"British General Thomas Gage led a force of British soldiers from Boston to Lexington, where he planned to capture colonial radical leaders Sam Adams and John Hancock, and then head to Concord and seize their gunpowder."
Gunpowder then, fuel supply today.
Hey Canadian Authorities, how'd that work out for the British?
If you want a revolution, this is a great way to get one.
This makes me so sad. I need to send money again waiting for my refund from GoFundme. I will never use them again. Prayers for all involved. Feels like war. The truckers are on their he right side. No sign of violence amongst the truckers that I saw anyway. My heart goes out to each and every one of them.
Does anyone know to what extent this effects the truckers? Like, do they need fuel to keep their cabins warm and cook or whatever else they do in there? (Assuming so, but!)
I feel for (what I think is) the majority of police, in that they do NOT want to be mindless "order-followers." (And followed by that scary ellipsis, oh, my!)
Police could call in sick and stay away from work. Maybe even they could tell their superior officers that they are thinking of filing a police-misconduct report because of something that happened in the past.
Rule enforcers tend to be rule followers…is what comes to mind. From what I’ve seen and heard from those police, though, gives me the impression they might wanna be part of the “demonstration” (what the chief calls this convoy) themselves! Most certainly the orders were from higher up. I’m looking forward to seeing the police revolt.
Rule enforcers have to be rule followers. All that happens when that is no longer practiced is called anarchy. Individual police officers cannot be choosers of which laws they will enforce and which they will not. The solution has to come from the ballot box. Although, if the For the People Act passes, we can kiss that good-bye.
What seem to be saying is that the rule enforcers cannot do so selectively. Problem is, that's exactly what's been going on,and a large part of why that convoy is parked there.
We may have a difference in terms here. My definitions:
- Policy-making is the role of the Executive.
- Rule makers are both the Executive and the Legislature.
- Rule enforcers are the constabulary, which is part of the Executive, and the Judiciary
- The constabulary have no authority to select which laws they will enforce. The judiciary has some authority to decide on a case-by-case basis whom it will prosecute for what crime. Extending that to deciding more broadly on which crimes it will prosecute appears to me to exceed their authority.
Yes, but those textbook distinctions do not reflect the facts on the ground, particularly these past two years. The architects of the Great Reset forgot that the People might themselves assert some influence on how that design takes shape.
People on the ground are way more clever than idiots staring at spreadsheets. Ask former Soviets about the underground economy there. Without it, people would have starved.
Orders often conflict with rules. Rules often conflict with laws, and laws often conflict with higher laws, such as Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not anarchy to refuse to enforce an order, rule, or law that violates the Charter.
Yep, in the modern age, successful revolutions happen when the "enforcers" side with the people rather than the tyrants, or at the very least, refuse to carry out the tyrants' orders.
"British General Thomas Gage led a force of British soldiers from Boston to Lexington, where he planned to capture colonial radical leaders Sam Adams and John Hancock, and then head to Concord and seize their gunpowder."
Gunpowder then, fuel supply today.
Hey Canadian Authorities, how'd that work out for the British?
If you want a revolution, this is a great way to get one.
Pray for them. Pray hard. I’ve been all day. This MUST be peaceful. It MUST. But pray the truckers would respond to violence with peace.
This makes me so sad. I need to send money again waiting for my refund from GoFundme. I will never use them again. Prayers for all involved. Feels like war. The truckers are on their he right side. No sign of violence amongst the truckers that I saw anyway. My heart goes out to each and every one of them.
And to a one, the commenters cheer.
My favorite: "set the horses on them."
Hmm...you know...just maybe...mass "conscientious-objection" non-compliance will work.
Does anyone know to what extent this effects the truckers? Like, do they need fuel to keep their cabins warm and cook or whatever else they do in there? (Assuming so, but!)
So they intend to create a bunch of 18 wheel roadblocks? Typical government, always making things worse
With no fuel coming in, the trucks won't be able to move even if they choose to.
And so we win, as long as we take care of the truckers.
I'd wager this did not originate with the police themselves, but higher up. Sadly, the police tend to be order-followers...
I feel for (what I think is) the majority of police, in that they do NOT want to be mindless "order-followers." (And followed by that scary ellipsis, oh, my!)
Police could call in sick and stay away from work. Maybe even they could tell their superior officers that they are thinking of filing a police-misconduct report because of something that happened in the past.
True. And I would support them in such action. I just think the police are already being beat down, and I don't think the vast majority deserve it.
Rule enforcers tend to be rule followers…is what comes to mind. From what I’ve seen and heard from those police, though, gives me the impression they might wanna be part of the “demonstration” (what the chief calls this convoy) themselves! Most certainly the orders were from higher up. I’m looking forward to seeing the police revolt.
Rule enforcers have to be rule followers. All that happens when that is no longer practiced is called anarchy. Individual police officers cannot be choosers of which laws they will enforce and which they will not. The solution has to come from the ballot box. Although, if the For the People Act passes, we can kiss that good-bye.
What seem to be saying is that the rule enforcers cannot do so selectively. Problem is, that's exactly what's been going on,and a large part of why that convoy is parked there.
We may have a difference in terms here. My definitions:
- Policy-making is the role of the Executive.
- Rule makers are both the Executive and the Legislature.
- Rule enforcers are the constabulary, which is part of the Executive, and the Judiciary
- The constabulary have no authority to select which laws they will enforce. The judiciary has some authority to decide on a case-by-case basis whom it will prosecute for what crime. Extending that to deciding more broadly on which crimes it will prosecute appears to me to exceed their authority.
Yes, but those textbook distinctions do not reflect the facts on the ground, particularly these past two years. The architects of the Great Reset forgot that the People might themselves assert some influence on how that design takes shape.
People on the ground are way more clever than idiots staring at spreadsheets. Ask former Soviets about the underground economy there. Without it, people would have starved.
Orders often conflict with rules. Rules often conflict with laws, and laws often conflict with higher laws, such as Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not anarchy to refuse to enforce an order, rule, or law that violates the Charter.
Yep, in the modern age, successful revolutions happen when the "enforcers" side with the people rather than the tyrants, or at the very least, refuse to carry out the tyrants' orders.
It’s incredible how creative they can be when they want to stomp on citizens.
Yet when something is proposed that would help citizens, there's all sorts of excuses about why it's impossible. Sure makes you wonder.
Yes. The speed with which they can implement fascism boggles the mind yet I can’t get a light bulb in my alley replaced for four months.