1Cubby.R.S.
I encourage all of you to listen to the 2nd hour of this program. You should listen to it through the third hour and consider all of it, and you should actually question the reality of it. Most of you will attack the credibility of the source, as you must to maintain your childlike position among leftists, but at least consider something of it.
https://megaphone.link/BMDC8425268454
Another strange article:
https://larouchepac.com/20170307/obama-s-color-revolutions-are-acts-war
The fomenting of “color revolutions” to bring down governments or nations is an act of war. The strategy was developed, and is being actively promoted out of institutions centered in the neo-British Empire, particularly at Oxford, home of the Civil Resistance and Power Politics project, and in associated networks based in the United States, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The money flows come from direct government sources—e.g., NED is funded by Congress, as well as by private agencies and donors, such as billionaire George Soros.
In its latest application, a color revolution operation is currently being conducted as an attempted coup against the government of the United States, manifest in the various forms of mob-think, and mob-defiance against the President, to prevent the United States from breaking into a new system of foreign relations for peace and economic development—and in particular to cooperate with Russia and China on defeating terrorism and joint infrastructure development as part of the New Silk Road.
A major funder of these coup operations is Wall Street mega-speculator George Soros, who has openly stated his desire to see President Trump out of office.
The color revolution method is simple, and ancient: instigate and manipulate a frenzied mob around simplistic demands to accomplish whatever geopolitical goals are intended—ousting of a president, overthrow of governments, creation of chaos, provocations to war. The term “color” refers to how a single color, symbol, slogan, or demand is promoted and repeated, to inflame passion and retard reason.
The map of successful examples includes the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003), the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), and the like, going back to such earlier examples as the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, whose banner was “yellow.” These and other cases reveal the activities—open and covert—by think-tanks and irregular warfare operatives, to accomplish their objectives.
Look more closely at the British nexus. In 2006, two Oxford professors, Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash, created a project called Civil Resistance and Power Politics: Domestic and International Dimensions (CRPP). They churn out books, conferences, and trainees in the methods of government subversion, done under various names, such as “democracy promotion,” or furthering the “liberal international order.” The predecessors of these modern Oxford operations go back to British Empire colonial times, when not only direct military subjugation was used, but also indirect rule by manipulating the public outlook.
In the United States, the National Endowment for Democracy, founded in 1983, is in the lead of operations to sponsor “civil society” groups in dozens of countries, for purposes—hiding behind the name of promoting democracy—of furthering whatever kind of “people power” subversion they choose. Nations which are subservient to the British imperial order, such as Saudi Arabia, are not touched regardless of their disdain for “democracy.”
The NED today boasts of making more than 1,200 grants yearly, to support “the projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for ‘democratic’ goals in more than 90 countries.” The NED and other agencies function under the “Project Democracy” banner, which was formally initiated in 1983 by the U.S. Information Agency, to give fellowships and conduct activities abroad.
Among the interconnections between the Oxford crowd and U.S. operations, are many personnel. For example, Nadia Diuk, NED Vice President for Programs for Africa, Europe, and Eurasia, whose biography boasts of how she has specialized in “strategies for the underground democratic movements before 1989” in Yugoslavia, and beyond. Diuk studied at Oxford with the “democratizers,” and mixed it up in London with the U.S. and British-backed Ukrainian fascist networks. Her role is typical of British-associated functionaries in U.S. institutions.
Victoria Nuland at the State Department was point person for the U.S. support of the Ukrainian Maidan operation. On Dec. 13, 2014, in the midst of the violent anti-government confrontation in Kiev, Nuland spoke in Washington, DC, saying: “Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals…”
Your Enemy, George Soros
The biggest private financier of “democracy” movement subversion, is the London-Wall Street billionaire George Soros. His overall agency is the Open Society Foundations, based in New York City, which has pumped hundreds of millions into target locations, such as eastern Europe, for purposes seen in the 2014 overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine.
Soros has openly declared Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more dangerous than ISIS, and is the primary funder of the mass, mindless demonstrations in the United States today, working with Obama, aimed at bringing down the Trump government and returning to “regime change wars” and nuclear confrontation with Russia. (See Soros’s article, “Putin Is a Bigger Threat to Europe Than Isis,” in {The Guardian}, Feb. 11.)
Soros’s own connection with European Nazi networks is personal, going back to his youth in Hungary, when he and his father chose to hide their Jewish heritage and work with the Nazi occupation to confiscate the property of fellow Jews who had been sent to the concentration camps—an experience he has described as a useful life experience. Another long-standing focus of his Open Society interventions is the promotion of the legalization of psychotropic drugs.
In the United States, the longtime guru for “people power” and government overthrow is Gene Sharp, based in Boston. In 1968, he completed his Oxford doctoral dissertation, {From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation.} Then in 1973, he produced a three-volume color-revolution playbook, titled {The Politics of Non-Violent Action}. His writings, translated into more than 40 languages, provide a boiled-down list of 198 items, which he calls “PD”—political defiance—tactics.
The Sharp tactics range from boycotts to symbolism, including: “Display of symbolic Colors,” “Protest disrobings,” “Symbolic lights,” “Paint as protest,” “Rude gestures,” and so forth.
These color revolution tactics are now in full play in the United States, in the anti-Trump “resistance” movement. Instead of bringing forward policies and furthering debate, agitation networks are pushing street actions, slogans (“Stand Up,” “Not My President,” “Shame”), and violence. On Jan. 30, the recently announced group “Indivisible” released a 25-page “Practical Guide” on how to conduct mass protest, i.e., applied political defiance. While the Indivisibles deny receiving Soros money directly, some of its founders have been directly on the Soros payroll. For example, top leader Angel Padilla, an analyst with the National Immigration Law Center, is financed by the Open Society Foundations. Indivisible has links with the Soros-funded MoveOn.org and the Working Families Party, all three of which held their first nationwide conference call for activists on Jan. 22. The theme is to “resist,” not to have a policy mission.
Obama himself, incredibly, is bombarding Americans with robocalls attacking President Trump, and encouraging protests and demonstrations against the President; Obama’s “Organizing for Action” national network is organizing those demonstrations and disruptions of Congressional town hall meetings. This is Obama’s personal support and funds network, working to bring down the President of the United States, to return to Obama’s perpetual war policy and military confrontation with Russia.
Who benefits? Those who are desperate to prevent the United States from linking up with the drive for world development underway in the global “New Silk Road” led by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and to end the military confrontation with Russia in favor of cooperation in development and in defeating terrorism. President Trump has shown inclinations to link up, which is anathema to the dying British system of monetarism and geopolitics. So the full color revolution apparatus is now deployed against the United States, from within.
It is time to understand the truth of the color revolution warfare deployed against Ukraine, and Russia, three years ago, and how the same networks are now committing warfare against Americans at home. We can stop this, and make way for a future for all nations.
https://megaphone.link/BMDC8425268454
Another strange article:
https://larouchepac.com/20170307/obama-s-color-revolutions-are-acts-war
The fomenting of “color revolutions” to bring down governments or nations is an act of war. The strategy was developed, and is being actively promoted out of institutions centered in the neo-British Empire, particularly at Oxford, home of the Civil Resistance and Power Politics project, and in associated networks based in the United States, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The money flows come from direct government sources—e.g., NED is funded by Congress, as well as by private agencies and donors, such as billionaire George Soros.
In its latest application, a color revolution operation is currently being conducted as an attempted coup against the government of the United States, manifest in the various forms of mob-think, and mob-defiance against the President, to prevent the United States from breaking into a new system of foreign relations for peace and economic development—and in particular to cooperate with Russia and China on defeating terrorism and joint infrastructure development as part of the New Silk Road.
A major funder of these coup operations is Wall Street mega-speculator George Soros, who has openly stated his desire to see President Trump out of office.
The color revolution method is simple, and ancient: instigate and manipulate a frenzied mob around simplistic demands to accomplish whatever geopolitical goals are intended—ousting of a president, overthrow of governments, creation of chaos, provocations to war. The term “color” refers to how a single color, symbol, slogan, or demand is promoted and repeated, to inflame passion and retard reason.
The map of successful examples includes the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003), the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), and the like, going back to such earlier examples as the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, whose banner was “yellow.” These and other cases reveal the activities—open and covert—by think-tanks and irregular warfare operatives, to accomplish their objectives.
Look more closely at the British nexus. In 2006, two Oxford professors, Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash, created a project called Civil Resistance and Power Politics: Domestic and International Dimensions (CRPP). They churn out books, conferences, and trainees in the methods of government subversion, done under various names, such as “democracy promotion,” or furthering the “liberal international order.” The predecessors of these modern Oxford operations go back to British Empire colonial times, when not only direct military subjugation was used, but also indirect rule by manipulating the public outlook.
In the United States, the National Endowment for Democracy, founded in 1983, is in the lead of operations to sponsor “civil society” groups in dozens of countries, for purposes—hiding behind the name of promoting democracy—of furthering whatever kind of “people power” subversion they choose. Nations which are subservient to the British imperial order, such as Saudi Arabia, are not touched regardless of their disdain for “democracy.”
The NED today boasts of making more than 1,200 grants yearly, to support “the projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for ‘democratic’ goals in more than 90 countries.” The NED and other agencies function under the “Project Democracy” banner, which was formally initiated in 1983 by the U.S. Information Agency, to give fellowships and conduct activities abroad.
Among the interconnections between the Oxford crowd and U.S. operations, are many personnel. For example, Nadia Diuk, NED Vice President for Programs for Africa, Europe, and Eurasia, whose biography boasts of how she has specialized in “strategies for the underground democratic movements before 1989” in Yugoslavia, and beyond. Diuk studied at Oxford with the “democratizers,” and mixed it up in London with the U.S. and British-backed Ukrainian fascist networks. Her role is typical of British-associated functionaries in U.S. institutions.
Victoria Nuland at the State Department was point person for the U.S. support of the Ukrainian Maidan operation. On Dec. 13, 2014, in the midst of the violent anti-government confrontation in Kiev, Nuland spoke in Washington, DC, saying: “Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals…”
Your Enemy, George Soros
The biggest private financier of “democracy” movement subversion, is the London-Wall Street billionaire George Soros. His overall agency is the Open Society Foundations, based in New York City, which has pumped hundreds of millions into target locations, such as eastern Europe, for purposes seen in the 2014 overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine.
Soros has openly declared Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more dangerous than ISIS, and is the primary funder of the mass, mindless demonstrations in the United States today, working with Obama, aimed at bringing down the Trump government and returning to “regime change wars” and nuclear confrontation with Russia. (See Soros’s article, “Putin Is a Bigger Threat to Europe Than Isis,” in {The Guardian}, Feb. 11.)
Soros’s own connection with European Nazi networks is personal, going back to his youth in Hungary, when he and his father chose to hide their Jewish heritage and work with the Nazi occupation to confiscate the property of fellow Jews who had been sent to the concentration camps—an experience he has described as a useful life experience. Another long-standing focus of his Open Society interventions is the promotion of the legalization of psychotropic drugs.
In the United States, the longtime guru for “people power” and government overthrow is Gene Sharp, based in Boston. In 1968, he completed his Oxford doctoral dissertation, {From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation.} Then in 1973, he produced a three-volume color-revolution playbook, titled {The Politics of Non-Violent Action}. His writings, translated into more than 40 languages, provide a boiled-down list of 198 items, which he calls “PD”—political defiance—tactics.
The Sharp tactics range from boycotts to symbolism, including: “Display of symbolic Colors,” “Protest disrobings,” “Symbolic lights,” “Paint as protest,” “Rude gestures,” and so forth.
These color revolution tactics are now in full play in the United States, in the anti-Trump “resistance” movement. Instead of bringing forward policies and furthering debate, agitation networks are pushing street actions, slogans (“Stand Up,” “Not My President,” “Shame”), and violence. On Jan. 30, the recently announced group “Indivisible” released a 25-page “Practical Guide” on how to conduct mass protest, i.e., applied political defiance. While the Indivisibles deny receiving Soros money directly, some of its founders have been directly on the Soros payroll. For example, top leader Angel Padilla, an analyst with the National Immigration Law Center, is financed by the Open Society Foundations. Indivisible has links with the Soros-funded MoveOn.org and the Working Families Party, all three of which held their first nationwide conference call for activists on Jan. 22. The theme is to “resist,” not to have a policy mission.
Obama himself, incredibly, is bombarding Americans with robocalls attacking President Trump, and encouraging protests and demonstrations against the President; Obama’s “Organizing for Action” national network is organizing those demonstrations and disruptions of Congressional town hall meetings. This is Obama’s personal support and funds network, working to bring down the President of the United States, to return to Obama’s perpetual war policy and military confrontation with Russia.
Who benefits? Those who are desperate to prevent the United States from linking up with the drive for world development underway in the global “New Silk Road” led by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and to end the military confrontation with Russia in favor of cooperation in development and in defeating terrorism. President Trump has shown inclinations to link up, which is anathema to the dying British system of monetarism and geopolitics. So the full color revolution apparatus is now deployed against the United States, from within.
It is time to understand the truth of the color revolution warfare deployed against Ukraine, and Russia, three years ago, and how the same networks are now committing warfare against Americans at home. We can stop this, and make way for a future for all nations.
3kiparsky
>1 Cubby.R.S.: I encourage all of you to listen to the 2nd hour of this program. You should listen to it through the third hour
Seriously? You lead off with "I want two hours of your life" and the only justification you can give is a bunch of gobbledegook that sounds like you cribbed it from one of the more anti-semitic AM radio nutjobs back in the 90s? Were you actually listening to Michael Savage re-runs or something?
Sorry, but no fucking way.
Seriously? You lead off with "I want two hours of your life" and the only justification you can give is a bunch of gobbledegook that sounds like you cribbed it from one of the more anti-semitic AM radio nutjobs back in the 90s? Were you actually listening to Michael Savage re-runs or something?
Sorry, but no fucking way.
4Cubby.R.S.
>2 lriley:
Fair enough. If you listen to the podcast the second story seems more interesting...
>3 kiparsky:
To learn something about the wicked nature about the folks you are supporting, 2 hours is nothing. Although you are likely a relativist with no hinge but the talking point of the day, I think you could be curious enough to learn the works of your support. But pretty typical of someone that relies on others to provide their opinion. Two hours is just too much work for a lefty.
If this shakes out, you are all complicit and should be ashamed of yourselves.
Fair enough. If you listen to the podcast the second story seems more interesting...
>3 kiparsky:
To learn something about the wicked nature about the folks you are supporting, 2 hours is nothing. Although you are likely a relativist with no hinge but the talking point of the day, I think you could be curious enough to learn the works of your support. But pretty typical of someone that relies on others to provide their opinion. Two hours is just too much work for a lefty.
If this shakes out, you are all complicit and should be ashamed of yourselves.
6kiparsky
>4 Cubby.R.S.: The only people threatening violence around the election are the right-wing nutbags. I know you're just trying to run cover for them, but don't waste your time. Nobody's buying it except the deeply gullible, and they already have their marching orders, they got their talking points the same way you did.
7JGL53
1. I will vote for Joe Biden even if he is in a coma on election day.
2. I will vote for Joe Biden even if he declares himself a communist between now and election day.
3. I will vote for Joe Biden even if he is caught in bed tomorrow having three-way sex with a dead girl and a live boy.
At this point even Satan incarnated on earth would be preferable to four more years of Orange Hitler. At least Satan hasn't been responsible lately for putting children in cages and separating them forever from their parents. At least Satan hasn't fucked over this country in so many ways it would take a encyclopedia-sized series of books to document and list it all.
I shit on d.j. trump. Quit wasting everyone's time with bullshit defending Orange Hitler - there IS no sane defense of the piece of shit.
Full stop. Moving on.
2. I will vote for Joe Biden even if he declares himself a communist between now and election day.
3. I will vote for Joe Biden even if he is caught in bed tomorrow having three-way sex with a dead girl and a live boy.
At this point even Satan incarnated on earth would be preferable to four more years of Orange Hitler. At least Satan hasn't been responsible lately for putting children in cages and separating them forever from their parents. At least Satan hasn't fucked over this country in so many ways it would take a encyclopedia-sized series of books to document and list it all.
I shit on d.j. trump. Quit wasting everyone's time with bullshit defending Orange Hitler - there IS no sane defense of the piece of shit.
Full stop. Moving on.
8John5918
>1 Cubby.R.S.: The color revolution method is simple, and ancient: instigate and manipulate a frenzied mob around simplistic demands to accomplish whatever geopolitical goals are intended
That does look rather like what is happening in the USA with armed right wing militia, doesn't it?
That does look rather like what is happening in the USA with armed right wing militia, doesn't it?
9Cubby.R.S.
>8 John5918:
Your choice to ignore the other side. In the US the white supremacists are largely socialists and also want to destroy the constitution, they have about 8 members. the left has the actual destructive force and money. Do not be so easily duped by the left's media.
Your choice to ignore the other side. In the US the white supremacists are largely socialists and also want to destroy the constitution, they have about 8 members. the left has the actual destructive force and money. Do not be so easily duped by the left's media.
10Cubby.R.S.
>7 JGL53:
Ignorance is not actual bliss. He's using Obama's cages by the way. You couldn't handle finding out how wrong you are and the lies you're believing.
Ignorance is not actual bliss. He's using Obama's cages by the way. You couldn't handle finding out how wrong you are and the lies you're believing.
12John5918
>9 Cubby.R.S.: Your choice to ignore the other side
Firstly, the narrative of "sides" is probably not very helpful. The USA is going through a difficult and divisive period and what it needs more than anything is people coming together rather than becoming more focused on opposing "sides". Secondly, I don't choose to ignore anything. I choose to take a balanced and rational view based on a wide variety of credible sources.
Firstly, the narrative of "sides" is probably not very helpful. The USA is going through a difficult and divisive period and what it needs more than anything is people coming together rather than becoming more focused on opposing "sides". Secondly, I don't choose to ignore anything. I choose to take a balanced and rational view based on a wide variety of credible sources.
13kiparsky
>12 John5918: It's pretty clear why Cubby likes the narrative of "sides", isn't it? It allows them to contrast "white supremacists" with "the left", which implies (incorrectly, of course) that "the left" is in some sense equivalent to the "white supremacists", only reflected through some ideological transform.
The rhetorical hope, obviously, is that the rational community will fall into the trap of arguing with that equivalence, which of course is a great argument for the Cubby to have. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have reckoned with the fact that we've all had arguments before and we're not biting, which must be infinitely frustrating for him.
>1 Cubby.R.S.: Would you mind terribly much attempting to state your premise in clear and concise terms? We can argue about it all you want, if you're willing to defend it, but I would very much like to know more precisely what it is you are claiming before I start disputing it.
The rhetorical hope, obviously, is that the rational community will fall into the trap of arguing with that equivalence, which of course is a great argument for the Cubby to have. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have reckoned with the fact that we've all had arguments before and we're not biting, which must be infinitely frustrating for him.
>1 Cubby.R.S.: Would you mind terribly much attempting to state your premise in clear and concise terms? We can argue about it all you want, if you're willing to defend it, but I would very much like to know more precisely what it is you are claiming before I start disputing it.
14Cubby.R.S.
>12 John5918:
Okay, you might have convinced yourself of that, but evidence of you dismissing everything not on your side of the fence clearly states otherwise. There really is no point in your condescending responses and blatant cherry picking retorts from the wasteland of moral relativism.
>13 kiparsky:
https://www.glennbeck.com/glenn-beck/americas-end-how-the-left-is-paving-the-way...
Okay, you might have convinced yourself of that, but evidence of you dismissing everything not on your side of the fence clearly states otherwise. There really is no point in your condescending responses and blatant cherry picking retorts from the wasteland of moral relativism.
>13 kiparsky:
https://www.glennbeck.com/glenn-beck/americas-end-how-the-left-is-paving-the-way...
15kiparsky
>14 Cubby.R.S.: Once again, it would be helpful if you would state your premise in clear and concise terms. Is that really so hard?
Try it. One paragraph in which you summarize what it is that you want to defend here. If you can't do that, how do you know you even believe it?
Try it. One paragraph in which you summarize what it is that you want to defend here. If you can't do that, how do you know you even believe it?
16proximity1
Actually, in numerous respects, Vladimir Putin is arguably more dangerous than ISIS (at this writing). That's from yours truly, who's denounced here by the ideological captives you address, as a tool of Putin--LOL!
Other than that, I think your points are generally correct.
Soros, who began long ago with what were beyond doubt with the best of intentions, is a former victim of Soviet-bloc state-repression, has come a long way from his early days as a clever resistant. Now, he's become accustomed to riches and comfort and he's convinced (too mistakenly in too many ways) that, with his money, the people in power with whom he's become associated are going to fight the sort of state repression he once knew rather than become its practitioners. He's greatly deluded in that. But his is an object-lesson in the dangers of becoming in some ways "too successful."
He seems to have lost the capacity to doubt and to question in some areas and ways where it's vital that he do just that. Some of his admirers don't seem to have even been acquainted with the healthy capacity to doubt their own certitude.
That's what we see here in this pig-sty of moral complacency on the "Left."
Practically all of your correspondents here are way beyond the reach of the usual precepts of reason and fairness which you're using. They're completely captive of an ideology which, if looked at honestly, would crumble. Their own place of psychic comfort would crumble with it. So, in their fear, they constantly double-down on their fear-driven certainties which fly in the face of facts.
These people whose posts I no longer bother to read aren't capable of giving you a fair hearing and, so, they're a waste of your time --as they were previously of mine.
They learned nothing at all from Hillary Clinton's defeat and they'll learn nothing at all from a Biden defeat.
___________________________
(written and posted before I'd seen the following)
Other than that, I think your points are generally correct.
Soros, who began long ago with what were beyond doubt with the best of intentions, is a former victim of Soviet-bloc state-repression, has come a long way from his early days as a clever resistant. Now, he's become accustomed to riches and comfort and he's convinced (too mistakenly in too many ways) that, with his money, the people in power with whom he's become associated are going to fight the sort of state repression he once knew rather than become its practitioners. He's greatly deluded in that. But his is an object-lesson in the dangers of becoming in some ways "too successful."
He seems to have lost the capacity to doubt and to question in some areas and ways where it's vital that he do just that. Some of his admirers don't seem to have even been acquainted with the healthy capacity to doubt their own certitude.
That's what we see here in this pig-sty of moral complacency on the "Left."
Practically all of your correspondents here are way beyond the reach of the usual precepts of reason and fairness which you're using. They're completely captive of an ideology which, if looked at honestly, would crumble. Their own place of psychic comfort would crumble with it. So, in their fear, they constantly double-down on their fear-driven certainties which fly in the face of facts.
These people whose posts I no longer bother to read aren't capable of giving you a fair hearing and, so, they're a waste of your time --as they were previously of mine.
They learned nothing at all from Hillary Clinton's defeat and they'll learn nothing at all from a Biden defeat.
___________________________
(written and posted before I'd seen the following)
The Totalitarian Tendencies of the Woke | COMMENTARY | By Karl Zinsmeister | 18 September 2020
__________________
... "If politics is the methodical organization of resentments, identity politics runs on the methodical organization of rage. Rage is an awful fuel for the gradual give-and-take needed to produce social progress in a non-authoritarian democracy. Alas, the Americans under age 30 who are manning the barricades of identity socialism loathe messy give-and-take. They prefer, as columnist Bari Weiss has noted, to squash resisters. Revolution rather than reform is increasingly the goal.
"There is a soaring tendency to personalize disagreements. Protesters now regularly descend on the homes of people they disagree with. They hound them in restaurants. They harass family members. They release phone numbers and personal information online ('doxing'). They get opponents dis-invited from public events, and dismissed from public posts ('deplatforming').
"Character assassination and purges — also hallmarks of a totalitarian temptation — are on the rise. A University of Chicago economist was forced to resign as editor of the Journal of Political Economy after he argued, 'We need more police, we need to pay them more, we need to train them better.' "
...
17John5918
>16 proximity1: in numerous respects, Vladimir Putin is arguably more dangerous than ISIS
Yes, I would agree with you. ISIS will continue with sporadic terror attacks, but Putin, as the leader of a superpower (arguably a declining superpower which has ambitions to reassert itself) has, in the worst case, the ability to start a global nuclear war, or more likely to destabilise much of the world in a way that ISIS does not have the capacity to do.
he's convinced (too mistakenly in too many ways) that, with his money, the people in power with whom he's become associated are going to fight the sort of state repression he once knew rather than become its practitioners
Do you really think those on "the left" are not aware of this danger? The Soviet Union is the classic example of how a well-intentioned revolution against what was surely one of the most repressive regimes of its age led to an even more repressive regime, and there are many other examples amongst the revolutions and liberation struggles in South America and Africa. But should we just sit and endure dysfunctional systems, or should we seek justice and peace?
That's what we see here in this pig-sty of moral complacency on the "Left."
Ah, once again that great monolith, "the Left".
They learned nothing at all from Hillary Clinton's defeat and they'll learn nothing at all from a Biden defeat.
Not sure why you bring in Clinton and Biden in a diatribe against "the Left", as neither of them are left wing.
Edited to add a comment on your edit:
Yes, there is a disturbing amount of anger on the part of those who feel that the current political system has nothing for them. It's understandable, but unhealthy. I believe activists like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were much more understanding of the need for all sides to be transformed rather than for one side to "win" a "victory". Mind you, the anger of the privileged identity group who have been stirred up to believe that they will lose out seems to be greater than the anger of the disadvantaged groups who are seeking a fair dispensation for the common good.
Yes, I would agree with you. ISIS will continue with sporadic terror attacks, but Putin, as the leader of a superpower (arguably a declining superpower which has ambitions to reassert itself) has, in the worst case, the ability to start a global nuclear war, or more likely to destabilise much of the world in a way that ISIS does not have the capacity to do.
he's convinced (too mistakenly in too many ways) that, with his money, the people in power with whom he's become associated are going to fight the sort of state repression he once knew rather than become its practitioners
Do you really think those on "the left" are not aware of this danger? The Soviet Union is the classic example of how a well-intentioned revolution against what was surely one of the most repressive regimes of its age led to an even more repressive regime, and there are many other examples amongst the revolutions and liberation struggles in South America and Africa. But should we just sit and endure dysfunctional systems, or should we seek justice and peace?
That's what we see here in this pig-sty of moral complacency on the "Left."
Ah, once again that great monolith, "the Left".
They learned nothing at all from Hillary Clinton's defeat and they'll learn nothing at all from a Biden defeat.
Not sure why you bring in Clinton and Biden in a diatribe against "the Left", as neither of them are left wing.
Edited to add a comment on your edit:
Yes, there is a disturbing amount of anger on the part of those who feel that the current political system has nothing for them. It's understandable, but unhealthy. I believe activists like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were much more understanding of the need for all sides to be transformed rather than for one side to "win" a "victory". Mind you, the anger of the privileged identity group who have been stirred up to believe that they will lose out seems to be greater than the anger of the disadvantaged groups who are seeking a fair dispensation for the common good.
18lriley
#16--FWIW both parties chase money in all the wrong places. Billionaires and corporations have an outsized influence on the politics of this country and greatly benefit from the sleazy fuckers they help to put into office. But someone brings up George Soros and I can bring up either of the Koch brothers and what really is the difference? Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, Trump, Biden they all want it this way. Other than put down their rivals principal biggest donors they don't complain where the money comes from and would complain if it didn't come at all.
19Carnophile
>8 John5918: That does look rather like what is happening in the USA with armed right wing militia, doesn't it?
Which side has been violently rioting through the streets for the last few months?
Which side has been violently rioting through the streets for the last few months?
20John5918
>19 Carnophile:
Sides again. Which movement has been holding largely peaceful protests, albeit with some fringe violence which is hard to avoid when such large numbers are involved? Which "side" has been threatening civil war, openly bringing firearms to protests, setting up illegal armed road blocks?
Sides again. Which movement has been holding largely peaceful protests, albeit with some fringe violence which is hard to avoid when such large numbers are involved? Which "side" has been threatening civil war, openly bringing firearms to protests, setting up illegal armed road blocks?
21Cubby.R.S.
>20 John5918:
Haha largely peaceful... Tripe, get some real sources. If the Tea Party would've had two violent moments the outrage would've been worse than the mocking.
>17 John5918:
Biden and Clinton are the benefactors of an otherwise undesirable left. The left is tired of being lied to by the Democrats of the machine, just like everyone else. That is why Clinton and Biden lost their elections.
>18 lriley:
Soros and the Koch brothers are nowhere near similar. WTF? One is in to destroying countries with billions and the Koch brothers donate a couple million to Republicans.
>20 John5918:
The left has taken over cities and declared them Autonomous Zones. Some have tried to protect property. The left is the party of crime, the conflated stories you are possibly citing are almost certainly misconstrued.
22lriley
#21--The Koch's and there are others (why stop at them) have been subsidizing political campaigns for decades. Blindness to the side you're on.
I don't like how the democrats court people like Soros or allies in Hollywood or on Wall St. but both sides do it and both sides are beholden to their benefactors first and foremost and not to their voters. Both parties believe that raising money overrides real ideas and both parties continue to go back to the well again and again to failed social and economic policy. Who takes money from Big Pharma?--they both do. Who takes oil and gas money? They both do. Who is courting the military/industrial complex 365 24/7? They both are. McCain/Feingold never had any real teeth and McCain is dead and Feingold retired a long time ago. There's nothing in the way of corporate or dark money coming from wherever and all over. This isn't chump change coming from your mom and pop you know. Your mom and pop will have worked a lot harder for what they might give but that doesn't matter. With very few exceptions (Sanders for instance) political campaigns are not popularly funded at all so why do you think that a politician you vote for is really going to take your side over the guys or entities that paid for his/her campaign?
I don't like how the democrats court people like Soros or allies in Hollywood or on Wall St. but both sides do it and both sides are beholden to their benefactors first and foremost and not to their voters. Both parties believe that raising money overrides real ideas and both parties continue to go back to the well again and again to failed social and economic policy. Who takes money from Big Pharma?--they both do. Who takes oil and gas money? They both do. Who is courting the military/industrial complex 365 24/7? They both are. McCain/Feingold never had any real teeth and McCain is dead and Feingold retired a long time ago. There's nothing in the way of corporate or dark money coming from wherever and all over. This isn't chump change coming from your mom and pop you know. Your mom and pop will have worked a lot harder for what they might give but that doesn't matter. With very few exceptions (Sanders for instance) political campaigns are not popularly funded at all so why do you think that a politician you vote for is really going to take your side over the guys or entities that paid for his/her campaign?
23John5918
>21 Cubby.R.S.: The left has taken over cities
"The left" has taken over nothing. Concerned citizens have protested in many cities.
the conflated stories you are possibly citing are almost certainly misconstrued
I would suggest that you look carefully at your own position, since "the conflated stories you are possibly citing are almost certainly misconstrued".
"The left" has taken over nothing. Concerned citizens have protested in many cities.
the conflated stories you are possibly citing are almost certainly misconstrued
I would suggest that you look carefully at your own position, since "the conflated stories you are possibly citing are almost certainly misconstrued".
24kiparsky
>21 Cubby.R.S.: One is in to destroying countries with billions and the Koch brothers donate a couple million to Republicans
Okay, two claims here. One is clearly disingenuous at best: The Koch brothers donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Republican candidates in 2016, which is well more than "a couple million". Or do you consider hundreds of millions of dollars to be "a couple of million"?
The brothers pledged to donate $60 million in the 2012 election season to defeat President Barack Obama.3536 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of $274 million in anonymous 2012 contributions, at least $86 million is "attributed to donor groups in the Koch network" Source
The second is, at best, unsubstantiated. Name, if you can, one country that Soros has "destroyed with billions". Preferably using reliable sources, if you know what those are.
Okay, two claims here. One is clearly disingenuous at best: The Koch brothers donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Republican candidates in 2016, which is well more than "a couple million". Or do you consider hundreds of millions of dollars to be "a couple of million"?
The brothers pledged to donate $60 million in the 2012 election season to defeat President Barack Obama.3536 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of $274 million in anonymous 2012 contributions, at least $86 million is "attributed to donor groups in the Koch network" Source
The second is, at best, unsubstantiated. Name, if you can, one country that Soros has "destroyed with billions". Preferably using reliable sources, if you know what those are.
25lriley
The FBI and the Portland (Ore.) Police Dept. went hard at Joe Rogan (bless his heart) for spreading the debunked story that leftist activists had been setting fires in Oregon's forests. Rogan almost immediately apologized on his twitter account. But there's a lot of shit like this that some people take and run with and they don't want to let it go. As Rogan is saying that he should have checked and made sure--they're thinking no it really happened.
#24--Sheldon Adelson is another one who gives millions and millions to republican causes and the list could go on for a while. A lot of these PAC's run alongside campaigns and not technically with--giving candidates deniability and these often turn out the ones that want to smear the most. I think it's pretty clear that both parties do it--it's just the deniability of some people just kills any kind of a chance of a constructive argument with them on the subject.
But anyway the brothers Koch bankrolled Scott Walker's years as Governor in the state of Wisconsin and later on they bankrolled a brief run for president by Walker in 2016. He was their golden boy for years but they also had many others.
#24--Sheldon Adelson is another one who gives millions and millions to republican causes and the list could go on for a while. A lot of these PAC's run alongside campaigns and not technically with--giving candidates deniability and these often turn out the ones that want to smear the most. I think it's pretty clear that both parties do it--it's just the deniability of some people just kills any kind of a chance of a constructive argument with them on the subject.
But anyway the brothers Koch bankrolled Scott Walker's years as Governor in the state of Wisconsin and later on they bankrolled a brief run for president by Walker in 2016. He was their golden boy for years but they also had many others.
26Cubby.R.S.
Leftists openly claim to create more and bigger riots if Republicans try to fill RBGs seat... Hmm, interesting. They are creating the riots.
"If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots." Miller followed up with another tweet saying: "If McConnell follows the constitutional process, we in the media will encourage riots, which our base will then execute. Yes, we know." Writer and producer Beau Willimon said, "We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election." What's more, Mary L Trump too tweeted: "Take a moment. Breathe. And then we fight for our country the way she always did for us. Or we will lose everything."
*more, bigger riots
— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) September 19, 2020
Because the riots are not supposed to have been political, they are about the system and mistreatment of people of color...? Nope, they are political and everyone knows that but the willful destroyers of the country. More and bigger riots over Ginsburg hit the nail on the head. It was a bought and paid for Act-Blue riots supported by the left wing media that have purposefully created havoc in order to win an election and protect their goals.
watch link in >1 Cubby.R.S.:
https://www.google.com/search?q=leftist+threaten+riots+of+ginsburg+seat&rlz=...
Look at the organizations that Soros funds. Not helpful tuition granting or research, but movements designed for unrest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros
This was a strange event, I saw this on the Daily Wire:
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-shuts-down-newt-gingrich-linking-george-soros-...
Some back drop on George, Beck did a series 6 years ago, using all of George's own words, and allowing Mr. Soros to tell you his plans on his own.
https://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=glenn%20beck%20george%20soros
"If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots." Miller followed up with another tweet saying: "If McConnell follows the constitutional process, we in the media will encourage riots, which our base will then execute. Yes, we know." Writer and producer Beau Willimon said, "We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election." What's more, Mary L Trump too tweeted: "Take a moment. Breathe. And then we fight for our country the way she always did for us. Or we will lose everything."
*more, bigger riots
— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) September 19, 2020
Because the riots are not supposed to have been political, they are about the system and mistreatment of people of color...? Nope, they are political and everyone knows that but the willful destroyers of the country. More and bigger riots over Ginsburg hit the nail on the head. It was a bought and paid for Act-Blue riots supported by the left wing media that have purposefully created havoc in order to win an election and protect their goals.
watch link in >1 Cubby.R.S.:
https://www.google.com/search?q=leftist+threaten+riots+of+ginsburg+seat&rlz=...
Look at the organizations that Soros funds. Not helpful tuition granting or research, but movements designed for unrest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros
This was a strange event, I saw this on the Daily Wire:
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-shuts-down-newt-gingrich-linking-george-soros-...
Some back drop on George, Beck did a series 6 years ago, using all of George's own words, and allowing Mr. Soros to tell you his plans on his own.
https://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=glenn%20beck%20george%20soros
27kiparsky
>26 Cubby.R.S.:
Here's the list of Soros' projects found at your link:
This seems like a list of pretty straightforward good-governance organizations with a focus on human rights and science.
What's the problem here exactly?
Here's the list of Soros' projects found at your link:
-
Founded or helped to found
- Open Society Foundations
- New America
-
Supported
- Best for Britain
- European Movement UK
- Scientists for EU
- Media Matters for America
- Center for Public Integrity
- Human Rights Watch
- Priorities USA Action
- American Bridge 21st Century
- America Votes
- Millennium Promise
- Tides Center and Foundation
- Wikimedia Endowment
- Black Lives Matter
-
Studies
- Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties
This seems like a list of pretty straightforward good-governance organizations with a focus on human rights and science.
What's the problem here exactly?
28Carnophile
>8 John5918: armed right wing militia
>19 Carnophile: Which side has been violently rioting through the streets for the last few months?
>20 John5918: Uh... Let’s not talk about sides.
LOL.
>19 Carnophile: Which side has been violently rioting through the streets for the last few months?
>20 John5918: Uh... Let’s not talk about sides.
LOL.
29Carnophile
>19 Carnophile: Which side has been violently rioting through the streets for the last few months?
>20 John5918: Which movement has been holding largely peaceful protests, albeit with some fringe violence...
It’s like you think your interlocutors don’t have eyes and can’t see the videos.
>20 John5918: Which movement has been holding largely peaceful protests, albeit with some fringe violence...
It’s like you think your interlocutors don’t have eyes and can’t see the videos.
30John5918
>29 Carnophile:
It's as if you cherry pick the incidents which suit your narrative, and try to create a simplistic anecdotal moral equivalence rather than analysing the complexity of the big picture.
It's as if you cherry pick the incidents which suit your narrative, and try to create a simplistic anecdotal moral equivalence rather than analysing the complexity of the big picture.
31Carnophile
Pointing out the massive rioting in many cities all over the country is "cherry picking" now. Huh.
32kiparsky
>31 Carnophile: Calling the extremely rare incidence of violence at BLM protests "massive rioting" is cherry picking, yes.
Or, lying, if you'd rather, but because I know you're a sensitive snowflake and easily melted by that sort of language, we'll use the euphemism to spare your precious little feelings.
Or, lying, if you'd rather, but because I know you're a sensitive snowflake and easily melted by that sort of language, we'll use the euphemism to spare your precious little feelings.
33John5918
>32 kiparsky: we'll use the euphemism to spare your precious little feelings
I've always liked the euphemismm allegedly used in the British parliament. "The Honorable Member is being economical with the truth".
I've always liked the euphemismm allegedly used in the British parliament. "The Honorable Member is being economical with the truth".
34fuzzi
>32 kiparsky: I suggest you check out the damage done in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, just to name a few locations. Blocks of houses and businesses have been burned to the ground by the extremely rare violence done by peaceful protesters.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-behind-blms-peaceful-protests/
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-behind-blms-peaceful-protests/
35LolaWalser
Note: hyperlinks did not carry over in the C & P, for that do go to the linked article.
How an overload of riot porn is driving conflict in the streets
How an overload of riot porn is driving conflict in the streets
Since June, right-wing media makers have recorded and circulated videos of violent altercations at protests in cities including New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon. Fed into a media ecosystem with an established bias toward highlighting violence and rioting, the videos have mobilized white militia and vigilante groups to take up arms against Black Lives Matter and “antifa” protesters. This feedback circuit has created a self-fulfilling cycle where white vigilantes feel justified in menacing and physically attacking racial justice protesters—and inspire others to do the same. (...)
Because right-wing reactionaries do not have the same kind of experience in organizing street protests as the left, they instead rely heavily on social media—particularly Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—to mobilize crowds. Their efforts to counter the wave of public support for Black Lives Matter protests have made extensive use of this tactic.
As a scholar of social movements and media studies, I see an alarming split between the types of content consumed by right-wing reactionaries and left-wing social justice advocates. Given the way media accounts shape public perceptions about protest and define who has recourse to the “legitimate use of violence,” the kinds of content shared within these hyperpartisan media systems play a powerful yet often invisible role in mobilizing white vigilante groups. If social-media companies do not act swiftly to stop calls for violence against protesters, the situation can only get worse.
(...)
In one case, Fox News manipulated photos to make protesters appear more ominous and threatening, while other right-wing outlets falsely reported that the occupying protesters were extorting local businesses. (...)
These narratives have been intensified and supplemented by the work of right-wing adversarial media-makers like Elijah Schaffer and Andy Ngo, who collect videos of conflict at public protests and recirculate them to their online audiences. Both have even gone “undercover” by posing as protesters to capture footage for their channels, seeking to name and shame those marching. Their videos are edited, decontextualized, and shared among audiences hungry for a new fix of “riot porn,” which instantly goes viral across the right-wing media ecosystem with the aid of influential pundits and politicians, including President Donald Trump. (...)
Judging by the reactions shared by followers of right-wing influencers, riot porn further enrages and traumatizes these audiences from afar, inflaming their perceptions of risk and danger. In chat rooms, watchers actively cheer as cops and other aggressors brutalize Black Lives Matter activists. These emotional reactions help develop an unshakable trust between the partisan content creators and the content consumers. (...)
By using riot porn to incite fear in white people, the right-wing media ecosystem converts the real pain experienced by Black Americans into fodder for deranged, paranoid fantasies that white vigilantes must take up the functions of the police. (...)
36Cubby.R.S.
The Left is now threatening to shut down the country and burn it to the ground over RBGs seat. So, continuing what they've already been doing? I'll take an extra seat in the court please. We will see you there. Sickos.
37kiparsky
>36 Cubby.R.S.: "Projection again"?
39prosfilaes
>34 fuzzi: The link doesn't seem to support what you said, and some of the things seem a matter of perspective.
Let's compare another riot: The one caused hundreds to thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of arrests, and forced the government to declare martial law. George HW Bush and Maragret Thatcher were critical... but of the government? Huh? It's almost like counting deaths and arrests is not simple enough to judge a protest.
He links to https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4... , which points out that it's not especially damaging for mass protests, it's just larger. I had to look up the events on May 17-19, 1980 in Miami, FL; turns out the police beat a black man to death and an all-white jury acquitted them. Yay; forty years later, and little has changed.
The police can’t win. Any enforcement of the law gets reported as shocking police violence. The police withdraw or take a knee. Then the police are blamed for lawlessness. Vigilantes step in. Then the police are accused of colluding with racists.
Which is an interesting way of writing history. The police killed a guy despite having everything under control, which should be a little shocking. Vigilantes step in, and police toss them water and ignore the fact they're waving guns around and breaking curfew.
Note that as Vox shows, police responded to white protesters waving guns in a calmer fashion than unarmed black protesters.
Would you be happy to live in a country with six violent protests a day? ... Would you still travel given an expectation that 9 of those visits would expose you to violence?
Again, let's go back to the riot I mentioned to start with. Do you judge the protesters in the Tiananmen Square protests? I'm sure a lot of Chinese used similar arguments against the protests.
Also, would you be happy to live in a country where you feel the police could execute you without punishment? British comedians offer jokes about "Are you a black man feeling suicidal? Just go to America and ask any police officer for details!"*; I'd guess there's a lot of would-be visitors in the world who are more concerned about how police would treat them in the US than the fact that people are protesting that.
(Note that while people were complaining about the violence of MLK's protests, the Secretary of State was begging commercial places on the Beltway not to discriminate against diplomats from all those African nations we were trying to woo, to little success.)
City politics continue to favour the protesters. For instance, city government recently closed a park against a Christian gathering, but opened other parks to protests against the police.
This is the US. We have a right to assemble to protest the government. Again, how do you feel about China shutting down protests against the government? Parks are a typical place of peaceful protest; if you're really worried about peace, then why object to providing protesters a peaceful place to protest?
* From Mock the Week, and I can't remember the comedian.
Let's compare another riot: The one caused hundreds to thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of arrests, and forced the government to declare martial law. George HW Bush and Maragret Thatcher were critical... but of the government? Huh? It's almost like counting deaths and arrests is not simple enough to judge a protest.
He links to https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4... , which points out that it's not especially damaging for mass protests, it's just larger. I had to look up the events on May 17-19, 1980 in Miami, FL; turns out the police beat a black man to death and an all-white jury acquitted them. Yay; forty years later, and little has changed.
The police can’t win. Any enforcement of the law gets reported as shocking police violence. The police withdraw or take a knee. Then the police are blamed for lawlessness. Vigilantes step in. Then the police are accused of colluding with racists.
Which is an interesting way of writing history. The police killed a guy despite having everything under control, which should be a little shocking. Vigilantes step in, and police toss them water and ignore the fact they're waving guns around and breaking curfew.
Note that as Vox shows, police responded to white protesters waving guns in a calmer fashion than unarmed black protesters.
Would you be happy to live in a country with six violent protests a day? ... Would you still travel given an expectation that 9 of those visits would expose you to violence?
Again, let's go back to the riot I mentioned to start with. Do you judge the protesters in the Tiananmen Square protests? I'm sure a lot of Chinese used similar arguments against the protests.
Also, would you be happy to live in a country where you feel the police could execute you without punishment? British comedians offer jokes about "Are you a black man feeling suicidal? Just go to America and ask any police officer for details!"*; I'd guess there's a lot of would-be visitors in the world who are more concerned about how police would treat them in the US than the fact that people are protesting that.
(Note that while people were complaining about the violence of MLK's protests, the Secretary of State was begging commercial places on the Beltway not to discriminate against diplomats from all those African nations we were trying to woo, to little success.)
City politics continue to favour the protesters. For instance, city government recently closed a park against a Christian gathering, but opened other parks to protests against the police.
This is the US. We have a right to assemble to protest the government. Again, how do you feel about China shutting down protests against the government? Parks are a typical place of peaceful protest; if you're really worried about peace, then why object to providing protesters a peaceful place to protest?
* From Mock the Week, and I can't remember the comedian.
40kiparsky
>39 prosfilaes: That sounds a lot like an Ed Byrne line, but I can't remember for sure.
41Cubby.R.S.
I'm still on the secession train. I think it is far better to cut ties now, rather than pretend there's something to salvage. I found this interesting.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/americas-choice-devolve-or-dissolve/
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/americas-choice-devolve-or-dissolve/
42prosfilaes
>40 kiparsky: No, he wasn't a very frequent visitor to the show, and if I recall correctly, he's the same guy who did a bit about yelling "Jesus Christ" when surprised didn't disprove he was Muslim, it proved he was British. As always, memory is not a completely accurate source, but I think he was a darker-skinned British Muslim, and not Romesh.
43kiparsky
>42 prosfilaes: Ah, right. Nish Kumar, then? I can totally believe that he would have come up with that one.
44Carnophile
>34 fuzzi: Thank you for that link, fuzzi.
>32 kiparsky: extremely rare incidence of violence at BLM protests
Per Wikipedia, at least nineteen people had been killed in protests as of June 8. And there are not only killings, but assaults in general, vandalism, arson, etc.
Everyone knows it's leftists who are doing the rioting and violence. Saying "but most leftists aren't rioting" is irrelevant. It's a cope, and an attempt to change the subject from who is doing the rioting.
>32 kiparsky: extremely rare incidence of violence at BLM protests
Per Wikipedia, at least nineteen people had been killed in protests as of June 8. And there are not only killings, but assaults in general, vandalism, arson, etc.
Everyone knows it's leftists who are doing the rioting and violence. Saying "but most leftists aren't rioting" is irrelevant. It's a cope, and an attempt to change the subject from who is doing the rioting.
45Carnophile
>39 prosfilaes: You mention an incident from the US in 1980 and one from China in 1989.
46prosfilaes
>45 Carnophile: Yes. "Make America Great Again", but don't dare bring up things from the past when America was supposed greater than it is today?
47Matke
>44 Carnophile: Hmm.
Mr. Trump the Law and Order President.
Is he? Is there less rioting now than at any time from 2008 through 2016?
Who is the Law and Order President again? Based on what? His bombastic rhetoric?
Mr. Trump the Law and Order President.
Is he? Is there less rioting now than at any time from 2008 through 2016?
Who is the Law and Order President again? Based on what? His bombastic rhetoric?
48Cubby.R.S.
>47 Matke:
As Democrats threaten more destruction if they aren't given more power, while actually funding and planning riots, you blame Trump. Wake up. So what, you've been fooled, nobody is perfect. This is not Trump's fault.
As Democrats threaten more destruction if they aren't given more power, while actually funding and planning riots, you blame Trump. Wake up. So what, you've been fooled, nobody is perfect. This is not Trump's fault.
49Carnophile
>46 prosfilaes: We're talking about who's rioting this year!
>48 Cubby.R.S.: It's priceless, isn't it? Fact: Leftists riot. The analysis: It's Trump's fault!
"We're rioting, but if you think about it, it's Trump's fault for not stopping us from rioting."
>48 Cubby.R.S.: It's priceless, isn't it? Fact: Leftists riot. The analysis: It's Trump's fault!
"We're rioting, but if you think about it, it's Trump's fault for not stopping us from rioting."
50Cubby.R.S.
>49 Carnophile:
Conservatives march for life and celebrate founding principles such as life, liberty and the right of property. Progressives blow shit up, hold us hostage unless we vote for them and praise the Tenants of the Satanic Temple (Huff Po OP-ED) while worshipping the sacrificial right of abortion, but Trump is the bad guy? Progressives preach race theory and white supremacy, while saying white supremacy is a bad thing and blacks are stupid and helpless, while Conservatives call for God ordained equality, but it's Trump's fault.
WTF?
Conservatives march for life and celebrate founding principles such as life, liberty and the right of property. Progressives blow shit up, hold us hostage unless we vote for them and praise the Tenants of the Satanic Temple (Huff Po OP-ED) while worshipping the sacrificial right of abortion, but Trump is the bad guy? Progressives preach race theory and white supremacy, while saying white supremacy is a bad thing and blacks are stupid and helpless, while Conservatives call for God ordained equality, but it's Trump's fault.
WTF?
51lriley
The riots going on right now are pretty much police riots. What catalyzed the BLM protests are police murders that particularly target people of color and the lack of accountability by police departments around the country to investigate and weed out their own bad actors. In these police riots journalists by the way are often targeted for arrests or gassing or shooting with rubber/plastic/pepper bullets. There have been at least two journalists who have lost an eye in the last few months from these projectiles. So police are bringing force to these protests and they have not been shy about using it and this is how you escalate things even more. Why would they target journalists?---because they don't want to be on film or have negative stories about their behavior.
Let's go to Breonna Taylor who was an EMT. The police show up at one o'clock in the morning looking for her boyfriend and whether or not they announced themselves (which seems up for debate) they decide to break in and the boyfriend not knowing what's going on or who's breaking in starts firing shots at them with a legally obtained licensed handgun. The police don't kill the boyfriend---they kill Taylor. The reason for the raid? drugs and/or drug money is not to be found. Fact is the Post Office who the police had gone to for intel and had been watching that residence's mail had already told the police there were no suspicious packages delivered to that address. The Police decided to raid the home anyway.
People here could easily youtube an early morning police raid. Even those where the police do identify themselves---it's like they yell once and the door is getting knocked down the next second and then a bunch pile into the address. If there's a dog (police love to kill dogs--they do--there's about 10,000 youtube videos on that) it's usually dead in a couple seconds (doesn't matter the size either--it could be a little lap dog with a pink ribbon) and any resident inside is usually in a state of shock and completely defenseless. The Taylor killing was another example of our very stupid 'War on drugs' gone completely fucking wrong. The Police killed a first responder here and they want to walk away from all responsibility. Basically I'm sorry but fuck the police if they can't do their jobs right and this Louisville Police Dept. Major Bridget Hallinan who thinks she's somehow better than people who work in low wage jobs can go straight to hell.
Let's go to Breonna Taylor who was an EMT. The police show up at one o'clock in the morning looking for her boyfriend and whether or not they announced themselves (which seems up for debate) they decide to break in and the boyfriend not knowing what's going on or who's breaking in starts firing shots at them with a legally obtained licensed handgun. The police don't kill the boyfriend---they kill Taylor. The reason for the raid? drugs and/or drug money is not to be found. Fact is the Post Office who the police had gone to for intel and had been watching that residence's mail had already told the police there were no suspicious packages delivered to that address. The Police decided to raid the home anyway.
People here could easily youtube an early morning police raid. Even those where the police do identify themselves---it's like they yell once and the door is getting knocked down the next second and then a bunch pile into the address. If there's a dog (police love to kill dogs--they do--there's about 10,000 youtube videos on that) it's usually dead in a couple seconds (doesn't matter the size either--it could be a little lap dog with a pink ribbon) and any resident inside is usually in a state of shock and completely defenseless. The Taylor killing was another example of our very stupid 'War on drugs' gone completely fucking wrong. The Police killed a first responder here and they want to walk away from all responsibility. Basically I'm sorry but fuck the police if they can't do their jobs right and this Louisville Police Dept. Major Bridget Hallinan who thinks she's somehow better than people who work in low wage jobs can go straight to hell.
52Matke
>48 Cubby.R.S.:, >49 Carnophile:, 50 Yep. Your president who says he’s “the only one who can fix it” not only hasn’t fixed it, he’s encouraged the rioting with his divisive speech.
But by all means, continue to try to divert attention and blame from him. The thing is, others aren’t being fooled.
But by all means, continue to try to divert attention and blame from him. The thing is, others aren’t being fooled.
53Matke
>51 lriley: Good heavens! Are those...are those facts? What? Why post facts here? Carny, Cubby, Proxy, et al, will deny what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears.
Even so, I will join you and help where I can. Not to convince them—too late—but to prevent other readers from believing the totally false narrative that they love to spout. My aim is to encourage other readers to look at facts and then make up their minds.
Even so, I will join you and help where I can. Not to convince them—too late—but to prevent other readers from believing the totally false narrative that they love to spout. My aim is to encourage other readers to look at facts and then make up their minds.
54lriley
#53---here's another thing that happens with all these early morning knock and no knock warrants. If they find nothing---they still you leave you with the mess. Like they've upended your house--your shit's all over, traumatized your kids (if any), murdered your pets (if any) and your front door is lying on the ground or the floor. All that's left up to you to deal with. They don't admit to mistakes---it's all in the line of duty. They just blow everything apart and leave.
55proximity1
"Fooled"?
In a somewhat, semi-, democratic republic, the electorate is charged with the decision, more or less refined and direct, of setting the general political course of the republic by electing its government's officers.
Voters are "asked," "invited" (i.e. entitled as citizen-holders of the franchise) to express their preferences according to their judgments.
They, thus, determine what does or does not constitute their "being fooled." If they elect someone and he proves to satisfy their expectations--whether some disgruntled minority likes it or approves it or not--a majority may, at its discretion, where allowed by law, signal its approval of their former choices by re- electing the serving officials.
In know these are subtle and difficult details of representative government for moronic Leftist fools to grasp, but others get this stuff.
In the game of "fooling" the electorate, all legal parties are eligible to "play." If a party is "smart enough" to get the majority of voters to support its candidate(s), "fooled" as the losing sides may describe them, their choice prevails and, from their point of view, the opposition-parties' efforts to "fool" the electorate thus are thwarted by the majority who, having chosen otherwise, weren't "fooled."
You're free to characterize the outcomes in this way as, indeed, many of you have done. But by designating as "dupes" those whose candidates defeat your own preferred candidates, you show your contempt for the democratic processes themselves in the eyes of the people who, unlike you, were "fooled."
Call your right to see it that way "the losers' consolation prize." It's all you deserve and all you get when you are so insulting as to characterize your opponents' political preferences as per se and, by definition, illegitimate and unworthy of having a hearing at all.
If you and yours are so fucking bright, go prove this and show us how it's done: "fool" your intellectual inferiors into voting for your preferred candidates.
It has been a characteristic feature of American home-bred culture to have little regard for losers while, on the other hand, those who battle valiantly and honestly and fairly and who, in losing, are gentlemanly and respectful of their vanquishers--they are regarded with respect despite their loss.
What this cultural affinity cannot abide is a pathetic loser who, upon losing, gripes childishly that his loss wasn't his due, that "the game was rigged," his due "victory" denied him unfairly.
Americans of generations within easy living memory had no use, no time, for such people. Now, those whine-y losers get their own news and information broadcast stations.
M-A-G-A!
Who's fooled now?
You still have time to buy your insurance cover for Biden's loss. Even with the policy, in losing, you'll still feel shitty and you'll still complain that the winners' supporters were "fooled", but you can collect on your policy and blow the proceeds trying to make yourself less miserable--and still learn absolutely nothing.
Really! The idea of you and yours chastising, trying to condemn _Trump_ for supposedly failing to commit to respecting an election--the impending one--when you and so many like you have much more resolutely refused not only to commit to respect for elections, generally, but go so far as to have made it your project to undermine, reverse and overthrow them!--when the outcomes don't suit you, of course-- the word "hypocrisy" doesn't convey this adequately.
In a somewhat, semi-, democratic republic, the electorate is charged with the decision, more or less refined and direct, of setting the general political course of the republic by electing its government's officers.
Voters are "asked," "invited" (i.e. entitled as citizen-holders of the franchise) to express their preferences according to their judgments.
They, thus, determine what does or does not constitute their "being fooled." If they elect someone and he proves to satisfy their expectations--whether some disgruntled minority likes it or approves it or not--a majority may, at its discretion, where allowed by law, signal its approval of their former choices by re- electing the serving officials.
In know these are subtle and difficult details of representative government for moronic Leftist fools to grasp, but others get this stuff.
In the game of "fooling" the electorate, all legal parties are eligible to "play." If a party is "smart enough" to get the majority of voters to support its candidate(s), "fooled" as the losing sides may describe them, their choice prevails and, from their point of view, the opposition-parties' efforts to "fool" the electorate thus are thwarted by the majority who, having chosen otherwise, weren't "fooled."
You're free to characterize the outcomes in this way as, indeed, many of you have done. But by designating as "dupes" those whose candidates defeat your own preferred candidates, you show your contempt for the democratic processes themselves in the eyes of the people who, unlike you, were "fooled."
Call your right to see it that way "the losers' consolation prize." It's all you deserve and all you get when you are so insulting as to characterize your opponents' political preferences as per se and, by definition, illegitimate and unworthy of having a hearing at all.
If you and yours are so fucking bright, go prove this and show us how it's done: "fool" your intellectual inferiors into voting for your preferred candidates.
It has been a characteristic feature of American home-bred culture to have little regard for losers while, on the other hand, those who battle valiantly and honestly and fairly and who, in losing, are gentlemanly and respectful of their vanquishers--they are regarded with respect despite their loss.
What this cultural affinity cannot abide is a pathetic loser who, upon losing, gripes childishly that his loss wasn't his due, that "the game was rigged," his due "victory" denied him unfairly.
Americans of generations within easy living memory had no use, no time, for such people. Now, those whine-y losers get their own news and information broadcast stations.
M-A-G-A!
‘Trump Was Right’: Explosive New F.B.I. Texts Detail Internal Furor Over Handling Of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ Investigation |
"Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden F.B.I. text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal F.B.I. notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.
“ '(W)e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,' one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
“ 'Holy crap,' an agent responded. 'All the analysts too?'
“'Yep,' the first agent said. 'All the folks at the Agency as well.'
“ '(C)an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “(A)s far as potentially suing y’all (?)”
“ '(H)aha, who knows….I think (t)he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.
"While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ), states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and F.B.I. analysts who worked on the F.B.I.’s investigation of Flynn." ...
____________________
Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway, writing in The Federalist | Washington, D.C. 25 September 2020 |
Who's fooled now?
You still have time to buy your insurance cover for Biden's loss. Even with the policy, in losing, you'll still feel shitty and you'll still complain that the winners' supporters were "fooled", but you can collect on your policy and blow the proceeds trying to make yourself less miserable--and still learn absolutely nothing.
Really! The idea of you and yours chastising, trying to condemn _Trump_ for supposedly failing to commit to respecting an election--the impending one--when you and so many like you have much more resolutely refused not only to commit to respect for elections, generally, but go so far as to have made it your project to undermine, reverse and overthrow them!--when the outcomes don't suit you, of course-- the word "hypocrisy" doesn't convey this adequately.
56Matke
>55 proximity1: Always exciting the electoral college victory of Mr. Trump, who was defeated in the popular vote by some three million ballots. So in fact, the voting population wasn’t fooled and didn’t elect your candidate.
And it’s Mr Trump who still complains about the previous election being rigged (he won; does he not understand that?), and who is already saying that any election which he doesn’t win will be rigged. So far he’s a pathetic “winner.” We’ll see what happens in November.
It would be wonderful if you would deal with the fact that Mr. Trump does precisely what you accuse others of doing.
“Leftist moronic fools”: your level of discourse is certainly reflective of who you are and what your beliefs are. Perhaps your complaints about the words others use would carry more weight if you didn’t allow what appears to be an uncontrollable anger and disdain for anyone who doesn’t agree with to color your every post.
And it’s Mr Trump who still complains about the previous election being rigged (he won; does he not understand that?), and who is already saying that any election which he doesn’t win will be rigged. So far he’s a pathetic “winner.” We’ll see what happens in November.
It would be wonderful if you would deal with the fact that Mr. Trump does precisely what you accuse others of doing.
“Leftist moronic fools”: your level of discourse is certainly reflective of who you are and what your beliefs are. Perhaps your complaints about the words others use would carry more weight if you didn’t allow what appears to be an uncontrollable anger and disdain for anyone who doesn’t agree with to color your every post.
57Carnophile
>51 lriley: What catalyzed the BLM protests are police murders that particularly target people of color...
Oh, well (assuming that's true) that makes all the arson and murder okay then.
>52 Matke: Your president who says he’s “the only one who can fix it” not only hasn’t fixed it...
As I said: “We're rioting, but if you think about it, it's Trump's fault for not stopping us from rioting.”
But by all means, continue to try to divert attention and blame from him
We’re not going to let you right-wingers get away with the dirty trick of blaming the rioting on the rioters!
Oh, well (assuming that's true) that makes all the arson and murder okay then.
>52 Matke: Your president who says he’s “the only one who can fix it” not only hasn’t fixed it...
As I said: “We're rioting, but if you think about it, it's Trump's fault for not stopping us from rioting.”
But by all means, continue to try to divert attention and blame from him
We’re not going to let you right-wingers get away with the dirty trick of blaming the rioting on the rioters!
58Carnophile
>56 Matke: And it’s Mr Trump... who is already saying that any election which he doesn’t win will be rigged.
Hillary Clinton: “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”
Hillary Clinton: “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”
59kiparsky
>58 Carnophile: Oh, please. Dickless Donald is literally saying he will have to be extracted from the White House by a team of SEALs - and they'll fuckin' do it too, they hate that guy like nobody's business after the way he got Gallagher off and made them look like a bunch of psychos - and you're getting your delicate lacy underthings in tangles because someone says Biden should wait until the votes are counted to concede?
Come on, can't your handlers give you anything better to work with than that?
Come on, can't your handlers give you anything better to work with than that?
60Carnophile 
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
Again, Hillary Clinton: “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”
If you don't like her clumsy admission of how the Dems are thinking, take it up with her.
And you shouldn't call Donald "dickless." Your dick, if you have one, is the size of a proton. I can tell by looking at your profile picture and noting how bored and disappointed your cat looks.
If you don't like her clumsy admission of how the Dems are thinking, take it up with her.
And you shouldn't call Donald "dickless." Your dick, if you have one, is the size of a proton. I can tell by looking at your profile picture and noting how bored and disappointed your cat looks.
61kiparsky
>60 Carnophile: If you're going to resort to personal attacks, you could at least try to come up with something better than that.
62Carnophile
>61 kiparsky: If you're going to resort to personal attacks...
You're one to talk. Try to get through more threads without calling anyone an idiot, etc.
You're one to talk. Try to get through more threads without calling anyone an idiot, etc.
63kiparsky
>61 kiparsky: If I've called you an idiot, I do apologize. I do my best to restrict myself to calling your views idiotic. Which, of course they are - parroting the talking points fed to you by your handlers is kind of the definition of idiotic, isn't it? (see above)
You, I'm sure, are not an idiot, at least technically.
You, I'm sure, are not an idiot, at least technically.
64lriley
#57--maybe you should ask the question of whether murder is okay of the Louisville cops who murdered Breonna Taylor?
65John5918
>57 Carnophile: that makes all the arson and murder okay then.
Murder is never OK, regardless of who commits it nor what is their motivation, although the law recognises degrees of murder and manslaughter, and may regulate the verdict and the punishment according to various mitigating circumstances. Anybody who commits murder should be arrested and tried before a court of law, whether they be a police officer or a protester.
Murder is never OK, regardless of who commits it nor what is their motivation, although the law recognises degrees of murder and manslaughter, and may regulate the verdict and the punishment according to various mitigating circumstances. Anybody who commits murder should be arrested and tried before a court of law, whether they be a police officer or a protester.
66Carnophile
>63 kiparsky: Gah, you did the classy thing and apologized. Now I have to as well.
Sigh. Sorry about the cat thing.
Sigh. Sorry about the cat thing.
67Carnophile
>64 lriley: maybe you should ask the question of whether murder is okay of the Louisville cops who murdered Breonna Taylor?
No it's not okay. (I actually don't know what happened, but taking your account as read, it's not okay.) But that doesn't mean the rioting is okay.
No it's not okay. (I actually don't know what happened, but taking your account as read, it's not okay.) But that doesn't mean the rioting is okay.
68kiparsky
>66 Carnophile: Not to worry, I don't take you all that seriously anyway. Sorted.
69lriley
#67--I'm actually surprised at your answer---that's it's not okay. I worked in a Postal Plant for almost 30 year--every once in a while the Police or FBI would be interested in someone's mail. They go to the Postmaster--then it goes to the carrier supervisor and on to the relevant carrier and they'd set the mail aside to go over. Sometimes they had the registry clerk involved--sometimes that was me. The thing about the registry clerk is he works in a secured cage so if you were setting mail aside the cage was a good place to put it.
Every once in a while a postal worker while sorting the mail will notice if something's odd--weird smells, something's leaking or falling out of a package so sometimes that would lead to shit too. That wasn't my thing though.
So that story rings true about the police and the post office--it also might ring true if the investigating cop if he/she is sure their target is guilty might deliberately misconstrue evidence to a judge to get a warrant. The cops had been watching Taylor because she'd kept in touch with her ex-boyfriend (who they were interested in) and they'd seen him leave her apartment with a package one time---which apparently was clothes he purchased online. Apparently mail service to this former boyfriend's residence was always inexplicably being delayed so he asked Taylor if it was okay if he ordered clothes using her address. The cops construed from that that she was a part of this guy's drug business. They were wrong. Her current boyfriend was clean---he's the one who shot the cop when they tried to bust down the door. That was the only shot he fired--the other 20 some shots came from the cops into the Taylor residence and also into the neighboring apartment's residence. That also deserves mention--the potential for collateral damage when someone despite weapons training proves that he/she is not really safe using them.
So after that we have an innocent person dead and the police who killed her thinking what's the big deal? Why are you picking on us? Their mindsets are more than just a little fucked up. You kill someone--you should answer for it.
But to the protests---seems to me a lot of people bring weapons to protests and counterprotests these days. As Trump would have it Black Lives Matter and their Antifa allies are bringing cans of soup and starfish tuna to fling as projectiles at cops. That's what he said anyway the other day--he says a lot of bizarre shit. The cops come outfitted for war in their Darth Vader outfits with clubs, service revolvers, flash bang grenades, teargas, pepperballs, rubber and plastic bullets and sometimes armored cars and water cannons. They're not very shy about using all that particularly against the soup and tuna can throwers. On the other flaggy side--those who counterprotest sometimes come with paintball guns but also very often with service weapons or assault rifles. The police usually let the flag wavers strut around and do as they please--sometimes enlist them---sometimes hand out refreshments.
It's quite clear that the cops don't like being protested against and what I see really are police riots. When the grenades and plastic bullets start flying these things escalate and explode into chaos. I hear all this shit about cops trained to deescalate situations---I haven't seen any almost nothing of that since the Floyd protests began. The black community has a for real grievance and that grievance needs to be heard out. It not being heard out is making everything worse and more dangerous.
Every once in a while a postal worker while sorting the mail will notice if something's odd--weird smells, something's leaking or falling out of a package so sometimes that would lead to shit too. That wasn't my thing though.
So that story rings true about the police and the post office--it also might ring true if the investigating cop if he/she is sure their target is guilty might deliberately misconstrue evidence to a judge to get a warrant. The cops had been watching Taylor because she'd kept in touch with her ex-boyfriend (who they were interested in) and they'd seen him leave her apartment with a package one time---which apparently was clothes he purchased online. Apparently mail service to this former boyfriend's residence was always inexplicably being delayed so he asked Taylor if it was okay if he ordered clothes using her address. The cops construed from that that she was a part of this guy's drug business. They were wrong. Her current boyfriend was clean---he's the one who shot the cop when they tried to bust down the door. That was the only shot he fired--the other 20 some shots came from the cops into the Taylor residence and also into the neighboring apartment's residence. That also deserves mention--the potential for collateral damage when someone despite weapons training proves that he/she is not really safe using them.
So after that we have an innocent person dead and the police who killed her thinking what's the big deal? Why are you picking on us? Their mindsets are more than just a little fucked up. You kill someone--you should answer for it.
But to the protests---seems to me a lot of people bring weapons to protests and counterprotests these days. As Trump would have it Black Lives Matter and their Antifa allies are bringing cans of soup and starfish tuna to fling as projectiles at cops. That's what he said anyway the other day--he says a lot of bizarre shit. The cops come outfitted for war in their Darth Vader outfits with clubs, service revolvers, flash bang grenades, teargas, pepperballs, rubber and plastic bullets and sometimes armored cars and water cannons. They're not very shy about using all that particularly against the soup and tuna can throwers. On the other flaggy side--those who counterprotest sometimes come with paintball guns but also very often with service weapons or assault rifles. The police usually let the flag wavers strut around and do as they please--sometimes enlist them---sometimes hand out refreshments.
It's quite clear that the cops don't like being protested against and what I see really are police riots. When the grenades and plastic bullets start flying these things escalate and explode into chaos. I hear all this shit about cops trained to deescalate situations---I haven't seen any almost nothing of that since the Floyd protests began. The black community has a for real grievance and that grievance needs to be heard out. It not being heard out is making everything worse and more dangerous.
70John5918
>69 lriley: cops trained to deescalate situations
I've been told approvingly by right wing posters here on LT that the US police are trained to do the opposite, to "take control" of the situation (which often leads to escalation - shouting, giving orders, threatening people with guns if not actually firing them, battering down doors, wrestling people to the ground) rather than to "deescalate situations". But of course as a mere foreigner I have no idea whether that is true or not.
I've been told approvingly by right wing posters here on LT that the US police are trained to do the opposite, to "take control" of the situation (which often leads to escalation - shouting, giving orders, threatening people with guns if not actually firing them, battering down doors, wrestling people to the ground) rather than to "deescalate situations". But of course as a mere foreigner I have no idea whether that is true or not.
71kiparsky
>70 John5918: Since the police in the US are governed almost entirely locally - they are run by a local police chief who generally reports to a locally elected mayor or city council, and they adhere to local, county, and state laws, and they have local unions which do a lot to set the character of the force - they do not constitute a monolith.
It is true that many police departments rely on the sort of violence-first policing that you describe, but they vary widely from one municipality to the next, with some places trying (with varying degrees of success) to move in the direction of de-escalation and others which seem more thuggish. And of course on any given police force different cops will have different attitudes, some of them really seeking to be a part of the community they're policing and some seeming to view their community as the enemy.
One thing that I'm seeing lately, which concerns me a lot, is a tendency to try to erase these distinctions - particularly on the left where the slogan "All cops are bastards" is gaining currency. This seems like a pretty terrible mistake, and it's one which (as often happens) is largely being made by well-meaning people of privilege with consequences that largely fall (as usual, as expected) on people in more vulnerable communities.
I'm not sure what to do about this, but it's a situation that seems to me likely to get worse before it gets better.
It is true that many police departments rely on the sort of violence-first policing that you describe, but they vary widely from one municipality to the next, with some places trying (with varying degrees of success) to move in the direction of de-escalation and others which seem more thuggish. And of course on any given police force different cops will have different attitudes, some of them really seeking to be a part of the community they're policing and some seeming to view their community as the enemy.
One thing that I'm seeing lately, which concerns me a lot, is a tendency to try to erase these distinctions - particularly on the left where the slogan "All cops are bastards" is gaining currency. This seems like a pretty terrible mistake, and it's one which (as often happens) is largely being made by well-meaning people of privilege with consequences that largely fall (as usual, as expected) on people in more vulnerable communities.
I'm not sure what to do about this, but it's a situation that seems to me likely to get worse before it gets better.
72John5918
>71 kiparsky:
Thanks for the timely reminder that US police forces are not monolithic, not just in terms of the individual officers but also in terms of their governance, training and policies.
Slogans such as "All cops are bastards" are clearly untrue, and are very unhealthy, although one can understand the anger of communities whose experience of the police has almost always been unpleasant. It's also an illustration of the systemic dynamic that even good people who are embedded in a dysfunctional system can appear to be "bastards". When I was in New York last year I was chatting to a colleague, a human rights activist from an Irish-American Catholic background, who comes from a police family, and he was at pains to point out that many of his police relatives are decent people doing the best they can. In the UK some very close friends of mine have been police officers, both constables on the beat and senior officers, and once again they were decent and humane blokes trying to do a difficult job, and one of them in particular actively trying to change the police culture from within as part of his role as a trainer. Perhaps a more accurate slogan would be "The police system is a bastard".
And of course slogans such as "All cops are bastards" are also a sign of the extreme and simplistic polarisation in the USA at the moment. As you rightly say, "I'm not sure what to do about this, but it's a situation that seems to me likely to get worse before it gets better."
Thanks for the timely reminder that US police forces are not monolithic, not just in terms of the individual officers but also in terms of their governance, training and policies.
Slogans such as "All cops are bastards" are clearly untrue, and are very unhealthy, although one can understand the anger of communities whose experience of the police has almost always been unpleasant. It's also an illustration of the systemic dynamic that even good people who are embedded in a dysfunctional system can appear to be "bastards". When I was in New York last year I was chatting to a colleague, a human rights activist from an Irish-American Catholic background, who comes from a police family, and he was at pains to point out that many of his police relatives are decent people doing the best they can. In the UK some very close friends of mine have been police officers, both constables on the beat and senior officers, and once again they were decent and humane blokes trying to do a difficult job, and one of them in particular actively trying to change the police culture from within as part of his role as a trainer. Perhaps a more accurate slogan would be "The police system is a bastard".
And of course slogans such as "All cops are bastards" are also a sign of the extreme and simplistic polarisation in the USA at the moment. As you rightly say, "I'm not sure what to do about this, but it's a situation that seems to me likely to get worse before it gets better."
73kiparsky
>72 John5918: Perhaps a more accurate slogan would be "The police system is a bastard".
I like it. Or maybe "The police system creates bastards."
Or possibly "Police systems can encourage people to be better or worse, and it turns out that you don't have to encourage people to be bastards to protect the public, honest."
Okay, that one doesn't really spray-paint very well, I guess.
I like it. Or maybe "The police system creates bastards."
Or possibly "Police systems can encourage people to be better or worse, and it turns out that you don't have to encourage people to be bastards to protect the public, honest."
Okay, that one doesn't really spray-paint very well, I guess.
74lriley
I wouldn't say all cops are bastards but police departments have a tendency to draw sadists in pretty much like the catholic priesthood has a habit of drawing in pedophiles.
Looking at some of the protests--deliberately knocking an elderly man over so he falls on the back of his head or the target practice types and rapid firing rubber bullets is pathological behavior and indefensible even though they always do try to defend it. So many times people are hit in the face with their projectiles and let's be clear also a rubber bullet is not necessarily a non-lethal round--they have killed people before. All the claims that we were afraid or in danger when you can actually see they're having a good time. Police departments don't very often weed out their bad apples--instead they usually go to lengths to protect them.
Looking at some of the protests--deliberately knocking an elderly man over so he falls on the back of his head or the target practice types and rapid firing rubber bullets is pathological behavior and indefensible even though they always do try to defend it. So many times people are hit in the face with their projectiles and let's be clear also a rubber bullet is not necessarily a non-lethal round--they have killed people before. All the claims that we were afraid or in danger when you can actually see they're having a good time. Police departments don't very often weed out their bad apples--instead they usually go to lengths to protect them.
75kiparsky
>75 kiparsky: That's a good analogy. In both cases, you have a system which is intended to do a lot of good, and in fact does do a lot of good, but is structurally configured to attract the abusive and to protect them from the consequences of their actions.
And if you want to change the structure of a system, it helps to talk to the people within that system who also want to see that change and work with them, which is why I feel the "All cops are bastards" rhetoric is highly counterproductive.
And if you want to change the structure of a system, it helps to talk to the people within that system who also want to see that change and work with them, which is why I feel the "All cops are bastards" rhetoric is highly counterproductive.
76Limelite
Republican 'Color Revolution'
Portland police search for white man who kicked Black journalist in the head at ‘Proud Boys’ rally.
One of Don-Boy's "very fine people" campaigning for his reelection?
Portland police search for white man who kicked Black journalist in the head at ‘Proud Boys’ rally.
One of Don-Boy's "very fine people" campaigning for his reelection?
77fuzzi
>72 John5918: and the anti-cop rhetoric probably has something to do with the execution style attacks on policemen recently, some sitting in their cars, keeping an eye on the subway station, etc. There's been quite a few of those in the news. One protest group was on video trying to access the hospital where two ambushed officers had been taken for treatment. The "protestors" screamed that the cops were guilty (of sitting in a car?) and should die.
BLM has marched chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" for several years now. That certainly doesn't help defuse anger and probably has incited more attacks on police.If that's new to you, here's more about it: https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/08/02/austin-blm-action-pigs-in-a-blank...
>63 kiparsky: >66 Carnophile: thank you, both, for apologizing. Adults do that.
BLM has marched chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" for several years now. That certainly doesn't help defuse anger and probably has incited more attacks on police.If that's new to you, here's more about it: https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/08/02/austin-blm-action-pigs-in-a-blank...
>63 kiparsky: >66 Carnophile: thank you, both, for apologizing. Adults do that.
78Matke
>77 fuzzi:
Over 1,000 civilians have been killed by police every year since 2013.
In those years, the highest number of police killed in the line of duty was 172.
Even factoring in the obvious consideration of police mostly doing their jobs in attempting to stop crime, it’s clear that there’s something terribly wrong here.
Further, the FBI (a law enforcement agency in itself) has for years been warning that police departments around the country are being infiltrated by white supremacists. Those warnings have been ignored.
I don’t condone violence. And angry rhetoric on both sides encourages more violence.
Angry rhetoric like Mr. Trump saying that police attacks on reporters are “a beautiful thing.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trump-reporters-covering-protests-deserv...
Surely the President of the United States can and should do better than this. He should lead by example.
Oh. Wait. That’s exactly what he does. He encourages violence and in his word, “nastiness”, against those who disagree with him.
Heaven forbid that he should make an attempt to meet with BLM leaders and some of the police leaders in troubled areas to see if there could be any attempt at rapprochement.
Let’s face facts here: a lot of the police in the US are crude bullies. Every time the police get away with egregious wrongdoing, the bullies are encouraged. (For example, the only cop charged in the Breonna Taylor case is the cop who fired at her and missed. For heavens’ sakes!)
And every time that happens, good cops—and there are thousands of them—are put in more danger.
So yeah. Is BLM rhetoric helpful? No. Has the president, in any way, tried to ease the situation? Also no. And who has more power, do you think?
Over 1,000 civilians have been killed by police every year since 2013.
In those years, the highest number of police killed in the line of duty was 172.
Even factoring in the obvious consideration of police mostly doing their jobs in attempting to stop crime, it’s clear that there’s something terribly wrong here.
Further, the FBI (a law enforcement agency in itself) has for years been warning that police departments around the country are being infiltrated by white supremacists. Those warnings have been ignored.
I don’t condone violence. And angry rhetoric on both sides encourages more violence.
Angry rhetoric like Mr. Trump saying that police attacks on reporters are “a beautiful thing.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trump-reporters-covering-protests-deserv...
Surely the President of the United States can and should do better than this. He should lead by example.
Oh. Wait. That’s exactly what he does. He encourages violence and in his word, “nastiness”, against those who disagree with him.
Heaven forbid that he should make an attempt to meet with BLM leaders and some of the police leaders in troubled areas to see if there could be any attempt at rapprochement.
Let’s face facts here: a lot of the police in the US are crude bullies. Every time the police get away with egregious wrongdoing, the bullies are encouraged. (For example, the only cop charged in the Breonna Taylor case is the cop who fired at her and missed. For heavens’ sakes!)
And every time that happens, good cops—and there are thousands of them—are put in more danger.
So yeah. Is BLM rhetoric helpful? No. Has the president, in any way, tried to ease the situation? Also no. And who has more power, do you think?
79cpg
>78 Matke: "Over 1,000 civilians have been killed by police every year since 2013. In those years, the highest number of police killed in the line of duty was 172. Even factoring in the obvious consideration of police mostly doing their jobs in attempting to stop crime, it’s clear that there’s something terribly wrong here."
What's the optimal ratio?
What's the optimal ratio?
80Matke
>79 cpg:
Less than 10 to 1
The optimal situation would be that police across the country would be trained in, and use actual de-escalation techniques. That more police would use the least force possible in a given situation. That police wouldn’t automatically assume that any black person is going to be a violent criminal putting them at risk for their lives, in a simple traffic stop. That the states would step to some sort of reasonable mental health care system, so that police wouldn’t have to deal so often with mental health problems.
Perhaps if we could lessen some of the Bad White Boy attitude on the part of the police, BLM wouldn't have to exist.
And no, I don’t condone any urging of violent actions toward police. Let me say it again, loud and clear: I don’t condone either violence or violent rhetoric aimed at the police—or aimed at reporters and journalists, or anyone else.
And a more serious and less snarky attitude on the part of the populace as a whole might, just might, help to calm down this crisis into something more manageable for everyone.
Less than 10 to 1
The optimal situation would be that police across the country would be trained in, and use actual de-escalation techniques. That more police would use the least force possible in a given situation. That police wouldn’t automatically assume that any black person is going to be a violent criminal putting them at risk for their lives, in a simple traffic stop. That the states would step to some sort of reasonable mental health care system, so that police wouldn’t have to deal so often with mental health problems.
Perhaps if we could lessen some of the Bad White Boy attitude on the part of the police, BLM wouldn't have to exist.
And no, I don’t condone any urging of violent actions toward police. Let me say it again, loud and clear: I don’t condone either violence or violent rhetoric aimed at the police—or aimed at reporters and journalists, or anyone else.
And a more serious and less snarky attitude on the part of the populace as a whole might, just might, help to calm down this crisis into something more manageable for everyone.
81lriley
#77--if you're talking about the two cops who were murdered in their car in Los Angeles (Compton) in mid June it was a right wing member of the Boogaloo movement--one Steven Carrillo who was arrested for that one.
You should check that right wing group out--a lot of ex-military angling to start a civil war and they're into all kinds of black ops or false flag operations. For instance they've infiltrated into a lot of the BLM protests---create their havoc and then disappeared.
You should check that right wing group out--a lot of ex-military angling to start a civil war and they're into all kinds of black ops or false flag operations. For instance they've infiltrated into a lot of the BLM protests---create their havoc and then disappeared.
82Limelite
>77 fuzzi:
Do a simple Snopes search before posting, and save yourself a lot of embarrassment.
In the interests of fair and balanced posting and in defense of the truth as defined by the Reality Based Community, the following:
Check that.
"Recently" = all of September so far, nationwide. Total "line of duty" deaths = 15
Of those, 7 were from disease, specifically, 5 Covid-19, 1 cancer (how that is "line of duty" I don't know 9/11, maybe(?), and 1 by unspecified illness. 3 vehicular accidents (pursuits? not, assaults); only 2 by assault; others by gunfire (unspecified shooters; not assault).
Check this.
1. No evidence connected the shooting — or the suspected gunman — to the BLM movement. Also, the founder of an L.A.-based Black rights group took credit for the hospital protest in a Facebook post that explicitly said the group "is not BLM." MOSTLY FALSE Origin:
A little FYI for everyone. Regarding right wing claims that half a dozen cops were killed by protestors during demonstrations after George Floyd was killed by a cop are FALSE.
By contrast, the video of LA cops shooting unarmed protestor with hands in the air, who posed no threat, in the head is TRUE.
DON"Y DRINK THE KOOL-AID. (And don't drink the bleach, either.)
Do a simple Snopes search before posting, and save yourself a lot of embarrassment.
In the interests of fair and balanced posting and in defense of the truth as defined by the Reality Based Community, the following:
Check that.
"Recently" = all of September so far, nationwide. Total "line of duty" deaths = 15
Of those, 7 were from disease, specifically, 5 Covid-19, 1 cancer (how that is "line of duty" I don't know 9/11, maybe(?), and 1 by unspecified illness. 3 vehicular accidents (pursuits? not, assaults); only 2 by assault; others by gunfire (unspecified shooters; not assault).
Check this.
One protest group was on video trying to access the hospital where two ambushed officers had been taken for treatment. The "protestors" screamed that the cops were guilty (of sitting in a car?) and should die.Here's the LIE released by LA sherifgf's PR release:
To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling "We hope they die" referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through.In fact, the day after this hit the press, the law enforcement "flame" was largely debunked with video and eye-witness proof as lies and exaggerations. In fact, the implication that hospital entrances were blocked by protestors is FALSE. Police cars and law enforcement officers? -- maybe.
— LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020
1. No evidence connected the shooting — or the suspected gunman — to the BLM movement. Also, the founder of an L.A.-based Black rights group took credit for the hospital protest in a Facebook post that explicitly said the group "is not BLM." MOSTLY FALSE Origin:
The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump’s political agenda since 2016, claimed:2. Black Lives Matter protesters in Baton Rouge chanted calls for "dead cops ... now" shortly before three officers were killed in that city. FALSE. A perpetually recirculating video of Black Lives Matter protesters chanting for "dead cops" dates to December 2014 and is unrelated to BLM protest events occurring in July 2016. Origin:
“Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, ‘we hope they die,’ hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.”
On 10 July 2016, Facebook user Wesley Scott Alexander posted a video supposedly documenting Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters chanting a demanding “dead cops” three days after a shooting in Dallas during which five officers were killed and several more wounded: #BLM protestors chant “what do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!”. Please share because the media won’t.
. . .these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality. . .
A little FYI for everyone. Regarding right wing claims that half a dozen cops were killed by protestors during demonstrations after George Floyd was killed by a cop are FALSE.
For example, the following set of images supposedly showing “6 officers that died in the last 10 days” while working the protests, actually shows officers who died of various causes (ranging from brain cancer, to heart attacks, to car crashes) months prior to these protests.
By contrast, the video of LA cops shooting unarmed protestor with hands in the air, who posed no threat, in the head is TRUE.
LAPD officials are calling the incident an “unintentional head strike” and say they have not been able to interview Montano, who has notified the city that he plans to file a lawsuit unless he is compensated for his injuries.
“It just feels like it was all intentional, and it makes me feel sick,” Montano told the LA Times.
It’s not clear if Montano was struck with a sponge and foam bullets or a beanbag round. Authorities said they are investigating who fired the projectile at him.
LAPD policy requires that officers fire non-lethal projectiles at specific targets who present a threat. Officers are not supposed to aim for a person’s head or neck, or any people who are running away.
(SNIP)
An LA Times review found that officers likely violated protocols governing batons and tactical weapons use as they sought to quell civil unrest.
DON"Y DRINK THE KOOL-AID. (And don't drink the bleach, either.)
83Cubby.R.S.
Follow the link and read the hundreds of associated articles regarding BLM, then type in Antifa.
https://www.theblaze.com/search/?q=BLM
Don't excuse their behavior on a few narrative saving events that few are talking about.
As it goes with Taylor, this wasn't racism, that's the point. The cops aren't racist, and the moronic stance on a few events with blacks and police does not prove anything but that a politically motivated group funded through a politically operated machine is being political fuckheads.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/commentary-grand-jury-breonna-taylor-problem
The Democrats are out to destroy the country to cover up their heinous criminal behavior. The lie about every policy while pretending They are moderate or socialist depending on the audience... Hell they have no problem telling fake Christians that Biden is super religious while saying Coney Barret is unacceptable due to her Catholicism. Lie after lie after lie, but everyone on the left knows they are rooting for evil, they just hate Trump.
https://www.theblaze.com/search/?q=BLM
Don't excuse their behavior on a few narrative saving events that few are talking about.
As it goes with Taylor, this wasn't racism, that's the point. The cops aren't racist, and the moronic stance on a few events with blacks and police does not prove anything but that a politically motivated group funded through a politically operated machine is being political fuckheads.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/commentary-grand-jury-breonna-taylor-problem
The Democrats are out to destroy the country to cover up their heinous criminal behavior. The lie about every policy while pretending They are moderate or socialist depending on the audience... Hell they have no problem telling fake Christians that Biden is super religious while saying Coney Barret is unacceptable due to her Catholicism. Lie after lie after lie, but everyone on the left knows they are rooting for evil, they just hate Trump.
84Limelite
>83 Cubby.R.S.:
As is your perpetual habit, you seek refuge in citing well known propaganda sources, not vetted fact checkers, like Snopes, nor well-established reputable and ethical journals like the LA Times By reputable, I mean, it published the facts about the lie manufactured by law enforcement and furthered by RWNJ extremist propaganda machines, like the Blaze. And by ethical, I mean, it published an apology, acknowledging its own historical failures regarding racism, something NO "Blaze" would ever let cross what its editorial staff has for brains, much less do. I mean, Glenn Beck, the house mouth organ? Puuullleeeeze and 'bye Felicia!
Is it any wonder cognitive dysfunction of the sort you're trying to foist on us remains on the dung heap of faux journalism and at the bottom of the swamp of fake news, disregarded by reasonable people?
As long as you refuse to bring your citations up to the standard of passing the smell test of reality, credibility, evidentiary, and truthfulness minimums, your arguments and opinions will continue to be regarded as unconvincing at best, if they even get read.
P.S. I'm not a judge, but like with Tucker Carlson, under your present operational methods of posting, "no reasonable person would believe you."
As is your perpetual habit, you seek refuge in citing well known propaganda sources, not vetted fact checkers, like Snopes, nor well-established reputable and ethical journals like the LA Times By reputable, I mean, it published the facts about the lie manufactured by law enforcement and furthered by RWNJ extremist propaganda machines, like the Blaze. And by ethical, I mean, it published an apology, acknowledging its own historical failures regarding racism, something NO "Blaze" would ever let cross what its editorial staff has for brains, much less do. I mean, Glenn Beck, the house mouth organ? Puuullleeeeze and 'bye Felicia!
Is it any wonder cognitive dysfunction of the sort you're trying to foist on us remains on the dung heap of faux journalism and at the bottom of the swamp of fake news, disregarded by reasonable people?
As long as you refuse to bring your citations up to the standard of passing the smell test of reality, credibility, evidentiary, and truthfulness minimums, your arguments and opinions will continue to be regarded as unconvincing at best, if they even get read.
P.S. I'm not a judge, but like with Tucker Carlson, under your present operational methods of posting, "no reasonable person would believe you."
85kiparsky
>83 Cubby.R.S.: Read that last paragraph again. Do you see why I feel no need to even bother to refute any of it? You've already done the work for me. Please try harder next time. I'm sure you can come up with something that's an actual lie (like so many of your greatest hits) and not just a load of completely vacuous nonsense.
86Matke
>84 Limelite: and >85 kiparsky: Hear, hear
87proximity1
>78 Matke: bohemima:
"Over 1,000 civilians have been killed by police every year since 2013. In those years, the highest number of police killed in the line of duty was 172. Even factoring in the obvious consideration of police mostly doing their jobs in attempting to stop crime, it’s clear that there’s something terribly wrong here."
>79 cpg:
What's the optimal ratio?
>80 Matke:
"Less than 10 to 1"
Well, then, as it happens that 10 x 172 > 1000, or, that is, the number of civilians killed by police is fewer than 1 in 10 police deaths in the line of duty. "Happy"? "Got 'math' ?" In any year in which police killed by violence in the line of duty equaled 172, the civilian deaths would have to surpass 1720 in order for there to be a 10 to 1 ratio of civilian deaths to police deaths. But there isn't in the example case stated.
>78 Matke:
... "... The optimal situation would be that police across the country would be trained in, and use actual de-escalation techniques."
In practically all (of what are at least) large towns and cities in the U.S., that's the case: virtually all police are.
>78 Matke:
... " That more police would use the least force possible in a given situation."
In practically all (of what are at least) large towns and cities in the U.S., that's the case: they do.
>78 Matke:
... " That police wouldn’t automatically assume that any black person is going to be a violent criminal putting them at risk for their lives, in a simple traffic stop. "
In practically all (of what are at least) large towns and cities in the U.S., that's not the case: They don't assume that.
>78 Matke:
... "... That the states would step to some sort of reasonable mental health care system, so that police wouldn’t have to deal so often with mental health problems."
A wonderful idea. Got a plan to convince all counties in the U.S. to do that? Meanwhile, it and when faced with a violent, dangerous and armed person, do you first insist on and call on a county mental-health team's intervention for an emergency intervention/assessment of the violent-and-armed person's mental health? And, if known to the county mental-health authorities (or police, for that matter) as having a history of mental illness, is all use of any deadly-force foreclosed no matter the circumstances, no matter the situation? A knife held at a child's throat? "Mental-case", so no resort to deadly force?
These are the real-world circumstances police face. What do you say they should do? (By the way, when there's a child held captive with a knife to his throat, the police don't have the luxury of hemming and hawing, or, as you may try here, dodging the issue.
So, I'll ask you again to face up to and answer straightly what you probably won't, unlike the police, face squarely: what do you do. Call the county mental-health authorities?
>78 Matke:
... "Perhaps if we could lessen some of the Bad White Boy attitude on the part of the police, BLM wouldn't have to exist."
Perhaps? "BLM" not only needn't exist there had been decades, indeed, more than a generation of of much better police/civilian relations and black/white interacial relations when "BLM" didn't exist. "BLM" has been the key factor in the recent worsening of black/white "race" relations worsening to their present deplorable state. And that happened for cheap, transitory politically-motivated reasons. Things are now much worse because and only because idiots behind the inception and "rise" of "BLM" did "their thing."
>78 Matke:
... "And no, I don’t condone any urging of violent actions toward police. Let me say it again, loud and clear: I don’t condone either violence or violent rhetoric aimed at the police—"
You're on record here already as stating that "Less than 10 to 1" constitutes the "optimal ratio" of civilian deaths at the hands of police to police deaths at the hands of civilians.
By the way, you omit all context in the citing of police use of lethal force. You neither pause here to ask, nor bother to inform us (because you probably don't know the answer) : "How many of those killed by police use of lethal force were themselves armed with a lethal weapon and threatening its use on the police or on others at the time these civilians were killed? How many of them had already used violent force on a civilian before the police had time to intervene?, seriously injuring or killing a victim? How many were refusing to heed lawful police instructions? How many defied the police to use lethal force against them? How many were killed by police only after other non-lethal measures failed to bring about the subject's cooperation or surrender to arrest without further resistance?
You give no indication of any interest in or knowledge of any of these questions or their statistical place in the picture you present.
and, with that, you have the fucking nerve to lecture us thus:
>78 Matke:
... "a more serious and less snarky attitude on the part of the populace as a whole might, just might, help to calm down this crisis into something more manageable for everyone."
I suggest you go do some homework. But you almost certainly won't endanger your prejudices and misconceptions by doing that.
(in descending order, most recent to older)
#217 - The New Religion of Anti-Racism | A Conversation with John McWhorter
#207 - Can We Pull Back From The Brink?
Unlearning Race Making Sense #182
88Matke
Of course I realized as soon as I posted that some nitpicking slavish follower of Mr. Trump would call me out on the math.
Actually I’ve done the research. Dying in the line of duty does t always indicate being killed by a suspect.
Perhaps if you returned to our sunny, happy shores you’d see things that aren’t apparent to you from overseas.
Or perhaps not.
And don’t tell me what “I have the nerve” to do. Remember free speech? You should. You misuse it constantly.
And my final remark was in response to another poster. You, as always, choose to put forth your own twisted agenda.
The perfect ratio, the optimal ratio, would be zero to zero. But we live in a flawed world and I strive for improvement, not perfection.
Actually I’ve done the research. Dying in the line of duty does t always indicate being killed by a suspect.
Perhaps if you returned to our sunny, happy shores you’d see things that aren’t apparent to you from overseas.
Or perhaps not.
And don’t tell me what “I have the nerve” to do. Remember free speech? You should. You misuse it constantly.
And my final remark was in response to another poster. You, as always, choose to put forth your own twisted agenda.
The perfect ratio, the optimal ratio, would be zero to zero. But we live in a flawed world and I strive for improvement, not perfection.
89proximity1
>88 Matke:
"Actually I’ve done the research. Dying in the line of duty doesn't always indicate being killed by a suspect."
I had not assumed we were considering any and all police deaths-in-the-line-of-police-duty by whatever causes. Our differences concern unjustifiable & intentional homicide (by a suspect or of a suspect) whether premeditated or not.
Then you know that as a fraction of the total number of police-interventions (responded to "calls"), the police resort to a weapon (any kind, non-lethal included) in a small fraction of the cases in which they respond to a call. Even where an arrest is made and a suspect is taken into custody, the use of any sort of physical force is a minority of the cases.
Since you've checked the statistics, tell us:
police use Lethal force in what proportion of all interventions?
In what proportion of all arrests?
In what proportion of arrests by the use of lethal force is the suspect only injured?
In what proportion of arrests by the use of lethal force is the suspect killed?
Like I can't see, hear, read and be quite well aware of how things are going in the U.S. from "here."
But never mind the quibble about "death-in-the-line-of-duty" vs. "death-by-suscpect's-homicide-of-the-officer-in-the-line-of-duty".
I'll stipulate to the comparison of suspects-killed- (i.e. "homicides (all types combined))-by-police (on or off duty) vs. police-killed (i.e. "homicides (all types combined))-by-suspects and still maintain that your math doesn't add up by this comparison's features.
you've listened to even one of those cited Sam Harris podcasts? You didn't bother to mention it.
There's still no near comparison relation between numbers of police summoned interventions and numbers of suspect-deaths by police use of deadly force.
P.S. You ignored my query: are you calling the county mental-health services first for an evaluation where you face an armed and violent person? And only once that person's sanity is confirmed you resort to appeals to police protection? Do I have that right? Or are you insisting on your police--protected right to live in La-La-Land and ignore the issue because, unlike the police, you're unlikely to ever have to face up to it?
My guess is that it's the latter.
Don't waste time wondering why people are going to laugh off your views and vote to re-elect Trump.
He understands that armed men and women of law-enforcement and protection agencies put themselves at risk to protect him from those who mean him genuine lethal harm.
A police-officer's "Drop/surrender your weapon or I'll shoot" means that.
There are cases where it must be understood and believed. You really don't want to live in a world where virtually no one takes such warnings seriously. You might claim to, but you don't.
You're a poster-child for Trump's re-election. I hope for and want people reading your views and associating them with those of people who support Secret Service-protected Joe Biden for president.
"Actually I’ve done the research. Dying in the line of duty doesn't always indicate being killed by a suspect."
I had not assumed we were considering any and all police deaths-in-the-line-of-police-duty by whatever causes. Our differences concern unjustifiable & intentional homicide (by a suspect or of a suspect) whether premeditated or not.
Then you know that as a fraction of the total number of police-interventions (responded to "calls"), the police resort to a weapon (any kind, non-lethal included) in a small fraction of the cases in which they respond to a call. Even where an arrest is made and a suspect is taken into custody, the use of any sort of physical force is a minority of the cases.
Since you've checked the statistics, tell us:
police use Lethal force in what proportion of all interventions?
In what proportion of all arrests?
In what proportion of arrests by the use of lethal force is the suspect only injured?
In what proportion of arrests by the use of lethal force is the suspect killed?
Perhaps if you returned to our sunny, happy shores you’d see things that aren’t apparent to you from overseas."
Like I can't see, hear, read and be quite well aware of how things are going in the U.S. from "here."
But never mind the quibble about "death-in-the-line-of-duty" vs. "death-by-suscpect's-homicide-of-the-officer-in-the-line-of-duty".
I'll stipulate to the comparison of suspects-killed- (i.e. "homicides (all types combined))-by-police (on or off duty) vs. police-killed (i.e. "homicides (all types combined))-by-suspects and still maintain that your math doesn't add up by this comparison's features.
you've listened to even one of those cited Sam Harris podcasts? You didn't bother to mention it.
There's still no near comparison relation between numbers of police summoned interventions and numbers of suspect-deaths by police use of deadly force.
P.S. You ignored my query: are you calling the county mental-health services first for an evaluation where you face an armed and violent person? And only once that person's sanity is confirmed you resort to appeals to police protection? Do I have that right? Or are you insisting on your police--protected right to live in La-La-Land and ignore the issue because, unlike the police, you're unlikely to ever have to face up to it?
My guess is that it's the latter.
Don't waste time wondering why people are going to laugh off your views and vote to re-elect Trump.
He understands that armed men and women of law-enforcement and protection agencies put themselves at risk to protect him from those who mean him genuine lethal harm.
A police-officer's "Drop/surrender your weapon or I'll shoot" means that.
There are cases where it must be understood and believed. You really don't want to live in a world where virtually no one takes such warnings seriously. You might claim to, but you don't.
You're a poster-child for Trump's re-election. I hope for and want people reading your views and associating them with those of people who support Secret Service-protected Joe Biden for president.
90lriley
#89--FFS aren't you the guy claiming you're more left than anyone else in the world--yet here you are kissing the ass of a plutocratic orange ape of a proto-capitalist and singing hosannas to the police. Up is down--down is up.
Really you are a piece of work. Maybe you could tell us the last time you were actually in the United States. Just for a wild guess--1972? You left after Nixon? and begging now (or not) on 'the streets of London' (Pogues reference) and handing out homework assignments to bohemima.
Really you are a piece of work. Maybe you could tell us the last time you were actually in the United States. Just for a wild guess--1972? You left after Nixon? and begging now (or not) on 'the streets of London' (Pogues reference) and handing out homework assignments to bohemima.
91Matke
>89 proximity1:
Well, here’s the thing. We got into a discussion not long ago where you accused me of not thinking that any of Mr. Trump’s actions were appropriate or helpful.
So I searched and I found three. I posted them. Then I asked you to do me the same courtesy and to list any—even one—mistakes you think Mr. Trump has made as president. You said you couldn’t think of any and you weren’t going to look into anything like that.
Now, Proxy, based on your own words and actions in that brief exchange, you proved beyond any shadow of a doubt who is brainwashed, who mindlessly follows what we can call the “party line,” who isn’t interested in an exchange. You’re interested in burying anyone who opposes your “ideas” beneath a barrage of words and twisted reasoning to justify the insane, illegal, and disgusting acts of Mr. Trump.
Your posts aren’t meaningful anymore. They just spout, at snoringly boring length, more drivel from the right. Oh, yes, your posts also attempt to insult and bully anyone opposed to Fearless Leader into not posting.
Well, here’s the thing. We got into a discussion not long ago where you accused me of not thinking that any of Mr. Trump’s actions were appropriate or helpful.
So I searched and I found three. I posted them. Then I asked you to do me the same courtesy and to list any—even one—mistakes you think Mr. Trump has made as president. You said you couldn’t think of any and you weren’t going to look into anything like that.
Now, Proxy, based on your own words and actions in that brief exchange, you proved beyond any shadow of a doubt who is brainwashed, who mindlessly follows what we can call the “party line,” who isn’t interested in an exchange. You’re interested in burying anyone who opposes your “ideas” beneath a barrage of words and twisted reasoning to justify the insane, illegal, and disgusting acts of Mr. Trump.
Your posts aren’t meaningful anymore. They just spout, at snoringly boring length, more drivel from the right. Oh, yes, your posts also attempt to insult and bully anyone opposed to Fearless Leader into not posting.
92Limelite
>90 lriley:
>89 proximity1:, by his name seems to indicate that he resides under a rock in Canada or Mexico, wouldn't you think? Around Nov. 4th he'll go below again.
>91 Matke:
Just a note. . .I have yet to read a single post by >89 proximity1: that ever approached 'meaningful' other than to totally embrace 'mean,' that is.
>89 proximity1:, by his name seems to indicate that he resides under a rock in Canada or Mexico, wouldn't you think? Around Nov. 4th he'll go below again.
>91 Matke:
Just a note. . .I have yet to read a single post by >89 proximity1: that ever approached 'meaningful' other than to totally embrace 'mean,' that is.
93prosfilaes
>83 Cubby.R.S.: everyone on the left knows they are rooting for evil, they just hate Trump.
Why bother with the last paragraph, when you can go to the last line? Go evil! Lock kids in cages! (wait, no, that's Trump's thing.) Support tyranny! (Again, Trump has that locked down.) Let Iran have nukes! (Iran agreed to not make nukes, and we reneged on the agreement.) Stir chaos in a pandemic! (...) Oh, right, I actually have reasons to dislike Trump and think that Biden will make a better president. Weird, it's almost like I'm flesh and blood, not straw.
Why bother with the last paragraph, when you can go to the last line? Go evil! Lock kids in cages! (wait, no, that's Trump's thing.) Support tyranny! (Again, Trump has that locked down.) Let Iran have nukes! (Iran agreed to not make nukes, and we reneged on the agreement.) Stir chaos in a pandemic! (...) Oh, right, I actually have reasons to dislike Trump and think that Biden will make a better president. Weird, it's almost like I'm flesh and blood, not straw.
94Matke
>92 Limelite: I’ve noticed that. When he’s seriously crossed, his posts devolve into virtually screaming insults at anyone who has information, stats, and facts that he can’t deny.
95Cubby.R.S.
>84 Limelite:
Fact-Checkers are biased, and that has been well known since the Obama Admin. They can rule something incoherent by Biden as misleading but mostly true, whereas something from Trump is rated as mostly false.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/graham-politifacts-pants-on-fire-claims-of-neutra...:
...Just look at PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter rulings for Biden for the month of August: Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True and Half True.
Now let’s compare that to Trump’s August Truth-O-Meter rulings: one Half True, two Mostly False, 11 False and four Pants on Fire.
The shock is that PolitiFact threw in one Half True. What drives you batty is that PolitiFact employed one of its typical tropes, saying: “President Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson claimed a San Francisco lawmaker pushed ‘to abolish single-family zoning in California.’ Housing experts say the claim is technically correct but leaves out key context.”
Overall, from the start of 2019 through August 2020, Trump has gotten 197 Truth-O-Meter ratings, and Biden has only gotten 64. Trump rated Mostly False or worse in 156 of them (79%). He was only Mostly True or True in 17 ratings (8.6%). By contrast, Biden rated Mostly True or True in more than half: 33 of 64 (52%), and then there are 29 Mostly False or worse (45%).
Does anyone less partisan than Brian Stelter think these “fact-checkers” should boast of their “independence”?
Some might suggest this is just about a serious aversion to Trump’s casual relationship with the truth. So let’s take a broader view. Take the dates of the party conventions, from the start of the Democratic one, on Aug. 17, to the aftermath of the Republican one, on Aug. 28. Over those 12 days, PolitiFact checked Republicans and their affiliated PACs and pundits 32 times and only checked Democrats and their equivalents 11 times. The disparity of checks alone implies a partisan tilt.
The Democrats drew eight Mostly True or True ratings, two Half Trues and one Mostly False, a 10-to-1 true-false ratio. During their convention, former first lady Michelle Obama scored a True, and former President Bill Clinton was Mostly True — as usual?
Then look at the Republicans. There were four Mostly Trues and one Half True … out of 32. The other 27 ratings were Mostly False or worse. Trump drew two Pants on Fire ratings. Donald Trump Jr. and Rush Limbaugh also received a Pants on Fire. This all adds up to almost a 1-to-8 true-false ratio....
Consider also:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fake-news-google-targets-daily-wire-other-ben-sha...
On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that Google had begun to target conservative media sites. Their preferred method: by showing fact-checks of those sites by particular left-wing media fact-checking sites like FactCheck.org, Politifact, and Climate Feedback. Such fact-checks were not provided for major left-wing media sites.
Here, for example, is the screencap of the search for Daily Wire:
{“fid”:”28894″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false},”type”:”media”,”field_deltas”:{“1”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false}},”attributes”:{“class”:”media-element file-default”,”data-delta”:”1″}}
And here is the screencap of the search for Vox.com:
{“fid”:”28895″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false},”type”:”media”,”field_deltas”:{“2”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false}},”attributes”:{“class”:”media-element file-default”,”data-delta”:”2″}}
Only sites like Daily Caller, Daily Wire, The Federalist and Breitbart News are targeted; ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, and similar avatars of left-wing viewpoint are only granted a “Topics they write about” category.
Suffice it to say that the use of left-wing fact-checkers as truth police is a massive step in favor of media bias, not against it. As Aaron Bandler of Daily Wire has written:
The problem is that these fact-checkers — PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, Associated Press and ABC News — are all slanted to the left and have a bad habit of inserting their progressive opinions into “fact-checks” instead of simply being objective.
For example, Google shows a result from Snopes.com with regard to a Daily Wire story about Barack Obama praising Jay-Z while remaining publicly silent on the Congressional baseball shooting. Snopes.com suggests that the story was false, because Obama privately called Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) — an exchange reported only by Flake, not Obama. But the entire premise of the story was that Obama had remained publicly quiet on the shooting.
Or, for example, Daily Wire’s story on race-based shootings in the United States. We reported — correctly — that police kill more white people than black people. Snopes.com ranked that claim “mixed.”
Google already has a lawsuit pending from former employee James Damore over their leftism. If they wish to fully alienate conservatives, they’re pursuing that strategy beautifully.
Also:
https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-revealing-their-partis...
If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statements worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:
Hyper-precision fact-checking that creates the impression that a Republican is misleading the public: For this, take Politico’s insinuation that Donald Trump was lying to the public about abuse of women at the border. During the State of the Union, Trump claimed: “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.” This contention is only “partly true,” according to Politico, because a “2017 report by Doctors Without Borders” found that only 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been actually abused while traveling through Mexico.
Whether Doctors Without Borders’ scary statistic is accurate is one thing. Trump, however, was being called out for asserting that “one in every three” illegal immigrants has been abused attempting to cross the border rather than “33.333 percent of women” — probably a rounding error in the poll. It is almost surely the case that every past president and every politician has used “one-third” or “one-half” rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked.
Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad-faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossings have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.
Even if those numbers are correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would the New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.
If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lot of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.
Partisan talking point masquerading as a fact check: “FACT CHECK: President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR tweeted, correcting the record on a statement that the president never made.
Here’s what Trump said: “And exactly one century after Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before. That’s great. Very great. And congratulations. That’s great.”
You can’t produce an unbiased ‘fact-check’ establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.
Trump was offering his rundown on the state of the union, not the Republican Party. It’s true that presidents take credit for all the good things that happen under their watch. Trump is no exception. In this rare case, however, Trump didn’t even take credit for electing the female politicians. In fact, he congratulated them after they broke out into cheers over his comment. Some people have argued that NPR’s piece was providing context to the president’s comment. Perhaps. Still, their nitpicking created the impression that somehow Trump had misled the public. He did not.
Fact-checking meant to obscure actual facts: The Washington Post’s fact-checking page offered a number of egregious examples of outright misinformation. In one of them, reporter Meg Kelly claimed that “Abortion legislation in New York wouldn’t do what Trump said.” There are a number of words in her post intimating that Trump lied about the New York and Virginia late-term abortion bills, but none of her words debunk Trump’s core contention. Ramesh Ponnuru has a good rundown here.
Here’s what Trump said: “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.”
As I’ve noted before, the biggest clue that you’re about to read a deceptive fact check on the abortion issue is an author mentioning that “only” few abortions of viable babies take place. “Indeed,” Kelly writes, “only 1.3 percent of abortions — or about 8,500 a year — take place at or after 21 weeks, according to 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute.” This number, as Ponnuru points out, is almost surely low. Whatever the case, Trump never claimed “most” abortions were post-20 weeks. Whether 8,500 or 15,000, thousands of viable babies are being aborted. No fact-checker would ever point out that only .0001 percent of legal gun owners commit crimes when talking about more firearm restrictions (and yes, that’s an approximation).
SEE ALSO
Trump calls for national unity, slams 'partisan investigations' in State of the Union address
And yes, the president used a bit of rhetorical flourish to say that babies can be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” because, actually, they can be poisoned or dismembered in the mother’s womb moments before birth. Both the Virginia bill, which was tabled, and the New York law allow, just as Trump says (in his blunt language), for the termination of infants who survive the abortion procedure. Absolutely nothing in the Washington Post’s “fact check” debunks the president’s contention that in New York, and elsewhere, abortion on demand until crowning (and after) is now legal as long as the woman and a doctor decide that the baby is stressful in some way to the mother. How often it happens is up for debate. What the bill says is inarguable.
Fact-checking a truthful statement by demanding that Trump highlight information that has absolutely nothing to do with his contention: An astute reader points out this PBS fact-check of a Trump tweet from a couple of weeks ago. I’ve noticed this genre, as well. In it, the president points out that a reputable Marist/NPR/PBS Poll had shown that his approval rating among Latinos had risen to 50 percent, an increase of 19 percent over a year’s time. After confirming that, yes, Trump had been precise in his assertion regarding their poll, PBS spends around 700 words taking Trump to task for failing to highlight other negative information in the poll. Will this be a new standard for all politicians?
The state of American fact-checking is dreadfully misleading. There’s no reason for conservatives to give its authors the deference they seek.
If you'd like more examples, let me know. They are readily available to those of us who read actual news.
Fact-Checkers are biased, and that has been well known since the Obama Admin. They can rule something incoherent by Biden as misleading but mostly true, whereas something from Trump is rated as mostly false.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/graham-politifacts-pants-on-fire-claims-of-neutra...:
...Just look at PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter rulings for Biden for the month of August: Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True and Half True.
Now let’s compare that to Trump’s August Truth-O-Meter rulings: one Half True, two Mostly False, 11 False and four Pants on Fire.
The shock is that PolitiFact threw in one Half True. What drives you batty is that PolitiFact employed one of its typical tropes, saying: “President Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson claimed a San Francisco lawmaker pushed ‘to abolish single-family zoning in California.’ Housing experts say the claim is technically correct but leaves out key context.”
Overall, from the start of 2019 through August 2020, Trump has gotten 197 Truth-O-Meter ratings, and Biden has only gotten 64. Trump rated Mostly False or worse in 156 of them (79%). He was only Mostly True or True in 17 ratings (8.6%). By contrast, Biden rated Mostly True or True in more than half: 33 of 64 (52%), and then there are 29 Mostly False or worse (45%).
Does anyone less partisan than Brian Stelter think these “fact-checkers” should boast of their “independence”?
Some might suggest this is just about a serious aversion to Trump’s casual relationship with the truth. So let’s take a broader view. Take the dates of the party conventions, from the start of the Democratic one, on Aug. 17, to the aftermath of the Republican one, on Aug. 28. Over those 12 days, PolitiFact checked Republicans and their affiliated PACs and pundits 32 times and only checked Democrats and their equivalents 11 times. The disparity of checks alone implies a partisan tilt.
The Democrats drew eight Mostly True or True ratings, two Half Trues and one Mostly False, a 10-to-1 true-false ratio. During their convention, former first lady Michelle Obama scored a True, and former President Bill Clinton was Mostly True — as usual?
Then look at the Republicans. There were four Mostly Trues and one Half True … out of 32. The other 27 ratings were Mostly False or worse. Trump drew two Pants on Fire ratings. Donald Trump Jr. and Rush Limbaugh also received a Pants on Fire. This all adds up to almost a 1-to-8 true-false ratio....
Consider also:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fake-news-google-targets-daily-wire-other-ben-sha...
On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that Google had begun to target conservative media sites. Their preferred method: by showing fact-checks of those sites by particular left-wing media fact-checking sites like FactCheck.org, Politifact, and Climate Feedback. Such fact-checks were not provided for major left-wing media sites.
Here, for example, is the screencap of the search for Daily Wire:
{“fid”:”28894″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false},”type”:”media”,”field_deltas”:{“1”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false}},”attributes”:{“class”:”media-element file-default”,”data-delta”:”1″}}
And here is the screencap of the search for Vox.com:
{“fid”:”28895″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false},”type”:”media”,”field_deltas”:{“2”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_textund0value”:false,”field_file_image_title_textund0value”:false}},”attributes”:{“class”:”media-element file-default”,”data-delta”:”2″}}
Only sites like Daily Caller, Daily Wire, The Federalist and Breitbart News are targeted; ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, and similar avatars of left-wing viewpoint are only granted a “Topics they write about” category.
Suffice it to say that the use of left-wing fact-checkers as truth police is a massive step in favor of media bias, not against it. As Aaron Bandler of Daily Wire has written:
The problem is that these fact-checkers — PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, Associated Press and ABC News — are all slanted to the left and have a bad habit of inserting their progressive opinions into “fact-checks” instead of simply being objective.
For example, Google shows a result from Snopes.com with regard to a Daily Wire story about Barack Obama praising Jay-Z while remaining publicly silent on the Congressional baseball shooting. Snopes.com suggests that the story was false, because Obama privately called Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) — an exchange reported only by Flake, not Obama. But the entire premise of the story was that Obama had remained publicly quiet on the shooting.
Or, for example, Daily Wire’s story on race-based shootings in the United States. We reported — correctly — that police kill more white people than black people. Snopes.com ranked that claim “mixed.”
Google already has a lawsuit pending from former employee James Damore over their leftism. If they wish to fully alienate conservatives, they’re pursuing that strategy beautifully.
Also:
https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-revealing-their-partis...
If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statements worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:
Hyper-precision fact-checking that creates the impression that a Republican is misleading the public: For this, take Politico’s insinuation that Donald Trump was lying to the public about abuse of women at the border. During the State of the Union, Trump claimed: “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.” This contention is only “partly true,” according to Politico, because a “2017 report by Doctors Without Borders” found that only 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been actually abused while traveling through Mexico.
Whether Doctors Without Borders’ scary statistic is accurate is one thing. Trump, however, was being called out for asserting that “one in every three” illegal immigrants has been abused attempting to cross the border rather than “33.333 percent of women” — probably a rounding error in the poll. It is almost surely the case that every past president and every politician has used “one-third” or “one-half” rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked.
Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad-faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossings have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.
Even if those numbers are correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would the New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.
If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lot of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.
Partisan talking point masquerading as a fact check: “FACT CHECK: President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR tweeted, correcting the record on a statement that the president never made.
Here’s what Trump said: “And exactly one century after Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before. That’s great. Very great. And congratulations. That’s great.”
You can’t produce an unbiased ‘fact-check’ establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.
Trump was offering his rundown on the state of the union, not the Republican Party. It’s true that presidents take credit for all the good things that happen under their watch. Trump is no exception. In this rare case, however, Trump didn’t even take credit for electing the female politicians. In fact, he congratulated them after they broke out into cheers over his comment. Some people have argued that NPR’s piece was providing context to the president’s comment. Perhaps. Still, their nitpicking created the impression that somehow Trump had misled the public. He did not.
Fact-checking meant to obscure actual facts: The Washington Post’s fact-checking page offered a number of egregious examples of outright misinformation. In one of them, reporter Meg Kelly claimed that “Abortion legislation in New York wouldn’t do what Trump said.” There are a number of words in her post intimating that Trump lied about the New York and Virginia late-term abortion bills, but none of her words debunk Trump’s core contention. Ramesh Ponnuru has a good rundown here.
Here’s what Trump said: “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.”
As I’ve noted before, the biggest clue that you’re about to read a deceptive fact check on the abortion issue is an author mentioning that “only” few abortions of viable babies take place. “Indeed,” Kelly writes, “only 1.3 percent of abortions — or about 8,500 a year — take place at or after 21 weeks, according to 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute.” This number, as Ponnuru points out, is almost surely low. Whatever the case, Trump never claimed “most” abortions were post-20 weeks. Whether 8,500 or 15,000, thousands of viable babies are being aborted. No fact-checker would ever point out that only .0001 percent of legal gun owners commit crimes when talking about more firearm restrictions (and yes, that’s an approximation).
SEE ALSO
Trump calls for national unity, slams 'partisan investigations' in State of the Union address
And yes, the president used a bit of rhetorical flourish to say that babies can be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” because, actually, they can be poisoned or dismembered in the mother’s womb moments before birth. Both the Virginia bill, which was tabled, and the New York law allow, just as Trump says (in his blunt language), for the termination of infants who survive the abortion procedure. Absolutely nothing in the Washington Post’s “fact check” debunks the president’s contention that in New York, and elsewhere, abortion on demand until crowning (and after) is now legal as long as the woman and a doctor decide that the baby is stressful in some way to the mother. How often it happens is up for debate. What the bill says is inarguable.
Fact-checking a truthful statement by demanding that Trump highlight information that has absolutely nothing to do with his contention: An astute reader points out this PBS fact-check of a Trump tweet from a couple of weeks ago. I’ve noticed this genre, as well. In it, the president points out that a reputable Marist/NPR/PBS Poll had shown that his approval rating among Latinos had risen to 50 percent, an increase of 19 percent over a year’s time. After confirming that, yes, Trump had been precise in his assertion regarding their poll, PBS spends around 700 words taking Trump to task for failing to highlight other negative information in the poll. Will this be a new standard for all politicians?
The state of American fact-checking is dreadfully misleading. There’s no reason for conservatives to give its authors the deference they seek.
If you'd like more examples, let me know. They are readily available to those of us who read actual news.
96Cubby.R.S.
>88 Matke:
Yet somehow, a black man dying while committing a crime, violent resistance of arrest is simply racist killing?
Yet somehow, a black man dying while committing a crime, violent resistance of arrest is simply racist killing?
97John5918
>95 Cubby.R.S.:
If fact-checkers discern, based on evidence and research, that one person is truthful far more often than another, it could of course mean that all the fact-checkers are biased, but isn't it more likely to mean that one person is, er, more truthful than another?
If fact-checkers discern, based on evidence and research, that one person is truthful far more often than another, it could of course mean that all the fact-checkers are biased, but isn't it more likely to mean that one person is, er, more truthful than another?
99Cubby.R.S.
>93 prosfilaes:
Please, give me one reason why Biden will be a better President. One at a time, in which I will address, not some random list. You can even cite why you think it's true beforehand.
Please, give me one reason why Biden will be a better President. One at a time, in which I will address, not some random list. You can even cite why you think it's true beforehand.
100kiparsky
>99 Cubby.R.S.: Please, give me one reason why Biden will be a better President.
Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?
Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?
101Cubby.R.S.
>100 kiparsky:
If you follow the guidelines and await a response to your reason. If I am overrun with these things, it may take a while to address some. It is after all, much harder to find supporting information for Conservatives on search engines that are in the bag for the Democrat party.
If you follow the guidelines and await a response to your reason. If I am overrun with these things, it may take a while to address some. It is after all, much harder to find supporting information for Conservatives on search engines that are in the bag for the Democrat party.
102kiparsky
>101 Cubby.R.S.: LOL. You mean you need to get hold of your handlers? Are they maybe in a different timezone? Russia is sleeping right now?
Are you really saying that you only exist to be an intermediary layer between me and the websites that stroke your ideological fancy? How about you go away and read a newspaper - a real one, not the Daily Whiner - for a year or two, so you'll be equipped to engage in a debate with the big kids. It's okay, we'll wait.
Are you really saying that you only exist to be an intermediary layer between me and the websites that stroke your ideological fancy? How about you go away and read a newspaper - a real one, not the Daily Whiner - for a year or two, so you'll be equipped to engage in a debate with the big kids. It's okay, we'll wait.
103Cubby.R.S.
>102 kiparsky:
No, just stating that Progressives have a large number here, and there may be a few comments that take a while. I've been busy at work as well. Please, the reason.
No, just stating that Progressives have a large number here, and there may be a few comments that take a while. I've been busy at work as well. Please, the reason.
104kiparsky
>103 Cubby.R.S.: Oh, you've told me everything I need to know. If I want to read right-wing propaganda I can find it for myself, thanks. If you were planning on actually engaging in the conversation, that would be interesting, but clearly you're not.
105Cubby.R.S.
>104 kiparsky:
I don't think you can provide a legit reason anyway, and you will claim to not have the time for any rebuttal. So, your loss, I thought it would be fun as well.
I don't think you can provide a legit reason anyway, and you will claim to not have the time for any rebuttal. So, your loss, I thought it would be fun as well.
106Matke
>96 Cubby.R.S.:
Please quote the exact words in my post which say “a black man dying while committing a crime, violent resistance of arrest, is simply a racist killing.”
Please do show me that.
I didn’t need to say that. There are enough black men murdered by police while not committing any crime whatsoever to make such a statement unnecessary. Lack children have been killed by police. A black woman was killed in her bedroom by police.
And to address an adjacent topic, there are thousands of black people harassed daily, by both police and private citizens, because they are black.
And your president has indicated that’s okay.
Please quote the exact words in my post which say “a black man dying while committing a crime, violent resistance of arrest, is simply a racist killing.”
Please do show me that.
I didn’t need to say that. There are enough black men murdered by police while not committing any crime whatsoever to make such a statement unnecessary. Lack children have been killed by police. A black woman was killed in her bedroom by police.
And to address an adjacent topic, there are thousands of black people harassed daily, by both police and private citizens, because they are black.
And your president has indicated that’s okay.
107fuzzi
>106 Matke: please provide a source quoting Trump saying that thousands of black people being harassed daily is okay.
108kiparsky
>105 Cubby.R.S.: As I've said before, I've got no time for an argument with someone who has no positions of his own.
109fuzzi
>95 Cubby.R.S.: not just poisoned or dismembered. The abortion of viable babies is not only happening, but medical studies on more effective ways of doing it are available online.
Ever heard of exsanguination?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24034582/
Ever heard of exsanguination?
Cutting the umbilical cord when the preborn child is still in the womb sends the child into cardiac arrest, according to a 2013 study on this abortion method. The study was by the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and was headed by former faculty member Kristina Tocce. Tocce is the medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. Metro Health Center — where Torres worked — is an abortion facility under Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
The study found that transecting the cord and documenting fetal cardiac arrest before using dilation and evacuation (D&E) to tear off the preborn child’s arms and legs, is an effective means of killing the baby. The study included 407 preborn children from 16 to 23 weeks gestation. Babies born as early as 21 weeks have survived, meaning this study was done on viable children. These 407 ‘cases’ “were reviewed to determine success, time to fetal asystole (cardiac arrest) and complications.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24034582/
110Matke
If you’re supporting Mr. Trump based on his perceived stance on abortion, and that’s coloring everything you think about him, please be honest enough to say so. If that’s your stance, fine; just say so.
Statistically the best way to prevent abortion, if you don’t want to improve sex education, provide low-cost birth control, or the day-after pill, is mandatory vasectomies, reversed at no charge upon marriage.
A woman can be pregnant once during a nine-month period of time. A man having unprotected sex every night can impregnate 270 women. Do the math.
“But it’s my body and my choice.” You’ve already proved you don’t care about that.
“But it might not be reversible.” Full-term, live-birth pregnancy isn’t reversible either.
You want to ban abortion? Fine.
Just as soon as every single man is held legally responsible for fifty percent of all financial expenses, to include post-high-school education; all moral training; all the teaching of manners and general good behavior; seeing that schoolwork is done appropriately and on time,; all doctor visits; and all transportation to and support needed for sports, music lessons, scouts, camp, and any other extracurricular activities the child might become involved in.
The day that policy becomes law is the day we’ll talk about stopping abortion.
Statistically the best way to prevent abortion, if you don’t want to improve sex education, provide low-cost birth control, or the day-after pill, is mandatory vasectomies, reversed at no charge upon marriage.
A woman can be pregnant once during a nine-month period of time. A man having unprotected sex every night can impregnate 270 women. Do the math.
“But it’s my body and my choice.” You’ve already proved you don’t care about that.
“But it might not be reversible.” Full-term, live-birth pregnancy isn’t reversible either.
You want to ban abortion? Fine.
Just as soon as every single man is held legally responsible for fifty percent of all financial expenses, to include post-high-school education; all moral training; all the teaching of manners and general good behavior; seeing that schoolwork is done appropriately and on time,; all doctor visits; and all transportation to and support needed for sports, music lessons, scouts, camp, and any other extracurricular activities the child might become involved in.
The day that policy becomes law is the day we’ll talk about stopping abortion.
111Cubby.R.S.
>106 Matke:
You don't have to, you are supporting the theory of systemic racism, that is a large proponent.
So, yet another half-truth or lie, and one that undermines and conflates the discussion:
George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis has revived the Obama-era narrative that law enforcement is endemically racist. On Friday, Barack Obama tweeted that for millions of black Americans, being treated differently by the criminal justice system on account of race is “tragically, painfully, maddeningly ‘normal.’ ” Mr. Obama called on the police and the public to create a “new normal,” in which bigotry no longer “infects our institutions and our hearts.”
Joe Biden released a video the same day in which he asserted that all African-Americans fear for their safety from “bad police” and black children must be instructed to tolerate police abuse just so they can “make it home.” That echoed a claim Mr. Obama made after the ambush murder of five Dallas officers in July 2016. During their memorial service, the president said African-American parents were right to fear that their children may be killed by police officers whenever they go outside.
This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings. Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence; two 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier; a 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day. This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black. Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is.
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.
A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.
The false narrative of systemic police bias resulted in targeted killings of officers during the Obama presidency. The pattern may be repeating itself. Officers are being assaulted and shot at while they try to arrest gun suspects or respond to the growing riots. Police precincts and courthouses have been destroyed with impunity, which will encourage more civilization-destroying violence. If the Ferguson effect of officers backing off law enforcement in minority neighborhoods is reborn as the Minneapolis effect, the thousands of law-abiding African-Americans who depend on the police for basic safety will once again be the victims.
The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd’s death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
You don't have to, you are supporting the theory of systemic racism, that is a large proponent.
So, yet another half-truth or lie, and one that undermines and conflates the discussion:
George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis has revived the Obama-era narrative that law enforcement is endemically racist. On Friday, Barack Obama tweeted that for millions of black Americans, being treated differently by the criminal justice system on account of race is “tragically, painfully, maddeningly ‘normal.’ ” Mr. Obama called on the police and the public to create a “new normal,” in which bigotry no longer “infects our institutions and our hearts.”
Joe Biden released a video the same day in which he asserted that all African-Americans fear for their safety from “bad police” and black children must be instructed to tolerate police abuse just so they can “make it home.” That echoed a claim Mr. Obama made after the ambush murder of five Dallas officers in July 2016. During their memorial service, the president said African-American parents were right to fear that their children may be killed by police officers whenever they go outside.
This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings. Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence; two 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier; a 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day. This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black. Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is.
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.
A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.
The false narrative of systemic police bias resulted in targeted killings of officers during the Obama presidency. The pattern may be repeating itself. Officers are being assaulted and shot at while they try to arrest gun suspects or respond to the growing riots. Police precincts and courthouses have been destroyed with impunity, which will encourage more civilization-destroying violence. If the Ferguson effect of officers backing off law enforcement in minority neighborhoods is reborn as the Minneapolis effect, the thousands of law-abiding African-Americans who depend on the police for basic safety will once again be the victims.
The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd’s death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
112kiparsky
>109 fuzzi: Yes, doctors do study medical procedures, and abortion is a medical procedure. And the only person who has any right to say whether an abortion should happen is the woman who is making that choice.
It's ironic that someone like >95 Cubby.R.S.: who spends so much time claiming to speak for "liberty" and against the domination by the state is so eager to make slaves of every women in this country. Hypocrisy writ large, in neon letters, and its name is Cubby.
Of course, the single organization that prevents more abortions than any other, by a long shot, is Planned Parenthood. If Cubby really wanted to prevent abortions, they'd be looking to get government support to ensure there would be a fully-functioning Planned Parenthood office within twenty miles of every woman in this country. But since they are more interested in ensuring that women are second-class citizens, they choose the authoritarian solution.
It's ironic that someone like >95 Cubby.R.S.: who spends so much time claiming to speak for "liberty" and against the domination by the state is so eager to make slaves of every women in this country. Hypocrisy writ large, in neon letters, and its name is Cubby.
Of course, the single organization that prevents more abortions than any other, by a long shot, is Planned Parenthood. If Cubby really wanted to prevent abortions, they'd be looking to get government support to ensure there would be a fully-functioning Planned Parenthood office within twenty miles of every woman in this country. But since they are more interested in ensuring that women are second-class citizens, they choose the authoritarian solution.
113Matke
>111 Cubby.R.S.: And of course all the photos and tape of police using less-than-deadly but still excessive force are simply window-dressing, by the insane left, right? And the president saying that a reporter being attacked the police (reporter clearly identified and doing nothing but reporting) “is a beautiful thing,”—that’s nothing, right?
The tape I saw and heard of police screaming, in that vein-in-the-throat-popping infuriated voice, to people sitting on their own porches, “Get inside! Don’t look out the windows! Get inside!”
The man who had his adopted white kids in the car who was forced to the ground by armed cops, with his kids screaming in the back seat
Oh, just isolated instances.
Don’t conflate two separate but equally disturbing trends: police violence toward the black population and black on black violence. They are separate issues.
The FBI reports that have stated that white supremacists are rapidly infiltrating police departments all over the country: nothing.
It used to be “protect and defend.” If only.
The tape I saw and heard of police screaming, in that vein-in-the-throat-popping infuriated voice, to people sitting on their own porches, “Get inside! Don’t look out the windows! Get inside!”
The man who had his adopted white kids in the car who was forced to the ground by armed cops, with his kids screaming in the back seat
Oh, just isolated instances.
Don’t conflate two separate but equally disturbing trends: police violence toward the black population and black on black violence. They are separate issues.
The FBI reports that have stated that white supremacists are rapidly infiltrating police departments all over the country: nothing.
It used to be “protect and defend.” If only.
114Cubby.R.S.
>110 Matke:
As sex education continues to increase, so do pregnancy out of wed-lock. Forced vasectomies? Reich much? So Trump is Authoritarian and you want to neuter men without consent?
Hmm, that's one string of coincidences, that many women all on the exact moving path of a cycle and all dumb enough to have unprotected sex with a male slut? What kind of moronic village do you live in?
Don't allow someone to ejaculate into you, if you don't want to be pregnant. Or are we playing the dumb and helpless card? Generally it takes a while to heal from giving birth, and sometimes women do not directly commence a typical ovulation pattern, can we say the average is 10 months?
I have recently converted to, no I don't give a crap about the your body your choice. Most parents are worthless, especially the type that is selfish enough to kill their children. The statement is rather worthless in my mind as well, but a reversal of Roe v. Wade will only allow States to make up their own mind about abortion. It's not a wholesale illegalization of the sacrificial act. Some believe that humans give birth to humans, and some believe that babies are only humans if they feel like letting them live. Either way, your body, your choice is a flawed argument. It's only a matter of whether or not you think killing a child should happen, should happen under which circumstances or timeframes, and how long is too long to wait for an abortion.
Men are responsible for their children, and many are jailed because they are worthless scumbags who refuse to pay support. I know quite a few.
As sex education continues to increase, so do pregnancy out of wed-lock. Forced vasectomies? Reich much? So Trump is Authoritarian and you want to neuter men without consent?
Hmm, that's one string of coincidences, that many women all on the exact moving path of a cycle and all dumb enough to have unprotected sex with a male slut? What kind of moronic village do you live in?
Don't allow someone to ejaculate into you, if you don't want to be pregnant. Or are we playing the dumb and helpless card? Generally it takes a while to heal from giving birth, and sometimes women do not directly commence a typical ovulation pattern, can we say the average is 10 months?
I have recently converted to, no I don't give a crap about the your body your choice. Most parents are worthless, especially the type that is selfish enough to kill their children. The statement is rather worthless in my mind as well, but a reversal of Roe v. Wade will only allow States to make up their own mind about abortion. It's not a wholesale illegalization of the sacrificial act. Some believe that humans give birth to humans, and some believe that babies are only humans if they feel like letting them live. Either way, your body, your choice is a flawed argument. It's only a matter of whether or not you think killing a child should happen, should happen under which circumstances or timeframes, and how long is too long to wait for an abortion.
Men are responsible for their children, and many are jailed because they are worthless scumbags who refuse to pay support. I know quite a few.
115Cubby.R.S.
>113 Matke:
The numbers are against you, and you are using the isolated incidences that have been painted over quite broadly. Why, despite there being more whites killed by police, do you not see the videos? Because they are not useful politically or because they were in general nice killings that were done with compassion and grace? Give me a break. The reality is, most of the incidences are painted over and the whole story is not being told. The few that are bad, should face the consequences.
The numbers are against you, and you are using the isolated incidences that have been painted over quite broadly. Why, despite there being more whites killed by police, do you not see the videos? Because they are not useful politically or because they were in general nice killings that were done with compassion and grace? Give me a break. The reality is, most of the incidences are painted over and the whole story is not being told. The few that are bad, should face the consequences.
116kiparsky
>114 Cubby.R.S.: Either way, your body, your choice is a flawed argument
So you believe that your body is the property of the state, to dispose of as it will?
You seem to object to state intervention in medical care for men, but you have no problem with it for women. Why is that? Surely if the state owns a woman's body, as you think it does, then it also owns a man's body.
So you believe that your body is the property of the state, to dispose of as it will?
You seem to object to state intervention in medical care for men, but you have no problem with it for women. Why is that? Surely if the state owns a woman's body, as you think it does, then it also owns a man's body.
117Cubby.R.S.
>116 kiparsky:
I don't think the State should own anyone. I believe a woman should own herself and take responsibility for herself and if she decides to get pregnant, she does not own the life inside of her. Her body is the equal property of the baby she decided to have.
In no other instance is it okay to kill someone, because they are inconvenient, why pregnancy? Perhaps by making abortion education reality based and abortion more difficult to attain, abortion would actually become safe and rare.
I don't think the State should own anyone. I believe a woman should own herself and take responsibility for herself and if she decides to get pregnant, she does not own the life inside of her. Her body is the equal property of the baby she decided to have.
In no other instance is it okay to kill someone, because they are inconvenient, why pregnancy? Perhaps by making abortion education reality based and abortion more difficult to attain, abortion would actually become safe and rare.
118Matke
>117 Cubby.R.S.:
The man is responsible as well. And every man should be forced not only to pay, but to fully participate on a fifty-fifty basis with the mother. This isn’t happening nor will it.
Again, when men are required by law to be full parents of each sand every child they give their sperm to produce, then abnd only then can abortion be revisited.
Oh, and that fifty percent also includes providing the prospective mother with support, financial, mora, and emotional, all through the pregnancy. No woman gets pregnant by herself. So ll men need to cover or to shut up.
The man is responsible as well. And every man should be forced not only to pay, but to fully participate on a fifty-fifty basis with the mother. This isn’t happening nor will it.
Again, when men are required by law to be full parents of each sand every child they give their sperm to produce, then abnd only then can abortion be revisited.
Oh, and that fifty percent also includes providing the prospective mother with support, financial, mora, and emotional, all through the pregnancy. No woman gets pregnant by herself. So ll men need to cover or to shut up.
119kiparsky
>117 Cubby.R.S.: No woman gets an abortion without knowing what she's doing. Don't be so fucking condescending.
121prosfilaes
>99 Cubby.R.S.: I'm not obligated to feed you arguments at any speed, especially as you didn't bother backing up the claims I was replying to in >93 prosfilaes:. No matter what you say can't change the fact that people aren't knowingly supporting evil because they irrationally hate some random person.
122Cubby.R.S.
>119 kiparsky:
You sure about that? When education for the abortion process goes up, the amount of women having abortions goes down.
You sure about that? When education for the abortion process goes up, the amount of women having abortions goes down.
123Cubby.R.S.
>121 prosfilaes:
I thought you were actually supporting those things, which made some sense, so I rolled with it.
I thought you were actually supporting those things, which made some sense, so I rolled with it.
124Limelite
Imagine being a police detective in the interview room with the suspect in a murder. S/He shows him the evidence: 1) The weapon; 2) The ballistics report; 3) The fingerprints; 4) The video recordings; 5) The transcripts of eye-witness testimony and persons who were with the suspect moments before the crime; 6) DNA analysis results.
All the evidence is derived from the suspect, each type corroborates and builds a solid case that it's the right person.
What's the suspect's response? "It's not fair! It can't be true! I don't like what I'm hearing! The facts are prejudiced against what I believe about my actions; especially, the DNA evidence." (the fact checker of all the contributory statements, recorded behaviors, and what people saw and heard before, during, and after the crime).
The detective, patient beyond the bounds of natural human capacity, "What can you tell us about the events and yourself that we can view as evidence that we have the wrong person?"
The suspect, "You're just being mean to me. You don't like that I accuse you and all that stuff on the table of being prejudiced against me. You want to stifle my voice!"
The detective, "Yeah, but what credible facts can you present to substantiate your claims and feelings that we have the wrong person?"
The suspect. *Crickets*
Is it any wonder?
All the evidence is derived from the suspect, each type corroborates and builds a solid case that it's the right person.
What's the suspect's response? "It's not fair! It can't be true! I don't like what I'm hearing! The facts are prejudiced against what I believe about my actions; especially, the DNA evidence." (the fact checker of all the contributory statements, recorded behaviors, and what people saw and heard before, during, and after the crime).
The detective, patient beyond the bounds of natural human capacity, "What can you tell us about the events and yourself that we can view as evidence that we have the wrong person?"
The suspect, "You're just being mean to me. You don't like that I accuse you and all that stuff on the table of being prejudiced against me. You want to stifle my voice!"
The detective, "Yeah, but what credible facts can you present to substantiate your claims and feelings that we have the wrong person?"
The suspect. *Crickets*
Is it any wonder?
125kiparsky
>122 Cubby.R.S.: Yes, when you educate women - and men! - about their fertility choices, including truthful information about abortion, the overall abortion rate goes down. We've already agreed that a hell of a lot more Planned Parenthood offices is the best way to reduce abortion in this country.
There are the lying fuckrags who go around lying to people at "pregnancy centers" and tell women a lot of lies about pregnancy, fertility, and abortion. They don't seem to do much to reduce abortions, though someone who isn't very careful about their data might ignore the fact that they mostly exist in places where statists with a fanatical opposition to women's health have made it extremely difficult to obtain medical care if you happen to be a woman and assume that it's the lying fuckrags that are making the difference. But I'm sure you're not stupid enough to believe that a "pregnancy center" that tells a woman that abortion is murder is "education", since its only goal is to lie to people.
So we're all agreed then: The Federal government should allocate enough dollars to ensure that Planned Parenthood has offices within twenty miles of every woman in this country. This will reduce the number of abortions and also put the lying fuckrags out of business, which is a nice side benefit.
There are the lying fuckrags who go around lying to people at "pregnancy centers" and tell women a lot of lies about pregnancy, fertility, and abortion. They don't seem to do much to reduce abortions, though someone who isn't very careful about their data might ignore the fact that they mostly exist in places where statists with a fanatical opposition to women's health have made it extremely difficult to obtain medical care if you happen to be a woman and assume that it's the lying fuckrags that are making the difference. But I'm sure you're not stupid enough to believe that a "pregnancy center" that tells a woman that abortion is murder is "education", since its only goal is to lie to people.
So we're all agreed then: The Federal government should allocate enough dollars to ensure that Planned Parenthood has offices within twenty miles of every woman in this country. This will reduce the number of abortions and also put the lying fuckrags out of business, which is a nice side benefit.
126Cubby.R.S.
>124 Limelite:
I feel like I've been in your shoes before. However; I have absolutely no idea on what you tried to get me to answer, except that; yes I think you are rooting for evil.
>125 kiparsky:
Not so much.
I feel like I've been in your shoes before. However; I have absolutely no idea on what you tried to get me to answer, except that; yes I think you are rooting for evil.
>125 kiparsky:
Not so much.
127kiparsky
>126 Cubby.R.S.: Oh, you're with the lying fuckrags then? Oh, well, never mind.
128Cubby.R.S.
>127 kiparsky:
Depends on what the lying fuckrags are saying. Can you provide me a link to a lying fuckrag and perhaps pull the quote that you take umbrage with?
Depends on what the lying fuckrags are saying. Can you provide me a link to a lying fuckrag and perhaps pull the quote that you take umbrage with?
129mikevail
>115 Cubby.R.S.:
If you're arguing in defense of the police, pointing out that they kill more whites than blacks isn't a very compelling supportive statement. Are you suggesting police aren't racist in particular, rather, they're misanthropic sociopaths?
"The few that are bad, should face the consequences"
You're saying a few bad cops don't represent all cops? So do a few bad BLM protesters represent all BLM protesters?
If you're arguing in defense of the police, pointing out that they kill more whites than blacks isn't a very compelling supportive statement. Are you suggesting police aren't racist in particular, rather, they're misanthropic sociopaths?
"The few that are bad, should face the consequences"
You're saying a few bad cops don't represent all cops? So do a few bad BLM protesters represent all BLM protesters?
130Cubby.R.S.
>129 mikevail:
They kill whites and blacks at an almost identical percentage per population, pretty compelling if you consider some say they are hunting blacks in the street.
Vice versa?
BLM is a political movement that wishes to destabilize western culture, they have stated such and have been politically motivated to remove it from their pages. Not a good thing in my opinion, so I would demonize them from their very goal and now that over 7% of the protests are violent that is infinitely higher than violent confrontations with blacks and police.
They kill whites and blacks at an almost identical percentage per population, pretty compelling if you consider some say they are hunting blacks in the street.
Vice versa?
BLM is a political movement that wishes to destabilize western culture, they have stated such and have been politically motivated to remove it from their pages. Not a good thing in my opinion, so I would demonize them from their very goal and now that over 7% of the protests are violent that is infinitely higher than violent confrontations with blacks and police.
131kiparsky
Anyone who tells you that abortion leads to breast cancer is a lying fuckrag, as is anyone who tells you that abortion is a risky procedure or that it leads to infertility or that women experience "stress" after abortions - for a few examples.
Here's an example of a typical lying fuckrag website: https://bostonpregnancychoices.org/services/
Notice that it claims to be about "pregnancy choices" but does not list abortion under the services provided. This is because they exist not to serve women but to serve a bunch of wankers - men, generally - who think that women exist only to bear children, and who also think that all women who bear children are, I think the word you used above was "sluts". (you really are a piece of work...)
It does offer "after abortion counseling" because they want to convince women that abortion is some sort of traumatic experience. (The women I know who have had abortions say this is bullshit)
They also offer ultrasound, though the only thing an ultrasound could tell you is that the pregnancy is in some way problematic and you definitely need an abortion, which again they do not provide.
Under "Options" they list "abortion", although it's not an option they provide or refer for. They lie and say that "Both types of abortion can pose different risks to the woman.", suggesting that abortion is a risky procedure. It is not, it is one of the safest medical procedures a woman can undergo.
They ask women to schedule an appointment to discuss a service that they do not provide or refer for. In other words, they want to get women into a room so they can lie to them about abortion, and they lie when they say that they will conduct the discussion in an "open and respectful manner", when in fact they have already determined an outcome for that woman's pregnancy and they don't give one single solitary shit about what she might think about the matter.
On another page, they suggest that women need to ask "am I eligible for an abortion?" The answer is, yes. There is no question of "eligibility", this is a medical procedure not a contest that you're entering. On that page they also again talk about the "risks" associated with an abortion. Again, they are trying to suggest, falsely, as in they're lying, that abortion is a risky procedure, when in fact it is not.
Is that enough for you? This is just a quick scan of one lying fuckrag outfit near me - and we've only just scratched the surface.
Here's an example of a typical lying fuckrag website: https://bostonpregnancychoices.org/services/
Notice that it claims to be about "pregnancy choices" but does not list abortion under the services provided. This is because they exist not to serve women but to serve a bunch of wankers - men, generally - who think that women exist only to bear children, and who also think that all women who bear children are, I think the word you used above was "sluts". (you really are a piece of work...)
It does offer "after abortion counseling" because they want to convince women that abortion is some sort of traumatic experience. (The women I know who have had abortions say this is bullshit)
They also offer ultrasound, though the only thing an ultrasound could tell you is that the pregnancy is in some way problematic and you definitely need an abortion, which again they do not provide.
Under "Options" they list "abortion", although it's not an option they provide or refer for. They lie and say that "Both types of abortion can pose different risks to the woman.", suggesting that abortion is a risky procedure. It is not, it is one of the safest medical procedures a woman can undergo.
They ask women to schedule an appointment to discuss a service that they do not provide or refer for. In other words, they want to get women into a room so they can lie to them about abortion, and they lie when they say that they will conduct the discussion in an "open and respectful manner", when in fact they have already determined an outcome for that woman's pregnancy and they don't give one single solitary shit about what she might think about the matter.
On another page, they suggest that women need to ask "am I eligible for an abortion?" The answer is, yes. There is no question of "eligibility", this is a medical procedure not a contest that you're entering. On that page they also again talk about the "risks" associated with an abortion. Again, they are trying to suggest, falsely, as in they're lying, that abortion is a risky procedure, when in fact it is not.
Is that enough for you? This is just a quick scan of one lying fuckrag outfit near me - and we've only just scratched the surface.
132Limelite
>126 Cubby.R.S.:
I could never be in your shoes because I don't base my opinions on what happens in the natural world (that includes politics) on any religious mythology.
Evil is a concept mankind labels otherwise inexplicable acts to try to bring to scale horrific behavior by people that exceeds what decent people can comprehend as normal. All the religious dogma in the world won't relieve the natural world of horrific human behavior, miraculously make it go away, or alter the nature of those who do horrific things.
What's evil?
Failing to produce a coherent, scientifically based approach to dealing with the coronavirus pandemic that has killed over 206,000 dead Americans? Is that worse than saying, "I'm not responsible!" when you are the one who is responsible? Is that worse than announcing that the coronavirus pandemic will just go away in last April "because the weather gets warmer." Is that worse than advising people to drink bleach, inject Lysol, and resist wearing a mask while creating and encouraging crowds to form in churches, schools, and presidential pep rallies? Is that worse than abandoning your allies on the field of battle to the mercy of the enemies that surround them? Is that worse than embracing the man who offers bounties to our adversaries for killing our servicepeople and for attempting to assassinate his own citizens with nerve agents? Is that worse than grabbing women by their genitals and laughing about it? Is that worse than encouraging white supremacists to think of themselves as "very fine people" who should feel justified in violently attacking unarmed black people because of their color?
Or is the real evil the people who don't decry all that but do nothing other than gleefully boast that "we're 'owning' the libs!"
Or is the real evil the people who say, "Let Trump be Trump"?
Or is the real evil the people who help execute, foist, and support the non-policies and the unscientific positions that have cost 206,000+ Americans their lives in the pandemic?
Or is the real evil the people who refuse to acknowledge the real harm caused others in the real world and dismiss it as "fake news," "liberal prejudice," "socialism!!" because they're not the ones suffering?
Or is the real evil the people who refuse even to acknowledge actual evil when it is exhibited every day by Trump, Barr, McConnell, Brad Parscale, Cotton, Nunes, Graham, etc., etc. etc.?
Or is the real evil the people who don't agree with you that all of the above can and should be overlooked?
What's evil enough for you to call it evil? Because, bucko, if you think I'm evil and none of what I wrote above, except the last question, is actual real dangerous malicious deadly evil, then you don't know your a$$hole from a hole in the ground.
I could never be in your shoes because I don't base my opinions on what happens in the natural world (that includes politics) on any religious mythology.
Evil is a concept mankind labels otherwise inexplicable acts to try to bring to scale horrific behavior by people that exceeds what decent people can comprehend as normal. All the religious dogma in the world won't relieve the natural world of horrific human behavior, miraculously make it go away, or alter the nature of those who do horrific things.
What's evil?
Failing to produce a coherent, scientifically based approach to dealing with the coronavirus pandemic that has killed over 206,000 dead Americans? Is that worse than saying, "I'm not responsible!" when you are the one who is responsible? Is that worse than announcing that the coronavirus pandemic will just go away in last April "because the weather gets warmer." Is that worse than advising people to drink bleach, inject Lysol, and resist wearing a mask while creating and encouraging crowds to form in churches, schools, and presidential pep rallies? Is that worse than abandoning your allies on the field of battle to the mercy of the enemies that surround them? Is that worse than embracing the man who offers bounties to our adversaries for killing our servicepeople and for attempting to assassinate his own citizens with nerve agents? Is that worse than grabbing women by their genitals and laughing about it? Is that worse than encouraging white supremacists to think of themselves as "very fine people" who should feel justified in violently attacking unarmed black people because of their color?
Or is the real evil the people who don't decry all that but do nothing other than gleefully boast that "we're 'owning' the libs!"
Or is the real evil the people who say, "Let Trump be Trump"?
Or is the real evil the people who help execute, foist, and support the non-policies and the unscientific positions that have cost 206,000+ Americans their lives in the pandemic?
Or is the real evil the people who refuse to acknowledge the real harm caused others in the real world and dismiss it as "fake news," "liberal prejudice," "socialism!!" because they're not the ones suffering?
Or is the real evil the people who refuse even to acknowledge actual evil when it is exhibited every day by Trump, Barr, McConnell, Brad Parscale, Cotton, Nunes, Graham, etc., etc. etc.?
Or is the real evil the people who don't agree with you that all of the above can and should be overlooked?
What's evil enough for you to call it evil? Because, bucko, if you think I'm evil and none of what I wrote above, except the last question, is actual real dangerous malicious deadly evil, then you don't know your a$$hole from a hole in the ground.
133Cubby.R.S.
1.) I have heard that breast feeding reduces the risk of breast cancer, and perhaps there is a tie-in. I cannot confirm or deny whether or not that is true, nor would I say it is a reason to try and push someone from getting an abortion.
2.) I've never heard this and any procedure has a risk, so again not a reason to push someone away from an abortion.
3.) Hormonal response could lead to stress, but try having the baby, that I've seen is stressful. Women brave enough to push out a baby and then attempt to care for it deserve a medal of honor. Also, women all respond differently, and a women who later decides to have children and a family can and have most certainly regretted abortion and suffered extreme anxiety. There are plenty of reasons to believe this one, but the event is probably not the cause so much as the result of killing your child.
Point for point, I cannot say that I would disagree with this fuckrag group any less than any Planned Parenthood.
2.) I've never heard this and any procedure has a risk, so again not a reason to push someone away from an abortion.
3.) Hormonal response could lead to stress, but try having the baby, that I've seen is stressful. Women brave enough to push out a baby and then attempt to care for it deserve a medal of honor. Also, women all respond differently, and a women who later decides to have children and a family can and have most certainly regretted abortion and suffered extreme anxiety. There are plenty of reasons to believe this one, but the event is probably not the cause so much as the result of killing your child.
Point for point, I cannot say that I would disagree with this fuckrag group any less than any Planned Parenthood.
134Cubby.R.S.
>132 Limelite:
I think you're fooling yourself. Covid has been lied about on many levels and in fact they are finding the tests prove that it has already begun to be less malicious. There are many many stories about the lying and the false reports, and let us not forget that Democrats were telling us to go to Chinatown and not overreact directly after Trump started the travel ban. He followed the advice of Fauci and no Democrat has presented a better method of lessening the results of the pandemic.
What is evil, continuing lies about Trump's response.
What about this Color Revolution then? What about the purposeful destruction of reality by the Democrats to reason for and stage a revolt if Trump wins the election? Is that evil?
I think you're fooling yourself. Covid has been lied about on many levels and in fact they are finding the tests prove that it has already begun to be less malicious. There are many many stories about the lying and the false reports, and let us not forget that Democrats were telling us to go to Chinatown and not overreact directly after Trump started the travel ban. He followed the advice of Fauci and no Democrat has presented a better method of lessening the results of the pandemic.
What is evil, continuing lies about Trump's response.
What about this Color Revolution then? What about the purposeful destruction of reality by the Democrats to reason for and stage a revolt if Trump wins the election? Is that evil?
135Limelite
>134 Cubby.R.S.:
Here's the truth about the lying you repeat. Like it or not, it's still the real truth. Trump’s False Claims about Pelosi and Chinatown
iT'S EVIL OF YOU TO ASSERT AND PERPETUATE IT.
Here's the truth about the lying you repeat. Like it or not, it's still the real truth. Trump’s False Claims about Pelosi and Chinatown
Trump falsely tweeted that “Crazy Nancy Pelosi” had deleted a video from Twitter of her visit to Chinatown. “She wanted everyone to pack into Chinatown long after I closed the BORDER TO CHINA,” Trump said. But there is no record such a video was ever posted on Twitter by Pelosi.
At an April 13 coronavirus briefing, Trump falsely claimed that during her visit Pelosi said, “‘Let’s all have the big parade — Chinatown parade.'” Pelosi didn’t say that. In fact, that parade had taken place on Feb. 8, more than two weeks before Pelosi went to Chinatown.
At a coronavirus briefing on April 15, Trump exaggerated when he said Pelosi “was trying to have, in San Francisco, parties in Chinatown, because she thought it would be great.” Pelosi didn’t mention parties during her visit, although she urged people to come to Chinatown to shop and eat.
Trump also falsely said Pelosi visited Chinatown “to show that this thing doesn’t exist,” referring to the novel coronavirus. Pelosi never suggested that it didn’t exist. She stressed the need for “prevention, prevention, prevention” — urging people to be “concerned and vigilant,” but not “afraid.”
iT'S EVIL OF YOU TO ASSERT AND PERPETUATE IT.
136kiparsky
>135 Limelite: oh look, another case of Cubby lying.
137Cubby.R.S.
>135 Limelite:
Ha, I never said anything of the sort and now you twist. But Democrats were downplaying it and the examples are o plenty.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-proof-democrats-biden-downplayed-coronavir...
https://youtu.be/xUWjHnJJ_-c
Ha, I never said anything of the sort and now you twist. But Democrats were downplaying it and the examples are o plenty.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-proof-democrats-biden-downplayed-coronavir...
https://youtu.be/xUWjHnJJ_-c
138fuzzi
>116 kiparsky: do you believe that a baby's body is the property of the woman who conceived it, to dispose of at will?
>118 Matke: I agree that the father of a baby should be responsible as well for its needs. Since he has a 50/50 participation in its creation, shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
>118 Matke: I agree that the father of a baby should be responsible as well for its needs. Since he has a 50/50 participation in its creation, shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
139mikevail
>130 Cubby.R.S.:
"They kill whites and blacks at an almost identical percentage per population, pretty compelling if you consider some say they are hunting blacks in the street."
So as long as they kill people proportionally it's ok? Maybe they can institute kill quotas I guess?
"Vice versa?"
Abra Kadabra?
"BLM is a political movement that wishes to destabilize western culture, they have stated such and have been politically motivated to remove it from their pages"
You're referring to this I think:
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable"
Supporting and caring? Sounds monstrous.
"You're saying a few bad cops don't represent all cops? So do a few bad BLM protesters represent all BLM protesters?"
I guess it's clear I won't get a straight answer to this, thanks for the dialogue anyway.
"They kill whites and blacks at an almost identical percentage per population, pretty compelling if you consider some say they are hunting blacks in the street."
So as long as they kill people proportionally it's ok? Maybe they can institute kill quotas I guess?
"Vice versa?"
Abra Kadabra?
"BLM is a political movement that wishes to destabilize western culture, they have stated such and have been politically motivated to remove it from their pages"
You're referring to this I think:
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable"
Supporting and caring? Sounds monstrous.
"You're saying a few bad cops don't represent all cops? So do a few bad BLM protesters represent all BLM protesters?"
I guess it's clear I won't get a straight answer to this, thanks for the dialogue anyway.
140LolaWalser
>138 fuzzi:
Since he has a 50/50 participation in its creation, shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
The man contributes half the chromosomes in a fertilised egg, but not his own body as a woman does.
No man, husband or sperm donor, no other person than the one in whose very body the fertilised egg may implant and develop, has the right to define the uses of that body.
Since he has a 50/50 participation in its creation, shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
The man contributes half the chromosomes in a fertilised egg, but not his own body as a woman does.
No man, husband or sperm donor, no other person than the one in whose very body the fertilised egg may implant and develop, has the right to define the uses of that body.
141Cubby.R.S.
>139 mikevail:
You brought the statement to the forefront and yes, if they are killing proportionately, it means they are doing a poor job of making blacks a target.
There a lot of ways of pretending to love and it ends in abortion of all sort. Those that confuse love with passion and cause are often the most destructive.
You brought the statement to the forefront and yes, if they are killing proportionately, it means they are doing a poor job of making blacks a target.
There a lot of ways of pretending to love and it ends in abortion of all sort. Those that confuse love with passion and cause are often the most destructive.
142Matke
When men can carry a baby to term in an implanted uterus, and give birth by Caesarean section, then they can decide what happens.
I am pro choice up to 4 months. I’ve never ever seen any documentation to show that women have late-term abortions for the purposes of birth control.
And I am sick to death of males, and only males, making government decisions about any and all areas of women’s health.
If only those government bodies (no joke meant) would care one-tenth as much about the mother’s health and well-being, or that of the baby after it is born, I’d be more open to discussion.
I am pro choice up to 4 months. I’ve never ever seen any documentation to show that women have late-term abortions for the purposes of birth control.
And I am sick to death of males, and only males, making government decisions about any and all areas of women’s health.
If only those government bodies (no joke meant) would care one-tenth as much about the mother’s health and well-being, or that of the baby after it is born, I’d be more open to discussion.
143kiparsky
>138 fuzzi: I believe that a woman has the right to her own body, period, and nobody, no man, woman or child, has any claim on her body that supersedes hers.
A woman who chooses to support a child in her body for nine months has done something that nobody has any right to demand of her. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude and respect to the person who did us that favor, and the only way to pay that debt is to respect the choice that she made, by ensuring that that choice is always a choice.
shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
Nope. Her body, her choice, end of story. The sperm donor is a spectator, just like you and me and every politician and every preacher that ever walked the face of the earth.
A woman who chooses to support a child in her body for nine months has done something that nobody has any right to demand of her. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude and respect to the person who did us that favor, and the only way to pay that debt is to respect the choice that she made, by ensuring that that choice is always a choice.
shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
Nope. Her body, her choice, end of story. The sperm donor is a spectator, just like you and me and every politician and every preacher that ever walked the face of the earth.
144mikevail
>141 Cubby.R.S.:
"You brought the statement to the forefront"
I never said I agreed with it. Here's an article from the disreputable National Academy of Sciences:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
Key points:
"We focus exclusively on police use-of-force deaths and exclude cases from the analysis that police described as a suicide, that involved a vehicular collision, or that involved an accident such as an overdose or a fall."
"The highest levels of inequality in mortality risk are experienced by black men. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over the life course than are white men. Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women."
__
"There a lot of ways of pretending to love and it ends in abortion of all sort. Those that confuse love with passion and cause are often the most destructive."
I'll leave you with that bright thought
"You brought the statement to the forefront"
I never said I agreed with it. Here's an article from the disreputable National Academy of Sciences:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
Key points:
"We focus exclusively on police use-of-force deaths and exclude cases from the analysis that police described as a suicide, that involved a vehicular collision, or that involved an accident such as an overdose or a fall."
"The highest levels of inequality in mortality risk are experienced by black men. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over the life course than are white men. Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women."
__
"There a lot of ways of pretending to love and it ends in abortion of all sort. Those that confuse love with passion and cause are often the most destructive."
I'll leave you with that bright thought
145lriley
I've always found it strange that the Republican party and conservatives care more about babies being born than what might happen to them afterwards. A child born with a major handicap or born into poverty moves them not an inch to ever help. It's as if they want to punish people with children they can't afford to bring up or take care of and at the same time that they're doing cartwheels to do whatever they can to make the most wealthy even richer while continually yanking the economic rug from out under the middle and working and poorer and unemployed classes. What would this country be like with 50 or 100 million more people? The answer to that is a much bigger disaster than it is now because conservatives are incapable for one thing of any visionary social engineering/planning of any kind. Their only interest really is the rich and padding their own futures.
146LolaWalser
>145 lriley:
The fundies go into a frenzy over abortion and equal rights for sexual and gender minorities as they never would over economic inequality, and as they have been growing in numbers for decades, it's always useful to the GOP to keep abortion and gays front and centre as the country's main "problems".
I doubt there is very much real "care" for children, women, even blessed foetuses involved at all. It's just kindling.
And Trump, as I pointed out many times since he won, was bound to take the trend of his campaign ever more to the right, currying favour from ever-loonier brands of evangelicals and white supremacists--iow, from the truly fanatical.
The problem is that the US has such humongous numbers of those...
The fundies go into a frenzy over abortion and equal rights for sexual and gender minorities as they never would over economic inequality, and as they have been growing in numbers for decades, it's always useful to the GOP to keep abortion and gays front and centre as the country's main "problems".
I doubt there is very much real "care" for children, women, even blessed foetuses involved at all. It's just kindling.
And Trump, as I pointed out many times since he won, was bound to take the trend of his campaign ever more to the right, currying favour from ever-loonier brands of evangelicals and white supremacists--iow, from the truly fanatical.
The problem is that the US has such humongous numbers of those...
148lriley
#146--they don't really care about the socio-economic effects of so many more unwanted children or children that are going to be brought up in hopeless situations. That doesn't matter to them. It matters to them in a religiously defined and morality way where you punish people for having sex whether married or not. Basically as a way of insinuating their religious views of sin on others in a subversive way---as in you were bad now you should be punished and if this means you struggle like crazy the rest of your life......but if it means the baby goes without---that kind of collateral damage doesn't even enter their heads. They're really into the punish the sinners part of it.
The right is always going on about this being a Christian nation and when they're feeling more generous they might say it's a Judaeo-Christian nation. They always leave those of the Muslim faith out and to be honest Jewish people aren't always great partners for them either. But this is also part of the power dynamic going on--this need to insinuate religious codes and standards and force those who don't believe to have to put up with it whether they believe or not.
If people want to believe---that's fine. Just don't go all Middle Ages on others. You want people to respect your religious views--respect theirs and even if they don't believe. Too little of that around here though. Speaking of which I have a bone to pick with the Lighthouse Baptist Church in Horseheads NY. Wanting services but no social distancing--masks are not mandatory. One of the choir knowing he had Covid and still singing with the rest of the choir. They've given the county I live in about 200 fucking cases of Covid and they're still coming. Not cooperated fully either with the county according to the County Executive. Saying shit like 'the Lord will take care of us'--like there's nobody else that lives in this community but them. Bringing in this shitbird lawyer from fucking Buffalo to try to force the county executive to allow them to have services again. Two people are dead because of them (the first was not a member of their congregation--I don't about the second) and as far as I'm concerned they can get the fuck out.
The right is always going on about this being a Christian nation and when they're feeling more generous they might say it's a Judaeo-Christian nation. They always leave those of the Muslim faith out and to be honest Jewish people aren't always great partners for them either. But this is also part of the power dynamic going on--this need to insinuate religious codes and standards and force those who don't believe to have to put up with it whether they believe or not.
If people want to believe---that's fine. Just don't go all Middle Ages on others. You want people to respect your religious views--respect theirs and even if they don't believe. Too little of that around here though. Speaking of which I have a bone to pick with the Lighthouse Baptist Church in Horseheads NY. Wanting services but no social distancing--masks are not mandatory. One of the choir knowing he had Covid and still singing with the rest of the choir. They've given the county I live in about 200 fucking cases of Covid and they're still coming. Not cooperated fully either with the county according to the County Executive. Saying shit like 'the Lord will take care of us'--like there's nobody else that lives in this community but them. Bringing in this shitbird lawyer from fucking Buffalo to try to force the county executive to allow them to have services again. Two people are dead because of them (the first was not a member of their congregation--I don't about the second) and as far as I'm concerned they can get the fuck out.
149Matke
>148 lriley: Yes, indeed. You’ll note that a woman can’t win. Have an abortion? You’re a murderer. Have a baby out of wedlock? You’re a cheap slut and you and that bastard child can live in poverty forever because of the sin you committed.
And the man who sleeps around? Well, you know, men are weak. *wink, nudge*
And the man who sleeps around? Well, you know, men are weak. *wink, nudge*
150Cubby.R.S.
I have no qualms with the anti-religious believing abortion is humane because they hold no truths to be self-evident. But if you've ever met a child that has down-syndrome, they are some of the happiest people you'll ever meet. The real issue here is, libs are typically selfish and do not like added responsibility.
>149 Matke:
What about the other option? Take a pill that's likely free or make your male slut wear a condom? There's no winning for liberal women because they have to take personal responsibility? Lame.
>149 Matke:
What about the other option? Take a pill that's likely free or make your male slut wear a condom? There's no winning for liberal women because they have to take personal responsibility? Lame.
151kiparsky
>150 Cubby.R.S.: if you've ever met a child that has down-syndrome, they are some of the happiest people you'll ever meet.
What does this have to do with a woman's right to control her own body?
Take a pill that's likely free or make your male slut wear a condom
Again, you're agreeing with me that Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than anyone else, and that we should shower them with money and ensure that they are in unimpeded operation throughout the country. And while we're at it, we should also hire them to do real sex ed training in every school - as you rightly point out, everyone should know about birth control methods, and how they are used, and everyone should feel empowered to control their own sexuality. Unfortunately, there are a lot of schools which don't teach this stuff, or teach it incorrectly, so bringing in PP to fix this would prevent even more abortions. Good thinking.
However, as human beings are fallible, you do need a backup plan. Condoms are extremely effective, the pill is extremely effective, but no method is 100% effective, so abortion must be widely available, cheap, and safe.
What does this have to do with a woman's right to control her own body?
Take a pill that's likely free or make your male slut wear a condom
Again, you're agreeing with me that Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than anyone else, and that we should shower them with money and ensure that they are in unimpeded operation throughout the country. And while we're at it, we should also hire them to do real sex ed training in every school - as you rightly point out, everyone should know about birth control methods, and how they are used, and everyone should feel empowered to control their own sexuality. Unfortunately, there are a lot of schools which don't teach this stuff, or teach it incorrectly, so bringing in PP to fix this would prevent even more abortions. Good thinking.
However, as human beings are fallible, you do need a backup plan. Condoms are extremely effective, the pill is extremely effective, but no method is 100% effective, so abortion must be widely available, cheap, and safe.
152Matke
When I asked if those who will swallow any behavior on the part of Mr. Trump, no matter how egregious, ridiculous, counter-productive, or supportive of those governments who are against the supposed principles of the US, simply because of his supposed stance on abortion, no one answered the question.
At least not directly. However, the deep dive into abortion kind of gives us all the answer, doesn’t it?
I presume each and every one of you is also absolutely anti-death penalty.
Because all life is sacred from conception to natural death...and don’t forget about “judge not lest ye be judged.”
At least not directly. However, the deep dive into abortion kind of gives us all the answer, doesn’t it?
I presume each and every one of you is also absolutely anti-death penalty.
Because all life is sacred from conception to natural death...and don’t forget about “judge not lest ye be judged.”
153Cubby.R.S.
>152 Matke:
I am anti-death penalty. I believe it may seem harsh to the criminal from an outside observer, but I believe it's the easy way out for the sentenced. Living life in prison is torment, being killed is far easier. Also, too many are wrongfully convicted.
I also do not believe that a woman having an abortion should suffer the wrath of others for what she has done. I just don't think she should be doing it. I believe it is 8 weeks in which you have a baby, without any debate. So, if you can't figure out by 8 weeks, yes, you are murdering. Again, I can't judge reason/knowledge/motive, so I cannot condemn or assume anything about the decision. That does not mean the decision is right though.
I am anti-death penalty. I believe it may seem harsh to the criminal from an outside observer, but I believe it's the easy way out for the sentenced. Living life in prison is torment, being killed is far easier. Also, too many are wrongfully convicted.
I also do not believe that a woman having an abortion should suffer the wrath of others for what she has done. I just don't think she should be doing it. I believe it is 8 weeks in which you have a baby, without any debate. So, if you can't figure out by 8 weeks, yes, you are murdering. Again, I can't judge reason/knowledge/motive, so I cannot condemn or assume anything about the decision. That does not mean the decision is right though.
154kiparsky
>153 Cubby.R.S.: I believe it is 8 weeks in which you have a baby, without any debate. So, if you can't figure out by 8 weeks, yes, you are murdering.
Okay, while I do not agree that there is any sort of "murder" involved here, I'll stipulate that that is your position.
So again, you're advocating for increased access to Planned Parenthood, because you'd like to ensure that women who are sexually active can easily get to a clinic to understand their situation and make a decision about an abortion as quickly as possible. And you're raising another issue: now you're saying that you want to abolish the laws which tend to put impediments to abortion procedures. Obviously, if 8 weeks makes it murder, you want the abortion to be performed before that 8 week point, so arbitrary delays (like 3-day waiting periods) are not only burdensome, they are now literally murderous under your position.
Okay, great, it sounds like we're coming to a lot of agreement here.
1) We both think that Planned Parenthood should be active in every community in this great nation
2) We agree that the Federal government should engage Planned Parenthood to deliver a sex ed curriculum in every school in this country, so we can be absolutely sure that every child knows how their body works, what they can do with it, what they can do with others' bodies, what consent means, all that good stuff.
3) And we agree that laws impeding the delivery of abortion services should be stricken from the books in all 50 states.
This is great! What else can we agree on here?
Okay, while I do not agree that there is any sort of "murder" involved here, I'll stipulate that that is your position.
So again, you're advocating for increased access to Planned Parenthood, because you'd like to ensure that women who are sexually active can easily get to a clinic to understand their situation and make a decision about an abortion as quickly as possible. And you're raising another issue: now you're saying that you want to abolish the laws which tend to put impediments to abortion procedures. Obviously, if 8 weeks makes it murder, you want the abortion to be performed before that 8 week point, so arbitrary delays (like 3-day waiting periods) are not only burdensome, they are now literally murderous under your position.
Okay, great, it sounds like we're coming to a lot of agreement here.
1) We both think that Planned Parenthood should be active in every community in this great nation
2) We agree that the Federal government should engage Planned Parenthood to deliver a sex ed curriculum in every school in this country, so we can be absolutely sure that every child knows how their body works, what they can do with it, what they can do with others' bodies, what consent means, all that good stuff.
3) And we agree that laws impeding the delivery of abortion services should be stricken from the books in all 50 states.
This is great! What else can we agree on here?
155jjwilson61
8 weeks isn't a lot of time. A lot of women have irregular periods and may not know they are pregnant until after they've missed two of them.
156kiparsky
>155 jjwilson61: Yes, there are many problems with >153 Cubby.R.S.:'s assumptions, which is why I chose to stipulate them as their belief set, and see what we could derive from them.
Turns out, assuming that belief set brings us to the conclusions listed in >154 kiparsky:, so if Cubby is a consistent reasoner, they will have become a NARAL member by now.
Turns out, assuming that belief set brings us to the conclusions listed in >154 kiparsky:, so if Cubby is a consistent reasoner, they will have become a NARAL member by now.
157Limelite
Why abortion cannot now, nor ever be "murder."
By definition:
By definition:
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.
1) Abortion is a legal medical procedure
2) It is justified as long as it is performed lawfully because it is a medical procedure and not an unlawful act committed with malice aforethought. Nor is it manslaughter by reason of being a legal medical procedure.
That, whether it aligns with your religious beliefs or not is why abortion is not now nor ever will be murder. Unless RWNJs want to make it illegal to fit their definition of "law."
In which case, we would no longer have a separation of church and state as mandated in the Constitution which governs the secular law before which all are to be treated equally. Instead, we would have created a separate kind of law -- sharia law. And that is fundamentally illegal on the basis of it being unconstitutional. (Did you see what I did there?)
158fuzzi
>142 Matke: I repeat, I agree that the father of a baby should be responsible as well for its needs. Since he has a 50/50 participation in its creation, shouldn't he have a say in a planned abortion? It's half his responsibility, after all.
Why should the woman have all the responsibility? The father should support the child after it's born, but has no say before? Why?
If not for birth control, why would any woman abort her own child when it can survive if she just waits a month or two?
>143 kiparsky: the body of the baby has its own distinct DNA, different blood type, it's not part of the woman's body, just a temporary resident. And she didn't conceive it on her own, she had help.
Why should the woman have all the responsibility? The father should support the child after it's born, but has no say before? Why?
If not for birth control, why would any woman abort her own child when it can survive if she just waits a month or two?
>143 kiparsky: the body of the baby has its own distinct DNA, different blood type, it's not part of the woman's body, just a temporary resident. And she didn't conceive it on her own, she had help.
159Limelite
>158 fuzzi:
More accurately, biologically speaking (rather than religio-speaking) not "a temporary resident," but a parasite.
More accurately, biologically speaking (rather than religio-speaking) not "a temporary resident," but a parasite.
160kiparsky
>158 fuzzi: I guess you don't always get what you want. And in this case, you don't get to decide about someone else's body. It's her body, her life, her decision, end of story. I don't know how this could be any simpler: what goes on in your skin is your decision, and you get to make that decision for yourself, and nobody has any business saying a damned thing about it unless and until you ask them for their input.
And she didn't conceive it on her own, she had help.
And what's that got to do with anything? She had sex with someone, what does that mean? Surely you don't think that just because you have sex with someone once you get to own them afterwards.
And she didn't conceive it on her own, she had help.
And what's that got to do with anything? She had sex with someone, what does that mean? Surely you don't think that just because you have sex with someone once you get to own them afterwards.
161fuzzi
>160 kiparsky: the baby is not her body, just has half her DNA and is temporarily residing with her, due to her choices. And you'd kill it, for convenience.
162kiparsky
>161 fuzzi: due to her choices
Oh, now it's her choices? A minute ago, the dude was right up in all this, but now it's her choices?
Okay, because of her choices, she has an unwanted bit of tissue lodged in her. And yes, she has a right to be rid of it. That's another of her choices.
And you'd kill it
Remember what I said: it's up to the woman, period, end of story. If you don't think abortion is something that you can condone, that's fine. If you become pregnant, you should not have an abortion.
And that, my friend, is the end of your involvement in this question.
Oh, now it's her choices? A minute ago, the dude was right up in all this, but now it's her choices?
Okay, because of her choices, she has an unwanted bit of tissue lodged in her. And yes, she has a right to be rid of it. That's another of her choices.
And you'd kill it
Remember what I said: it's up to the woman, period, end of story. If you don't think abortion is something that you can condone, that's fine. If you become pregnant, you should not have an abortion.
And that, my friend, is the end of your involvement in this question.
163fuzzi
>162 kiparsky: really? I'm not allowed to continue to discuss this topic if I so choose?
Did someone here at LT resign and leave you in charge? Have you been promoted to Lord High Executioner of the message boards?
One of the reasons I don't generally join Pro & Con threads is due to the "don't you ever say that!" or "don't you ever direct your comments to me!" attitudes of some of the more vocal and less mature posters. And of course, the vitriol spewed by a small but prolific group of LTers is very off-putting to those of us who are interested in adult conversations.
Whatever.
Did someone here at LT resign and leave you in charge? Have you been promoted to Lord High Executioner of the message boards?
One of the reasons I don't generally join Pro & Con threads is due to the "don't you ever say that!" or "don't you ever direct your comments to me!" attitudes of some of the more vocal and less mature posters. And of course, the vitriol spewed by a small but prolific group of LTers is very off-putting to those of us who are interested in adult conversations.
Whatever.
164kiparsky
>162 kiparsky: Oh, don't get me wrong. Obviously you can talk about it all you want. When I say your involvement ends there, I mean to say that you have no legitimate right to make any decisions about the disposition of someone else's body: you are not involved in the question of whether some particular woman - and it doesn't matter who they are - may or may not have an abortion. It's just not your business, period.
She can't tell you what to do with your body and you can't tell her what to do with hers.
She can't tell you what to do with your body and you can't tell her what to do with hers.
165Doug1943
A very interesting discussion!
I've just got a biography of George Soros, who I used to consider ( a decade or longer ago) as a good guy: teaching people in authoritarian regimes how to undermine them. (If it can be done from within, with popular support, such that some sort of reasonable democracy emerges ... who could complain? And it's a lot better than sending in the 82nd Airborne, which doesn't work anyway.) Haven't read it yet.
But now .... among the people I hang out with (rightwing militia types), Mr Soros is seen as the partner, if not the actual manifestation, of Satan. When I try to object that he once was on the side of the angels, there is total disbelief.
What accounts for his recent evolution? Here's a theory: he's 90 years old. And as brilliant as he is ... biology is destiny. I think something of the sort happened to Bertrand Russell in his last years, supposedly manipulated by Ralph Schoenman into fronting for an 'International Tribunal' to condemn big countries that invade smaller ones to impose their political system on them ... (No, NOT HUNGARY and the USSR you silly goose!!!! America and Vietnam!!!!).
Anyway ... it's strange. When I was young, I resented bitterly that all the big powerful corportations opposed with their money my totally correct (Marxist) ideas.
Now that I'm old .... I resent bitterly that all the big powerful corporations oppose with their money my totally correct (anti-Marxist) ideas.
I've just got a biography of George Soros, who I used to consider ( a decade or longer ago) as a good guy: teaching people in authoritarian regimes how to undermine them. (If it can be done from within, with popular support, such that some sort of reasonable democracy emerges ... who could complain? And it's a lot better than sending in the 82nd Airborne, which doesn't work anyway.) Haven't read it yet.
But now .... among the people I hang out with (rightwing militia types), Mr Soros is seen as the partner, if not the actual manifestation, of Satan. When I try to object that he once was on the side of the angels, there is total disbelief.
What accounts for his recent evolution? Here's a theory: he's 90 years old. And as brilliant as he is ... biology is destiny. I think something of the sort happened to Bertrand Russell in his last years, supposedly manipulated by Ralph Schoenman into fronting for an 'International Tribunal' to condemn big countries that invade smaller ones to impose their political system on them ... (No, NOT HUNGARY and the USSR you silly goose!!!! America and Vietnam!!!!).
Anyway ... it's strange. When I was young, I resented bitterly that all the big powerful corportations opposed with their money my totally correct (Marxist) ideas.
Now that I'm old .... I resent bitterly that all the big powerful corporations oppose with their money my totally correct (anti-Marxist) ideas.
166Cubby.R.S.
I had no idea how bad things really were in the left's media. The lies are quite literally a flip of reality, and the tragedy is maximized by the desires of the wholly materialistic nation. This election is being staged as a destruction of our republic by using Trump, an easily despised figure, as the enemy. It really is a lie and I urge you Progressives to not fall into the trappings of the chaos.
167Doug1943
Unfortunately, deep, emotional commttment to a political goal works against being able to objectively assess reality.
This is just as true -- if not more so -- for the Right, as it is for the Left.
There are people on the Left who have not caved in to the current hysteria. You can find some of them at Quillette.com
And there are probably more genuine liberals than you might think, just keeping their heads down for a while.
This is just as true -- if not more so -- for the Right, as it is for the Left.
There are people on the Left who have not caved in to the current hysteria. You can find some of them at Quillette.com
And there are probably more genuine liberals than you might think, just keeping their heads down for a while.
168LolaWalser
>148 lriley:
they don't really care about the socio-economic effects of so many more unwanted children or children that are going to be brought up in hopeless situations.
See, I'd say they DO care about "the socio-economic effects"--because this is (among other measures) how you create the underclass, the sine qua non of capitalism (especially as developed in the US).
The religious fanatics may oppose abortion mostly out of a more or less sincerely held belief that the oppression they advocate is the ultimate moral good, but at the same time, that opposition serves just fine the capitalists' need for an endlessly exploitable work force, endlessly renewed.
>165 Doug1943:
among the people I hang out with (rightwing militia types), Mr Soros is seen as the partner, if not the actual manifestation, of Satan.
Oh, Dougie. Is that a cry for help? Come out of that acid rain.
There are people on the Left who have not caved in to the current hysteria.
Yes, thank god for the non-hysterics like those pals of yours. Surely nothing spells sanity like rightwing militia types demonizing Jews.
they don't really care about the socio-economic effects of so many more unwanted children or children that are going to be brought up in hopeless situations.
See, I'd say they DO care about "the socio-economic effects"--because this is (among other measures) how you create the underclass, the sine qua non of capitalism (especially as developed in the US).
The religious fanatics may oppose abortion mostly out of a more or less sincerely held belief that the oppression they advocate is the ultimate moral good, but at the same time, that opposition serves just fine the capitalists' need for an endlessly exploitable work force, endlessly renewed.
>165 Doug1943:
among the people I hang out with (rightwing militia types), Mr Soros is seen as the partner, if not the actual manifestation, of Satan.
Oh, Dougie. Is that a cry for help? Come out of that acid rain.
There are people on the Left who have not caved in to the current hysteria.
Yes, thank god for the non-hysterics like those pals of yours. Surely nothing spells sanity like rightwing militia types demonizing Jews.
169Carnophile
>78 Matke: Angry rhetoric like Mr. Trump saying that police attacks on reporters are “a beautiful thing.” ...He encourages violence and in his word, “nastiness”, against those who disagree with him.
When several Antifa members beat up Andy Ngo the leftist website Vox featured an entire essay arguing that beating Ngo was justified because he provoked it, he’s a racist, etc.
Vox approvingly cites a narrative in which Ngo is “legitimizing a right-wing smear campaign against (Antifa,) a group that’s working to protect people from the threat of violence from groups like the Proud Boys.”
(Yes, after the Antifa beating of Ngo was caught on video, they actually had the temerity to talk about Antifa “protect(ing) people from the threat of violence.”)
When several Antifa members beat up Andy Ngo the leftist website Vox featured an entire essay arguing that beating Ngo was justified because he provoked it, he’s a racist, etc.
Vox approvingly cites a narrative in which Ngo is “legitimizing a right-wing smear campaign against (Antifa,) a group that’s working to protect people from the threat of violence from groups like the Proud Boys.”
(Yes, after the Antifa beating of Ngo was caught on video, they actually had the temerity to talk about Antifa “protect(ing) people from the threat of violence.”)
170Carnophile
>81 lriley: You should check that right wing group out... they've infiltrated into a lot of the BLM protests---create their havoc and then disappeared.
FFS, make up your mind. Are the riots an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances, or a false flag operation whipped up by the right?
FFS, make up your mind. Are the riots an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances, or a false flag operation whipped up by the right?
171John5918
>170 Carnophile:
Why do you try to reduce things to a simplistic either/or? The protests are indeed "an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances", but that is not to say that right wing extremists aren't infiltrating them and creating havoc. Real life is more complex than your narrative makes out.
Why do you try to reduce things to a simplistic either/or? The protests are indeed "an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances", but that is not to say that right wing extremists aren't infiltrating them and creating havoc. Real life is more complex than your narrative makes out.
172lriley
#170--what BLM and people with them are trying to do are protests--not riots. The riots often are started by the cops who come with weapons ready. There have been members of the right wing Boogaloo movement who have tried to infiltrate and turn these protests towards violence as well. So there you go---I've untwisted the knot you made.
174kiparsky
>173 Cubby.R.S.: You're accusing someone else of tinfoil-hattery in a thread that leads off with you trying to get people to listen to three hours of Glenn Beck?
Mr. Kettleblack, there's a Mr. Pot on the phone for you.
Mr. Kettleblack, there's a Mr. Pot on the phone for you.
175Carnophile
>171 John5918: The protests are indeed "an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances"...
So my statement in #57, "that makes all the arson and murder okay then," is indeed an accurate description of your position.
>172 lriley: what BLM and people with them are trying to do are protests--not riots.
Sure, go with that.
176lriley
#175--well the best that Trump could come up with the ammo being tossed at police after one of these set tos betwixt police and protesters were soup and tuna fish cans. That justifies the police firing off thousands of rubber bullets and flash bang grenades. When you come dressed and armed for war to a protest as the police have and in fact as a lot of right wing counter protester have (with more often than not the tacit approval of the police who like to take sides) then you are the one who is perpetrating the riot---your intentions bad from the beginning. Sorry to break that to you but I'm sure you'll stick by your b.s. explanations anyway.
178Carnophile
>177 John5918: I'm having trouble reconciling your statement in #65,
Murder is never OK, regardless of who commits it nor what is their motivation
with your statement in #171,
The protests are indeed "an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances"
Understandable but not OK? Possible, but a fine line to walk.
>176 lriley: How DARE the cops try to stop riots!
Murder is never OK, regardless of who commits it nor what is their motivation
with your statement in #171,
The protests are indeed "an understandable boiling-over of long-suppressed grievances"
Understandable but not OK? Possible, but a fine line to walk.
>176 lriley: How DARE the cops try to stop riots!
179kiparsky
>178 Carnophile:
I know you're advanced in years (since you've insisted on this point several times previously) and sometimes you miss things (a natural consequence of encroaching decrepitude), so let me just call your attention to the tiny little detail that in one case you're talking about "murder" and in the other case you're talking about "protests", and those are different things.
Now, just sit back and Nurse will be along shortly with a nice glass of warm milk for you and you can take your pills and that'll be nice, won't it?
I know you're advanced in years (since you've insisted on this point several times previously) and sometimes you miss things (a natural consequence of encroaching decrepitude), so let me just call your attention to the tiny little detail that in one case you're talking about "murder" and in the other case you're talking about "protests", and those are different things.
Now, just sit back and Nurse will be along shortly with a nice glass of warm milk for you and you can take your pills and that'll be nice, won't it?
180John5918
>178 Carnophile:
Well, since my words were apparently not clear enough for you, for which I apologise, let me quote >179 kiparsky:, "in one case you're talking about "murder" and in the other case you're talking about "protests", and those are different things."
Well, since my words were apparently not clear enough for you, for which I apologise, let me quote >179 kiparsky:, "in one case you're talking about "murder" and in the other case you're talking about "protests", and those are different things."
181lriley
#178--I don't think the cops are trying to stop riots--the police are the main cause of the riots. They are trying to stop protests that are aimed at police brutality and murder towards black people. They don't like that critique and they don't like the massive support the BLM movement is getting nationwide.
182prosfilaes
>165 Doug1943: I've just got a biography of George Soros, who I used to consider ( a decade or longer ago) as a good guy: teaching people in authoritarian regimes how to undermine them. (If it can be done from within, with popular support, such that some sort of reasonable democracy emerges ... who could complain? And it's a lot better than sending in the 82nd Airborne, which doesn't work anyway.) Haven't read it yet.
But now .... among the people I hang out with (rightwing militia types), Mr Soros is seen as the partner, if not the actual manifestation, of Satan. When I try to object that he once was on the side of the angels, there is total disbelief.
What accounts for his recent evolution?
How do you know that anything has changed? Isn't it more rational to investigate what he's done currently and see if he's actually changed?
As for Soros personally, I don't know much about him, but https://www.politifact.com/search/factcheck/?q=Soros has 77 checks that mention Soros, most with his names in the title, and a larger sea of "Pants on Fire!" claims you will be hard-put to find. There's a few half-true or true claims in there, usually saying he supported some Democratic candidate, but given that there's so many lies about him being a Nazi Antifa supporter who hates the US and paid the white supremacists to protest in Charlottesville, I would really hesitate to trust random people's opinion on the man over actually looking up what he's been doing.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/14/alex-jones/infowars-alex-jones... is one check where Soros is being used as a boogieman by Alex Jones, and reality is a lot more boring.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/24/facebook-posts/fact-checking-d... is another link where the name of Soros is being used as conspiracy fodder, whereas reality seems to be one person and probably some friends.
But now .... among the people I hang out with (rightwing militia types), Mr Soros is seen as the partner, if not the actual manifestation, of Satan. When I try to object that he once was on the side of the angels, there is total disbelief.
What accounts for his recent evolution?
How do you know that anything has changed? Isn't it more rational to investigate what he's done currently and see if he's actually changed?
As for Soros personally, I don't know much about him, but https://www.politifact.com/search/factcheck/?q=Soros has 77 checks that mention Soros, most with his names in the title, and a larger sea of "Pants on Fire!" claims you will be hard-put to find. There's a few half-true or true claims in there, usually saying he supported some Democratic candidate, but given that there's so many lies about him being a Nazi Antifa supporter who hates the US and paid the white supremacists to protest in Charlottesville, I would really hesitate to trust random people's opinion on the man over actually looking up what he's been doing.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/14/alex-jones/infowars-alex-jones... is one check where Soros is being used as a boogieman by Alex Jones, and reality is a lot more boring.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/24/facebook-posts/fact-checking-d... is another link where the name of Soros is being used as conspiracy fodder, whereas reality seems to be one person and probably some friends.
183Carnophile
>179 kiparsky: let me just call your attention to the tiny little detail that in one case you're talking about "murder" and in the other case you're talking about "protests", and those are different things.
Alas, you missed my noting in #44 that at least nineteen people had been killed in protests as of June 8.
Alas, you missed my noting in #44 that at least nineteen people had been killed in protests as of June 8.
184kiparsky
>183 Carnophile: Your link seems to be largely a list of incidents in which protesters were killed by police and "Black Lives Don't Matter" protesters. This doesn't seem to make a connection between BLM protests and murder. In fact, you seem to be trying to make the case that the police and people who oppose BLM are murderers. Feel free to make that case, but I think proxette might be a little upset with you if you continue in this vein.
Maybe you'd better have a nice rest and a glass of warm milk and think about what it is you're trying to accomplish here. It all seems to be going very wrong for you, you're arguing against yourself and generally making a mess of things. You know I don't like to take advantage of you while you're having one of your spells, so just run along and have a lie down.
Maybe you'd better have a nice rest and a glass of warm milk and think about what it is you're trying to accomplish here. It all seems to be going very wrong for you, you're arguing against yourself and generally making a mess of things. You know I don't like to take advantage of you while you're having one of your spells, so just run along and have a lie down.
185Carnophile
>184 kiparsky: Your link seems to be largely a list of incidents in which protesters were killed by police and "Black Lives Don't Matter" protesters.
Pure bullshit.
The list at that link has been expanded and of the 24 listed deaths through the end of June one was by a "boogaloo" guy. One was cops... returning fire at someone who shot at them. Two were cops shooting people who were about to draw guns or who they thought had a gun because he had a hammer tucked into his pants. That lil angel had prior arrests for (among other things) shooting into a home and attempted murder. So even if you stretch it as much as possible, that's 3/24, not "largely" incidents in which (blah blah).
Pure bullshit.
The list at that link has been expanded and of the 24 listed deaths through the end of June one was by a "boogaloo" guy. One was cops... returning fire at someone who shot at them. Two were cops shooting people who were about to draw guns or who they thought had a gun because he had a hammer tucked into his pants. That lil angel had prior arrests for (among other things) shooting into a home and attempted murder. So even if you stretch it as much as possible, that's 3/24, not "largely" incidents in which (blah blah).
186Cubby.R.S.
I'm sorry Progressives, but you do know that social media and your news is covering up scandals and lying to you. Of course Trump is horrible, they have been trying to destroy him since before he became President. They lied about Russia, take any side on COVID opposite Trump - no matter the view and based on the rise in cases in Europe WE DID BETTER and if not for evil Democrat Governors would not be spiking, lie about court packing, lie about energy - they will ban fracking knowing gas is clean energy or a better alternative to the impossible, lie about racism - they don't care and they know Trump has never been racist.
The list is obnoxiously long on how they are playing you for fools. The useful idiots that Lenin talked about, that is the standard Progressive. If this coup of the country takes place, Progressives will regret it more than Conservatives.
The list is obnoxiously long on how they are playing you for fools. The useful idiots that Lenin talked about, that is the standard Progressive. If this coup of the country takes place, Progressives will regret it more than Conservatives.
188Cubby.R.S.
I sure hope so, but it doesn't look that way cupcake. If you'd have spent a little more time coloring rather than chewing on your crayons, you might think that as well.
