Ferguson, MO

Post Reply New Topic

Kraichgauer,

You seem to be mixing up Libertarians and those who play pretend. The Tea Party may have been started by people who had many similar beliefs as Libertarians, but was quickly hijacked by fundamentalists and politicians that don't act the way they talk (or in any consistent manner). Tea Party is not the same as Libertarian. Libertarians have always been against all forms of government over-reach, especially where the militarization of law enforcement is concerned. Another thing to consider is that not all are in favor of completely unfettered capitalism as you often assume; many are worried about the implications of it to be a threat to private property rights. Just keep in mind that there are a lot of self-proclaimed "Libertarians" out there who are anything but.

I do find it amusing that both far left liberals and libertarians both would do almost anything to guarantee the freedoms and rights of the individual (although the ideas on how to get there are much different), yet many of both groups accuse the other of thinking otherwise. I also find it amusing that so many Republicans like to talk big about smaller government, yet insist on a larger military and constantly vote to increase funding for any of their personal pet projects. Most Republicans really only seem to want to make cuts to social programs (instead of reform them), and make cuts to any agency that might rein in large businesses in any way. Democrats aren't much better, though; they rarely can agree amongst themselves about the specifics of anything other than "Republicans=bad."

So, what you're saying is, they kinda, sorta, maybe, deserved it because of their political views? EXACTLY like I've been pointing out for years now... Where are you even coming up with this "they had no problem committing robbery and murder" bunk? The whole standoff with Weaver was precipitated by an informant claiming that Randy sold him a shotgun that was a 1/4 inch too short, the illegality of which being a whole other can of worms.



And? A crazed liberal shot up a conservative think tank in D.C. a while back, perhaps the feds should start treating all of you like potential threats and send in the SWAT teams on trumped up charges.




You mean his reservations about compelling private business owners to do things against their will using the power of the state, despite the good intentions? If only more people thought things through like that, perhaps we wouldn't have the worlds largest prison population and a set of federal laws so dense that literally everyone is constantly committing felonies. Unfortunately, liberals treat this kind of nuance the way Republicans used to treat critical thinking on crime; by making hysterical moral pronouncements attempting to shame the thinker for having the temerity to go against the orthodoxy.

I also like how you manage to make his waiting to get a better idea of what really happened before shooting his mouth off into a bad thing, that's really an example you could learn from yourself.

As to Ron Paul's "infamous" reputation on race, I can only assume you're referring to the newsletters published under his name in the 80s, most likely penned by Lew Rockwell. It was undoubtedly foolish to allow someone to publish under his name without reviewing the content, but even the briefest examination of his congressional record shows not a trace of racism, with many of the policies he favored directly benefiting minorities. Unlike you, I don't put a lot of stock in what a man says, or in this case allows to be said in his name, I pay attention to his actions, which is why I think of Obama as the spying/assassinating/secretive president, as opposed to the hope and change and transparency guy he sold himself as.

Same deal with Rand and his decision to stay loyal to a friend despite the political liability; any examination of his record shows that he's doing more for minorities than anyone else in congress at the moment, especially in getting the GOP off of its decades long "tough on crime" posturing that has done so much damage to the country. Again, I could care less who the man chooses to spend his time with, I judge him by his record, which an honest man would admit is an admirable one.

How about you do me a favor, and direct a post defending liberalism to Dox, in the spirit of fairness.

I in fact recall more than one interview with the Weaver's neighbors, and I have no reason to question their honesty. As I said already, the Weavers were cut from the same cloth as the Aryan Nations, and the racist terrorist groups they had spawned. Again, there is this bullsh*t that has been circulating ever since the siege at Ruby Ridge that the Weavers had been law abiding, if not eccentric people who just wanted to be left alone, and who left everyone else alone. Well, that is simply not the real Weaver family.
As far as the notion that Weaver had been special forces in Vietnam - that's not hearsay, that's an out and out lie he repeatedly told about himself. Unfortunately, the feds really f*cked up by not checking out his story, because then they would have known he was not a killing machine, but just some peckerwood, cracker, white trash racist, as they had gone in with guns blazing because they had believed his outrageous lies.

I strongly support the police dressing in SWAT gear when appropriate. There is a lot of firepower out there. For instance, I myself own a Browning BAR M1918, which is capable of firing between 350 to 555 rounds per minute. I also own a British Sten, minus the receiver. I can easily obtain the receiver or build it, for which I have the instructions for. If I was in a stand off with the police, would you want to come through my door wearing only slacks and a button down shirt, while only carrying a nine shot 9mm? I don't think so. So given the proper circumstances, SWAT attire and gear is not only desirable, it is necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver
A plan for voluntary surrender was negotiated by the Marshals Service with the Weavers during October 1991, but was refused by the U.S. Attorney involved in the case.
After long-term surveillance, the Deputy Director of the Special Operations Group of the Marshals Service recommended against a tactical assault on the Weaver residence. He recommended that the indictment be dismissed and then refiled later under seal, so that Weaver would be unaware of the new indictment, in hope of causing him to drop his guard. An undercover operation could then be executed to arrest Weaver without incident. His recommendation was rejected."

From this it appears that the feds had an opportunity to do this more low key but elected the tactical method. But hey, as long as they were connected to the Aryan Nations (you could also plug in any other fringe group) the bloodier the takedown the better, eh?

... And Dox -

I should have stated -
Lew Rockwell? Really? How could Ron Paul not know that the guy was a white supremacist? Either Paul is incredibly dense, or he's an unabashed racist, and I don't know which is worse for an elected leader.
As for sonny boy Rand - the friend he was sticking by has denied slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the north was in the wrong, and he celebrated Lincoln's murder on his radio show. If Rand holds no racist intentions, then he's gotta be extremely dumb for taking this guy on board his staff, knowing full well what he was. And I did mention this friend calls himself "the Southern Avenger," and wears a pro-wresting mask. This guy would be a can short of a six pack were it not for the fact that he's missing all six cans!! !! !!

Dox-

I forgot to mention - yes, I wish the President would speak out about the use of paramilitary equipment and tactics by the police. But then again, every other time Obama had spoken out about police (or self appointed neighborhood watch) abuse when the suspect was black, the right had thrown a sh*tfit.

... And Dox -

I should have stated -
Lew Rockwell? Really? How could Ron Paul not know that the guy was a white supremacist? Either Paul is incredibly dense, or he's an unabashed racist, and I don't know which is worse for an elected leader.
As for sonny boy Rand - the friend he was sticking by has denied slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the north was in the wrong, and he celebrated Lincoln's murder on his radio show. If Rand holds no racist intentions, then he's gotta be extremely dumb for taking this guy on board his staff, knowing full well what he was. And I did mention this friend calls himself "the Southern Avenger," and wears a pro-wresting mask. This guy would be a can short of a six pack were it not for the fact that he's missing all six cans!! !! !!

You know, I can explain and explain how the Weavers had - not deserved what happened to them - but how they and the other white supremacists had created the situation that had led to the big blow out in Ruby Ridge, but you have decided you know my "true motives," so I fail to see how explaining it any more is going to make a dent.

And as a matter of fact, compelling businesses to serve all customers, regardless of color is justified, or else civil rights would have meant nothing. Having the right to vote or hold office is one thing, but it means little if you're treated as a second class citizen in everyday life where you can't even eat where you'd like, or rent a room where you want. Try getting respect from your peers if you can't eat at the lunch counter. And no, it wasn't because the law forced white business owners to comply to racist laws, as such laws only reflected the will of the white majority.

And I really do hope your right about Rand Paul, as he may very well be our next President, and I don't want a racist pr*ck in the White House in this day and age.

Lew Rockwell and Jack Hunter aren't white supremacists, it is crazy to even call them racist when you actually understand what they advocate and fight for. You look at the person and what they believe and what they have done with their life, summing it up with random throw away lines taken out of context or stereotyped views of their opinions. You're just reading the headline andn not putting any more thought into to it, it's ridiculous nowadays how people can't talk open and freely without some gotcha vulture trying to ruin your life. You can't even explain yourself or put things in context because that's not what really matters to these people, they're just looking for a reason to destroy you.

What do you think about Harry Reid who said he liked then candidate Obama's chances to be president because he was "light skinned" and had "no negro dialect, except when he wanted to". You can't guilt someone by association, do you think Barack Obama hates white people because he went to a church for 20 years and was married by Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

Dox-

Obama never put either Wright or Ayers into any sort of staff positions; far different from Ron or Rand.
And as I recall, Ron Paul had once said the civil rights movement didn't improve anyone's rights, but just created greater hostility between the races - not the most racially sensitive thing to say - and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he had voted against the MLK national holiday.
If the Pauls want the left to stop suggesting they're racists, then they should disavow themselves of all tea baggers, white supremacists, and Neo-Confederates as Obama had cut himself loose from Rev. Wright.

But you don't, every time this comes up you find a way to at least partially blame the family for what happens to them, and that's toned down from your first posts on the subject, where you openly celebrated the killings, you walked a lot of comments back after Raptor and I started posting the actual facts and pointing out what you were really condoning. I spent pages correcting your misinformation, posting the actual documents and after action reports, painting you into a corner until you had to concede that you'd had it all wrong, but you seem to have some sort of very selective amnesia about the whole thing. I don't need to read your mind, I just need to read your posts, in which you just can't bring yourself to admit that the entire raid was entirely unjustified and constituted the murder of a boy and a pregnant woman by the US government, period.



I get the distinct feeling that trying to explain what begging the question is and what constitutes justification would just be a waste of time, so I'll put this as simply as I can:

Racist store policy = BAD
Government interference with private property rights = BAD

Some people, like myself or Rand Paul, prefer not to use bad solutions to problems just because they're expedient, and like to try and think of alternative, less coercive ways to achieve the same goals. That's apparently a little too complicated for the liberals out there to follow, so they simply cry "Racist!" as is their custom.



Eh, after our urbane Constitutional law professor for change morphed into Nixon 2.0 (Now with drones!), I'm not sure that a racist would be appreciably worse.