What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Yeah but that's just how grand juries normally work, they usually put mentally deranged people on the stand to defend the the person who killed someone.

C'mon, Michelle Bachmann was nowhere near the scene.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

What a piece of work she is.

One thing I was wondering about the TSG article though. In probably the 5th or 6th paragraph they write that she was nowhere near the scene of the shooting at the time it occurred.

Then, I kept waiting for "the smoking gun." Where was she? Did I miss something in the article? Did anyone else see reference to where she was?

That seems a pretty ****ing accusation if true.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Weird development in the Eric Garner case....

At the very same time that the Mayor was saying that Garner committed a "minor offense" by selling loose (untaxed) cigarettes, he also was filing a lawsuit against a company for selling untaxed cigarettes that were then being shipped to NY and sold.

So even while the "proximate cause" of Garner's death was being wrestled to the ground and sat on (how can a person say "I can't breathe" if they can't breathe? never mind), the "ultimate" cause could well be why the police were even arresting him in the first place, due to instructions from the administration making the sale of untaxed cigarettes a crime to be enforced in the first place.

Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered city lawyers to stay silent about a groundbreaking lawsuit to keep bootleg cigarettes out of the Big Apple — because it came as Hizzoner was downplaying the illegal cigarette sales that led to the ill-fated police arrest of Eric Garner, The Post has learned.

The city Law Department drafted the civil racketeering suit the same week that a Staten Island grand jury did not indict NYPD cop Daniel Pantaleo in Garner’s chokehold death, and it was quietly filed in Brooklyn federal court on Dec. 9.

The Law Department drafted a press release boasting that the suit “is the first of its kind brought by the city against an out-of-state entity for supplying cigarette traffickers,” sources said.

But City Hall suppressed the news, ordering the Law Department not to put out the release, according to the sources.

The move kept de Blasio from looking like a hypocrite for cracking down on illegal tobacco sales at the same time he was minimizing Garner’s criminal activity, which led to his deadly July 17 arrest.
 
What in the actual **** are you talking about?

It's the democratic mayor's fault Garner died, just as it's Elizabeth Warren's fault whenever a check kiter gets shot because she is anti-bank.

Duh.

(I like how fishy's still buying into the "he wasn't actually choked because he could still talk" horseshiat as though that hasn't been discredited 50 times over already).
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

(I like how fishy's still buying into the "he wasn't actually choked because he could still talk" horseshiat as though that hasn't been discredited 50 times over already).

I'm not sure that Fishy actually buys into this stuff--the reason being that you rarely see him defend anything he posts. He just posts it, it gets ripped to shreds, then crickets...
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

First of all, I'd love to know in what way you regard yourself as "pretty liberal." It's not a trap -- I'm genuinely interested.


That test thingy that we all did said so. ;):p

Also - I'm (or was) a Deadhead.

Finally - ask OP. He knows.


So there.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

That test thingy that we all did said so. ;):p

Also - I'm (or was) a Deadhead.

Finally - ask OP. He knows.


So there.

OP considers anyone left of Ghengis Khan (cue OP to make a John Kerry joke) to be liberal.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

I'm in the middle and make up my mind on issues on a case by case basis. When the sum of those issues is added up, I lean decisively to the left.

In addition, I haven't voted for a Republican for any major office since Tommy Thompson was our governor - voted for him at least twice (not in the same election, of course).


I know my stance on not hating myself because I'm white and not being an apologist for black (or any) criminality makes me seem out of step with some of the hard left leaners.

Oh well, maybe I'm the rarest of all birds... a racist liberal. :D
 
That test thingy that we all did said so. ;):p

Also - I'm (or was) a Deadhead.

Finally - ask OP. He knows.
So there.

Ann Coulter is also a dead head, so not sure that says anything. (In fairness, it is clear Ann Coulter is a professional troll, so who knows how much of what she espouses she actually believes vs. simply playing a character).
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Ann Coulter is also a dead head, so not sure that says anything. (In fairness, it is clear Ann Coulter is a professional troll, so who knows how much of what she espouses she actually believes vs. simply playing a character).


It was a joke.

I was in fact a Deadhead and still listen from time to time, but I was never a hippy or a hippy poser or a hippy wannabe.


And Ann Coulter is making BANK. Wish I had thought of it...

Nah, I do still want to have some self respect.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

I know my stance on not hating myself because I'm white and not being an apologist for black (or any) criminality makes me seem out of step with some of the hard left leaners.

Except nobody in the actual world thinks like that. "Self-hating" is just a rhetorical device used to smear somebody on an issue when he actually had the identity to be listened to (e.g., any Jew who dares criticize Israel is "self-hating"). "Apologist for x criminality" is just a rhetorical device used to smear anybody who dares mention that in a criminal case there are circumstances that defy the knee-jerk, PC kow-towing to law enforcement's often ludicrously hard-to-believe account of events. I'm sure Catholics who support gay rights are smeared as "self-hating," and rich people who believe in a more progressive tax code.

It's just a way for True Believers to avoid the cognitive dissonance when their fantasy worlds threaten to collapse under the weight of real evidence from people who know whereof they speak. When ideology conflicts with fact, they have the ignore fact, because their ideology isn't rational and falsifiable. It's just a emotional grunt of self-identity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Except nobody in the actual world thinks like that. "Self-hating" is just a rhetorical device used to smear somebody on an issue when he actually had the identity to be listened to (e.g., any Jew who dares criticize Israel is "self-hating"). "Apologist for x criminality" is just a rhetorical device used to smear anybody who dares mention that in a criminal case there are circumstances that defy the knee-jerk, PC kow-towing to law enforcement's often ludicrously hard-to-believe account of events. I'm sure Catholics who support gay rights are smeared as "self-hating," and rich people who believe in a more progressive tax code.

It's just a way for True Believers to avoid the cognitive dissonance when their fantasy worlds threaten to collapse under the weight of real evidence from people who know whereof they speak. When ideology conflicts with fact, they have the chuck out the fact, because their ideology isn't rational and falsifiable. It's just a emotional grunt of self-identity.


Well, you took the bait on my snark... :)

As far as the second paragraph, you weren't actually interested in why I see myself as liberal or left leaning. You had already made up your mind.


I suppose that voting for Tammy Baldwin each time she has run wouldn't sway you at this point?

Darn! Whatever will I do...
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

As far as the second paragraph, you weren't actually interested in why I see myself as liberal or left leaning. You had already made up your mind

Wrong. I was interested, and I'm still interested. We each have a cloud of opinions and the more thoughtful among us always have contradictions. When asked to self-ID, we're choosing which of those contradictions is closer to our center. So the questions get interesting: is their a precedence order of opinions? Are there "tie-breaker" opinions that promote or demote members of contradictory-pairs?

For example, when Pew (or somebody) polls on political questions they always ask about Party Affiliation and Liberal/Moderate/Conservative. There's always about 2% of people who call themselves "Liberals" who are also Republicans. I want to know: who the heck are these people? Are those just joke answers (entirely possible), or coding mistakes by the pollster? Or is there some sort of odd configuration of opinions that doesn't see it as self-negating? Does the ISIS guy who thinks they should sharpen the blade before the beheading so it's not painful see himself as "Liberal ISIS"?
 
Last edited:
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Well, I took part in the labor protests at our state capitol and voted against Walker 3 times including the recall.

I'm against voter ID in its current (proposed) form - meaning where it hurts minorities and the poor and only benefits one party.

I'm for Gay marriage, the ability for gay couples to adopt and I 'm against the boy scouts for their stance - whether or not they have the "right."

While I personally detest the idea of abortion, I'm for the woman to have the right to make that decision as long as it's in the first trimester - unless her health is at risk later on.

I believe that gun control is far too lenient and would like to see more restrictions imposed. Not that people shouldn't be able to own guns though.

I believe that corporations are not in fact people.

I'm for the most part opposed to the death penalty - should be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes - not a gas station holdup gone bad.

I believe that taxes are essential so that the government can provide essential services. Whether that money is used in the right way or efficiently is another question.

I believe that society should provide for those who need it although those who are able should be forced (through job training etc) to get off of assistance at some point.


On the other side, I tend to be a bit more hawkish foreign policy-wise than the typical dem-voting Madisonian, I loathe the PC police, I believe that schools should be able to put on Christmas concerts, and I don't personally have a huge problem with torturing terrorists - whether our country should do it or not is a separate issue.


Any other hot button issues you'd like to know about before you deliver your verdict?
 
Last edited:
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Oh yeah and hearing Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly's voices causes me to have a sudden urge to want to strangle people.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Well, I took part in the labor protests at our state capitol and voted against Walker 3 times including the recall.

I'm against voter ID in its current (proposed) form - meaning where it hurts minorities and the poor and only benefits one party.

I'm for Gay marriage, the ability for gay couples to adopt and I 'm against the boy scouts for their stance - whether or not they have the "right."

While I personally detest the idea of abortion, I'm for the woman to have the right to make that decision as long as it's in the first trimester - unless her health is at risk later on.

I believe that gun control is far too lenient and would like to see more restrictions imposed. Not that people shouldn't be able to own guns though.

I believe that corporations are not in fact people.

I'm for the most part opposed to the death penalty - should be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes - not a gas station holdup gone bad.


On the other side, I tend to be a bit more hawkish foreign policy-wise than the typical dem-voting Madisonian, I loathe the PC police, I believe that schools should be able to put on Christmas concerts, and I don't personally have a huge problem with torturing terrorists - whether our country should do it or not is a separate issue.


Any other hot button issues you'd like to know about before you deliver your verdict?

The only verdict that's valid is yours, and you've made it: "pretty liberal."

I already know what I think about things -- that's not interesting for me. I want to know what others think about things; when I'm opinionated it's sometimes because somebody has asked what I think and sometimes because I want to prod and push against somebody's opinion to see where it goes next, how deep it runs, where it comes from. Because people almost never change their opinion, there's no "winning" in the sense of gaining territory. But there is interrogation and data gathering, which then feeds into better theories. Arguing is science using rhetorical equipment. If somebody thinks it is about persuading, they should get used to disappointment.

People often mistake my manner as attempting to persuade (or rather, browbeat) because "I'm obnoxious and disliked, you know that Sir." But at the end of the day this is just field collection. The more posters explain themselves, the more interesting the formation and retention of political opinion seems. Underneath it all there are facts and (I believe) there are less or more optimal policies. I think everyone should defend theirs and attack the others with as much wit and passion as they can summon. Though it changes nothing in Washington, or even your state capital or your county seat, it is a healthy way to engage politically, and I'm with Aristotle in believing that the opposite of the polis is brutalism.
 
Last edited:
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Oh yeah and hearing Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly's voices causes me to have a sudden urge to want to strangle people.

To be fair, this only indicates you have functioning brain cells. Let me add Stephanie Miller and Keith Olbermann (when he's talking about politics) to the list.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

To be fair, this only indicates you have functioning brain cells. Let me add Stephanie Miller and Keith Olbermann (when he's talking about politics) to the list.

Ha! I used to like Olberman's show on MSNBC until he started crying (literally) on TV about his dad's health situation.

Some of his other rants though were classic.


Even though I knew he was cherry picking to make a point, I still enjoyed them.
 
Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

The only verdict that's valid is yours, and you've made it: "pretty liberal."


Any number of people would look at that and declare me a flaming liberal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top