Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sean327

Nationwide Protest and civil unrest game thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The Vietnamese have a Jungle we don’t have and guns and sniper gear have gotten more advanced I would guess in 60 years.  We have had 2 decades worth of training fighting asymmetric counter insurgency warfare we didn’t have in the 60’s. 

True, but how many veterans in these last 20 years that have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan don't agree with what's happening and would rebel with the people? Every insurgency has soldiers with experience guiding them. All I'm saying is that even with outdated hardware a rebellion won't be put down that easily.  

0918_FootballVBoise(Weir)6081.jpg.91934a8a511e3532b39599f1988bbacb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Flint and Newark were able to nip it in he bud. Once the fires and looting start as they did most everywhere else, it's too late. The falcon cannot hear the falconer. At that point you have crowds that can't be trusted to maintain peace, and a besieged government that can't trust them to not do what they'd previously done. The government can't deescalate and risk giving way to a mob, or else it's no government at all. We're all just caught up in the whirlwind. 

And how was Flint and Newark able to nip it in the bud? By being confrontational, or by doing this...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bob said:


The most hilarious part about all this is how fast the condescending, self-righteous 'Stay HOME: Don't Be Selfish' hot takes from the social elitist leftists have dried up almost instantly now that somehow an even more existential threat to Trump's reelection has now emerged

 

Yes, Bob, protesting b/c wanting to leave your house to eat your grand-slam breakfast at Denny's is the same as protesting historical social injustices and inequalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I'm surprised you are defending those tactics. I'm not sure what justifies the suspension of first amendment rights. But I don't think "bad stuff happened three days ago so you can't assemble ever again" passes muster. The police should not be proactively putting down peaceful protests if there is no sign of violence. It looks pretty bad when you tear gas a crowd chanting "we don’t see no riot here, take off your riot gear." 

First amendment rights like all the others are secured by the government. If the government cannot secure them, then they are no government at all. It's becoming evident in many cities the government is either unable or unwilling to secure all the rights. Either the mob must take action to become the government, protecting whatever rights it chooses, or the government must act to retain control so it can fill its role. It's untenable to both allow violent assembly and supposedly peaceful assembly, when neither is allowing for the government to function.

This isn't bill of rights stuff. This is pre-Bill of rights stuff that is true ever since the first heroic thug chief decided to rule instead of simply plunder.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bob said:


The most hilarious part about all this is how fast the condescending, self-righteous 'Stay HOME: Don't Be Selfish' hot takes from the social elitist leftists have dried up almost instantly now that somehow an even more existential threat to Trump's reelection has now emerged

 

It's just about as funny as no haircut = tyranny crowd suddenly rooting for the tear-gassing of protestors. Such as the world is today. But I am pretty sure that Trump's re-election isn't why they think some things are worth protesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mugtang said:

It sounds like he didn’t intentionally try to hurt anybody.  According to the twitters he was frustrated by the closures, the cops didn’t properly close off the highway and when he found an open road he took it and was driving full speed then when he saw the protestors he blared his horn and slammed on the brakes.  If he wanted to run people over he easily could’ve.  

There have been scenes of protesters surrounding traffic and breaking car windows and in some cases standing on cars. I’m sure in those cases the drivers are worried what’s going to happen next and if they see a chance to break away from the crowd they are going for it and have hit and injured protesters in the process. How do you think a jury would react to that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Looks like your government can't be trusted at all. In fact, if we are cracking down on assembly just because we don't trust that it won't turn bad, then we don't really have a right to assemble at all.

Hold on now, my government acted swiftly. Sisolak and that fiery pixie mayor cracked down right from the start. Today as yesterday and the day before, there are no ongoing disturbances to the peace, and right to peacefully assemble under the law is secure. Maybe your government can't be trusted, but mine so far has been aces.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

First amendment rights like all the others are secured by the government. If the government cannot secure them, then they are no government at all. It's becoming evident in many cities the government is either unable or unwilling to secure all the rights. Either the mob must take action to become the government, protecting whatever rights it chooses, or the government must act to retain control so it can fill its role. It's untenable to both allow violent assembly and supposedly peaceful assembly, when neither is allowing for the government to function.

This isn't bill of rights stuff. This is pre-Bill of rights stuff that is true ever since the first heroic thug chief decided to rule instead of simply plunder.

How easily we can go down these slippery slopes. You are for the tear-gassing of a peaceful protest and your justification leaves open the possibility that we don't have the right to assemble ever. You can't say something went violent three days ago, so we're not going to allow any other assemblies, peaceful to that point, ever again. The violence is now at the hands of the government, unprovoked, and that shouldn't be justified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Hold on now, my government acted swiftly. Sisolak and that fiery pixie mayor cracked down right from the start. Today as yesterday and the day before, there are no ongoing disturbances to the peace, and right to peacefully assemble under the law is secure. Maybe your government can't be trusted, but mine so far has been aces.

But if they do assemble peacefully again, you have given them justification to use violence to put it down because a few protestors lit City Hall of fire on Saturday. And you have given them that right in perpetuity. Because the government can't trust them ever again. That is LITERALLY what you said.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Or unless, according to your own words, someone assembled at some point in the past and violence happened. At that point that's it. Nobody gets to assemble any more. Police get to fire tear gas canisters at peaceful crowds because one time there was a crowd that wasn't peaceful. 

A riot that happened yesterday compared to one that happened long ago is a distinction in difference so much that it's not even in kind, it's in category. Go argue with Convert if you want to use that kind of logic. I know you understand the characteristics of state control and chaos better than that.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

First amendment rights like all the others are secured by the government. If the government cannot secure them, then they are no government at all. It's becoming evident in many cities the government is either unable or unwilling to secure all the rights. Either the mob must take action to become the government, protecting whatever rights it chooses, or the government must act to retain control so it can fill its role. It's untenable to both allow violent assembly and supposedly peaceful assembly, when neither is allowing for the government to function.

This isn't bill of rights stuff. This is pre-Bill of rights stuff that is true ever since the first heroic thug chief decided to rule instead of simply plunder.

Wait what? Only the government can limit the power of government? If the government just can't not tear gas people, then they aren't a government? What the hell?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The Vietnamese have a Jungle we don’t have and guns and sniper gear have gotten more advanced I would guess in 60 years.  We have had 2 decades worth of training fighting asymmetric counter insurgency warfare we didn’t have in the 60’s. 

Do you really believe the military won’t stand with the people? If you do, I say you’re completely wrong on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

A riot that happened yesterday compared to one that happened long ago is a distinction in difference so much that it's not even in kind, it's in category. Go argue with Convert if you want to use that kind of logic. I know you understand the characteristics of state control and chaos better than that.

No. You're arguing that if any group of people have rioted, the entire populace forfeits the bill of rights until Lawlor deigns it acceptable. Get the +++++ out of here with that bullshit.

This is why people are rioting in the first place. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

And how was Flint and Newark able to nip it in the bud? By being confrontational, or by doing this...

 

 

I love seeing that as much as anyone. That was an exceptional act of leadership. The world is made up of unexceptionable people unfortunately, and we do our best.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

A riot that happened yesterday compared to one that happened long ago is a distinction in difference so much that it's not even in kind, it's in category. Go argue with Convert if you want to use that kind of logic. I know you understand the characteristics of state control and chaos better than that.

Fayetteville, NC on Saturday night

Fayetteville, NC last night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

But if they do assemble peacefully again, you have given them justification to use violence to put it down because a few protestors lit City Hall of fire on Saturday. And you have given them that right in perpetuity. Because the government can't trust them ever again. That is LITERALLY what you said.   

They certainly can't trust them on SUNDAY. But shit, try their hand on Monday. The city did not fall into totalitarianism for waiting a day.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

There have been scenes of protesters surrounding traffic and breaking car windows and in some cases standing on cars. I’m sure in those cases the drivers are worried what’s going to happen next and if they see a chance to break away from the crowd they are going for it and have hit and injured protesters in the process. How do you think a jury would react to that? 

Good question. I've been troubled by some of those scenes. We never get to see the whole episode, maybe some of the drivers have instigated shit, like the idiot in SLC driving into the crowd yelling "all lives matter", but some motorist get attacked when it really looks like they're just trying to get the hell out.

Even the one which was shown yesterday of the person in Denver. It did "look" like they intentionally turned into the protester before taking off but I might give them the benefit of doubt since they had just been attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

First amendment rights like all the others are secured by the government. If the government cannot secure them, then they are no government at all. It's becoming evident in many cities the government is either unable or unwilling to secure all the rights. Either the mob must take action to become the government, protecting whatever rights it chooses, or the government must act to retain control so it can fill its role. It's untenable to both allow violent assembly and supposedly peaceful assembly, when neither is allowing for the government to function.

This isn't bill of rights stuff. This is pre-Bill of rights stuff that is true ever since the first heroic thug chief decided to rule instead of simply plunder.

Where the phuck did you read that in the Constitution? Please tell us, cause shit, I missed that paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...