Ferguson, MO

Post Reply New Topic

And? Ron Paul's newsletters where a money making thing, they had nothing to do with his policy; Rand's guy worked on his campaign, again, not policy. Both men were personal friends of the respective Pauls, which is the most likely reason that they were employed by them.

Here's the thing; I can understand being friends with racists, I count several among my own friends because I enjoy their company and don't talk politics with them, but why would you go to a church for 20 years and be married by its pastor if you don't agree with the message being preached there? I'll even write off Ayers, IIRC he was a personal friend with connections in the community, and I've got sketchier friends myself, though I can't say I would launch a political career from one of their living rooms. To be clear, I don't care, I really don't, but since you seem to care about the personal associations of the Pauls so much, it only seems fair to play devil's advocate and explore why it's different when Obama does it.



Cite?




You people would just find another way to smear them.

Oh, we'd find other way to smear them, so they should just continue being buddy - buddy with racists.
And I don't care if Paul had had the assh*le just on his campaign staff or not, he should have cut ties with him a long time ago,
As for Obama attending Wright's church for 20 years, where he allegedly heard race baiting - my pastor who performed my wedding has made statements against gay marriage and homosexuality, but I'll still go to the same church as it fulfills my spiritual needs. So I' not going to judge the President.
And you have racist friends? I really have to call bullsh*t on that claim, as I'm pretty certain your marriage would make such friendships impossible.

I dunno - is it with you? (Rhetorical)

Can you recall me haven been proved factually wrong? You'll notice that if I don't actually cite something, my posts are littered with 'IIRC', 'I think", 'AFIK', etc to indicate when I'm not completely sure of something, and when someone corrects me on one of those, I'm quick to acknowledge it and make the correction, and will even make the correction myself if I come across the correct information later. Contrast this with your approach of flinging s**t against the wall and seeing what will stick...
You'll also notice that if I say something about someone here, I can back it up with a citation, which, again, contrasts with the number of times you've had to apologize to people here for making false accusations against them.



Did I say that? I sad both were bad, I drew no comparison as to which was worse.



I'm not here to re fight the civil rights era, only to point out the hysterical overreaction that always accompanies questioning of it, which you're demonstrating admirably.



If you're going to claim Randy Weaver was violent and dangerous, I'm going to need to see a citation. As to the rest, being a religious fanatic is not against the law, and bringing your kids up as such is also not against the law; you keep claiming this "atmosphere of hostility and paranoia" but don't do anything besides assert it, and you've yet to provide a justification for the bogus informant scheme and subsequent raid. I've considered your arguments, and dismissed them, which is more than you've ever done with a challenging opinion.

A statement someone construes as racially insensitive doesn't make a racist, are you so pure that you've never uttered a word or had a thought that someone could take offense to? How would you feel if someone summed up your entire being because of it? We live in a crazy shoot first ask questions later society, people don't care what the truth is only whether or not something confirms their own biases and furthers their own goals. It's not an open and honest debate, nobody has that anymore. Not in this country at least.

You think racists are homogenous? You've never met someone who thought that Chris Rock's "Black people vs n****rs" routine was documentary, not comedy?

Prejudice against the Weavers is the same as prejudice against blacks, it comes from the same place. One could just as easily say Mike Brown a violent criminal or that people like Brown have created an atmosphere of hostility and paranoia in our nation's urban areas. Sound familiar?

What the government did at Ruby Ridge was unjustifiable and the fault of an overreaching tyrannical government. Victim blaming is wrong is it not?

So according to you police heavy handedness back in the day against any group considered black militants can be blamed in part on the hostility of said groups. And I supposed some atheists consider any Christian to be a religious fanatics raising their children to emulate the worse in their parents. It all depends on who's doing the labeling and who holds power.

It is not just the looters that are creating problems. There are outsider provocateurs doing their best to destabilize and exacerbate the situation. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if Fox News or Breitbart have unleashed some insurgents into the mix. They have both been proven to do such things. Someone is obviously throwing kerosene onto the flames

/\ Kind of like last year when the liberal media tried its damnedest to fan the flames of unrest after the Zimmerman verdict wasn't to their liking.
Or Obama's "If I had a son he'd look like Treyvon" comment right after the actual incident to intentionally try and shape public opinion on the matter.
Yeah, we've really gotta watch those Fox "trolls"......

There are two groups outside groups that have been named that are there and have been causing problems; the New Black Panther Party and Revolution Club Chicago.

Dox-

Forcing white owned businesses to cater to blacks isn't bad at all - it's just deserts. And the fact that you don't want to get into this subject shows even you know to say otherwise is indefensible.
And dismiss all my arguments all you want - just because it doesn't fit your libertarian view of the world doesn't mean I'm wrong. I lived through the whole Goddamn thing, with those racist pricks invading my part of the country, and I know what I'm talking about. Sure, prior to Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver was such a minor player who wasn't even on anyone's radar, but he was part of a bigger complex of racists who had fantasies of establishing a racist homeland in the Pacific Northwest.
I'm afraid I'm not great at providing links (as apparently I'm too dumb to know how to), but here is something I found at the spur of the moment:

The Spokesman-Review:
Neighbors See Weaver Differently Three Idahoans Call Him Devoted Father, Three Others Label Him Dangerous Radical.

Do you seriously think I would take joy in the killing of a man's child and wife?!?! The fact of the matter is, none of them deserved to die, and the feds had really f*cked up thinking they could twist his arm into turning informant against the Aryan Nations (which he was not a member of, but which he shared similar ideology with), but just the same, the notion that Randy Weaver was just an ordinary guy who just wanted to be left alone is absolute bullsh*t. Did you know he had ran for Sheriff, promising to only enforce laws people wanted enforced? - so the guy was hardly living an anonymous life prior to Ruby Ridge. And no, having insane religious and racist ideas hardly means you deserve to be killed, but it certainly opened the door to what had happened.
As far as Ron Paul and the MLK holiday are concerned (Again, I'm too dumb to site) -

The Atlantic:
MLK Fact Check.

As for being friends with racists - as a matter of fact, my oldest friend has returned from Arizona a firebreathing racist - something he had not been prior to leaving for that state. I don't know what Arizona had done to my friend, but since returning, among the racist sh*t he's been spouting has been idiocy about interracial breeding, insane racial theories about how blacks are more likely to commit crimes, and have lesser IQ's, and the like. I have to admit I'm more sentimental than I should be, as I still remember the friend I had known back before I even entered school, and still cling to those memories. Regardless, these days I see little of my friend, which I wish wasn't the case - and it's in large part his decision, not mine. I have no idea if it's the same with you.
If you want to dismiss everything I've written, go ahead - but please stop provoking me into endless responses.

[quote="Jacoby"]There are two groups outside groups that have been named that are there and have been causing problems; the New Black Panther Party and Revolution Club Chicago.[/qu

provocateur insurgents do not allow themselves to be identified. ^^^above are not in hiding.

Don't put words in my mouth and beliefs in my head, you know full well that I can and have defended opposition to certain aspects of the civil rights act on a number of fronts, it's just horrifically off-topic, and arguing it with you is pointless as you'll just endlessly appeal to a morality that you think is universal.



Please point out where I've brought my libertarian view of the world into things as a reason you're wrong; last I checked, I've stuck to factual inaccuracies in the things you've said, while pointing out that you can't seem to resist endless victim blaming because of the politics of these particular victims.



I didn't say you'd take joy in it, but your politics don't seem to allow you to fully admit to what a tragedy and a travesty it was, and when it first came up, you went a lot further than that. What do you like to call Vicky Weaver, harridan, isn't it?

Here's the difference between me and you in a nutshell; if Randy Weaver had been a radical environmentalist or some other far left activist and the feds had entrapped him and then laid siege to his property, my outrage would in no way be tempered by any opposition I may personally feel towards the man's politics and lifestyle, all I care about is the conduct of the state, where as you apply a differing standard depending upon the politics of the victims.



So, people having certain politics and beliefs should be aware that doing so puts them at risk of the government invading their homes and murdering their families? Like, say, Muslims?

Bringing it back around to the actual topic of the thread, should black people living in urban areas just accept that their culture means that the police will occasionally brutalize and murder them because it makes them nervous? That's what you're saying here, that knowingly making the state nervous might bring its wrath down whether what you're doing is legal or not, and that therefore the blame can at least partially be put on you for whatever it does to you. Or were you trying to say something else?



I can only assume that this is what you were trying to paste:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ck/251037/
All you have to do is copy the url from the address bar and paste it here, it will link automatically, you only need a url tag if you're trying to turn a word or sentence into hypertext.

The gist of the article seems to be simply that Paul voted against MLK day, which is true, but without anything regarding the context. My guess would be that Paul opposed the creation of another multi-million dollar federal holiday, given his strict fiscal conservatism, but I don't know that he's ever given a reason for the vote, so it would be mere speculation on my part.



I've got relatives like that, but with my friends, it's more like I started hanging out with people, and as I got to know them better and they became more comfortable with me, they start getting a bit too honest about things, and being an imperfect person myself, I don't judge them too harshly for these indiscretions. I've also lived in a crack house, with marijuana farmers, with meth dealers and burglars and at least 2 murderers that I know of (I dated some interesting people) , most of whom I would call decent guys except for the whole theft and murder parts, but I never had problems on those accounts. What I'm trying to get across here is that I'm one of those people who can get along with anyone and be more curious than judgmental about their lives, and that people seem to respond to that, even racists, no matter what they might think of my choices in romantic partners. I'll add that most of the racists I know tend to apply the 'Tom, Dick, and Harry' standard, where they may make horrible statements about a race, but seem to like individual members of it just fine.



Provoking you? You make disparaging, ignorant, false comments about multiple groups that I'm a part of, misquote me repeatedly in order to try and tie me to things I don't support, make contradictory, hypocritical arguments, and on top of all that, radiate an unearned condescension towards all the people who can actually think for themselves and question your doctrinaire partisanship? Yet you are the one being provoked?

If you don't like me pointing out all the stupid, wrong, hypocritical, misleading, spin-laden things you say, you could try not posting things like that, cause I'm pretty bullish on that sort of thing, and you do like to wave red flags.

One of the VICE reporters was pretty close to incoming from the rioters just before. Sounded like someone emptied a pistol in the direction of one of the SWAT vehicles. Not exactly "peaceful" overall.

2:45.40+ or so in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmqHVKNZ ... e=youtu.be

And then he sent 13,000 troops to put down the whiskey rebellion.