Anarchy in America

a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity

It is certainly eerie how the video slowly progresses from relatively calm to mayhem, I feel really bad for those business owners trying to defend their property. I've never seen anything quite like this, the way people are walking around and stealing stuff in open daylight and in front of police is shocking, it really is like watching a movie but it's not fake. Those guys played it cool but I have to imagine it took some guts to stay and film all of that chaos so respect to them.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: carewemust
I don't think there was widespread 'Anarchy' last night. The Chicago news was focusing on a lone thug, who stole a car and kept police busy chasing him for 2 hours.

I turned the scanner on a little bit after that happened. There were a couple of officers saying things I thought were racial but I was having a hard time hearing. Then a captain or sargent jumped on the radio and said something to the effect of "they're keeping a record of this - you guys shut up!"

That goes to what the DOJ/FBI is briefing the country on right now: www.justice.gov...

Coming down hard on all lawlessness, whether by officials, terrorists or agitators.

This DOJ press conference that's ongoing right now revealed a couple of things I didn't know, and I think some of our members that oppose the actions didn't know either.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons officers are in fact legal police officers. They are often called up in cases where riots and crowd control are necessary as they have been trained for that due to their jobs. And what I said about the name tags and such yesterday was just verified by AG Barr. Federal officers often don't wear name tags or other personal identification so they or their families are not targeted later by others.

The protester issue - Earlier in the day the Whitehouse area security/police were asked to move the perimeter from H street to I street, on the other side of the park. This was done before protesters were gathering so when they were asked to vacate the area and refused, they were forcibly removed. Since this is a security perimeter around the Whitehouse AND the protesters threw bricks and rocks at Secret Service officers and police injuring over 100 officers, mostly with head injuries, the decision was made to move people out of the perimeter. I don't see an issue with this if in fact there was a clear boundary laid out.

We have heard NOTHING about this until now, so I would welcome any evidence that this is not factual.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Law and order by any means necessary. When the violence and destruction starts, take down the perpetrators. I don't care if they have to shoot tranquilizing darts, you have to stop the threat.

Yeah. Nixon used “law and order” as a dog-whistle for “getting Blacks in line” as well.

The more things change.

TIME

It's beyond sad, is what is... If our leadership doesn't get their $#*% in order and resolve this mess, then the public will be forced to step in and help their neighbors, friends, and family. That will not be a civil route and will end up escalating this situation in a bloody, ugly way.

Unfortunately, I have real reservations about the 'capabilities' of our leadership - regardless of color or political party.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Yeah. Nixon used “law and order” as a dog-whistle for “getting Blacks in line” as well.

The more things change.

TIME

I took the time to read this article because the Nixon debacle was happening around the time I was getting old enough to be aware of what was going on. But it doesn't actually have Nixon controlling blacks with a policy like you implied.

Do you think there’s anything people are getting wrong about the sequence of events in 1968, from King’s assassination to revolts in cities and then Nixon winning the election on a “law and order” platform?

Yeah, that’s not accurate. We have to go back to 1964 when Johnson calls the War on Poverty, and the Civil Right Act passes in July. Harlem erupts into days of unrest after the beating of a 15-year-old by NYC police and this leads to unrest in Chicago and other places, in a very similar style to what we’re seeing now. The following summer, Johnson calls for the War on Crime. Then a few months later, Watts erupts in L.A. in 1965 and then we have subsequent instances of unrest and then the really large moment in the summer of 1967 in Newark and Detroit, and the incidents in 125 [cities] after the assassination of King in 1968. These things had been happening for years before, every summer, in the face of War on Poverty programs that didn’t go far enough.

After reading the article in full, it appears to me that Johnson actually started a lot of this. Nixon was just riding the wave of the "law & order" mindset. There are a lot of things that were very screwed up during the 60s and 70s in regards to race relations and how people dealt with inner city crime.

You know, I really dislike the fact that OPs have to frame these handful of riots as some sort of, "America is burning", on fire, or some other sensationalist crap.

Here in San Antonio, we are not only the 7th most populous city in the United States, we are also the 2nd most populous city in Texas and all of the Southern States, yet despite that, we have had very minor issues and have been very cordial with our response, us San Antonianites(ians?).

We've just wrapped up a fifth day of PEACEFUL protest.

www.mysanantonio.com...

"Anarchy in a few Democrat cities in Democrat states in the USA"

98% of American is not experiencing rioting or looting or protesting.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It reminds me of Dirty Diana. Bet there were a lot of low standard Dirty Diana's out during the riots.

a reply to: HalWesten

Did you detect any differences in the way Johnson handled the MLK riots and the way Trump is handling these?

originally posted by: HalWesten
The protester issue

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't if you've paid any attention or not, but there are all sorts of races out of line right now.


The more things change, indeed.... Democrats, am I right?

a reply to: HalWesten

How the hell are you just gonna waltz up in here with facts and shut him down like that?

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: HalWesten

How the hell are you just gonna waltz up in here with facts and shut him down like that?

I'm just trying to be the bigger person and look at the information he's providing! I can't help it if it doesn't support his argument.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

Did you detect any differences in the way Johnson handled the MLK riots and the way Trump is handling these?

Since I'm just getting started looking I'll have to get back to you on this.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't if you've paid any attention or not, but there are all sorts of races out of line right now.


The more things change, indeed.... Democrats, am I right?

Nope.

Republicans neither.

Guess we're screwed.

NM

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: HalWesten

How the hell are you just gonna waltz up in here with facts and shut him down like that?

I'm just trying to be the bigger person and look at the information he's providing! I can't help it if it doesn't support his argument.

Oh wait ... never mind. You just couldn't resist the gang could you. Don't bother with the answer to my question, because you just answered.

You didn't shut anything down least of all my argument. The article clearly shows the tremendous differences (in terms of time, attitude and effectiveness) in Johnson's responses to the MLK assassination riots and Trump's boastful nonsense.

Of note, the mayor of Washington DC did ask for assisteance from the White House. Also, DC Is a Federal District not a State ... so of course it doesn't really compare to the current situaiton in terms of what authority Trump actually has.

You're obviously a Republican apologist, as you looked at the situation in the transition from Johnson to Nixon, knowing that Nixon ran with the Southern Strategy as outlined by Lee Atwater, and either fail to see or intentionally try to obscure the fact that "law and order" meant the same thing for Nixon as it means for Trump ... although, I have no doubt that Trump will bungle it: get Black Americans back under control.

Tell me, does the glad-handing actually encourage you? I gave you a bit more credit than that.

a reply to: Arnie123

You know, I really dislike the fact that OPs have to frame these handful of riots as some sort of, "America is burning", on fire, or some other sensationalist crap.

The thread title doesn't imply that the entirety of the US is experiencing anarchy, it simply states 'anarchy in America'.

The video that I linked, if I'm not wrong, clearly shows anarchy in America.

anarchy/noun/a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. (Oxford)

Here, here's another video from the same guy, this time from Beverly Hills;



I don't need to sensationalise anything, the footage speaks for itself - it's madness.

a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity

It's rare that I agree with Arnie but I absolutely do on this point: stop the ludicrous exaggerations.

The US is not in a state of anarchy. This reads like media-based fake news sensationalism, honestly.