All_Pro_Bills

A core tenant of Communism is the means of production and property are owned by the people and controlled by the government. Anyone claiming to be a Communist must believe this or else they're falsely claiming to be a Communist.

As I satirically suggested about 80 pages ago on this thread on the 1/6 plan, the best contingency is to make sure all of your attacking forces are unarmed without any preparation or idea of what the "plan" is to take control. Make sure most of them are wandering around aimlessly, taking pictures and selfies. This will throw off the token force the Capitol Police deployed. You clearly have hidden the fact that thousands will show up that day. How else can you explain why they had a normal contingent on hand that day and not a force on hand that could handle the number of protesters that showed up? Maybe the government's plan was better than yours and something like Sitting Bull's plan was better than Custer's at the Little Big Horn when the Sioux lured the Calvary troops into a trap? Hide all documented copies of the plan in one of your backyards in a place the FBI will not think about looking like under the doghouse. So far its working because nobody has found any document detailing the plan for that day yet despite the press insisting there is some kind of high level plan here drawn up by high ranking former administration people and their cronies. Remember you have the element of surprise in your favor when you attack a government entity that has an overwhelming superiority in forces, tactics, and weaponry. Your success depends on the enemy believing nobody would be stupid enough to attempt an insurrection under those circumstances. The element of surprise is your best friend here. And make sure not to kill or injure any of people you are targeting. Don't do anything remotely close to what anarchists such as Antifa might do such as start the building on fire. This is just to stereotypical of an act for insurrections. Try to be original. And if politely asked to leave please do so immediately. Make sure to do everything that is counterintuitive to success. Failure is your goal. Again your goal is not to succeed. Realize that the only thing you'll accomplish is to give your political enemies an excuse to persecute you. Maybe that's why they left the place unguarded and engineered the whole thing? That I believe sums up the 1/6 "insurrection" plan.

Leftist intellectual commies don't believe in private property rights so this question would be confusing to them and they would be unable to follow your thinking. They'd think the scenario is impossible given the society they desire. And the situation is purely hypothetical.

Yes i did misunderstand it. It appears to be commentary/satire on woke logic. My bad. But I'm good with the rest of what i said..

What's missing from the woke "history agenda" these clowns push is a complete rendering of the history of the slave trade in West Africa and the American colonial market for slavery. They just key in on part of the story. The part they want to tell. The part that supports their beliefs. And exclude what doesn't. Slavery didn't start in 1619 or when Europeans arrived on the scene in West Africa. There were other parties complicit in the slave trade. If you're going to teach history then that needs to be included. But again the history of slavery curriculum pushed in US schools by woke school boards has a blind spot when it comes to this fuller accounting of history. A fuller accounting would disrupt the easy to follow victim & oppressor relationship and make things more complicated. And leave a lot of grey area. And ideologists prefer binary arguments. Standard folklore has European "slave traders" traveling into the interior of Africa and hunting down, trapping, and capturing unsuspecting Africans and ultimately shipping them to the New World to work in the American colonies. But initially slaves that were sent to the New World were sent to the Caribbean sugar plantations and to South America to Portuguese colonies like Brazil. The inconvenient fact is almost all of the Black Africans that were sold into slavery were captured and relegated to a life of servitude at the hands of other Black Africans from competing kingdoms and tribes. And this trade ran through Arab slave traders as an intermediary to various markets. One being the New World plantations. This Arab slave trade arrangement with African kingdoms was running for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived on the scene in Africa. And for the ruling kingdoms of West Africa this was a commercial enterprise they used to generate the funds from selling slaves to trade for goods and animal stock like horses. So I'm 100% behind the "history" lesson of slavery and racism if its going to include an accounting and discussion of the role played by Black Africans in selling their fellow Black Africans into slavery. This might raise all kinds of questions about who should really be paying reparations. And some inspection of the woke belief in the inherent evil monopoly white people hold because logically Black Africans that sold their bothers and sisters into slavery and the Arab slave traders would need to be just as inherently evil. Perhaps more evil? Add to that lesson the role of Arab slave traders acting as middle man that sold a portion of those slaves to Europeans and others to Middle Eastern markets and beyond. And that the slave trade in West Africa existed for 100's of years before white Europeans showed up on the scene. And that America eliminated slavery before most every other "market" for slaves. And in fact slavery still exists today. And rather than argue about the history of slavery which we can do nothing about it might be more productive and important to be doing something to stop and fight against slavery in its many forms that is happening around the world today. Sadly I suspect the entire thing is all about the usual political hustles for power. And not so much for correctly accounting for historical events.

The fundamental problem with the social responsibility argument is that no such obligation exists.

Perhaps if local and state governments once again let politics take priority over their obligation to enforce the rule of law which leaves their citizens without the protections provided by police and law enforcement. Leaving them to deal with uncontrolled out-of-town rioters and looters operating under the cover of political protest events then we might see a lot more of these self-defense cases. The issue I wanted addressed is why city and state officials accountable for providing for the common safety and order refused to allow police to intervene to stop and arrest rioter carrying out acts of property destruction and personal injuries? Why did they let rioters and looters cause destruction to the city they were accountable to protect? Whatever happened that night is ultimately on them. Why aren't they being held accountable? If this was ancient Rome they'd be crucified for dereliction of duty and left on display as a warning to other public officials to do their jobs. But in 2021 America incompetent and ineffective officials are protected and get away with pretty much anything the political class elite decide is okay.

It's all basically trial and error.

Unfortunately the verdict is not the end. The media and their accomplices in the social justice movement will not accept that the narratives they've been peddling for the past year have been invalidated by the court proceedings. Rather they are intent on doubling down here. The "correct" outcome did not happen therefore there is something wrong with the legal process or the people administering the legal process. The reality that the dis-information and false narratives they've been peddling for the past year failed to hold up when confronted by the facts heard in court escapes them. They will hammer away relentlessly on all the usual weekend political shows. You'll be hearing constant and consistent talking points with references to the usual stereotypes and calls for tougher gun restrictions and self-defense guidelines from people that have championed the elimination of criminal prosecutions and sentences. Watching left leaning media outlets discussing the verdict is an exercise in some alternative reality. Even after the verdict you're left wondering if there were two trials going on and you were watching one and they were watching the other. I'm left to conclude their is something fundamentally wrong with their ability to mentally process reality. Or perhaps they're so invested in their fantasies about collusion and conspiracies driven by their victim ideologies that they cannot or will not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. One other explanation is they are pathological liars.

I watched some of the post verdict commentary on outlets like CNN and MSNBC this afternoon. Unsurprisingly, they hammered away at the white supremist and racism angle as that's been what they've been preaching since the beginning here. I'm sure their flock will embrace the message but listening to the commentary and conversations they simply refuse to acknowledge a lot of the realities of the circumstances. The fact the event was a riot and looting session is excluded. But when you tell lies and hear lies for over a year about something how else will people react? And when it turns out exactly opposite of what you've been saying and what you've been hearing the alternative to believing the injustice conclusion is to accept the fact your beliefs are false. Who wants to do that?

I particularly despise DiBlasio and am hopeful Eric Adams can bring some common sense and competency back to the mayor's office in NYC. Most of these other clowns are beyond hope too. Still unwilling to face the reality that this tragedy occurred during rioting and looting. Still parroting the peaceful protest narrative which I expect anyone with an ounce of common sense isn't buying. Still reaching for the stars to pull the white supremacy angle out of their asses. They sound like fools given the context of the facts. If anyone's to blame for the uncivil and contentious environment that enabled the tragedy of Kenosia to occur and continues to ferment unrest and hostility its the political class on the extremes. From my perspective they are less than useless and do nothing to bring people closer to compromise and understanding. Rather they serve to drive everyone apart in support of their own personal ambitions for power. No society can survive with "leadership" that acts in this self-serving manner. Time to kick their sorry asses to the curb.

My prediction is sometime next week Garland to sics the DOJ after Rittenhouse on some sort of "civil rights violations" of the 3 "victims" investigation.

If I could run the 100 meters three seconds faster I'd be the Olympic champion in the event. And we can engage in hypothetical's by eliminating or changing one thing or another that occurred that night but that doesn't absolve anyone from their actions. Why not go back further? Maybe if the event was a peaceful protest rather than a riot it would have turned out different? Maybe if the mayor let the police do their jobs it would have been different? Maybe if Blake cooperated with police when they attempted to arrest him on a felony warrant rather than engage in a confrontation it wouldn't have resulted in a shooting? And none of this would be happening..

Strip away all the political and social commentary and this is perhaps the key insight. Chasing somebody is an act of aggression. Its a signal you want to engage in a confrontation. If not you don't chase them, period. You can't argue that somebody who initiates a confrontation is the victim. They are not. They are the assailant, they are the instigator. The other individual, armed or not has a right to self-defense regardless of the argument made by the prosecutor. Combine this with the knowledge the city government will not allow the police to act or intervene in the riot and you're already aware that you're on your own. So self-defense is the only option as police response is off the table in this situation. Also, the citizens arrest argument is off the table when testimony revealed one of the rioters threatened that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. That's not an arrest scenario, that's an execution. Ironically, something the protesters/rioters were there to protest and riot about regarding a police shooting. Now we can argue the "just shoot him in the leg" position on the use of deadly force but a very good assumption is that if nobody chased the kid down and attacked him from behind he'd have run down the street without any such incident taking place.

Herd immunity is a term that has been eliminated from the conversation. Is there anyone left that still believes a 100% level of vaccination will stop the virus? That might work if the vaccine was durable and the virus was stable but neither of those things is true. It wears off over time and leave the "vaccinated" no better off than the un-vaccinated. It appears a more complex prevention/treatment/vaccination response is required. I'll leave it to the experts to figure that out but their singular obsession with vaccination of everyone for perpetuity looks like a fail. It time to a) admit to the limits of medical science, 2) get a better plan.

I guess since its become completely transparent that standard operating procedure of the administration is to weaponize the DOJ, Federal law enforcement, and security and intelligence agencies against the political enemies of their protected constituents social and political causes there's nothing to discuss.

To the left its not a question of law and order, self-defense, or Constitutional protections. Or a trial by jury hearing testimony and evaluating the evidence to render a verdict. Its simply that some random guy dared to intervene in a protest/riot that was sanctioned by the political left where the police were ordered not enforce the law and as a result of his presence 2 politically protected members of the riot were killed and 1 politically protected member of the riot was wounded by a politically unprotected outsider. A politically unprotected outsider that's not a member of the left can't be allowed to get away with that. Because their fear is what's next? Every time they call off the police and allow their protected political organizations somewhere to riot, harm people, and destroy property all of a sudden random private citizen(s) or groups will be empowered to take action and eliminate the threat to their persons and property regardless of the politicians order the police to stand-down with the intent of letting their supporters riot. One potential result, no more riots as anarchists get the message they're "fair game" and the protection the politicians provide in exchange for their services is not longer possible. For the political left that's worst case and it can't be allowed.

In the middle of a lawless environment facilitated by government that sat back and endorsed anarchy. What else did anyone expect would happen under those circumstances? I've said this before and it seems to go over a lot of people's heads. And exactly what are the rules for defending yourself during a riot? One the government encourages and takes no action to stop? Anybody with an ounce of common sense and a weapon would have done the same thing that kid did. If you think you wouldn't do the same thing then you'd be dead. Period.

To protect people and property from rioters that the police and the mayor abandoned because Democratic officials support anarchist in the streets across America.

Thanks for your service. Don't worry certain posters always pull the race card when cornered by their otherwise empty argument. Take it as vindication that you've won.

My point is city and state officials repealed the rule of law when they consciously decided not to enforce it because of favored causes and groups and looked the other way as looters and rioters rampaged through the city. All they had to do was let the police do their jobs. The bloods on the hands of the mayor and governor. How can you break the law when there is no law to break? As the mayor decided not to enforce the law. They could have stopped any violence and injuries from happening simply by doing their jobs correctly. The question is have the idiots running the city and the state learned their lesson? Are they going to let rioters run free to pillage and burn the city again if the verdict is innocent? It wouldn't surprise me.

House Republicans in the Judiciary Committee have sent a Tuesday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland after an FBI whistleblower provided 'a protected disclosure' revealing that "the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific "threat tag" to track potential investigations." So when he testified on the topic he lied. Once again authoritarian government coming down on private citizens that oppose their agenda. In a free society government should be mediating and settling disputes between conflicted parties through encouraging debate, providing mediation and through fair application of the law, not taking one side or the other while using force and coercion to suppress fair discourse and conversation. This current crew is a bunch of fascist hacks..

Wow. Please enroll in a basic reading comprehension class at the local community college.

What exactly do you believe the "rules of engagement" are during a riot? Adding in the fact that city and state officials refused to meet their obligations to maintain social order and public safety. In the process they violated and nullified the contract between the people and the government. Along with that challenging the right to self-defense in a lawless environment they allowed to exist. And in the process let anarchists decide what the "law" is during the event. The reality is there are no rules in that situation. Anything goes in order to survive or stay alive. And why should anyone follow the rule of law in that situation? All that does is get you dead. And why? The government has told you by their inaction the rules don't matter. And then later they're going to sit in judgment? If anyone should be prosecuted in Kenosia it should be the mayor and other government officials for negligence and dereliction of duty.

How exactly should one show up for a riot? Tux and top hat? Reality is when people with all kinds of weapons show up at a riot intent on committing violence there are going to be bad consequences all around. So maybe don't riot. Given your stand on 1/6 I assume you have a negative view of rioters. And perhaps finding some common ground we might agree the police and city government in Kenosia should have acted to prevent violence and arrest those intent on committing it. And doing so possibly could have prevented this entire unfortunate incident from ever occurring.