Nadler: Antifa violence is a myth

[JimL]

The founders of this country had some brains; they knew what they wanted - and they (and their descendants) built the most powerful country in the world.

The rabble today can't formulate a single thought, much less get organized and build a country. So that's a huge difference.

They're not trying to build a country, they're trying to fix the flaws in this one exactly the way the founders meant for them to do. The founders were flawed human beings, but they weren't stupid.

[Ronson]

They're not trying to build a country, they're trying to fix the flaws in this one exactly the way the founders meant for them to do.

They aren't doing a very good job of it. It looks like disorganized destruction to me.

The founders were flawed human beings, but they weren't stupid.

Yep. And these barbarians are toppling their statues and destroying the neighborhoods they live in. Sheer brilliance.

[Cow Poke]

They're not trying to build a country, they're trying to fix the flaws in this one exactly the way the founders meant for them to do.

But your buddies aren't trying to fix anything. They're just acting like fools, trying to burn down buildings, spraying hate-speech all over buildings, shooting commercial grade fireworks and mortars at police, causing mayhem and chaos....

The founders were flawed human beings, but they weren't stupid.

But, compared to your buddies, they're saints!

[rogue06]

The founders of this country had some brains; they knew what they wanted - and they (and their descendants) built the most powerful country in the world.

The rabble today can't formulate a single thought, much less get organized and build a country. So that's a huge difference.

B-but look at the success of CHAZ/CHOP. Um, then again...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's beautimous, but how bout the grievances?

I had to look that word up. However, irrespective of its beauty or otherwise, you supplied a definition of what constitutes an anarchist and that definition ably fits those mobs of American colonials [and their ringleaders] who incited and engaged in violence and vandalism.

The American Revolutions did a fantastic job spelling out their grievances.

That was drafted over a decade after the initial protests had begun.

Please provide such a document for the contemporary anti-American anarchists.

I may as well ask you for a document outlining the grievances against the Sugar Act, The Stamp Act, the Currency Act, and the Quartering Act [to name just four]. As far as I am aware no such document exists, although I suspect plenty of broadsheets, pamphlets, and newspapers were printed and distributed at the time that contained articles denouncing all of those, as well as various other perceived grievances that were likewise held in the 1760s.

Having done a little reading on the movement colloquially known under the heading Black Lives Matter [BLM] the Black Lives Matter Global Network (BLMGN) is only one organisation within a larger collection of groups that are contained within the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), which is a collective term for a coalition that includes dozens of local and national organisations.

It therefore follows that if you wish to engage in an exchange discussing the historic background to those movements you may want to consider starting a new thread [possibly on another board].

However, the issue here [as far as I am concerned] is not the substance of the grievances in the eighteenth century or of today; but the perceptions from many of those contributing to these boards towards those who are protesting today.

My point has been that while those historic grievances [perceived or otherwise] were both, at the time, and today considered justification for rebellion against the lawful government and its officials, including those responsible for upholding the law; the grievances today [again perceived or otherwise] are criticised and condemned by those whom I suspect would laud the actions of their forebears two hundred and fifty years ago which ultimately led to the Declaration.

Hence while historic protest [and its concomitant violence] is seen today as a means that justified an end [i.e. the establishment of the USA] those who would consider the actions that led to that fact justifiable are today highly critical of their fellow Americans taking very similar actions to those who rampaged, vandalised, and intimidated their fellow colonial subjects [and they all were subjects of the British Crown] in the late 1700s.

To use a phrase, the shoe is this time on the other foot and many Americans who support the administration and perceive those actions to be nothing more than mindless violence and the behaviours of "anarchists" find that fact distressing. However, that view echoes [no doubt to some extent] the opinions held in the 1700s by government administrators and the lawful government of the colonies and its supporters.

If this simple fact cannot be recognised by those deploring the actions of the protesters today it suggests a degree of historical amnesia and denial concerning the protests and the violence that broke out in various colonial cities over approximately twelve years, and that eventually culminated in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The founders of this country had some brains; they knew what they wanted - and they (and their descendants) built the most powerful country in the world.

Really? The wave of immigrants from the mid nineteenth century that provided the labour to help build America's industrial power-house were all descended from the FFs? How very interesting.

The USA was not one of the Great Powers of the nineteenth century. It was far too busy with its own domestic affairs. It attained its global prominence primarily after WW2. The state of the US military in the 1930s being a case in point.

However, Wilson's League of Nations was clearly an important development following WW1.

[Sparko]

Rebelling against their lawful government.

The only difference between the actions of American colonists that led to the declaration of independence and the British response, and today's protesters is that most Americans today see that eighteenth century rebellion as a justifiable means to an end and the result [i.e. the creation of the US] as a benefit.

Those same Americans today view the current protests with [at least judging by comments on these boards] the expression of opinions that would have been recognised and endorsed by the British in the 1770s.

Again, should the US government treat the current protesters like the British did the US traitors? If they truly are the equivalent to the American Rebels, then the answer is yes. You are basically saying they are trying to overthrow the US government like the rebels did, so that means the US government should treat them as hostile enemies.

Are you sure you want to keep using that ignorant analogy?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again, should the US government treat the current protesters like the British did the US traitors? If they truly are the equivalent to the American Rebels, then the answer is yes. You are basically saying they are trying to overthrow the US government like the rebels did, so that means the US government should treat them as hostile enemies.

Are you sure you want to keep using that ignorant analogy?

Why is the comparison "ignorant"? Might that simply be your way of expressing your disagreement with it?

Another Revolutionary and/or Civil War is a possibility, that cannot be entirely ruled out.

[JimL]

Again, should the US government treat the current protesters like the British did the US traitors? If they truly are the equivalent to the American Rebels, then the answer is yes. You are basically saying they are trying to overthrow the US government like the rebels did, so that means the US government should treat them as hostile enemies.

Are you sure you want to keep using that ignorant analogy?

As it turns out the British government at the time would have been better off to have recognized and redressed the legitimate grievances of the colonies rather than to oppress the protesters. The government today should simply do the same.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As it turns out the British government at the time would have been better off to have recognized and redressed the legitimate grievances of the colonies rather than to oppress the protesters. The government today should simply do the same.

Given the communication issues of the period I am not entirely sure how that might have been effected.

A Parliament in the colonies might have been a possible solution. The British certainly allowed for regional representation under the Crown in later history. However, intransigence and an incompetent government led to the bloodshed of that Revolutionary War with all its cruelties, not least the atrocious treatment meted out towards many Loyalists, who left in their thousands after the war ended.

[Ronson]

Really? The wave of immigrants from the mid nineteenth century that provided the labour to help build America's industrial power-house were all descended from the FFs? How very interesting.

Don't be so literal - not physical descendants. People who believed in self government, in an era of monarchies and dictatorships, when dysfunctional inbreds were ruling Europe.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/s...al-inbreeding/

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Don't be so literal - not physical descendants. People who believed in self government, in an era of monarchies and dictatorships, when dysfunctional inbreds were ruling Europe.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/s...al-inbreeding/

Excuse me, you wrote "and they (and their descendants) built the most powerful country in the world". A descendant is a person or animal that is descended from a specific ancestor; i.e. an offspring.

Incidentally Charles II died in 1700 and his death led to the War of the Spanish Succession. You know? John Churchill? Ramillies, Blenheim, Oudanaarde, Malplaquet. The story goes that he wanted to march on Paris and take Louis hostage.

Edited to add: Now if Churchill had been the Commander of the British forces in the 1770s and 1780s....

[JimL]

Given the communication issues of the period I am not entirely sure how that might have been effected.

A Parliament in the colonies might have been a possible solution. The British certainly allowed for regional representation under the Crown in later history. However, intransigence and an incompetent government led to the bloodshed of that Revolutionary War with all its cruelties, not least the atrocious treatment meted out towards many Loyalists, who left in their thousands after the war ended.

That would seem to be the case, but the present US government doesn't have those excuses. The current wannabe dictator occupying the White House is simply using the protests as a means to further divide the country by painting the protesters as anarchists and terrorists by going to war against them. To divide and hopefully conquer by such means is a common tactic amongst authoritarians. Thankfully this tactic doesn't seem to be working for Trump as his poll numbers keep dropping.

[RumTumTugger]

Again, should the US government treat the current protesters like the British did the US traitors? If they truly are the equivalent to the American Rebels, then the answer is yes. You are basically saying they are trying to overthrow the US government like the rebels did, so that means the US government should treat them as hostile enemies.

Are you sure you want to keep using that ignorant analogy?

actually that is the difference the Founders were trying to separate themselves from Britain so as to rule themselves not overthrow Britain just tell britain to leave them alson here thei are trying to overthorw the U.S Government and destroy the constitution. so Hypatia is wrong in ikening the anarchist to the American Revoluton he should be looking for a more recent revolution like the Russian revolution of last century or the Chines revolution.

[Cow Poke]

I had to look that word up. However, irrespective of its beauty or otherwise, you supplied a definition of what constitutes an anarchist and that definition ably fits those mobs of American colonials [and their ringleaders] who incited and engaged in violence and vandalism.

That was drafted over a decade after the initial protests had begun.

I may as well ask you for a document outlining the grievances against the Sugar Act, The Stamp Act, the Currency Act, and the Quartering Act [to name just four]. As far as I am aware no such document exists, although I suspect plenty of broadsheets, pamphlets, and newspapers were printed and distributed at the time that contained articles denouncing all of those, as well as various other perceived grievances that were likewise held in the 1760s.

Having done a little reading on the movement colloquially known under the heading Black Lives Matter [BLM] the Black Lives Matter Global Network (BLMGN) is only one organisation within a larger collection of groups that are contained within the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), which is a collective term for a coalition that includes dozens of local and national organisations.

It therefore follows that if you wish to engage in an exchange discussing the historic background to those movements you may want to consider starting a new thread [possibly on another board].

However, the issue here [as far as I am concerned] is not the substance of the grievances in the eighteenth century or of today; but the perceptions from many of those contributing to these boards towards those who are protesting today.

My point has been that while those historic grievances [perceived or otherwise] were both, at the time, and today considered justification for rebellion against the lawful government and its officials, including those responsible for upholding the law; the grievances today [again perceived or otherwise] are criticised and condemned by those whom I suspect would laud the actions of their forebears two hundred and fifty years ago which ultimately led to the Declaration.

Hence while historic protest [and its concomitant violence] is seen today as a means that justified an end [i.e. the establishment of the USA] those who would consider the actions that led to that fact justifiable are today highly critical of their fellow Americans taking very similar actions to those who rampaged, vandalised, and intimidated their fellow colonial subjects [and they all were subjects of the British Crown] in the late 1700s.

To use a phrase, the shoe is this time on the other foot and many Americans who support the administration and perceive those actions to be nothing more than mindless violence and the behaviours of "anarchists" find that fact distressing. However, that view echoes [no doubt to some extent] the opinions held in the 1700s by government administrators and the lawful government of the colonies and its supporters.

If this simple fact cannot be recognised by those deploring the actions of the protesters today it suggests a degree of historical amnesia and denial concerning the protests and the violence that broke out in various colonial cities over approximately twelve years, and that eventually culminated in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Ya know, it seems like the more words you use in a response, the more obvious it is that you simply can't answer a simple question.