secret forces in oregon cities, as in DC

[Cow Poke]

Here is a rather interesting article ...

Vanity Fair?

You can always tell it's fair and balanced "reporting" when they go to the trouble of making Trump look like the devil himself.

trump as devil.jpg

Talk about FEARmongering!

[Cow Poke]

Ad hominems are not adressing the points that is one of the problems with them.

No, the problem is you're a with really thin skin. I'm still addressing points.

You are saying a lot of bad things about my person.

Shall I call the WAAAAaaaammmmbulance?

They have got nothing to do with the points made. That is why you are actually running away.

Nope! Still here. And I have addressed the points of the OP all throughout this thread.

You are running away from the substance of the topic discussed and resort to statements about my person.

What is it that causes you to be so insecure, Charles?

[oxmixmudd]

Vanity Fair?

You can always tell it's fair and balanced "reporting" when they go to the trouble of making Trump look like the devil himself.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46997[/ATTACH]

Talk about FEARmongering!

Your reactions to portland show you have no idea what fearmongering is.

[Cow Poke]

Your reactions to portland show you have no idea what fearmongering is.

Your reactions to Portland show how much you can hate.

Perhaps, next time, a lot less drama and a lot more fact, Jim.

[Charles]

Vanity Fair?

Genetic fallacy?

You can always tell it's fair and balanced "reporting" when they go to the trouble of making Trump look like the devil himself.

I dislike the picture though it points to the truth that Trump is causing Christians to contradict their faith. Usually illustrations are provided by others then those who write the text. I have tried that several times myself and have at times been less satisfied with the illustrations. It was no reason for me to refuse to read the text and see the points made by the author.

[oxmixmudd]

Gee, if only the mayor and governor of Portland and Oregon were as concerned about law and order as you pretend to be!



What is the mayor of Chicago doing, Ox? What's the governor of Illinois doing?

CP - you are defending the indefensible. Whatever they are doing or are not doing, it does not justify what the President is doing. We do not walk away from the basic principles that made this country great to solve a temporary problem. A former pastor of mine used to say that about suicide. It's a permanent and irreversibly destructive solution to what in most cases is a temporary problem. And what Trump is doing is similar to suicide in that it is an act that is permanently destructive to the ideals and guiding principles of this nation. It is an act of destruction aimed at the principles that have made this nation a beacon of freedom and democracy for over 200 years. These forces are seen, across the world, as the equivalent of Putin's green men, as the type of force deployed by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent. Do you suppose those forces are not also advertised as 'keepers of law and order'. Is that not what the new law in Hong Kong is advertised as - a means of keeping 'law and order'?

[Cow Poke]

CP - you are defending the indefensible.

No, Jim. I'm standing up to your hateful rhetoric and false claims.
I don't like federal troops in Portland AT ALL.
I've said numerous times that I do not like HOW this is happening.

Whatever they are doing or are not doing, it does not justify what the President is doing.

Nor dos it justifying you going all drama and little fact.

We do not walk away from the basic principles that made this country great to solve a temporary problem.

You mean, like the mayor or portland actually doing the job of defending and protecting the citizenry, and living up to the oath of office?

A former pastor of mine used to say that about suicide. It's a permanent and irreversibly destructive solution to a temporary problem.

Absolutely agree!

And what Trump is doing is similar to suicide in that it is an act that is permanently destructive to the ideals and guiding principles of this nation. It is an act of destruction aimed at the principles that have made this nation a beacon of freedom and democracy for over 200 years.

And what you are doing is using this as yet another HATETRUMP thread.

Perhaps if you had started out with actual fact instead of drama and false information --- isn't that what you get so upset about when others try to minimize COVID? You go on a rant about how they are spreading false information.

That's what you have been doing here.

A former pastor of mine used to say "a pathological liar is somebody who would rather climb a tree and tell a lie, than stand on the ground and tell the truth, when the truth would work just as well".

Now, I am NOT calling you a pathological liar, I actually believe you are so wrapped up in hating Trump that you jump at any news or event or situation that makes him look bad.

Less drama, more truth!

[oxmixmudd]

Your reactions to Portland show how much you can hate.

Perhaps, next time, a lot less drama and a lot more fact, Jim.

How much I can hate - what am I hating CP? Am I hating authoritarian use of secretive forces that violate the rights of our citizens and our constitution? Am I hating the taking away of our liberties, the creation of a force that will be used to suppress dissent and sow fear in our nation? Am I hating the use of in some cases nearly lethal force against peaceful demonstrators, like the fellow shot in the head by these forces, or the senseless beating of a US Navy vet standing still before them?

These are things we should hate CP. Why do you not hate them?

[Cow Poke]

Genetic fallacy?

I just found it amusing, that's all.

I dislike the picture

It's quite revealing of the intent of the article, Charles.

though it points to the truth that Trump is causing Christians to contradict their faith.

For many of us, as we have been saying all along, it's not "support of Trump", it's opposing something we consider worse.

Usually illustrations are provided by others then those who write the text. I have tried that several times myself and have at times been less satisfied with the illustrations. It was no reason for me to refuse to read the text and see the points made by the author.

At least it seems you agree that the 'illustration' was a bit nutty.

[Charles]

At least it seems you agree that the 'illustration' was a bit nutty.

I made that perfectly clear. I also pointed out: "Usually illustrations are provided by others then those who write the text. I have tried that several times myself and have at times been less satisfied with the illustrations. It was no reason for me to refuse to read the text and see the points made by the author."

[Cow Poke]

How much I can hate - what am I hating CP?

Trump.

Am I hating authoritarian use of secretive forces

Jim, there you go again.... that's a LIE! There are no "secret forces". And, to be clear, I am NOT calling you a liar -- I honestly believe you're delusional, and actually BELIEVE that lie.

that violate the rights of our citizens and our constitution.

In the case of the ONE young man who was "kidnapped", there are SO MANY distortions of the truth with that that it's now downright dumb to keep supporting that.

Am I hating the taking away of our liberties, the creation of a force that weill be used to suppress dissent and sow fear in our nation?

Jim ---- I would REALLY LOVE for you to look at what's going on. Do you APPROVE of the anarchy and chaos in Portland? Do you APPROVE of the way the mayor has allowed this to boil on and on?

I'm a problems and crisis management kind of guy - we always look for the underlying cause, for the purpose of preventing similar situations.

These are things we should hate CP. Why do you not hate them?

I'm simply not a hater.

[JimL]

This is actually worthy of a response, Jim.

"Arrest" is a funny word in law enforcement, and can simply mean "to stop" or detain.

If, for example, an officer is in a bar in response to a fight, it's not always immediately evident who started it or what it was about.
He/she may "detain" persons (for practical purposes, they are "arrested" there) while they sort things out.
They are NOT free to leave, but they are not "under arrest", yet.

NO criminal charges at all, yet.

You may even handcuff them - and explain "you are not under arrest, but I'm cuffing you for your safety and mine".
(I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before, but that's fine - I'll be happy to do it again)

NOLO does a good job of explaining it here...

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

It's possible for the police to arrest you--intentionally or not--before saying that you're under arrest.

You’re walking down the street when a police officer orders you to halt and begins asking you questions. You’re pretty sure that you’re not free to leave. Does that mean that you’ve been arrested, or are you simply being detained?

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an arrest. Determining which can be tough—and sometimes crucial. Suppose, for instance, that an officer has reasonable suspicion to detain someone, but not probable cause to arrest them. In the course of the encounter, the officer discovers incriminating evidence. In this situation, if the defense attorney persuades the court that, instead of merely detaining her, the officer arrested the suspect without probable cause, then the evidence may be inadmissible in court.

Hence, the officers who (the drama queens would say "kidnapped") detained a person (and put him in a van to remove him from the scene for his safety and the officer's safety) can question the subject and determine if an actual "arrest" is warranted. It's entirely possible (and I understand applicable in this case) that no criminal charges are filed at all.

So, LOTS of times, there will be an "arrest" (though the person is not technically "under arrest") with ZERO criminal charges, and no Miranda warning necessary.

Except you know as well as I do that is not what's taking place in Portland. Trumps "secret police" are simply arresting, taking into custody protesters at random wthout probable cause simply because they are protesters because they know that they can skirt the law in this way. They are also beating and pepper spraying peaceful protesters for the same reason, because they know they have the backing of the President and his corrupt DOJ.

[Cow Poke]

I made that perfectly clear.

Good on you!

I also pointed out: "Usually illustrations are provided by others then those who write the text.

But you have no idea if that is the case here, as it seems to go so well with the whole "demonize Trump" article.

I have tried that several times myself and have at times been less satisfied with the illustrations. It was no reason for me to refuse to read the text and see the points made by the author."

I read the article. The illustration is a perfect fit.

[Cow Poke]

Except you know as well as I do that is not what's taking place in Portland.

Jim, honey, NEVER put me and you in the same boat. And NEVER pretend to know what I think or know.

Trumps "secret police"

Outright lie - there is nothing secret about them.

are simply arresting, taking into custody protesters at random

No. Unfounded claim. It's far more likely they are targeting "command and control" elements - troublemakers.

wthout probable cause

Yet another unfounded claim. No surprise there!

simply because they are protesters

You're on a roll! More unfounded claims.

because they know that they can skirt the law in this way.

You TOTALLY ignored the NOLO article.

They are also beating and pepper spraying peaceful protesters for the same reason, because they know they have the backing of the President and his corrupt DOJ.

If they are beating and pepper spraying peaceful protesters, I clearly denounce that.

IF ONLY you guys could stick with FACT and TRUTH instead of FEAR and RUMORS.

[oxmixmudd]

...



Jim, there you go again.... that's a LIE! There are no "secret forces". And, to be clear, I am NOT calling you a liar -- I honestly believe you're delusional, and actually BELIEVE that lie.

It's not a lie CP. I said secretive. I did not say secret. Secretive is different and acknowledges they do have some sort of ID, however meager, and that we do, now after many investigations into where they came from, have sort of a general idea where they come from (but we didn't in DC). But they are secretive. They do not announce themselves. They have multiple origins, they wear uniforms that do not clearly differentiate them from military or pseudo military forces. More to the point, the arrest without oversight and without a record. Their deeds, their actions, their orders, their operating principles are not clearly known. They are secretive.

In the case of the ONE young man who was "kidnapped", there are SO MANY distortions of the truth with that that it's now downright dumb to keep supporting that.

What distortions. We have the video. No record of his arrest was given, we have no public records that allow us to determine if the arrest was justified.

and you still ignore the man shot in the head, and the navy vet beaten and who will need surgery to repair his hand.

Jim ---- I would REALLY LOVE for you to look at what's going on. Do you APPROVE of the anarchy and chaos in Portland? Do you APPROVE of the way the mayor has allowed this to boil on and on?

See - this is your ad hominem nature coming out. I've already said over and over I do NOT approve of anarchy and vandalism in the protests. What I have said, in at least every other post, is that to mobilize a national police force that does not obey the basic rights guaranteed by the constitution is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why don't you try addressing the points I'm making instead of building strawman arguments laced with ad hominem?

I'm a problems and crisis management kind of guy - we always look for the underlying cause, for the purpose of preventing similar situations.

It would appear however that you don't have a problem with solutions to those underlying problems that violate the principles that are defined in our constitution and that drove the founding of our nation.

I'm simply not a hater.

I think you'd better go back and read your posts a bit more carefully CP. You most certainly are a hater.