Yes, in a war, when one side fights against the other side, people die. Were is the problem outside war existing? As I already said, there was huge amounts of restraint employed compared to normal business as usual for war at or near the time.

In this thread, a person did in fact make this statement:

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.

And whoever said that was completely correct. The Boston tea party was not constitutional either despite the constitution not even conceived at the time. But it was justified because it was a direct assault on tyranny and oppression in the defense of liberty.

No statement claiming that they are always Constitutionally protected activities was made to my knowledge. That they are never Constitutionally protected no matter what the reason was made. True, you could argue that it's not in the US Constitution, but there were state Constitutions cited that rejected the notion.

Neither state being the one the looting and burning of a CVS and senior center happened in- and that is even if you do stretch the wording to justify legal violence. Also, neither targeted centers had anything to do with the government. It's like shooting your neighbor because you want the mayor to resign.

It was the first-level reply, so perhaps you missed it, but that claim is why the discussion is not about whether or not any given incident is justified or unjustified, but whether any at all can be. There's no need to concern ourselves with proving the justification of every incident, that some incidents are not justified is recognized. The burden is on the assertion that no incidents are justified. If you can't follow that, then it seems to me you're the one who wants to ignore what's really the subject of discussion, and isn't bothering to pay attention to what has been said throughout the scope of it.

Again, what you quoted mentions constitutional protections- not justifications. Can violence be justified, sure it can. Does the US constitution or any other justify it? Not under the first amendment and as far as I can tell, only in the defense of the country or state against invasion. But more importantly, what happened in Baltimore is nothing comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Again, whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accept that others are justifiable.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. If you think past situations justify this situation, you would be wrong. That would be like you killing your neighbor in his back yard because someone shot an intruder in their house 5 years ago. They are different situations and while one is justified, it cannot be used to justify the other. If you think burning hundred of cars belonging to private citizens or drug stores or senior centers is justified because of the Boston tea party, you would be incorrect.

As far as I can tell, there is nobody arguing that absolutely no incidents are unjustified, but there is somebody who did argue that absolutely no incidents were justified. That there was no acceptable reason.

From what I can tell in this thread and by what you laid reference to already, the term is not justified but constitutional. They are not interchangeable and those who burned or looted were not within their constitutional rights.

Then they went around and said "Oh wait, here's a reason I do find acceptable." when the Boston Tea Party was mentioned which means they really ought to consider admitting they didn't hold their opinion for long.

Maybe you are confused. The Boston Tea Party was an attack on government not civilians or private corporations. The East India Tea company was not a private company either. It was being supported by the British government and had newly created privileges that locked all competition out along with a tax placed on the tea to specifically benefit them.

Again, where is the connection to government acts that justify these actions. If there is none, it surely is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

I cannot imagine the people in power like the people looting and setting infrastructure and private property on fire. I guess it meets both versions of the definition then.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Acting out and justifying the treatment you are protesting does nothing to stop the treatment from happening. Idiots like you of all people should know that, you must think everyone is out to get you.

I've been pissed over this same crap for a while now. ever since they tried to do away with the tool bars. What took me over the edge was that fiasco where someone had to resign because of a political donation made half a dozen years ago despite being part of the founding team and no known instances of any discrimination ever happening during his professional career.

Since then, I took a look at chrome and pretty much install it on everything. I don't care so much about being tracked as I do about exploits and holes in the OS or browser transferring through the other and the constant complaints about crap-ware infections slowing everything down. From a stability point of view, it seems that apps created for chrome work longer then apps created for Firefox so its a plus anyways in business environments.

do the down mods think they can hide the comment or something?

Seriously, when you act out in order to get attention, the attention you get is often not the type you want. A kid wanting a piece of cake at dinner will likely get an ass whooping instead of a piece of cake if after being ignored he decides to throw things off the table.

Why? The statement above, was that all acts of violence were never acceptable, no matter what the reason. That there was no Constitutional right to revolution.

Above where? The comment specifically said "Looting and burning a CVS does nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny." and the reply was some hogwash uninformed opinion about the Boston tea party. No one in this thread said anything about never acceptable just that certain acts do nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny. I'm sorry that you feel the need to ignore that in order to impress whatever ideology you think is correct, but reality exists outside your head.

You find the Boston Tea Party acceptable. Interestingly, so did the person who made the statement already mentioned.

I do find the Boston tea party acceptable, however, I never said as much until now. What I said and showed was that there was a direct connection to the tea and tyranny and loss of liberty. There is not connection with a CVS and senior center that benefited the community more than anything.

Whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accepted that some are justifiable.

I do not see any connections at all to any legitimate reasons furthering liberty, to oppress tyranny, or any other justification other than purposeful destruction. Perhaps you actually know of something and for some reason are refusing to share it with the world. Keeping that secret does nothing to further any cause so I guess we are back to the question of can you find a connection to the burning of a CVS and senior center? I do not think you can which makes it nothing more than a senseless act of destruction aimed at the private population to influence political decisions. That is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

We look at them now as atrocities but at the time, it was not. You specifically brought up the trail of tears and that shows a lot of restraint considering the norm of the time and even biblical reference which describe complete annihilation and enslavement which would have been easy to do.

But go ahead and look at everything from what you think you know today. I bet your dad even raped your mom a couple of times too- because she wasn't really into it when he was. That's what changing definitions midstream does and you are part of the problem.

How are they not terrorist? I mean using violence and the threat of violence against the civilian populations in order to influence actions of government is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Actually, dumping the tea was a specific response to a tax on the tea and regulations that forced the tea onto the colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

The Boston tea party had more to do with protesting, championing liberty and fighting tyrrany. Can you find a connection to the burning of a CVS or a Senior citizens center?

I swear I should be never go unsurprised by the bullshit people post but I always am. It's as if they openly want to prove how ignorant they are to the world.

And it appears lieing and misconstruing facts to someone's advantage is still in practice.

And when they were marching peacefully, I thought, that is horrible what happened to that guy. I hope those cops pay for it. When they were burning the place down, I thought this sort of justifies why the cops treat people like animals in some places and it's no wonder they shoot first and ask questions later.

I'm wondering if he thinks the message they want heard is what is actually being heard when everybody is listening?

G.E telephone which was bought out by sprint did this to a friend who lived in their coverage area (but ironically 200 yards from my SBC covered house). They said the same thing, it's just the way it is. We called the public utilities commission of our state and complained about it. Within two weeks he had a credit amount on his bill and evidently the phone company had to pay back quite a few people. This was shortly before Verizon purchased them.

I'm not surprised Verizon sprint tried this too. I had the nextel phone because of specific coverage and when sprint purchased them, they attempted to charge me more as well as failed to maintain coverage areas. They would call me about 3 times a week, even after being told not to call any more several times, to request I purchase a sprint plan along with a new phone and 2 year contract. I told them my contract with nextel wasn't up and they explained they owned nextel so it would be ok and I explained to them that if they owned nextel, it shouldn't matter but if I was changing contract companies, it sure as hell wouldn't be with the company that screwed nextel coverage up.

Sorry about that tangent. The point is, check with your state utilities commission when crap like this happens. Every state has one but might call it something different. Often just having them look into it is enough to get them to fix the issues.

The power company does this because increased usages on large scale screws up their base calculations as well as makes them purchase more surge energy at higher costs. This goes to how the utility purchases power for use on the grid. They are also limited in how they charge often having to petition a state utilities board to raise rates to consumers. Telcos do not have this problem and if someone makes a call that crosses an expensive switchboard, they simply pass the costs on to the consumer as the long distance rate.

I agree, it should be something obvious but they are different beasts altogether.

It was the guys fault. I've seen it done in the past with other national providers. A local access number goes down and it picked one for you- probably in the same area code. Before you know it, its a long distance hell and phone companies have comp the charges traditionally in the past too. The rarity of this story is that it still happens and neither the phone company or the ISP was able to catch it.

It used to be harder before you had to dial the area codes with most every calls. Then, you would get an error message when trying to connect that you could hear through the modem speaker (assuming it was a real hardware modem and not a winmodem). But when they started requiring area codes for local calls, mistakenly dialing long distance calls got a lot easier. In my area, it costs more to call long distance within the state than it does to call long distance to somewhere outside the state. Something about the exchange connections and not being able to use a long haul backbone. At least that was the case 15 years ago when I had a land line.