Ok, maybe not that kind of riot.
Just not sure…
Anyways, riots abound…and they are pretty pointless while being destructive. You see, the Left doesn’t have a lot of real revolutionaries. They’ve got some people willing to loot – but they are mostly about the looting, as such. The other part of it is Antifa types: Bourgeois Bolsheviks who assume that someone will be along shortly to clean up the mess as they go back home to Mom’s basement. As Chesterton pointed out, this sort of thing is worthless…the French Revolution, whatever one thinks about it, accomplished something: the King’s head was definitely chopped off and something new put in his place. This sort of thing is like the Suffragettes of 100 years ago…knocking off the hat of the King, which can be done any number of times without actually changing anything.
I’m sure that someone set this off. The proximate cause wasn’t even Floyd’s death – it was because Floyd’s death was videotaped. Absent that, the “reason” is lacking. But, once that was provided, someone decided to test it and see what would happen…and Democrat city politicians, desperately afraid of African-Americans and that they might not vote Democrat in sufficient numbers in November, hoisted the white flag. That’s why we have these riots spreading around: the word is out that if your local leaders are Democrats, they will do nothing to stop you…so, go steal that TV and burn something down. I’d like to find out who started it – and I do suspect some genuine Bolsheviks are deep underneath the Antifa Bourgeois Bolshies.
Hey, anyone remember Coronavirus? Seems like only Monday it was the chief topic of discussion…but, hey, the GOP States opening up aren’t suffering increased deaths and there are signs the economy is going to come roaring back…and wouldn’t it be convenient if something else grabbed the national spotlight?
Blogs For Victory 
Russia collusion didn’t work, the impeachment didn’t work, and the virus was losing traction ….. queue up the race riots.
We are being played by malicious leftist forces. Stay vigilant
NLAGCGTW.
You are more cutting edge than I am …. what does that acronym stand for?
Come on — of everyone here I’d expect you to get it.
NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE.
Aw the poetic words of Rahm “dead fish” Emmanuel
Three things I don’t think I’ve ever heard of: a Conservative exploiting a crisis for political or personal gain, a Conservative rioting and looting because (fill in the blank), and a dead Republican voting.
No kidding here … I just saw a segment on MSNBC where a black gal was blaming white nationalists for the looting and destruction and saying that they are blaming the black protestors for it. And, now don’t be shocked, there was no push back from racist tv host Joy Reid.
Too much good stuff to try to pull a quote.
https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2020/05/30/846427/
I’m not advocating eliminating Antifa and their ilk as they would do to us given the chance, but they won’t stop until the price is so steep that they have trouble recruiting enough troops. As Amazona has pointed out in the past, that price might be as simple as a North Face jacket covered in permanent chartreuse die. For others it’ll be a couple years in federal prison. I wouldn’t shed a tear if a few of them ended up in the hospital.
I’ve moved on from chartreuse dye, though it’s still a contender. I am leaning toward the Israeli “skunk juice” it has been using on Palestinian rioters. https://www.darkmoon.me/2016/israels-new-terror-weapon-toxic-skunk-juice. or this: https://www.howitworksdaily.com/experimental-crowd-control-riot-foam/
They fret that the foam, if sprayed on the face, could suffocate someone. Fine. shoot it below knee level. As for taking hours to remove, tough. Hand the arrested miscreant a bottle of baby oil and tell him to get busy.
One thing about the skunk juice is that it often induces instantaneous vomiting, and of course if a few start to upchuck everyone around them, already about half sick from the spray anyway, is likely to follow suit. And it won’t wash out of clothing and takes days or even weeks to wear off skin and hair.
But before these are employed, I would have a plan in place. Knowing about the professional rioters, who get things started and then take off, I would have someone mark the roofs of all cars parked within easy walking distance of the proposed “demonstration” with a substance that can be tracked from the air, and then I would spray the early “protesters” with an invisible powder than only shows up under black light. Then I would track, from the air, all vehicles leaving the area just as things are starting to heat up. Chances are pretty good they will be headed to airports or train stations—there’s always another riot to start somewhere else. Then I would pick them out of lines to get on planes or trains, using black light to pick up the telltale powder, and throw them in jail for a multitude of offenses. Get their faces in mug shots, hit their minders with big bail costs, and get the riot professionals saddled with criminal records. I’d go after them with law enforcement, with the goal of hitting their financial backers as well as making it harder for them to cross national borders and take commercial transportation, and while this is going on I would wait for the first hint of violence from the recreational rioters and then make their lives miserable. With bright dye, a jacket would be ruined but could be discarded—with the skunk juice taking off the jacket would only solve a small part of the problem. No getting back into the dorm, or the parents’ houses, or shared apartments, not while smelling like decomposing flesh blended with excrement. True, it would make arresting these people problematic, but I think the experience would be punishment enough. And the more violent ones could deal with having their legs glued together from the knees on down while waiting to be arraigned. Maybe an appropriate punishment for first time offenders would be community service—that is, cleaning up the vomit at the riot site.
I think a side benefit would be the entertainment value of video of people barfing all over themselves while their knees are glued together—not exactly a glamorous or heroic image and it might take some of the fun out of rioting and looting.
And then, of course, is the net gun. They are usually used to capture wildlife for relocation, but have been considered for riot control as well. The big flashlight-looking canister shoots out a net that expands and flies up to about 45 feet, and tangles up whatever it lands on. Personally, I like the idea of using nets to trip up looters, then gluing them to the street with the hardening foam and then spraying them with skunk juice.
But that’s just me……
I’m personally enjoying watching a bunch of people who labeled themselves the “Tea Party” clutching their pearls over some property damage.
At least one of the positive outcomes is we have a new easy test to tell if you’re a racist: if you’ve spent more time being mad about Colin Kaepernick kneeling than Derek Chauvin, you’re probably a racist.
You’re a racist if you’re a Democrat. Full stop. The media tried to blame the violence on white nationalists yesterday but their own videos belie their contention. Those people did not look like white nationalists, now I could be wrong, but if they are then that is a very strange turn of events. This country does not have a racial gap as much as you would like it to be. We have a respect and intelligence gap. People like you are ignorant and disrespectful and soon I hope you and your gender fluid friends are at the business end of a good ol American smack down because it’s coming.
You see travesty you’re no longer dealing with weak Bush and McCain conservatives, You’re dealing with a bunch of American traditionalists who are begging for an excuse to pick up one of their ten AK47’s and finish the job our police should be doing right now. I hope that day comes. It’s long past due. Time to thin the herd.
In the interest of impartiality based on action and not on skin color, I condemn Cluster’s desire to see Americans arbitrarily apply the death penalty to crimes like rioting and looting, and his wish that they would “…pick up one of their ten AK47’s and finish the job our police should be doing right now….” To come out and say “I hope that day comes” and it’s “time to thin the herd” is deeply offensive and I cannot state emphatically enough that this does not represent the values of most conservatives.
Conservatives believe in the rule of law and not vigilantism. Conservatives understand that turning to violence to deal with the opposition is not conservatism but is really just the other side of the coin of Leftist thuggery, just with a different motive slapped onto it.
And I cringe at the idea that this violent and bloodthirsty wish list of reprisals against the radical Left might ever be quoted as somehow representative of the conservative movement.
Excellent virtue signaling
Yeah, coming out in favor of the rule of law and decrying a call for vigilantes to mow down people with their AK47s is really just “virtue signaling”. Uh-huh.
I am an ardent 2nd Amendment defender. I have guns, including, yes, an AK47. I like to think I would not hesitate to draw down on and fire on anyone posing a threat to me, my family, my friends or even my property. I am about as hard-core an “American traditionalist” as you are going to find. I am deeply invested in my love of country and my commitment to its Constitution as its rule of law. I check ALL the boxes.
But I also understand that if I am going to object to the use of violence by the political opposition to impose a political agenda I have to hold myself to the same standard and refuse to condone the use of violence to deal with the opposition. That’s not “virtue signaling”—that is a lack of hypocrisy.
You keep pretending that consistency in applying the basic rules of decency, fairness and the law is really just an effort on my part to posture as holding the Higher Moral Ground if that’s what it takes to pretend that what you seem to long for isn’t pretty despicable.
There is a huge difference between understanding that a bloodbath is seeming more and more inevitable and being prepared to deal with it when and if it occurs, and yearning for it because it would just be so damned GRATIFYING to see a bunch of those losers mowed down. There is a huge difference between realizing that it might come to that and saying “I hope that day comes”. Being mentally and emotionally prepared for such a day is vastly different than hoping to see it.
Just don’t claim that hoping for a ringside seat at a slaughter you have hoped for and cheered on is a typical emotion for “American traditionalists”.
I see poor sad travesty is still lurking, still spewing his beloved Leftist nonsense. Well, in this case “dribbling” rather than “spewing” but even though what he can come up with is limp and pathetic he still seems proud of it—proud enough, anyway, to come here to wave it around.
It’s not an “outcome” of anything, just a simple fact—yes, it is easy to tell if you’re a racist. If you judge people by the color of their skin and not by their character, you are a racist. If you assign any characteristic, whether it is math skills or laziness, to anyone based on his or her skin color or ethnicity, you are a racist. If you do not see people as individuals, each with a unique set of virtues and weaknesses, and instead lump people of any color together and see them as a “demographic” you are a racist. If you make decisions based on melanin content and not on behavior, you are a racist. If your primary metric for choosing anyone for any position—–employment, education or government—is based on skin color or ethnicity and not on qualifications and competence, you are a racist. If you overlook or excuse bad behaviors because they are committed by people of a certain skin color, you are a racist. If you assume that any action by anyone else is based on that person’s alleged bias for or against any race, YOU are the racist.
Now–to your inane and vapid effort to compare reactions to Kaepernick and Chauvin. People were upset at Kaepernick because he was using an invented and nonsensical excuse to gain attention for himself, and the excuse he invented was his ignorant conflating of the actions of a few in local governments with the character of the nation itself. It may well have been grounded more in ignorance than dishonesty, but the ratio doesn’t matter—-he was blatantly dishonest, he was blindingly stupid as well as ignorant, and he was also quite callous in his decision to stir the pot of racial discord just to have some time in the spotlight. A line was drawn—on the side supporting him, the motivation was racism, but on the side offended by his antics the motive was just plain disgust at his shameless grandstanding and lying and his decision to express contempt for our nation to do so. HE is the one who made it about race, so he could draw on the predictable well of surly race-based resentments and grievances, and the lemmings who fell in behind him went with that theme and amplified it. All the racism was on Kaepernick’s side. But people who thought he was a jerk just thought he was a jerk. His white half was an a**hole, his black half was equally an a**hole, and in general he was just a petty loser a**hole.
As for Chauvin, I haven’t heard or read a single word defending him or what he did. Not one. On the contrary, all I have seen has denounced him as a homicidal bully, who might or might not have made a conscious decision to kill a harmless unarmed man already in restraints but who, at the very best interpretation of his actions, showed a vicious and callous indifference to the harm he was inflicting. I’ll go a step farther—I am seeing nearly equal condemnation for his fellow officers who stood by and let this happen. I don’t know what color they are, and I don’t care—because I am NOT a racist, and I don’t have to know the degree of skin pigmentation before I can draw a conclusion about a man’s character.
But thanks for dropping in, try. It’s always fun to see what passes for thought on the other side of the divide.
“If you assume that any action by anyone else is based on that person’s alleged bias for or against any race, YOU are the racist.”
Ah yes that old gem: the real racism is calling out racism.
Thanks, I’ll add that to the amazona bingo card ( other spaces include “spending an entire paragraph self-gratifying with personal insults before getting around to actually saying anything” and “grandstanding to an imaginary audience” )
“As for Chauvin, I haven’t heard or read a single word defending him or what he did.”
Nope, no goalpost moving. You’ve paid so little attention to George Floyd’s death that you still think the other officers were only involved insofar as they stood by and watched. Even in this post you think is an argument against your selective outrage, you manage to call Kaepernick an “a**hole” 3 times and never manage to say a personal bad thing about any of the cops that murdered George Floyd.
Ah yes that old gem: the real racism is calling out racism.
Oh try, you never fail to come through with the most ignorant and meaningless drivel But then your chosen tribe bases EVERYTHING on race, so projects that bigotry and lack of intellect on everyone else. You just can’t comprehend a mind that does not see skin color as the most important aspect of a person, and you soothe yourselves by “calling our racism” wherever you look, because this is how you confirm your sense of occupation of the Higher Moral Ground.
But you just keep entertaining yourself by parsing my posts, and whining that I didn’t use enough negative words to satisfy you when I said that all of the cops involved in the Floyd killing were culpable.
At least you admit to having a little scorecard you use, filling in blanks according to your conviction that your opinion matters.
I was curious if after spending a lot of the day having to call out cluster for glorifying violence you’d at least reconsider the whole guilt by association thing, but I see you’re immediately back into the “your tribe” nonsense. I’m not part of a tribe. I haven’t looted anything (and think it’s destructive to the point the peaceful protesters are trying to make). If you want to take specific issue with anything I’ve said, you’re welcome to, but it’s not my job to answer for anybody else any more than it’s your job to defend cluster’s apparent lust for violence.
“You just can’t comprehend a mind that does not see skin color as the most important aspect of a person”
I can comprehend all sorts of people who don’t see race as important. Unfortunately, data indicates that police departments frequently contain many people for which that’s not true, and the justice system is set up so the problem is continually not addressed. Black people are 3 times more likely to get killed by a police officer than a white person. When a black person dies by cop, they are 30% more likely to be unarmed than a white person. Also, there’s virtually no relationship between the amount of crime in a city and the number of police shootings.
There are, on the other hand, a bunch of different police policy differences that do correlate with fewer people, especially people of color, dying. Pointedly, police departments that bad the use of choke or strangleholds kill 22% fewer people than those who don’t.
If the data indicates police are out there disproportionately killing blacks, in a way that doesn’t correlate with them being armed, with ample evidence that police violence has a stronger relationship with department policy than the crimes being committed, does arguing that this is a problem still make me the real racist? Or maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the cops that keep killing black people are actually the racists?
“when I said that all of the cops involved in the Floyd killing were culpable.”
Nope, didn’t happen. You said “I am seeing nearly equal condemnation for his fellow officers”. You never got around to expressing any opinion at all about it yourself. Too busy raging out about Colin Kaepernick, I guess.
“At least you admit to having a little scorecard you use, filling in blanks according to your conviction that your opinion matters.”
Bless your heart. I’m not scoring myself, I’m scoring you on the lazy structure of your faux intellectualism.
Black people are 3 times more likely to get killed by a police officer than a white person.
Of course, there can’t possibly be a correlation between the number of crimes committed by black people vs those committed by white people. Or the nature of those crimes. Or, more to the point, the inclination of more white people to go along with police when being apprehended vs fighting with them and indicating that they pose a threat to the cops.
Nah. You have to go with the most simple-minded explanation, which also just happens to fit the approved narrative of your tribe.
And then you sneer at ME for allegedly exhibiting “faux intellectualism”.
try, you do love to try to spin words and meanings around, don’t you? But that only tells us that what floats your boat is not an exchange of ideas but just the chance to quibble and bicker..
You say, in a pseudo-response to my statement that not everyone sees race as the most important thing, “…data indicates that police departments frequently contain many people for which that’s not true…”
What is YOUR solution to the fact that, when police departments have to draw their recruits from the human gene pool they will sometimes get a bigot? How do YOU think this problem should be handled?
More to the point, how do YOU think we should address the fact that too many people make associations that are simply not true? That is, that when a black man is hurt or killed in a confrontation with police, that the reason this happened is just because the man is black? Because THAT is the real problem.
Racism is constantly being blamed for things that have nothing to do with race. But the claim of racism is essential to a certain mindset that is always looking for something to justify what is really a personal character defect.
Yes, we hear all the time how black people are just responding to centuries of abuse and discrimination. Yet we see little, if any, acknowledgment that a great deal, if not all, prejudice against black people is prejudice based on a certain culture, not on the amount of pigment in the skin. The race thing is just an excuse.
Time after time we are told that (1) the only reason a black man was shot is BECAUSE he was black, and (2) that this justifies days of savagery, rampaging, looting and general violence, only to learn that it was the actions the black men took, on their own, that led to their being killed in self defense. Trayvon Martin was not attacked by a bigoted vigilante. He was followed at a distance for a short time because he looked like a couple of guys who had been committing crimes in a neighborhood, but he was never threatened. In fact, he returned to his father’s condo and instead of going in and taking care of the little brother he had left alone he left his candy and tea on the lawn and then he went back out to look for the man he had seen following him, because he thought the man was gay and had been following him looking for a sexual encounter. We know this because he was on the phone with a friend the whole time, until he went back out to engage in some gay-bashing, and he told her he was going out to “open a can of whup-ass” on the queer. So HE was the predator, in a situation based not on the skin color of either man but on the vicious anti-gay bigotry of Martin, and he ended up being shot by the man he ambushed, hit, threw to the ground and tried to kill.
But the narrative remained what it had to be, to feed the mob—-and that was that a sweet angelic lad just out for an innocent trip to the store to get some candy was targeted and pursued by a racist bigot just because he had dark skin, and killed in cold blood just because he was black.
The same kind of thing happens all the time—-a narrative is created, one that is necessary to stir up and incite a mindless mob, and it is always that an innocent black man was brutally killed JUST BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. Even when the facts come out, such as in the case of Michael Brown showing that he approached a policeman sitting in his car with his gun in his holster and reached through the window to hit the cop so hard he shattered bones in his face and then fought with the cop to try to get hold of the policeman’s gun, the narrative was that he was walking away from the cop and had his hands in the air. The facts didn’t stop a lot of morons from prancing around waving their hands in the air crying “hands up—don’t shoot”.
People like you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest, though you tend to prove it’s not always an either/or. What kinds of people usually have encounters with policemen? That’s easy—-it is people who are breaking the law. Why do people breaking the law have encounters with policemen? Because it is the job of police officers to enforce the law. That is, to stop crimes as they are being committed, if possible, and to try to find the people who committed the crimes if they have already occurred.
A job of a police officer is to apprehend criminals whenever possible. It is when apprehension is challenged, often violently, that the situation escalates and someone dies. At this point reason tells us we should blame the person who escalated the situation into violence, not the cop who responded to it. But that does not fit the narrative necessary to keep black people inflamed, furious, resentful and on edge, easily goaded into violence, or to give whiny enablers like you something to whine about.
People learn from experience—at least smart people do. Leftist sheeple, not so much. So if I am pulled over in a traffic stop a police officer with experience is going to see me, a white woman of a certain age driving a pickup truck, as being lower on the threat scale than a black man with a do-rag and gang tats—not because I am white and the man is black but because the incidences of older white women in farm vehicles being violent toward law enforcement are basically nonexistent but those of black men showing signs of gang membership are significantly higher. So if he approaches my car and I have both hands on the steering wheel, even if one of them is holding a silver cell phone his collective experience is going to tell him it is probably not a gun. But if he approaches the other car and the black man does not have both hands on the steering wheel and is, instead, reaching under his seat, experience tells the cop this is a potentially dangerous situation. Because of skin color? No. Because of accumulated experience of the significance of certain behaviors.
But if the man pulls out a gun and points it at the cop and is then shot dead, the narrative will be that a bigoted cop shot a man in cold blood just because the victim was black. If the black man just pulls out a silver cell phone that looks, in that micro-second of evaluation of the threat level, like a gun, he is likely to get shot—not because of prejudice against a skin color but because of his own behavior.
So spare us the whining about how some cops are racist. What matters is what they do, and why, and the race baiters and Victim Class will always blame racism for everything.
“What is YOUR solution to the fact that, when police departments have to draw their recruits from the human gene pool they will sometimes get a bigot? How do YOU think this problem should be handled?”
I know reading is hard, but there’s literally a suggestion in the comment you’re responding to.
In addition to having departmental policies against strangleholds, data indicates that requiring a report on every use of force from every officer and making officers culpable for excessive force incidents that they witness but don’t intervene in significantly reduce officer-involved homicides. Those are things police departments could implement themselves without even admitting any responsibility for past actions.
If you want to go with more general justice reform, the most obvious thing to do is to stop giving prosecutors who work closely with the police departments in question discretion on prosecuting complaints against officers in those departments. We have courts of special jurisdiction already for a whole bunch of special interest concerns. Make a new one.
I mean, if a McDonalds figured out that they had a culture of their employees stealing from their customers, they would probably start firing people until they fixed it, not shrug and say “yep when you hire people, sometimes you get thieves, nothing you can do about that!”
“He was followed at a distance for a short time because he looked like a couple of guys who had been committing crimes in a neighborhood”
In what way, exactly, would you say he looked like those criminals?
” In fact, he returned to his father’s condo and instead of going in and taking care of the little brother he had left alone he left his candy and tea on the lawn and then he went back out to look for the man he had seen following him, because he thought the man was gay and had been following him looking for a sexual encounter.”
Nice story. Too bad it’s made up.
“to hit the cop so hard he shattered bones in his face”
Again, not actually a detail of the incident. He had a bruise on his face.
The Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin incidents are complicated, but it’s telling that you have to take even the least clear cases and fabricate details to try to frame your badly made point.
“What kinds of people usually have encounters with policemen? That’s easy—-it is people who are breaking the law.”
lol. Again, police related deaths don’t correlate at all to crime rate across cities. I know you like to believe your folksy common sense is the correct way to set policy, but in this case, much like so many others where you substitute your “common sense” for actual facts, you’re demonstrably wrong.
“What matters is what they do, and why”
I agree. And what they do, according to the statistics, is kill black people at disproportionate rates.
Try is such a good little parrot for the Left’s narrative.
His “solution” = make it illegal to choke people. Check
Have penalties for choking people. Check
In what way, exactly, would you say he looked like those criminals?
He was young, black, wearing a hoodie and appeared to be trying to avoid being seen.
Nice story. Too bad it’s made up.
Well, then you just rush off and scold the young woman who testified to all of this, explaining that she was on the phone with Martin throughout the entire episode up until the time he went out hunting for a queer to bash. Nice knee-jerk spasm of simply rejecting what doesn’t fit the narrative, though.
Again, not actually a detail of the incident. He had a bruise on his face.
Yes, the bruise surrounding the shattered eye socket. And he received this “bruise” while sitting in his car, under attack from Brown who was punching him through the open window.
The Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin incidents are complicated, but it’s telling that you have to take even the least clear cases and fabricate details to try to frame your badly made point.
Utter and complete crap. There is nothing “complicated” about those stories, other than the complications imposed by the determination to reframe the facts to fit a narrative.
What kinds of people usually have encounters with policemen? That’s easy—-it is people who are breaking the law.”
lol. Again, police related deaths don’t correlate at all to crime rate across cities.
Not my point at all. My point is that an encounter with a police officer is usually predicated on an act by the person interacting with the officer. The nature of that act is often not significant—for example, an officer approached a man who was illegally selling cigarettes outside a convenience store. The subsequent altercation occurred when the man violently resisted arrest, and the man died as the result of the efforts to restrain him when he did so. So, after your Laugh Out Loud belly laugh, you can stop being coy and trying to shift the focus of my statement to something you feel more comfortable in addressing.
My point is that the arc of events leading to deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers is pretty predictable: Someone is approached by an officer to be questioned regarding a crime, this is met with violent resistance and the officer’s efforts to restrain the resister results in injury or death to him. Remarkably few people are physically restrained by LEOs without first doing something illegal, or appearing to do something illegal, prompting the initiation of the contact.
…what they do, according to the statistics, is kill black people at disproportionate rates.
“Disproportionate” to what?
Question: Doesn’t the effort to shift the discussion from the assertion that most encounters with police officers begin with someone breaking the law to a statement that “police related deaths don’t correlate at all to crime rate across cities.” qualify as MOVING THE GOALPOSTS?
As Cluster would say—asking for a friend
“His “solution” = make it illegal to choke people. Check
Have penalties for choking people. Check”
Hahaha hilarious! Only, it turns out qualified immunity means that it is not, by default, illegal for the police to put people in strangleholds. In fact, departmental policy on the use of choke or strangleholds varies wildly from pd to pd. And there is therefore observable data that making it against policy to strangle people gets less people dead.
It is not at all funny that the lack of a policy you thought was so obvious that it must already exist everywhere is causing a bunch of people to get killed by cops while you laugh.
“He was young, black, wearing a hoodie and appeared to be trying to avoid being seen.”
Serious question, when did you boomers decide that wearing a hoodie is a sign of gang membership or whatever? Freaking Mark Zuckerberg wears grey hoodies. You should try one on, they are super comfortable (I prefer zip-up to pullover).
Anyway, you obviously would also flee if some stranger were following you around in a pickup truck, and there’s no claim anywhere that the previous crimes were committed by somebody wearing a hoodie, so I guess we’re left with young and black.
“Well, then you just rush off and scold the young woman who testified to all of this”
I could, but I decided instead to go read her testimony and re-verify that you are factually incorrect. Also verify that the skittles and tea were on Martin’s person, not on his dad’s lawn.
“Yes, the bruise surrounding the shattered eye socket.”
Also a thing that I can use teh googles to go verify is false. Dude didn’t even get punched in the eye. The bruise was on his jaw. You should try this internet thing out, you can find out all sorts of things.
“the determination to reframe the facts to fit a narrative.”
Just figured I’d highlight the self-own.
“My point is that an encounter with a police officer is usually predicated on an act by the person interacting with the officer.”
While it is true that committing criminal acts is the obvious contributing factor to interacting with the police, it turns out that it’s far from the only factor. For example, marijuana usage rate among black and white people is nearly identical, but if you’re black, you’re 3.64 times as likely to get arrested for posession. Uh oh, facts that don’t fit your preferred narrative! Let’s see what happens next…
““Disproportionate” to what?”
This is actually a fairly interesting measurement problem, because it looks most disproportionate if you measure versus raw population, but that’s obviously not a reasonable controlled look. It tends to look least disproportionate if you compare against conviction rates for crimes, but that’s also horribly controlled; as noted above, blacks also get arrested disproportionately for crimes with no correlation of incidence. Also, blacks are more likely to get a more severe charge for the same act, so an assault charge on one side of the ledger shows up as a misdemeanor battery charge on the other.
The short answer is that if you control for crime and circumstance (as best as that’s possible), cops are more likely to escalate the situation when the person being arresed is black.
“Question: Doesn’t the effort to shift the discussion from the assertion that most encounters with police officers begin with someone breaking the law to a statement that “police related deaths don’t correlate at all to crime rate across cities.” qualify as MOVING THE GOALPOSTS?”
Nope, it counts as statistical evidence that your fun storytelling session is irrelevant. If the primary correlating factor for officer-involved homicides is demonstrably departmental policy and not crime rate, trying to blame blacks for bringing it on themselves is an absurdity. It turns out the best way to make sure your officers don’t disproportionately kill blacks is to just stop giving them leeway to be violent in general.
Keep trying the whole “I am rubber you are glue” thing, though. I promise it’s a great look.
Best line I have seen all morning … if you can loot in person, you can vote in person.
The riots are the direct culmination of a failed educational system over the last 30 years which has been wholly intentional and brought to you by the progressive left. Instead of teaching our children actual life skills and preparing them for new technologies, etc., our educational curriculum’s now consist of social engineering garbage and revised history designed to enflame passions and create useful idiots for the International Left. And they have succeeded beyond their wildist dreams. It’s actually child abuse sponsored by the Democrat Party.
“You’re dealing with a bunch of American traditionalists who are begging for an excuse to pick up one of their ten AK47’s and finish the job our police should be doing right now. I hope that day comes.”
We’re already living in that day, and it’s the reason there are all these people protesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
I’m begging you to reconsider how you’ve arrived at the point where you think responding to some broken windows and stolen electronics with extrajudicial killings puts you on the moral high ground.
I think you grossly underestimate how much hatred and disgust the majority of Americans have for people like you. I pray almost every day that we never get to the point where we are killing each other in the streets, but I fully understand how and why it could happen.
Exactly right. We have spent the last 4 years living in Leftist dystopia from an illegal attempted coup of an elected President, to a sham impeachment, to an over hyped health scare and now to manufactured race riots. The Democrat left is willfully and intentionally trying to destroy this country from within and level of disdain now exceeds any attempt to be reasoned or to virtually espouse the higher ground. Without a free country to live in … there is no higher ground.
The left has spent the last 10 years egging this fight on ….. well get ready
If you’re bragging about how much hate you’ve internalized, you’re probably not the good guys.
Travesty, if legal gun owners were the problem, you would be experiencing it right now.
Travesty, if legal gun owners were the problem, you would be experiencing it right now.
One need look no further than a comparison of the Minneapolis riots and the recent militia protests in Michigan to see which side is more dangerous.
“…it’s the reason there are all these people protesting…”
Oh, bullshit. People are not “protesting”, they are indulging in pretenses of righteous indignation to try to excuse their inexcusable actions. The double standard is so glaring it is blinding. When a couple of white men kill a black man, this is supposedly an indictment of all whites, “proof” of “INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM !!” and an excuse for nationwide rioting and looting, in the pretense of “protest”. The claim is always that the white people killed the black people just because the victims were black.
.
But when black men commit heinous crimes against white people, we are scolded that these are merely individual crimes committed by individual people and should not, ever ever EVER be considered an indictment of the black race.
On February 27, the day after the Martin shooting, two black males in Detroit abducted and killed a white couple. The victims were found bound, shot and burned beyond recognition in an alley. Police are calling it a random “thrill killing.”
On February 28, in Kansas City, Missouri, two black teens attacked a 13-year-old white boy on his front porch as he was returning from school. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire for no apparent reason, saying “You get what you deserve white boy!”
On March 14, a 20-year-old black man broke into the home of Bob and Nancy Straight in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He raped the 85-year-old Mrs. Straight and then beat her to death. Then he shot 90-year-old Mr. Straight in the face with a pellet gun and broke his jaw and ribs. He died several days later. The thug stole $200, a TV set and their Dodge Neon, which he drove to a nearby house where he went to hide. The police spotted the stolen car in front of the house and arrested him.
On April 1, in Jackson, Mississippi, a 31-year-old black man broke into a house to rob it and found a white woman inside. He forced her to lie on the floor with a blanket over her head as he shot her in the back of the head, execution-style.
On April 5, in Tunica, Mississippi, a 34-year-old black man checked into a hotel with his pregnant 25-year-old white girlfriend and their one-year-old child. The next day the woman was found dead on the floor brutally mutilated and covered with blood, as was the one-year-old child. The knife was in the room.
On April 15, in Las Vegas, a 22-year-old black man raped a 38-year-old white woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He then killed them by smashing their skulls with a hammer.
On top of all these brutal murders there have been a number of “flash mob” attacks across the country where anywhere from half a dozen to as many as a hundred blacks gang up on innocent people and beat them senseless. In at least 12 of these cases documented by this writer, the blacks have cited revenge for the shooting of Martin as the motive for the savageries, although in many cases the victims were also robbed.
One of these attacks occurred in Norfolk, Virginia, where more than 30 blacks brutally beat a white couple as another 70 blacks watched and cheered them on, a typical phenomenon in these black-on-white “flash mob” attacks. Martin’s name came up as the excuse for the brutality.
And so on. We have seen some instances of white people not stepping in to intervene when a white person has been attacking a black person, as we see in the George Floyd homicide, but I haven’t seen any examples of white mobs attacking black people while other white mobs stood by and cheered them on. And I sure as hell haven’t seen white mobs rioting and looting to “protest” these clearly racially motivated crimes.
So spare us the smug pontificating about how black people are just “protesting”, in violent riots across the nation, accompanied by extensive looting and arson, against the actions of a few white people, while we are not supposed to see violence by black people against white people as an indictment of the black race. How many riots were spawned by the brutality of two black teens going up on a porch and attacking a 13-year old boy, pouring gasoline on him and lighting it, telling him “You get what you deserve white boy!”
Ugly is as ugly does. But when the actions of SOME INDIVIDUALS is used as the pretense of committing atrocities against people whose only association with those actions is a similar skin color there is absolutely no excuse for it, no matter how hard people like you bleat that there, is somehow, some justification for it.
And yes, what Cluster said IS indefensible But he is one person. giving the opinion of that ONE person, and he does not represent any demographic.
“But when the actions of SOME INDIVIDUALS is used as the pretense of committing atrocities against people whose only association with those actions is a similar skin color there is absolutely no excuse for it, no matter how hard people like you bleat that there, is somehow, some justification for it.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
“And yes, what Cluster said IS indefensible But he is one person. giving the opinion of that ONE person, and he does not represent any demographic.
It’s funny how when it’s a cop committing murder or cluster shining up his guns because of his excitement about a race war, its just one bad apple, just one individual, but when somebody robs a target, suddenly it represents all of the peaceful protesters and the entire left.
So now a howling mob of feral humanity that breaks into a Target, loots it and vandalizes it is sanitized to “,,,somebody robs a target,…”
You people assume that if a white cop kills a black man, he did so BECAUSE the victim was black. That is your entire metric. You can’t see past your own bigotry to realize that, unlike you and your kind, a lot of people are motivated by things other than race and race-based hatred. That is your filter, and everything that passes through it comes out tainted by your own bigotry.
You whine that I “… paid so little attention to George Floyd’s death…” blah blah blah. You seem aggravated that, unlike you, I don’t snout around the news to find something to feed an insatiable need for ongoing outrage. I know what apparently happened. I know that, as always happens, more facts will come out as the investigation goes on. Unlike you and your pack-mentality fellow travelers, I don’t need to wallow in hysteria and hyperbole, or jump wildly to conclusions.
“You seem aggravated that, unlike you, I don’t snout around the news to find something to feed an insatiable need for ongoing outrage”
Unless it’s a black man kneeling in a sports game.
Don’t project your own hysteria onto me, tryvasty. I am not “outraged” at seeing “…a black man kneeling in a sports game.,,,” You are the one who inserted skin color into this, and you are the one who defined my reaction as outrage at the sight of someone simply kneeling. “In a sports game”” as if that makes any difference.
My reaction to the “take a knee” phenomenon was a mix of feelings. I was amazed that anyone who has been so blessed by the opportunities associated with living in this great country could then turn around and openly express such contempt for it. If my reaction ever approached “outrage” it was based on that disdain for something I value so much, but it was the same reaction I have when I see some skinhead burning the flag. The color of the person doing the act is immaterial—though I noticed that this was YOUR go-to position. It had to be because it was a black man, right? And he was just “kneeling”, right?
But mostly I was depressed by the illustration of how profoundly stupid people in this country have become and how little basic human dignity matters to them. The inability to connect one thing to another in a coherent linear manner just amazes me, but it seems to be the identifying factor in most if not all of the so-called “protests” indulged in by the hysterical masses.
There is no connection between the government of the United States of America and the Meme of The Day of the mobs. If the alleged grievance was that a cop in some city killed some black guy, then showing disrespect for the flag, and the anthem, and by extension all who have died for this country and all who served and now serve her is simply a disconnect of such vast proportions it simply cannot be taken seriously. I didn’t feel outrage—-I felt contempt. Contempt for the utter stupidity of the morons engaging in this spectacle, contempt for their willingness to beclown themselves in front of the nation to try to impress some people, contempt for their bigotry.
And contempt for their hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of making millions and millions of dollars in a nation that rewards their talents and doesn’t care what color they are and then whimpering about how racist the country is. The hypocrisy of only putting on a show in front of the cameras on national TV instead of going to the cities where these problems are worst and trying to help people solve them. A black sports hero could make a difference, but he would have to make an effort. He could spend time in the poor sections of his home town, he could talk to young men about how real men take care of their families and provide for them, work and respect women and act as real fathers to their children. But no—there are no cameras there, no one to record him.
There was some pity, too, such as the pity I felt for poor bewildered Brandon Marshall of the Broncos, who so desperately wanted to be part of the Cool Kids gang posturing for the cameras but just didn’t quite know what he was supposed to be protesting. So he whimpered that he was taking a knee because he wanted people to know how hard it is to be a minority. Yeah, Brandon, that’s a great message. Of course, being a minority is a matter of math, not of race of culture, but hey, if that is what keeps your panties in a twist then take a knee and tell it, brother!
“then showing disrespect for the flag, and the anthem”
Yeah, you definitely sound not outraged. Or at least I think so, it’s sometimes hard to read with all this bile you are spitting getting in my eyes.
Bile spitting in your eyes? Hmmmm—getting a little overheated there, aren’t you? That sounds pretty hysterical to me. Poor baby. Your problem is that you are good enough with words to think that means you are good at thinking, and that gets you into trouble because your flowery prose always ends up failing to hide the fact that you are just noise from the echo chamber of reactive hyper-emotional pseudo-political bullshit.
But you just go ahead and keep attributing invented emotions and motives, if that’s what it takes to make you feel better. It’s consistent with your invented “reality” that also seems to meet some emotional need on your part.
This is how the police react in northeastern Indiana.
Yea but …. let’s take the higher ground.
Samantha Shader, 27, was arrested Friday night for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD cruiser in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Footage obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com shows as a woman prepares the explosive before returning to throw it at the van; the cocktail did not explode.
For those of you keeping score, Crown Heights was the scene of Al Sharpton’s and Tawanna Brawley’s race riots in the 80’s. The Left has been actively destroying this country for a long time now but conservatives should over look this take the higher ground, right? The problem with that logic is if we take ground too high, the destruction will be completed.
Oh, get over yourself and stop playing by the Leftist handbook on discourse. No one SAID ‘,,.conservatives should over look this take the higher ground,..” If you have a valid argument, make it and don’t waste time creating straw men so you can sneer at them.
Do you know the definitions of various crimes? Do you know how they are legally defined, and do you know the legal penalties for committing them? Do you actually BELIEVE in the Constitution, in the establishment of the responsibility for making laws being firmly placed in the hands of the legislatures? Or do you, like those on the Left, believe this is a “living document” that can be modified at will depending on the circumstances and the desired outcome? (I don’t like them or what they are doing so I hereby declare it all as capital crimes and am going to mow them down with my AK47.)
The “Higher Ground” you sneer at just happens to be based on the kind of commitment to the rule of law I just laid out.
Samantha Shader committed a crime, a very specific crime codified by a legislature with a definition and specified range of penalties if she is found guilty—another Constitutional right she has, one of due process. She WAS ARRESTED. So who, exactly, is “overlooking” this crime? In fact, the people who respect the law DID take the “higher ground”—-they followed the law, and are holding the miscreant responsible for what she did, pending the followup of due process.
This bothers you? What alternative would you prefer? To have “an American traditionalist” in the crowd pull out his AK47 and administer frontier justice?
Sorry you are so offended by the application of the law to a crime and a criminal Sorry that you disdain the “higher ground” of allegiance to the laws of the nation as well as to their underlying concepts. You sound very frustrated at the constraints imposed by these laws, and more and more disdainful of them, sneering at them as mere “virtue signaling” and expressing contempt for “the higher ground”. I just happen to think that letting anger and frustration take over and advocating for mob rule (as long as it’s YOUR mob) and vigilante “justice” means taking the lower ground, along with those you want to eliminate.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
We’ve been taking the “higher ground” now for 20 years. How do you think that has worked out?
And this has nothing to do with “vengeance” or “mob rule”. This is a long over due reckoning and the fact that you still don’t see it concerns me a little.
We’ve been taking the “higher ground” now for 20 years. How do you think that has worked out?
No we haven’t. We’ve taken the spineless, wishy-washy,”can’t we all just get along” appeasement approaches.
We can get tough, we can even get mean if we have to, without lowering ourselves to their level or becoming just like they are.
You present a binary “solution”—do nothing or become armed vigilantes. And you project a hope that the latter will take over, with “traditional Americans” mowing down people for crimes that do not carry the death penalty. There is a strong reek of imposing penalties, possibly lethal penalties, for “wrongthink”—which, of course, if it agrees with you would be “rightthink”. Same coin, different sides. And you don’t see that.
And you keep inventing straw men. I didn’t use the term “vengeance”—you read that into what I said. As for “mob rule” what else could you call a bunch of so-called “traditional Americans” picking up their “AK47s” and heading out to do whatever a bunch of armed people would do with their guns? You do realize that when you try to justify your position as a “long overdue reckoning” this is a tacit admission that it is retaliation for something? Isn’t that what a “long overdue reckoning” is?
So it appears we have two sides that are each “concerned” about the other. My side is concerned about someone who purports to be part of the same political movement I am advocating for armed citizens taking it upon themselves to impose their own concepts of order and justice. My side is deeply concerned about someone—ANYONE—advocating for violence to resolve political and cultural conflicts. Your side seems to be concerned that I don’t share your preferred approach to resolving these conflicts, which strongly implies armed posses taking the law into their own hands and imposing whatever kind of justice armed posses tend to impose —and which, by their very nature, ignore the rights and protections of the Constitution your “traditional Americans” purportedly are defending. And you snidely state that my approach is really just based on simply not understanding the problem.
I think my concern is much more firmly based than yours. At least I am arguing for a far more intense and muscular application of the law and yours seems to be a version of “Let’s you and him fight”.
“Let’s you and him fight”.
The perpetrator of that tactic is our smarmy little troll, Tryvesty. He’s succeeded in getting two people who are my friends and who are on the same page 99% of the time to lash out at each other. I share Cluster’s frustrations if not his solutions, but come on — shake hands and concentrate on the real bad guys.
Actually, when I quoted the phrase from the book Games People Play—“Let’s you and him fight”—I wasn’t even thinking of tryvasty. I can’t imagine any of the vacuous drivel he dumps here every now and then affecting me in any way, other than a chuckle at his stupidity.
No, I was thinking of Cluster himself, hoping that Some Other Guys would go pick up their big scary guns and go out and kick some Lefty butt
We’ve taken the spineless, wishy-washy,”can’t we all just get along” appeasement approaches.
Yes, that is the higher ground that we have been taking. A mentality that still considers the Left to be people who we can reason with, and “muscularly” apply the law to, however that logic falls on it’s face when we see police forces abandoning their post and people like Hillary, Comey, Cheryl Mills, etc. never held to account for their lawless actions. People like travesty are no longer to be considered fellow citizens who want the best for this country and it’s citizens … they have proven time and time again that they want to “fundamentally transform” this country and it’s about goddamn time we believe them and take appropriate action. Designating Antifa as a terrorist organization was a good start this morning.
Too many conservatives are still stuck in a 2006 conservative mode where reason and the rule of law were our defenses but they’re ignoring the figurative “molotav cocktails” that are still being hurled our way everyday in an attempt to dismantle this country. Conservatives don’t need a PR department anymore. We need actionable task forces to combat the enemy within.
OK, just take a step back and consider that “the Left” is not a label that applies to everyone who votes Democrat. Yes, there ARE people who can be reasoned with. Our problem is that we are just so terribly awful at doing so. What we ignore is that these people seldom if ever vote Dem because they have an objective commitment to the political structure the party represents. Most don’t even know it DOES represent a political structure. They exist in a carefully nurtured bubble of equal parts ignorance and emotion. They are not strident haters. They are basically decent people who sincerely believe they are making the best choices for our country. They have been groomed since childhood to think of the Right as mean, nasty, hateful and even dangerous. They grew up believing that Hitler and his Nazis represented “right wing” politics, that Republicans were responsible for slavery and the racial prejudice that followed the Civil War, and that all Republicans care about is money. They want to be good people, they want to be kind, and many are turned off by the growing nastiness of their party. But they don’t think they have an alternative, a safe haven to turn to, because of their indoctrination into what they have accepted as the evils of “The Right”. Yeah, it’s hard to respect them because they lack the intellectual courage to explore and find out if what they accept is real, but they’re not bad people.
And what do we do? We scold them, we lecture them, we talk about things like looking forward to the day “traditional Americans” pick up their scary-looking guns and go out to deal with the Left. Hell, I’m a gun-owning hard core right wing conservative and that kind of talk scares ME. I don’t want to be part of a movement that advocates that kind of thing, and I have a solid underpinning of objective political analysis that provides the framework for my positions and I’d have a hard time convincing anyone else this is a club they should want to join.
That is one segment of the voting public that helps the Left stay in power, but it is also the segment we could and should be working to win over. They vote the way they do because they think they are voting for goodness, kindness, fairness, equality, blah blah and the only way to reach them is to quietly educate them, explaining that we are not divided as much by what we want for the nation as by how we achieve it—the Dems want a Central Authority imposing the same philosophy on everyone and the Right says if you have an issue that is important to you the chances are it is not something in he authority of the federal government and should be decided at the state level. We win these people over by explaining that they don’t have to give up their pet issues to vote for Republicans, they just have to adjust their ideas of where in government those issues are adjudicated.
Then there is the segment that is just plain nasty because they like being just plain nasty. They are not turned off by the hatred: They love it. They feed off it. They pursue sources of hateful commentary to feed their addiction to the hate and nastiness. This is the segment that describes tyrvasty, for example. They, too, lack any sense of actual political philosophy. They, too, are ignorant of the actual political system they are supporting. But they don’t care. All they care about is that this is the system that spoon-feeds them their daily fixes of hate and viciousness. These people are pretty useless. You can’t reason with them, because reason has no place in their pathology. They are just kind of like boils on the ass of civilized society. But most don’t usually go out and riot, burn down businesses, throw things at cops and in general act like savages. Their need for hate is satisfied by watching Maddow and Mathews and Joey and the Bimbo and talking about how much they hate Trump.
My attitude toward these people is pretty basic: Screw them. They lack the moral decency and the intellect to break out of their chosen cages of viciousness, hatred and spite and malice. So screw them. Walk away and ignore them.
What I think is bothering us the most are the last two segments of the Left. The bigger of these two is the haters who use their blind hatred to justify bigotry, violence and attacks on other people and on the country. These are the people who riot, who prey on people, who revel in vile racism and violence, and these are the people who need to be dealt with. While they represent the Left, they are also not really political—they don’t usually have a coherent idea of how they think the nation should be governed, they just follow the Left because that is the movement that encourages and supports their vicious, violent and hate-driven mentalities. These are the people who are dangerous, and these are the people who need to be restrained with great force.
These are the people who need to be controlled when they are running in packs of feral humanity, focused on destroying and looting and even hurting and killing others. I don’t care about them as people: I think they have voluntarily given up their claim to humanity. These are people who can only make this world a better place by leaving it. They ruin everything they touch. I don’t defend them. I have no use for them. They do represent the Left, the ugliest and most despicable element of the Left, even though they have no actual political grounding. They are predators.
But we have to be careful that, in dealing with them, we don’t become as depraved as they are. It’s not that we lack the tools to deal with them, it’s that we lack the backbone to use those tools effectively—-and moving into vigilantism is not an acceptable alternative.
As for the real leaders of the Left, they avoid joining the fray so they don’t expose themselves to the physical dangers of rioting or assaulting people. Because of this the only way to deal with them is through the law. And yes, I am easily as upset as you are, Cluster, about the utter spinelessness of our government in dealing with them.
“This is the segment that describes tyrvasty, for example. They, too, lack any sense of actual political philosophy”
Hey, blah blahing about “actual political philosophies” is another one of the spots on my bingo card!
“This is the segment that describes tyrvasty, for example. They, too, lack any sense of actual political philosophy”
Hey, blah blahing about “actual political philosophies” is another one of the spots on my bingo card!
Uh, tryvasty, when someone points out a major defect in your position, it doesn’t really help you to just snicker at it, in a tacit admission I am right.
My point is that there are way too many people, you included, who pretend to comment on politics but who are really ignorant of politics and just jump on the Hate Bandwagon because you think it is fun to hate. To you and people in your tribe—-and like it or not, you are part of a tribe of shallow and superficial people who share the pathology of pleasure in bickering and attacking others but who have no serious foundation for your pettiness other than pettiness for the sake of pettiness—the whole goal is just to engage the opposition in meaningless quibbling so you can attack them on meaningless points. It;s just a game for you. It’s what you substitute for substance and meaning. It;s the illusion of participating, but without actually doing or saying anything or meaning anything..
You admit you have your little scorecard and you gleefully mark off boxes where you think you scored some points, but your points are just meaningless quibbles.
The thing is, the opposition you are trying to get to bicker with you happens to be, for the most part, motivated by that coherent political philosophy that you titter and giggle about. We start with the serious concept of how best to govern the nation, of what is the best blueprint for governance, and on that foundation we build our agreements and disagreements. But our opposition, for the most part, is not only ignorant of the need to have a coherent foundation of political structure, you barely even know there is such a thing, and when told about it you just giggle and dismiss it as blah blah blah. Because you are here for the game, not the substance.
And that is why you are usually ignored and dismissed. You are a lightweight, bringing nothing to the discourse except smug superficial sniping.
“Uh, tryvasty, when someone points out a major defect in your position, it doesn’t really help you to just snicker at it, in a tacit admission I am right.”
Lol. No defect there. I’m just consistently uninterested in providing surface area for you to take us on a long and boring journey through the land of distraction. There is literally nothing I could express that you wouldn’t declare immediately “not real” despite the fact that your entire “philosophy,” such as it is, is that your precious fee-fees must be right and any facts that contradict them must therefore be wrong.
“To you and people in your tribe—-and like it or not, you are part of a tribe of shallow and superficial people who share the pathology of pleasure in bickering and attacking others but who have no serious foundation for your pettiness other than pettiness for the sake of pettiness”
You’re apparently part of a tribe who clearly expressed in this comment thread that the way out of our problems is mass murder, so I guess I’ll stick with mine. Rather hang out with petty people than psychopaths. Are you really still trying to play this stupid game? Ann Coulter now hates Donald Trump. Which one is your tribe?
Categorize and dismiss. Categorize and dismiss. Remember, if you can’t find a good argument against anything I’m saying, try to get me to defend somebody else’s words!
“You admit you have your little scorecard and you gleefully mark off boxes where you think you scored some points, but your points are just meaningless quibbles.”
The game is less fun when you’re so illiterate that that’s what you think is going on 😦
“The thing is, the opposition you are trying to get to bicker with you happens to be, for the most part, motivated by that coherent political philosophy”
Your claims to philosophical clarity are one great big cowardly intellectual fallback plan. Don’t like where the conversation is going because it turns out something you said was trivially proven factually incorrect? Declare that it’s all meaningless detail and what’s really important is that you’re right about the larger picture. Did you just trip over your own obvious hypocrisy? Doesn’t matter, even when you’re wrong, you’re still right, because you have a political philosophy and nobody else does!
“You are a lightweight, bringing nothing to the discourse except smug superficial sniping.”
See what I mean? I repeatedly cite facts and figures but that’s “superficial”
No need for you to sweat the details, because you’ve decided that you’re fundamentally right, so it doesn’t matter how many times you’re objectively wrong along the way.
The reason you find me so objectionable is that your one move (aside whipping our your thesaurus to look up the nastiest way you can find to ad hominem) is to point over my shoulder, yell “look over there” and then move the goalposts. And if you have to move the goalposts enough times, they will always end up at “buh buh I has a pershonal philosofffy! I win teh arguments!” And I won’t go chasing the goalposts.
You’re a thinly glued together set of inane rhetorical tricks wrapped in just enough SAT vocabulary that the other posters here have mistaken you for a deep thinker, but the emperor has no clothes. You hang around here seeking their approval because you know that you’re the lightweight, and if your audience ever grew to include people who weren’t so easily fooled, you’d have nothing to add to the conversation.
… your entire “philosophy,” such as it is, is that your precious fee-fees must be right and any facts that contradict them must therefore be wrong.
Thank you so much for illustrating the scope and depth of your profound ignorance, as well as the aspect of your psyche that screams that everything anyone says simply has to be about YOU.
But I am always happy to explain my political philosophy. Please feel free to disagree, but do try to keep your disagreement a little less emotive, m’kay? My Political Philosophy, by Amazona. That the best blueprint for governing this nation is its Constitution, which severely restricts the size, scope and power of the federal government to a few delegated duties and leaves most authority to the states, or to the people.
There you go. Any “fee-fees” floating around in there? I mean, if there is any emotion anywhere, you are sure to find it—or invent it.
Then you go into a lot of blah blah blah, just more impotent emoting and frantic efforts to link what I say to other people. Poor baby. OK, I admit to kind of enjoying your free fall into hysterical babbling and random insults, but after a while it just gets tiresome. You assert that you repeatedly provide “facts” that I then just ignore, but really you just offer up a rather disorganized narrative of hyper-emotional reactions to distorted accounts of reality.
Here’s a really funny comment from you, which illustrates the degree of mental and emotional distress you experience when you just can’t swamp someone with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual bullshit: Declare that it’s all meaningless detail and what’s really important is that you’re right about the larger picture.
Yet I have not declared anything to be “meaningless detail”. On the contrary, I point out the details that are quite meaningful and which also, by the way, disprove your statements. What this rather frantic statement of yours, and the rest of your rather breathless personal attack, says is that you are bumfuddled and frustrated and reduced to the equivalent of saying “Well, you’re just a big poopy-head”.
And by the way, the constant whine that when someone has deconstructed one of your screeds and proved it silly she has really just “moved the goal posts” is pretty pathetic. I understand this is your fallback position, claiming that you were really ahead on points till the big meanie just “moved the goal posts” but that’s a pretty transparent ploy. It’s been fun, kind of, to watch you rummage through your bag of tricks, tacitly admitting that you can’t win any substantive argument with me but trying to salvage some fragment of self-defined dignity by falling back on the tired old game of Junior Shrink. And not just psychoanalyzing me, but the others on this blog as well!
But you did provide a new dictionary entry: inane rhetorical tricks : def: citing of facts destroying Leftist claims
“But I am always happy to explain my political philosophy. Please feel free to disagree, but do try to keep your disagreement a little less emotive, m’kay? My Political Philosophy, by Amazona. That the best blueprint for governing this nation is its Constitution, which severely restricts the size, scope and power of the federal government to a few delegated duties and leaves most authority to the states, or to the people.”
Cool story. A couple of things though:
– This is not predictive. For instance, you’ve said repeatedly in your comments that you’re a strong supporter of the second amendment. There is no through-line between the two things. It doesn’t underlie almost any of your other views, either. In fact, it’s definitionally orthogonal to your other views. If you want to talk about whether there should be a flat tax or a progressive income tax, “the states should decide” isn’t an answer to the question, it’s to a vaguely related question about federalism. You just picked a random pet issue of yours and declared it a political philosophy.
– It’s not even your most firmly held belief. It’s purely tactical. You would (and frequently do) drop it like a hot potato if it comes into conflict with any of the things you actually care about. I guarantee you that if your state came to take away your guns and the federal government stopped them, you would stand up and cheer. I guarantee you that if it became clear that the federal government were going to be controlled by republicans indefinitely but all the states were going to be controlled by democrats, you’d bury your “philosophy” in a shallow grave and never speak of it again.
So yeah, color me not impressed with your fortune-cookie level “philosophy”
“here you go. Any “fee-fees” floating around in there?”
The fee-fees are everywhere. Because your “philosophy” is so narrow and therefore non-predictive, the rest of the field is just covered in opportunity to react as your emotions dictate.
“Then you go into a lot of blah blah blah, just more impotent emoting and frantic efforts to link what I say to other people.”
Nope, that’s your game. But if you’re going to try to make me play it, you have to play it, too.
“which illustrates the degree of mental and emotional distress”
lol
“Yet I have not declared anything to be “meaningless detail””
You might want to look up what the words you are getting out of that thesaurus actually mean, then. Maybe start with quibbling, a word you used directly in the post to which I was responding.
“On the contrary, I point out the details that are quite meaningful and which also, by the way, disprove your statements.”
lol. Many people are saying they are the greatest details anybody has ever pointed out!
No, you engage in lazy conjecture. Why do black people get kiled by police so much? I don’t know, maybe they do worse crimes, I think I heard Rush say that maybe sometime? That’s not pointing out a detail, that’s assuming the facts probably match up to whatever narrative your feelings tells you is right. It’s probably been years since you last tried to verify the factual basis of any of the “details” you provide.
“rather breathless personal attack”
Lol, you literally claimed people like me were subhuman, and now you’re whining about personal attacks? Okay, internet tough guy.
“And by the way, the constant whine that when someone has deconstructed one of your screeds”
Is this one of those mission accomplished banner things where you claim you did something and hope nobody noticed that you never, you know, actually did it? We’re obviously not here with you trying to bait me into talking about political philosophies because you thought you had successfully made your case.
“But you did provide a new dictionary entry: inane rhetorical tricks : def: citing of facts destroying Leftist claims”
Hey look, it’s amazona unironically trying to claim I am a Leftist so she can continue her “frantic efforts to link what I say to other people.”
What a load of gibberish crap.
No, not a “story”. A fact. An accurate description of a firmly held belief in the best blueprint for how to govern our nation.
There is no through-line between the two things “The two things” being the Constitution as a whole and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution (which, in case you don’t realize it, makes it PART of the Constitution) and you don’t find a “through-line”? Whatever that is supposed to mean? Stop trying to disguise your jibber-jabber with overly complex sentences.
It doesn’t underlie almost any of your other views, either. In fact, it’s definitionally orthogonal to your other views, Huh? Again, drop the pretentious ten-dollar vocabulary and say something that makes sense. What “other views” of mine does your crystal ball tell me are not consistent with the belief that the Constitution is the best way to govern the nation?
Oh, you think you have an example: If you want to talk about whether there should be a flat tax or a progressive income tax, “the states should decide” isn’t an answer to the question. I guess that would depend on the question, which you conveniently neglect to ask. But if you mean a discussion about how to structure the federal income tax, any answer would have to point out that it is, after all, a FEDERAL tax. Basically your comment is just word salad, meaningless but a nice display of skill in the use of a thesaurus.
You just picked a random pet issue of yours and declared it a political philosophy. Again, gibberish. Ask anyone here how often, over how many years, in how many different contexts and related to how many different topics, I have stated my political philosophy in nearly identical terms. I usually state it in the context of a comparison of the two basic forms of government between which we are asked to choose: One in which the federal government is severely restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the states or to the people, or a massively powerful Central Authority in which nearly all power is at held by the federal government and very little is left to the states or to the people.
But thanks for illustrating repeatedly, that not only the philosophy but the very concept of HAVING a political philosophy is so alien to you, so far over your head, it just does not compute. It’s been kind of interesting, watching you try to find your way through actual ideas and trying to twist them into what you CAN grasp, which is emotive reaction. The exercise itself is not very interesting, but the bizarre lengths you go to are pretty entertaining. There is the Crystal Ball approach, in which you simply declare knowledge of what I think even though your explanations directly contradict what I say. I think one of my favorites is this: I guarantee you that if your state came to take away your guns and the federal government stopped them, you would stand up and cheer. I have a feeling you truly do not realize that in your frantic effort to portray my belief system as flexible you actually showed that it is not. To explain: If my state tried to take my guns and the feds said no, the state could not do that, you’re damned right I would cheer—because no state has the right to override any part of the Constitution. Duh
You really don’t seem to grasp this whole federal/state division of powers, and your bafflement is kind of funny
I guarantee you that if it became clear that the federal government were going to be controlled by republicans indefinitely but all the states were going to be controlled by democrats, you’d bury your “philosophy” in a shallow grave and never speak of it again.
That’s just plain stupid, and not just Crystal Ball nonsense but Cracked Crystal Ball stupid. Maybe on-crack stupid..
The rest of your breathless screed is equally nonsensical, ranging from delusional to simply dishonest. But basically it says that I hit a sore spot, or several, and you are flailing back in a frantic effort to land a punch but missing every shot. You simply do not make sense. I think what happened is that I pointed out, through several examples, that being glib (which you are) is not the same as being smart, and that parroting what you have been told is a poor substitute for learning how to think. I understand why this makes you uncomfortable, but that’s not really my problem.
But I will address this rather incoherent assertion: Why do black people get kiled (sic) by police so much? Well, they don’t.
here’s the 2018 breakdown of the 995 people shot and killed by the police.
403 were white, 210 were black, 148 were Hispanic, 38 were classified as other, and 199 were classified as unknown.
Out of that 995, 47 were unarmed — 23 were white, 17 were black, 5 were Hispanic, and 2 were unknown.
Out of the 30-50 million interactions that the police had with the American public last year, 10 million people were arrested, and less than 0.01 percent were shot and killed by the police. Out of those 10 million people arrested, 47 of those shot and killed were unarmed, which equates to 0.00047 percent, 17 of which were black.
And:
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is also, by incorporation (ie: an “amendment”) part of the Constitution. Which is the governing document of the United States. It basically means that if something is not specifically delegated to federal authority within the body of the original Constitution, and it is also not forbidden therein, it is within the scope of authority of the states. Or the people.
I would never try to bait you into talking about political philosophies. That would be cruel. I’m quite happy letting you show us that you don’t even understand what a political philosophy IS, much less why it is essential to have one if you are going to try to discuss, you know, politics.
As for you being a Leftist, I did not claim you are. As a matter of fact, I don’t think you are much of anything, except an intellectual lightweight who is used to bullying people with your talent for glibness and who thought you could come here loaded with a lot of Leftist cant and show us up. You’ve pretty much admitted you have no true political foundation, but you do regurgitate Leftist talking points, and I commented on destroying Leftist claims.
From a tryvasty post: If the data indicates (sic) police are out there disproportionately killing blacks, in a way that doesn’t correlate with them being armed, with ample evidence that police violence has a stronger relationship with department policy than the crimes being committed, does arguing that this is a problem still make me the real racist?
Well, since the data DON’T indicate that “…police are out there disproportionately killing blacks, in a way that doesn’t correlate with them being armed, …” there is a pretty strong indication that claiming they do doesn’t mean you are necessarily a racist—just a toxic combination of stupid and dishonest.
If the data indicates (sic)… (there is) …ample evidence that police violence has a stronger relationship with department policy than the crimes being committed,….…what? What does this incoherent drivel mean? That the possibility of being subjected to police brutality is more closely related to department policy than to the seriousness of the crimes committed? Is that where you are trying to go with this? Of course you could argue that this is a problem, if it is true and not just another of your wild fantasies. A lot more information would be needed to link it to race. Well, to rationally link it to race, anyway. Some of you manage to link EVERYTHING to race.
And it is the inability, or refusal, to see anything BUT race that marks a true racist.
I’ll admit to having slightly misread your philosophy, so my fun-making didn’t land quite like it should have, but what you did write is still hilariously vapid, and still unrelated to most of your political thought.
The question of how progressive taxation should be is still a good one, because even if your “philosophy” is “lol Constitution good” as opposed to “lol 10th amendment good” (as I initially read it), you still can’t parlay that into an answer to a fairly simple political question. And that’s still in the realm of the federal; your political “philosophy” has virtually nothing at all to say about what governance should look like at the state level. There’s not even a way to leap from your claimed basis of thought to “murder should be illegal.”
I’m skimming through a lot of this because frankly I got bored somewhere in the middle of all the self-congratulation, especially since you can’t even be bothered to attack my character without just cribbing my lines anymore.
I do think it’s hilarious that to this moment you’re still trying to bait me into formalizing a philosophy for you to criticize. I likely shouldn’t have even let you take me off on this particular distraction ride as long as I did, but watching you try to articulate your “philosophy” and have it come out as something that would fit on a napkin if you wrote it in crayon was too good.
“but you do regurgitate Leftist talking points, and I commented on destroying Leftist claims.”
A distinction without a difference. Your goal is to delegitimize me by association. It’s also a great exercise in projection, given that your “factual” basis for every argument you have appears to be primarily derived from stories you heard on conservative talk radio and have never bothered to confirm.
“Well, since the data DON’T indicate that “…police are out there disproportionately killing blacks, in a way that doesn’t correlate with them being armed, …””
Ahahahaha. It’s hilarious watching you try to use statistics, an exercise you apparently do infrequently enough that you can’t even remember how. Thanks for posting data that supports my claim, though. I gave it a significantly more nuanced go above, but the fact that you think you just posted stats that are counterfactual to my claim is just adorable.
You should probably stay in the “come up with a narrative and assume it’s factual” lane, as dumb as it is, because that was just embarassing.
even if your “philosophy” is “lol Constitution good” as opposed to “lol 10th amendment good” (as I initially read it), you still can’t parlay that into an answer to a fairly simple political question.
(1) No one with even the slightest claim to intelligence could possibly believe that someone else believes “Constitution good” AS OPPOSED TO “10th Amendment good”. (I left out the lol tittering—that is your domain.) The 10th Amendment IS the Constitution, just as the 1st is, just as the rest of the amendments are. Yours is a level of determined ignorance so blatant it can’t even be addressed. I don’t know what you think an amendment IS. It doesn’t look like you think at all.
(2) Having a firmly grounded conviction that the Constitution, in all its various parts, comprises the best way to govern the nation, if a question arises about the jurisdiction of authority regarding federal income taxation it is obvious that this is federal Hint: federal = federal. Your “simple political question” is neither simple nor political. It is mental mush.
You wade even deeper into your intellectual swamp when you complain: your political “philosophy” has virtually nothing at all to say about what governance should look like at the state level. Yeah, it DOES. It says that when the legislature of a state wants to implement a new law or ruling, as long as this law or ruling does not violate any of the specifically named restrictions of the Constitution they can do it.
There’s not even a way to leap from your claimed basis of thought to “murder should be illegal.”
Well, there is that “legislation” thing that seems to confuse you.
you can’t even be bothered to attack my character without just cribbing my lines anymore. Sometimes I wonder if you are purposely funny, but I doubt that. Everything you write shows a complete lack of self-awareness, as you blunder into one stupid comment after another. This one is like a defendant in court whining to the judge “you can’t even try to convict me of the crime without cribbing my confession”. You indict yourself with your own inane blatherings and misstatements of fact, and of course they are cited to show that you are either delusional or dishonest. It’s called “evidence”. And it’s called “proof”. Whereas you just make stuff up and throw it out without anything to back it up.
I do think it’s hilarious that to this moment you’re still trying to bait me into formalizing a philosophy for you to criticize.
As I said, I would not try to “bait” you into any such thing, because that would be cruel. You do such an admirable job of beclowning yourself on your own, I don’t need to encourage you to try to explain something that to you doesn’t even exist—that is, an actual political thought. You pose as a political commentator—at least you lurk on a politically-oriented blog to lurch out every now and then to sneer at and try to disprove what some political person has said or done—but once you made it so clear that you don’t do this out of any commitment to any particular POLITICAL concept and just think of it as a game of “gotcha” where you get to show off your vocabulary and make fun of things you don’t understand there was no reason to pursue that avenue of thought any farther.
(Though now that I think of it, it IS interesting that you recognize that if you were to try to organize your muddled and emotion-driven spasms of reaction to what conservatives say and do it would call for quite a bit of criticism.)
BTW, that is a clumsy effort on your part to explain away your utter inability to address what I said by simply claiming you skipped over it because it was “boring”. Not that I doubt you find ideas boring, being so alien to your process and all. I mean, here I am talking about politics in the context of political structure, when you think of politics as nothing but a game of gotcha where you wait for something that twangs your emotions and then dart in to attack it, with the goal of racking up points you get to define. No wonder you can’t be bothered with actual thought—-soooooo boring !!!
Your goal is to delegitimize me by association.
Actually, you delegitimize yourself. Constantly, effectively, and with only a slight nudge from me every now and then to blurt out yet another stupid or ignorant comment.
But thanks for the admission that being considered a Leftist would deligitimize you
It’s also a great exercise in projection, given that your “factual” basis for every argument you have appears to be primarily derived from stories you heard on conservative talk radio and have never bothered to confirm.
I see you’ve been hitting that crystal ball again, Sparky. You might want to wipe off some of that drool and polish it up a little bit—you’re getting feedback, putting in your own dependence on your favorite sources of “information” and interpreting it as my process. But thanks, again, for your illustration of the concept of “projection” even though you got it backwards. As usual.
Are you claiming that my citing of the official statistics of police shootings in 2018 was gleaned from some talk radio show? That the statistics are false? That this is the only place I found them before I cited them? Or just that you reject them because……? Do you deny that nearly twice as many white people as black people were killed by police in 2018? Do you deny that more than twice as many unarmed white people were killed than unarmed black people during that year? Do you deny that “unarmed” means only lacking a physical weapon but does not address the actual threat level posed by a person, such as size, strength or aggressiveness?
Uh-oh—sorry about that. There I go, straying into that forbidden territory of ideas, and suggesting that you initiate a thought process. You would think I would have learned better by now.
Basically, tryvasty, I see no reason to go on with this experiment. Every now and then someone on the blog suggests engaging a troll in discourse. Every now and then someone (OK, Cluster) tells us we need to know what the opposition is saying, though his preferred venue for doing this is watching Joey and the Bimbo. But I figured, OK. Here is one of our trolls, dumping crap on the blog, so why not take him on?
And you were wonderful. I could not have asked for a better illustration of the odd combination of toxicity, ignorance and mindless hostility that combine to define the opposition. But as you get more and more frustrated you efforts fall more and more into the territory of temper tantrums.
I am sure you will do your imitation of the Monty Python knight and hop around, armless and legless but screeching that you can still fight, but—-no. You’re just tiresome. I have done my part here, giving you a forum in which you have had ample time to present any idea you might have had, to make any argument you might have thought significant, and all you have done is bicker,
But I leave you with a hint: Look up the definition of “literally” before you claim someone “literally” did or said something that was really just your emotional reaction to something else. Because misusing the word “literally” literally makes you look like an idiot.
Bye, Felicia
“Are you claiming that my citing of the official statistics of police shootings in 2018 was gleaned from some talk radio show? That the statistics are false? That this is the only place I found them before I cited them? Or just that you reject them because……? Do you deny that nearly twice as many white people as black people were killed by police in 2018? Do you deny that more than twice as many unarmed white people were killed than unarmed black people during that year? Do you deny that “unarmed” means only lacking a physical weapon but does not address the actual threat level posed by a person, such as size, strength or aggressiveness?”
Oh this is just freaking hilarious. I made a horrible mistake. I somehow, despite my incredibly low opinion of you, have managed to significantly overestimate you! You’re not a lazy armchair philosopher who avoids facts and figures because you can’t be bothered. You literally are too stupid to pass a junior high level math class! You literally picked the stats are so egregiously supportive of my case that I’d expect somebody wanting to prove that police racism doesn’t exist to scream bloody murder if I tried to use them! And you can’t even figure out how you’ve messed this up.
I can’t believe I spent time trying to explain what the normalized data says to you. I might as well have been trying to teach my cat algebra.
I’m sorry you are having trouble with your cat. You might consider the possibility that your rather, shall we say, unique relationship with math has something to do with your problem?
My cats sailed through algebra and found geometry kind of fun, but I had to draw the line when I realized that cats think puns are the height of humor and insisted that we were going to study “catculous”. They did agree that their favorite is string theory. They do love their strings. Especially with little feathers tied onto the ends.
Good times…..
tryvasty, your Random Word Generator appears to be on the fritz. It seems to be sputtering and stuck in Vitriol mode, and is just farting out fragments of mindless hostility. You might want to get that looked at.
And sneering at me for not being aggressive enough when it comes to Leftist crimes is just willful ignoring of the facts. I am pretty well known for my advocacy of far more muscular enforcement of the law, and in dealing with rioters. I am adamant that when someone breaks the law there should be a penalty, and that definitely applies to riots, including the accompanying arson, looting and violence.
I think that the police chief, accompanied by the mayor and/or governor if they are not too controlled by the Left, should say up front that rioting will not be tolerated, and that rioters will be subjected to a variety of very unpleasant experiences designed to end the riots as quickly as possible, so anyone joining in is basically accepting all responsibility for what might happen to him or her.
And then, starting at the very beginning, the officials should start to break up the rioters into small groups, herding them with horses and water cannons into side streets where other LEOs are waiting, on the streets or on roof tops, to deal with them if they start something in their own little areas. Herd 100 or so people into a side street,where there are cameras set up and officers on rooftops and on the street. Announce that if any single person breaks a window or engages in any violent act the entire crowd will pay the penalty and then, if a window is broken, hit them with tear gas. If that doesn’t stop it all, hit them with dyes or with skunk juice. Make the crowd police itself by stopping the few who want to loot and pillage. When a mob does form, at the very first sign of violence—which includes throwing things and starting fires as well as looting—-then more extreme measures should be employed, ranging —-as I said in an earlier post—-ruining clothing with foul smelling chemicals that won’t wash off skin and hair, forcibly restraining people with quick-hardening foam around their legs and catching runners with net guns to take them down.
None of this is condoning or overlooking violence. In fact, it is pretty extreme in its rigid control of rioters. And anyone overtly threatening any law enforcement officer, even to the extent of attacking a police car, should be immediately arrested and jailed and faced with severe consequences.
Sorry if this falls short of your dream of blood in the streets.
Sorry if this falls short of your dream of blood in the streets.
Typical leftist tactic … apply the most extreme assumption.
Typical leftist tactic … apply the most extreme assumption
Sorry—-just where DO you think these “traditional Americans” ought to take the law into their own hands and go out with their AKs to straighten things out? The rioters are in the streets. Is there someplace else you think the opposition should be shot? Or are the guns just for show?
At least I am consistently conservative, not flip-flopping on basic Constitutional rights like due process just because I am pissed off and and frustrated.
I share Cluster’s frustrations
I am beyond frustrated. I sat back for 8 years and watched in dismay as Obama and his acolytes systematically divided this country while selling it out to the highest bidder and did nothing. When the opportunity came to vote again, I did and my candidate won but the Left wouldn’t accept that result and for the last 4 years they have again, systematically tried to destroy everything that is good about this country and for standing up to that, I am labeled as an extremist, xenophobic racist.
Standing up for liberty and American values is not a vice. Being weak in the face of opposition is not a virtue. The time for words has long past. Conservatives had better be prepared to take action otherwise we can kiss this country goodbye.
And Amazona, “action” does not necessarily mean “blood the streets” but it does mean a show of force.
I share these frustrations as well. I just can’t condone advocating violence and vigilantism.
And I consider my current debate with Amazona a healthy one and a debate conservatives must have. We do need to get on the same page and I am advocating for that new approach to have a muscular show of force …. not just words.
So AZ Gov Ducey just imposed an 8p curfew for the rest of the week. So let’s review, an attempted coup on our elected President, the personal destruction of a SC justice and a 3 star general, small businesses shut down, Americans going bankrupt, parks and recreation areas pretty much off limits still, and now they’re burning our cities down with an 8p curfew. Wow living with ignorant leftist people who have irrational fears and malicious intent is really taking a toll but let’s not get to extreme in our response. We wouldn’t want to be thought of us radicals. That would be really bad.