- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Had drinks with a liberal friend -- I'm shocked but I shouldn't be [long]
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:33 am
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:33 am
Very long and "dear facebook" and all, but TL;DR: Liberals are fine throwing out Due Process for others when it suits their ignorant opinions, but they don't want that same standard to apply to themselves.
Here's the long version if you want:
Over the weekend I had drinks with a liberal friend who lives in ATL. He was in town for the weekend so we decided to catch up. It's been a few years since we've seen each other, and I remember him being one of the "good" liberals (i.e., not a leftist, very moderate). He's an old college friend and a CPA now -- quite accomplished, to be honest.
The conversation was going well and then it shifted to the Brooks shooting in ATL and the broader unrest we see happening around the country. This is where things went south. Here are some takeaways:
1) He buys fully into the "police are killing black people" narrative. I bring up the Federal crime statistics that don't bear that out. He doesn't care to hear it. He "hears stories" about police brutality happening all over ATL against minorities.
2) He claims after seeing the video that the police officer was obviously guilty of murder. I asked him if he was aware of the GA Law or the APD protocols for escalation of use of force. He says that he's not. So I ask him how then is he so certain the officer is guilty of murder if he doesn't know how the law or APD defines it? He digs in and says he saw the video and he has morals.
3) I say the cop is owed due process and the investigation will reveal the facts and the ATL mayor was wrong to knee-jerk terminate him. He says she did it to "prevent more unrest" and that it was absolutely the right thing to do because the cop is guilty of murder. I ask him why it was necessary to terminate instead of suspend while the investigation unfolds -- he said there will be no exculpatory evidence uncovered for this officer. I pushed back and said you obviously can't say that with any degree of certainty because you've already admitted you don't know the law. He said he's fine with the immediate termination.
4) I ask him if he views a taser as a deadly weapon. He says "absolutely not." So then I ask why the Fulton County DA charged two officers in early June for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing the same taser at protesters, and yet now that very same DA is saying the taser Brooks fired at the officer is not a deadly weapon. He said it's different because Brooks died.
5) I asked him how certain he was the officer is guilty of unjustified homicide, and he said 75% sure. I ask him if at that percentage certainty if he's comfortable convicting that officer of murder and he says yes. (because he saw the video). I ask him if he wants due process to be carried out for the officer and he said it won't matter, nothing will come out that makes this shooting justified. So I ask him since he's advocating throwing out due process for this officer, if he would be comfortable being personally charged for murder with 75% confidence and no due process. He said no, because he'd never murder someone like the officer did.
6) I asked him if we are to accept his narrative that police in ATL are hunting down black people, then ultimately who is responsible? He said the police. I asked him who is responsible for the police and he said the police chief. I asked him who the police chief is responsible to, and he said the Mayor. So I then asked which ATL Mayor is responsible for allowing rampant racism to permeate the APD: the current one, or the previous 100 years or so of ATL Democrat Mayors? He finished his drink and asked for his bill.
I'm floored but I guess I shouldn't be. This guy used to be moderate and reasonable -- I was pretty disgusted with him. He said right before we left that I was wrong to support the cop. I fired back that he was ignorant if he thought my staunch defense of due process was an exonerating testimonial for the officer. Even though he pressed me, I never came out for or against the officer. I was critical of his firing by the Mayor, and the charges by the DA and supremely critical of his comfort in throwing out Due Process for the officer, but not himself.
Here's the long version if you want:
Over the weekend I had drinks with a liberal friend who lives in ATL. He was in town for the weekend so we decided to catch up. It's been a few years since we've seen each other, and I remember him being one of the "good" liberals (i.e., not a leftist, very moderate). He's an old college friend and a CPA now -- quite accomplished, to be honest.
The conversation was going well and then it shifted to the Brooks shooting in ATL and the broader unrest we see happening around the country. This is where things went south. Here are some takeaways:
1) He buys fully into the "police are killing black people" narrative. I bring up the Federal crime statistics that don't bear that out. He doesn't care to hear it. He "hears stories" about police brutality happening all over ATL against minorities.
2) He claims after seeing the video that the police officer was obviously guilty of murder. I asked him if he was aware of the GA Law or the APD protocols for escalation of use of force. He says that he's not. So I ask him how then is he so certain the officer is guilty of murder if he doesn't know how the law or APD defines it? He digs in and says he saw the video and he has morals.
3) I say the cop is owed due process and the investigation will reveal the facts and the ATL mayor was wrong to knee-jerk terminate him. He says she did it to "prevent more unrest" and that it was absolutely the right thing to do because the cop is guilty of murder. I ask him why it was necessary to terminate instead of suspend while the investigation unfolds -- he said there will be no exculpatory evidence uncovered for this officer. I pushed back and said you obviously can't say that with any degree of certainty because you've already admitted you don't know the law. He said he's fine with the immediate termination.
4) I ask him if he views a taser as a deadly weapon. He says "absolutely not." So then I ask why the Fulton County DA charged two officers in early June for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing the same taser at protesters, and yet now that very same DA is saying the taser Brooks fired at the officer is not a deadly weapon. He said it's different because Brooks died.
5) I asked him how certain he was the officer is guilty of unjustified homicide, and he said 75% sure. I ask him if at that percentage certainty if he's comfortable convicting that officer of murder and he says yes. (because he saw the video). I ask him if he wants due process to be carried out for the officer and he said it won't matter, nothing will come out that makes this shooting justified. So I ask him since he's advocating throwing out due process for this officer, if he would be comfortable being personally charged for murder with 75% confidence and no due process. He said no, because he'd never murder someone like the officer did.
6) I asked him if we are to accept his narrative that police in ATL are hunting down black people, then ultimately who is responsible? He said the police. I asked him who is responsible for the police and he said the police chief. I asked him who the police chief is responsible to, and he said the Mayor. So I then asked which ATL Mayor is responsible for allowing rampant racism to permeate the APD: the current one, or the previous 100 years or so of ATL Democrat Mayors? He finished his drink and asked for his bill.
I'm floored but I guess I shouldn't be. This guy used to be moderate and reasonable -- I was pretty disgusted with him. He said right before we left that I was wrong to support the cop. I fired back that he was ignorant if he thought my staunch defense of due process was an exonerating testimonial for the officer. Even though he pressed me, I never came out for or against the officer. I was critical of his firing by the Mayor, and the charges by the DA and supremely critical of his comfort in throwing out Due Process for the officer, but not himself.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:35 am to ibldprplgld
Sounds like he didn’t do his homework and just lapped up the suggested narrative.
That’s a shame.
That’s a shame.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:38 am to ibldprplgld
get better friends
you cannot have conversations with retards devoid of any perspective, rationality or objectivity especially when they possess ZERO critical thinking skills.
you cannot have conversations with retards devoid of any perspective, rationality or objectivity especially when they possess ZERO critical thinking skills.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:38 am to ibldprplgld
That's how Dems have always been. All they care about is the end result. Not how they get there.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:38 am to ibldprplgld
The truth if someone is possessed by ideology you cant change that, but at least you tried.
It is easier to fool a man that to get him to admit he has been fooled.
It is easier to fool a man that to get him to admit he has been fooled.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:38 am to ibldprplgld
quote:
Liberals are fine throwing out Due Process for others when it suits their ignorant opinions, but they don't want that same standard to apply to themselves.
Everyone already knew this.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:40 am to ibldprplgld
quote:This is a giant burr under my saddle. Unless and until the statistics are front & center on the table in an open and civil debate, I'm out of here. How so many people blindly buy into this false narrative is disturbing.
I bring up the Federal crime statistics that don't bear that out. He doesn't care to hear it.
Related:
[Audio] Tucker Carlson: "I'm just so struck by how few people have articulated what's going on. It's not as if they don't understand it - they do. They're just too afraid, and I find that contemptible".
[Audio] Tucker Carlson: "... and anyone who doesn't understand that... and anyone who plays along - wittingly or not - is your enemy. Period".
This post was edited on 7/6/20 at 10:45 am
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:41 am to ibldprplgld
I read the long version. That guy is warped. frick him.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:41 am to ibldprplgld
quote:
Very long and "dear facebook" and all, but TL;DR: Liberals are fine throwing out Due Process for others when it suits their ignorant opinions, but they don't want that same standard to apply to themselves.
If liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:43 am to ibldprplgld
Based on everything here and your friends reaction I hope he gets charged with assault and loses his CPA and goes to jail. I dont care if he actually did anything, we just need the public to feel better about sexual assault and I'm willing to sacrifice your friend. Too bad for him.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:44 am to ibldprplgld
Chalk your old pal up to the brain dead Marxist zombie drone fascist clone brigade. Never expect him to have your back.
This post was edited on 7/6/20 at 9:46 am
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:46 am to ibldprplgld
This guy is drinking the kool-aid, and lots of it!
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:46 am to ibldprplgld
None of the people that argue in favor of charges against the cops on that above mentioned case work a job where there is a chance of being killed every day they report for duty.
I have empathy for the cops because for every one of these cases that make national news where a cop kills a suspect, there are 3 cases where the suspects ambush, or fight with the cops.
I have empathy for the cops because for every one of these cases that make national news where a cop kills a suspect, there are 3 cases where the suspects ambush, or fight with the cops.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:50 am to Choupique19
Any job where there is a high chance of ending up on CNN isn’t a great one.
The military and cops are high on that list because of the chances of death involved in day to day work.
Most jobs of the people pissing and moaning about this don’t have those kind of stakes.
The military and cops are high on that list because of the chances of death involved in day to day work.
Most jobs of the people pissing and moaning about this don’t have those kind of stakes.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:50 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Sounds like he didn’t do his homework and just lapped up the suggested narrative.
As per fricking usual these days.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:50 am to ibldprplgld
.
This post was edited on 7/8/20 at 10:35 am
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:51 am to ibldprplgld
Should have told him if he was comfortable with a 75% certainty to convict the officer then he should be comfortable with an officer doing the correct job only 75% of the time
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:51 am to ibldprplgld
After your hard days work, it must have been a very relaxing evening catching up with someone like this. It’s a good way to spend your life surrounded with such positivity
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:52 am to ibldprplgld
quote:
I was critical of his firing by the Mayor, and the charges by the DA and supremely critical of his comfort in throwing out Due Process for the officer, but not himself.
The ends always justify the means for these people. Facts never matter . The rule of law has no bearing. Once they "feel" something nothing changes their point of view.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 9:53 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:a fig.
Sounds like
No loss on your part. I could not hang out w/ useful idiots, I advise you to no longer do so as well.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News