Ferguson, MO

Post Reply New Topic

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

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.

Have you been watching the Vice stream? That cop ripping off Tim Pool's press patch and saying it didn't mean sh** gave me a pretty good laugh. They've basically kicked all of the media out now, going house to house.

Even people with ugly, hateful ideology can be victims - that doesn't make their ideology any less ugly. Just as Vicki Weaver being a victim didn't make her any less of a harradan.
And yes, you did claim more than once that I took pleasure in the deaths of Vicki Weaver and her son.
And yes, your libertarian views do slant your perception of reality - you see a group of people being cracked down on by the federal government, and you assume the feds are always in the wrong, especially if guns are involved. That's the number one reason why you took sides against Trayvon Martin (and yes, I know I'm going to regret bringing him up).
And what context could be at all justifiable in Ron Paul voting against the MLK holiday? He claimed one of his staffers had been using his name when calling the holiday "hate wh***y day." Even if Paul didn't write that, why in God's name would he keep the asshat who had written that on his parole? Why didn't he immediately disavow the statement?
And yes, you continue to provoke statements from me with calling my honesty and intelligence into question. Do you expect me to just role over and take it?

Even people with ugly, hateful ideology can be victims - that doesn't make their ideology any less ugly. Just as Vicki Weaver being a victim didn't make her any less of a harradan.

That's the number one reason why you took sides against Trayvon Martin (and yes, I know I'm going to regret bringing him up).

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

Without looking it up I'd say that the "dangerous servant and a fearful master" quote came before he was president. In that case,right or wrong, he did prove his own point that government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Now they are arresting ninety year old ladies for protesting.She really looks menacing,granny's ready to riot. My respect goes out to this woman,age isn't slowing her down any.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/1 ... tail=email

I'm just gonna pull two things out here (although I see more).

Why do you think you have to continually remind (or preach to) people that the Weavers held ugly hateful ideology? Do you think we're stupid or are you trying to smoke someone out as a white supremacist? Or maybe it's some half-ass divide and conquer tactic. "All the good people over here. All the ugly hateful people over there" . It's not about the Weaver's or anyone elses' ideology, it's about government thuggery which potentially hangs over all of our heads poised to strike. Why can't you figure that out and make peace with it?

Unless you can go back and find evidence to back that up (don't pretend you don't know how to) I don't remember anyone taking sides against Trayvon Martin.

...
Is it common in the US to handcuff everyone that is arrested? I've seen it (on tv) also for non-violent people like people arrested for fraud.