It was a comment on the fact that a traditionally popular essay response question in AP US History tests formulates a question that requires the test taker to take the argumentative side of the British in the Revolutionary War. I don't know where things are at currently, but in the past, this is a key vulnerability of the ideological arguments of American patriots that was brought up in test preparation. It's not merely that it might've hypothetically gone poorly for American colonists to have representation, but this was openly discussed while sloganeering the opposite. Sort of like gay marriage opponents only caring about states rights when they lose at the federal level.

[_EAllusion]

Antifa, which isn't a organization so much as an amorphous collective of loosely affiliated co-partisans, is being declared a terrorist organization by the Trump admin. I haven't a clue what the legal implications of that are since it makes no sense on the surface, but it can't be good.

Meanwhile, the government has consistently refused to designate white supremacist groups that act like literal terrorist organizations as such. The argument, which I agree with mind you, is that this opens up the potential to abuse civil rights, including free speech activity, by bringing foreign military/intelligence tools against it while lacking statutory authority to do so.

But when right wing terrorist organizations are left alone while left-wing activity that is even harder to pin down as either an organization or terrorism is gone after, you're looking at something ugly.

[_ajax18]

EAllusion have you ever thought of getting out of what you're doing now and running for sherriff. Don't get me wrong I'd never wish to live in such a place, but it would be interesting to observe the results from afar.

Bump, I'll give it a start.

Separate police protocols when interacting with white people or people of color will be instituted. If a black man gets upset and threatens to put up a fight, it's up to the officer to let him go. If he repeats the same offense, perhaps find a way to funnel him over to neighboring country and force them to do something about it. This would keep down minority arrest and incarceration percentages while helping to provide a safer environment for those living in neolibertarian-dystopia. If a white man resists arrest, just take all his assets and put into the public treasury, if he still resists, just shoot him, hide the body and call it an unsolved mystery.

Given that nobody in their right mind would serve in law enforcement under the EAllusion system, including EAllusion, given it's a no win situation, perhaps he'd start conscripting men for service similar to a draft. I know it doesn't sound very libertarian but he'd have to do something. He wouldn't be willing to pay them and nobody could possibly do the job in the way he wants since that is impossible. Given that officers would be disarmed and minority illegal gun possession offenses would result in little more than him turning his head and looking the other way that could be a death sentence for most recruits. He'd probably need big holes to hide all the bodies. Once all these protesters become victims in this new anarchy they fought to establish, he's going to face some tough questions. Perhaps he could shift the blame to the dead officers since they're gone anyway. Nobody would be around to contradict him.

Perhaps he's stubborn enough to hold to his libertarian principles which would certainly result in total anarchy if actually followed. It's be interesting and very messy to see.

[Guest]

EA,

You don’t think what we saw yesterday were ‘acts of violence to achieve political aims’? They were far more successful at causing mass destruction, mass disruption, massive civil unrest, and a shift in political manipulation than some shitbirds larping in Charlottesville (minus the deranged racist driving through the crowd of socialists).

The problem that I see is the government just labelling any opponent as antifa and then, well, you can guess how that goes.

- Doc

[Guest]

Why wasn’t this NBA analyst’s Twitter account immediately suspended?

https://ibb.co/ykLTBbN

Laughably his tone changed when the “protesters” got to his neighborhood.

Sadly, what was burning in that picture was a 189-unit affordable housing complex. These damned criminals have approximately one brain cell to share amongst themselves.

A later tweet of his really underscores the irrationality and chaos agitators and “activists” have brought to our doorsteps:

"Tear up your own s—. Don't come to where we live at and tear our neighborhood up. We care about our community. If you don't care about yours I don't give a s—."

The irony cannot be overstated.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

For any lurkers who want to do a deep dive on antifa I’d recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Antifa-Anti-Fasc ... 8881249860

“ Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook Paperback – August 14, 2017 “

tl;dr - It’s a revolutionary Marxist Communist confederacy bent on overthrowing capitalist systems. The handbook pretty much outlines what they just pulled off, much in the same way the Foundations of Geopolitics outlines what the Russians are doing.

[_EAllusion]

[quote="Doctor CamNC4Me" post_id=1226435 time=1590955896 user_id=3779]
EAllusion,

You don’t think what we saw yesterday were ‘acts of violence to achieve political aims’? They were far more successful at causing mass destruction, mass disruption, massive civil unrest, and a shift in political manipulation than some ____ larping in Charlottesville (minus the deranged racist driving through the crowd of socialists).

The problem that I see is the government just labelling any opponent as antifa and then, well, you can guess how that goes.

- Doc
[/quote]

There were a bunch of people rioting. Some of them had coherent political aims. Some did not. It's been a diverse mob of people with diverse motivations, and you cannot reduce it down into "antifa riot". I don't think Jake Paul was about fomenting a leftist revolution Doc. More to the point, there's no "Antifa" as an organization. The label doesn't signify a affiliation with any particular organization, tactical preferences, or aims other than opposition to far right movements. It's like declaring blue lives matter a terrorist front. Yes, people commit what can be described as terrorist acts in the name of blue lives matter, but that's not an organization. It's a loosely affiliated group of co-partisans who voluntarily adopt a label with political connotations.

The contrast I made was with actual terrorist organizations in that they are 1) actual organizations who 2) use fear of violence against citizens to achieve political ends. And even then, I agree that it would be bad to name them terrorist organizations in the legal sense.