Started By
Message
locked post

All these "libertarians"

Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:39 am
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:39 am
rejoicing at government employees killing unarmed citizens sure is amusing.
Posted by baybeefeetz
Member since Sep 2009
31638 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:40 am to
Fuiuuuuuuuuuck
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10590 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:40 am to
In all fairness, theres not that much of that going on on this board. Just the usual bootlickers bootlickin'
Posted by meauxjeaux2
watson
Member since Oct 2007
60283 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:41 am to
did the government employees use their weapons?
Posted by MSMHater
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
22775 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:44 am to
quote:

All these "libertarians"rejoicing at government employees killing unarmed citizens sure is amusing


frick you and your moronic generalizations.

I'm very much in the libertarian group and have been arguing for a change in police tactics for years. Long before we ever heard of Eric Garner, or saw the video of the 12 year old boy being gunned down. My general disdain for police tactics is only trumped by my total disdain for morons who generalize large groups of people. Their training is to blame. Their superiors are to blame. Cops are not generally bad, but they have been trained poorly in negotiation and conflict resolution, and have been drilled with an "us VS them" mentality that completely goes against "to protect and serve".

IDGAf about Michael Brown. Completely different scenario.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 10:47 am
Posted by navy
Parts Unknown, LA
Member since Sep 2010
29049 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:46 am to
Speaking of "libertarians" ... here's some stuff about Reverend ...errr ... Senator (my bad) ... Rand Paul .... hero to Cheech's everywhere....and a man desperately trying to suck up to poor people enslaved to the Government by Democrats/Liberals.



quote:

BLACK PEOPLE THE MEDIA HATE (AND RAND PAUL ISN'T WILD ABOUT)
December 3, 2014

Now that the Ferguson grand jury documents have been made public, even MSNBC has had to quietly drop its fantasy of Michael Brown being gunned down like a dog in the street by Officer Darren Wilson. Instead, MSNBC is defending the looters.

On Monday night, MSNBC's Chris Hayes objected to anyone referring to the people who "set fires or looted as 'thugs.'"

His guest, former Seattle chief of police Norm Stamper, said, "I could not agree more." (Stamper did such a bang-up job dealing with the World Trade Organization riots in 1999 that he was forced to resign -- which may explain why he is the left's favorite police chief.)

Hardworking black people in Ferguson poured their lives into their stores, depended on them to support their families and shopped at them to improve their quality of life. I wonder if they appreciated Hayes' principled opposition to calling the arsonists "thugs."

Instead of exquisite sensitivity to the feelings of black thugs, how about considering the feelings of black citizens who want to live in safe neighborhoods?

There's a reason so many black people supported Officer Wilson's account and that a black woman walked into a burning convenience store in the middle of the riot to extinguish the fire with gallons of milk.

In "Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama," I told the true stories of dozens of allegedly racist crimes sensationalized by the media. In almost all of them, there were unheralded black heroes who stood up for law and order against "the community."

When Exeter student Edmund Perry got himself killed by mugging a cop, at least a half-dozen black witnesses supported the cop's version. While The New York Times was droning on about Perry as "a prized symbol of hope," Perry's black neighbors were testifying to the grand jury that his brother admitted they had mugged a cop.

At least three black friends of the Central Park rapists told the police that the defendants had confessed to attacking the jogger. (In what must have been an oversight, those witnesses didn't make it into Ken Burns' movie.)



A young black woman, who was in Bernie Goetz's subway car with her husband and child when Goetz shot four black muggers, told the jury, "Those punks got what they deserved."

Goetz's lawyer Barry Slotnick made no effort to keep blacks off the jury. His faith was rewarded: Goetz's biggest defender on the jury was a black bus driver from Harlem. It is well known by prosecutors that working and married blacks make great jurors.

But we never hear about those black people. Why, that would spoil everything!

There are loads of movies about black criminals -- rewritten the way the media were hoping the story would come out, but didn't. (Movie: "Murder Without Motive: The Edmund Perry Story." Spoiler alert! The tale of a racist white cop who shot an innocent black honor student for no discernible reason.)

How about a movie paying tribute to the African-American eyewitnesses in Ferguson who told the truth to the grand jury?

Who speaks for them?


It's sure not Sen. Rand Paul.

We need video footage of blacks burning other blacks' stores down juxtaposed with clips of Sen. Paul saying that the reason "three out of four people in prison are black or brown" may be "because of the color of their skin or their economic status." Another possibility -- I'm just throwing it out there -- is that the reason black, brown or white people are in prison is because they've committed crimes.
Improving their "economic status" doesn't seem to help. The two men arrested for trying to buy bombs in Ferguson in order to blow up the Gateway Arch and kill the prosecutor and chief of police were prevented from buying as many bombs as they had hoped because they needed to wait for more money to be transferred onto a girlfriend's EBT card (Electronic Benefits Card -- food stamps).

For claiming the drug laws are racist, Sen. Paul seems to imagine his portrait is being hung in black homes across America, between pictures of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. "White people do drugs too," Paul tells admiring white liberals in the media, "but either they don't get caught or they have better attorneys or they don't live in poverty."

If Rand Paul thinks black people are rooting for black crack dealers to go free, he's even crazier than his old man.

It was African-Americans, exploding in rage at the devastation crack was inflicting on their neighborhoods in the 1980s, who demanded severe penalties for crack cocaine. In a typical news story from 1986, Julius Lee, the black city commissioner in Fort Pierce, Florida, said, "Drugs are terrible things, but these cocaine rocks are the terriblest of the terrible." Black grocer Eugene Gibson sadly remarked, while sweeping the sidewalk in front of his store, "We're in a world of trouble here. ... It's these cocaine rocks."

A few years later, in 1989, black columnist Dorothy Gaiter perfectly expressed the feelings of the (non-crack dealing) black community in The Miami Herald: "Crack sellers should be locked up and their bounty taken away from them. The jails are crowded with murderers and others who deserve to be there, but the crack seller is a murderer too. He's a lethal seducer of our young, a destroyer of our neighborhoods. Being poor is no crime and should not result in a sentence to live among the lawless."

But now Sen. Paul is pushing the idea that the drug laws black people begged for were actually part of a racist plot to lock up African-Americans. It's like something out of Maxine Waters' dream journal.

The only people impressed with Rand Paul's defense of black criminals are the ones who will never be victimized by them.

Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:46 am to
quote:

frick you and your moronic generalizations.


Damn dawg I'm just calling out the hypocrites. I know lots of libertarians who shoot straight on this issue. But then most of them aren't racists.
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:47 am to
What a bitchy, impotent attempt at a jab.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 10:48 am
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:47 am to
quote:

rejoicing
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31507 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:47 am to
wow, you ruined mah day with that one.

not that it's worth anyone's time, but OP is whackable--troll, inadequate title, no substance.
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:48 am to
quote:

IDGAf about Michael Brown. Completely different scenario.


Not really. That is, I think the cop probably would / should have been found innocent in a trial, but there's no doubt that the only reason the grand jury did not proceed was b/c he was a cop. And that has to change.
Posted by MSMHater
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
22775 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:49 am to
quote:

I know lots of libertarians who shoot straight on this issue.


Then why such a general statement. The people backing the cops are a list of maybe 8-10. Why call out a group of 20+ if you know the claim to be bullshite.


ETA: My reaction wasn't neccessary, but I seriously hate the brutality and overzealous cop cases.

Just this week: Eric Garner news, the Cleveland boy, the Denver cops attempting to destroy evidence. it's getting way out of hand, but somehow it's turned into a black/white and left/right issue. It's frustrating.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:49 am to
quote:

but there's no doubt that the only reason the grand jury did not proceed was b/c he was a cop
Or, perhaps they saw the case was shite.

Your "no doubt" assertion is quite simply false. Don't confuse your own view with something that has "no doubt".
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:52 am to
quote:

Your "no doubt" assertion is quite simply false. Don't confuse your own view with something that has "no doubt".


The prosecutor did not want the case to proceed. Why else present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury, and tell them falsehoods about the law?

Posted by SouthOfSouth
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2008
43456 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:52 am to
wat?
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:53 am to
quote:

The people backing the cops are a list of maybe 8-10.
I would like to point out that

not thinking someone should be indicted =/= "backing".

In the Ferguson case, the case was, well, complete shite. If the GJ had indicted, it would've been entirely out of fear of what happened when he wasn't.

In the NYC case, you only needed 12 out of 25 on the GJ in order to indict and they couldn't get that. Unless we are to assume that a randomly selected jury generated 13 racists, my guess is that they think that case was one of shitty police work, not criminality.

I happen to think that the NYC guy should've been indicted but, I'm not immune to the argument as to why he wasn't. Also, I think he ABSOLUTELY should be permanently unemployed as a cop because if not a crime, his actions demonstrated incompetence.

Finally, just because I happen to think that police tactics have gone WAAAAAAAY overboard in general does not obligate me to think ALL instances of cops fricking up = criminal behavior.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:55 am to
quote:


The prosecutor did not want the case to proceed.
Because under any normal situation, he would never have even brought that shite case to a GJ.

Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:56 am to
quote:

rejoicing


I reject that characterization

quote:

at government employees killing unarmed citizens sure is amusing.


Libertarians are NOT anarchists. Libertarians believe in policing and there can, in fact, be circumstances in which these things occur.


NONE of my statement is directly related to specific, recent events.
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:56 am to
quote:

Your "no doubt" assertion is quite simply false. Don't confuse your own view with something that has "no doubt".

Maybe OP is saying that a lot fewer non-cop cases should go to trial, and that cop cases are handled measurably differently? It's possible. Would like to see evidence justifying this "there's no doubt the only reason" claim though.
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 10:57 am to
Are you actually denying that cop cases are "measurably handled differently" at grand jury??
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram