Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > The Newsroom > Political Talk
Facebook

Notices

Political Talk Political News


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-06-2017, 12:12 PM
n david n david is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
I wholeheartedly disagree with you. They aren't terrorists. Freedom to gather and protest is American as apple pie.
JD, Antifa is the literal definition of terrorist: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Antifa admitted they WANT violence. They want it. They've been caught on video using chains, knives, bats, and other weapons. They were caught on undercover video using encrypted chat to set up meets in which they discussed their desire for violence and blood. One video even has a member telling others where his car is parked, so they can retreat to the car and use the guns he has hidden in it against their enemies.

1A gives right to gather and protest. It does NOT give the right to incite riot, insurrection or other violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
If there is to be any destruction, I hope it is the destruction of meaningful targets and not urban drugstores, other urban businesses, churches and homes.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENT RIOTING OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY!
What is your definition of a "meaningful target?" Rich-owned? White-owned?

Also, the statement in bold and caps contradicts the statement above it. You either do or you don't. You cannot say "If there is destruction, I hope it's meaningful, non-urban, targets" and then claim that you don't advocate destruction of property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
Destruction of property USUALLY sours any sympathies that could have been gained from the general public.
The only sympathy Antifa is getting, and even this is becoming strained, is from radical leftists and the media. Even Nancy Pelosi released a statement against them a month or so ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
Destruction of propertry in the name of protest is exactly what happened with the Bundy gang. It is exactly what has happened with other protests. It is exactly what happened at the Boston Tea Party.
Wait, what did the Bundy's destroy? That was a STANDOFF between the Bundy's, their supporters and the federal government. Unlike Antifa and blm, including the recent blm riots again in St. Louis, they didn't firebomb cars and buildings. They didn't smash windows or throw rocks, firebombs and other projectiles at the police. They simply camped out and refused to leave.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:13 PM
Originalist Originalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,073
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
Please don't associate ANTIFA with John Brown.

Brown was a terrorist who wanted to overthrow the government in the name of social justice. He was willing to create a million new injustices in order to rectify one. That is no different than ANTIFA.

I didn't think of ANTIFA anyway.
I do think that he is going to find some justification to bring on martial law. I have been wrong before and will be wrong again-- hopefully on this matter I will be wrong.

Maybe he will be declaring martial law because of the widespread disorder that ANTIFA might cause-- though I don't think they are capable of that.

Maybe he is considering nullifying California's statehood and setting up a territorial government there. The land could then be divided to create 5 new States. Until the people of California vote for independence, they are bound to obey the laws of the Union. Right now, the State is in open rebellion.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:40 PM
Jermyn Davidson's Avatar
Jermyn Davidson Jermyn Davidson is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In His Hands
Posts: 13,911
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Bundy damage documented-- totaling in the MILLIONS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b014d3fe22eff9


http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...fuge_will.html
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."

Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 10-06-2017 at 02:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:41 PM
Jermyn Davidson's Avatar
Jermyn Davidson Jermyn Davidson is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In His Hands
Posts: 13,911
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Damaging MEANINGFUL property in protest is as American as apple pie.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-06-2017, 02:05 PM
Jermyn Davidson's Avatar
Jermyn Davidson Jermyn Davidson is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In His Hands
Posts: 13,911
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post

JD, Antifa is the literal definition of terrorist: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
As far as I know, every action that ANTIFA has taken has been in the context of a protest. Al-Quaeda are terrorists. To date, ANTIFA has not taken actions of violence.

EDIT
Intimidation is wrong and should not be practiced by ANTIFA, 45 supporters at a campaign event, or by anyone else in any other context. INTIMIDATION IS BAD. BROTHERLY LOVE IS GOOD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
Antifa admitted they WANT violence. They want it. They've been caught on video using chains, knives, bats, and other weapons. They were caught on undercover video using encrypted chat to set up meets in which they discussed their desire for violence and blood. One video even has a member telling others where his car is parked, so they can retreat to the car and use the guns he has hidden in it against their enemies.

As far as I know, ANTIFA has not carried out any actions of domestic terrorism. We have a fresh example in Las Vegas of what might be an example of domestic terrorism. The Orlando gay club fire would be another example of domestic terrorism. There was an attack carried in San Bernardino that came very close to qualifying as a domestic terrorist attack.

ANTIFA has done nothing outside of the context of protest.


Here is an article that explains why ANTIFA cannot be labeled a terrorist group (by the Feds).

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ections-241653



Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
1A gives right to gather and protest. It does NOT give the right to incite riot, insurrection or other violence.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
What is your definition of a "meaningful target?" Rich-owned? White-owned?
So I specifically avoided using race for this very reason-- to avoid this accusation, even though I knew how some would take what I was saying.

I do not believe in damaging property in the context of protest.

If people are going to damage property, they should not damage property that does not make sense to damage. Do not act like you haven't seen riots in times past where everything in the vicinity of a riot is destroyed. I have seen this and have lowered my head in disgust as the businesses and sometimes peoples homes are destroyed for no reason at all.

So this is why I said that if they are going to damage property, it needs to send a message that is congruent with their cause.

Not once did I mention race because I do not want to see ANYONE's churches, homes or businesses destroyed in the course of a riot.

THE BOSTON TEA PARTY WAS THE KIND OF MEANINGFUL PROPERTY DAMAGE TO WHICH I AM REFERRING.

I specifically avoided using race.


Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
Also, the statement in bold and caps contradicts the statement above it. You either do or you don't. You cannot say "If there is destruction, I hope it's meaningful, non-urban, targets" and then claim that you don't advocate destruction of property.
I can and I just did again.

Hopefully you can understand what I am trying to say. It may sound contradictory, but if you would just consider past riots where the damage has been widespread and meaningless, that kind of property destruction is vain and does nothing to accomplish the goals of political protest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
The only sympathy Antifa is getting, and even this is becoming strained, is from radical leftists and the media. Even Nancy Pelosi released a statement against them a month or so ago.
I must be missing something. Again, I have not seen them in action in anything other than protest. I posted an article about how difficult it is to label domestic organizations as domestic terrorists.



Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
Wait, what did the Bundy's destroy? That was a STANDOFF between the Bundy's, their supporters and the federal government. Unlike Antifa and blm, including the recent blm riots again in St. Louis, they didn't firebomb cars and buildings. They didn't smash windows or throw rocks, firebombs and other projectiles at the police. They simply camped out and refused to leave.
I addressed this in another post on this thread.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."

Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 10-06-2017 at 02:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-06-2017, 02:11 PM
Jermyn Davidson's Avatar
Jermyn Davidson Jermyn Davidson is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In His Hands
Posts: 13,911
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post

Brown was a terrorist who wanted to overthrow the government in the name of social justice. He was willing to create a million new injustices in order to rectify one. That is no different than ANTIFA.
Hyperbole much?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
Maybe he is considering nullifying California's statehood and setting up a territorial government there. The land could then be divided to create 5 new States. Until the people of California vote for independence, they are bound to obey the laws of the Union. Right now, the State is in open rebellion.
Is this in reference to CA declaring themselves to be a "Sanctuary State"?

Hey, I got a question.

What about "State's Rights"? Or does this only work for southern states with causes that you think are important?
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-06-2017, 05:25 PM
Originalist Originalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,073
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
Hyperbole much?




Is this in reference to CA declaring themselves to be a "Sanctuary State"?

Hey, I got a question.

What about "State's Rights"? Or does this only work for southern states with causes that you think are important?
I just love it when you play dumb. Jermyn. I know you are a smart guy. I know you can read. But in many of our contentious exchanges you have exemplified the utmost contempt for me with your unwillingness to really digest and absorb facts I've presented to you. You did this with your one-sided barrage of exerts from the seceded States' Declarations of Causes without even considering what the Northern attitude had been concerning the balance of representation in Congress since 1820. Without that knowledge, one will not interpret the Declaration of Causes of the seceded States in a correct light. Every mentioning of "slavery" in those declarations flows from the conflict with the north over the balance of power in Congress. It had nothing to do with the moral issues revolving around slavery on the part of the north or some fear of direct interference by Lincoln regarding slavery on the part of the seceded States. I did not glean that insight from Neo-Confederate websites but from scholars who are actually sympathetic to Lincoln, but were honest in their dissection of those documents. Additionally, I am well into my MA program and am becoming well versed in the art of research and thesis development. One would hope that would earn me perhaps a tad of courtesy from those who engage me in historical discussions.

Now you sling this sarcastic comment above, pretending like you missed a portion of my comments. You know that "States Rights" only apply when the Federal Government has violated the rights of a State. Currently, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government is charged with making sure immigration laws written by Congress are enforced. Thus California has no "right" to declare her State off-limits to Federal enforcement of those laws unless her people vote to separate themselves from the Union.

Understand that my spirit has always born witness with your spirit, and you have been a bigger encouragement to me in the past than you realize. None of this is personal. My view of the nature and construct of this union is based on what I've learned from history. I form opinions as a solemn judge looking at facts and being as cold as a stone on any "humane" or moral considerations. In 1860 and 1861, 11 States seceded from our union by consent of their citizens. Either what they did was legal or it wasn't. This legal question is a stand-alone issue that is completely detached from the question of why they chose to secede.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:33 AM
Jermyn Davidson's Avatar
Jermyn Davidson Jermyn Davidson is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In His Hands
Posts: 13,911
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

I showed contempt for your ideas and your interpretation of American history.

I could have made my point with sarcasm without "overkill" in being particularly inflammatory by directly mentioning the south, things important to you, and whatever implications someone could have properly or improperly gleaned from my sarcasm.

In other words, I was wrong. I apologize. If I am sarcastic in the future, I will try to make sure it is not too biting.


I am working today but I want to ask 2 things.

Was California annexed as a stand-alone Republic or as a created state?

If California was annexed as a Republic, does it bear any weight on this current discussion?
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-07-2017, 09:01 AM
Originalist Originalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,073
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
I showed contempt for your ideas and your interpretation of American history.

I could have made my point with sarcasm without "overkill" in being particularly inflammatory by directly mentioning the south, things important to you, and whatever implications someone could have properly or improperly gleaned from my sarcasm.

In other words, I was wrong. I apologize. If I am sarcastic in the future, I will try to make sure it is not too biting.


I am working today but I want to ask 2 things.

Was California annexed as a stand-alone Republic or as a created state?

If California was annexed as a Republic, does it bear any weight on this current discussion?
I appreciate that Jermyn. You are a blessing to me and I commend my love to you as a brother-in-Christ.

Just one clarification. "The south" as a region is the least important aspect for me of this discussion. The fact that our country fragmented north vs south is really incidental. Also, the entity known as the CSA is also not of much concern to me as it was a simply a league created by a number of sovereign states and is also an incidental thing in the larger conflict. Most southerners were not fighting for the CSA, but were fighting for their States, and to retain sovereignty for the state they were from, not win sovereignty that did not exist previously. The view of the Union for the first 50 years of its existence, north and south, was that it was a voluntary union of sovereign states, and that as the sovereignties of their state, the people of a state could democratically withdraw from that pact. That was not an invention of southern slaveholders. It was the common view.

As for California, a "California Republic" was short lived. The American settlers and some native Mexicans of the region preemptively declared the birth of the republic as a prelude to the U.S, invasion. Had American forces not shown up, the republic most likely would have applied for admission into the Union anyway. So officially, California was annexed as a created State since the USA never formally recognized the republic. However, created states come into the Union under "equal footing" according to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the constitution. Thus, even created states are not Federal possessions, but are owned solely by the citizens of those states.

If Californians vote for independence, the independence votes will come overwhelmingly from densely populated leftist counties. This will instantly create a sectional crisis within California as western, southern and northern California counties will try to seceded from California and create their own States.

Vermont was a republic before it entered the Union , but the US never officially recognized it. Vermont actually seceded from New York. The Federal Government did not get involved as they felt this was a matter between the State of New York and Vermont. At that time Vermont was not seeking admission into the Union. That demonstrates the view of the nature of the Union was quite different in the early days. States actually owned land early on, land that could not be counted as U.S. territory. Virginia gave birth to the State of Kentucky. Constitutionally, Congress had to agree to this creation of the new State of Kentucky. But had the people of western Virginia been seeking to form a republic outside of the Union, the American government could not have done a thing about it legally. The Republic of Kentucky would have been born.

Last edited by Originalist; 10-07-2017 at 09:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-07-2017, 10:46 AM
n david n david is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
Re: "Calm Before The Storm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson View Post
Damaging MEANINGFUL property in protest is as American as apple pie.
You still haven't defined what you mean by "meaningful" property? Police stations? Government buildings? Buildings or homes of conservatives?

What is your definition of a "meaningful" target?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Obama 'kept every promise' on [Sandy] storm aid." Jermyn Davidson Political Talk 6 05-05-2013 04:35 AM
"Hope & Change" in 2008, "Forward" in 2012 deacon blues Political Talk 12 05-03-2012 01:32 PM
**** Are the NCO and AWCF "raiding" the UPCI or providing a "safety net"? **** SDG The D.A.'s Office 373 02-06-2012 12:01 AM
While we move "ahead" Europe moves "backwards" Praxeas Political Talk 11 05-02-2010 02:36 PM
"Kill Him", "Treason", "Off With His Head!" Jermyn Davidson Political Talk 114 10-17-2008 10:17 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.