37
   

The politics of hoodie wearing

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 05:38 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You wrote:
DAVID wrote:
In order to do that, the citizens need spies to watch the politicians
at federal, state n local levels of government, in legislative & executive roles.


Setanta wrote:
We were talking about lobbyists.
No; we were discussing special interest groups, which employ lobbyists,
among other tools. Frequently, b4 the time is ripe to use lobbyists,
thay need to know what the hell is going on (i.e., what the politicians r doing).
When thay find out this information, then thay tell their members,
urging them to demand the support of the politicians,
on pain of loss of employment. Thay concurrently use their lobbyists.
That is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!



Setanta wrote:
Lobbyists are not spies, and their role is to press the agenda of their clients,
not to "watch" members of government.
Thank u, Mr. Setanta. I feel very re-assured in my knowledge of English.





David

Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 05:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No, we weren't. Free Duck complained about lobbyists. That was what we were discussing. You're just trying to move the goal posts because you've made some truly stupid claims and now you want to weasel out. More significantly, though, you are trolling the thread. You are not discussing the thread topic, you are ranting about your political bigotry and your crackpot "libertarian" fantasies. I'm not going to feed the troll any longer. Have fun.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 06:18 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I think a look at a person tells you more about their experiences in the racial realm than decisions made in offices at the Census Bureau.

Except a look at a person doesn't tell you much of anything about their experiences or how they view themselves. Being a white hispanic in parts of Florida puts you in the majority so to judge them how they would be treated in Texas is rather meaningless.

Their words however do tell you something.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 06:20 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
So what's the point of these laws?
boomerang wrote:
I think the point is to make people afraid.
The point of the Stand Your Ground law is to make citizens safe n secure in the knowledge
that if thay r violently attacked in the streets, thay can legally defend themselves
as well as possible without terror that government will inflict savagery upon them, avenging the bad guy.
At Pearl Harbor, we were slow to defend. Slow is not always good.

It also renders immune victims of predatory criminals
(or their survivors) who sue the innocent victims in tort.
Its very good law. The decent people need its security nationwide.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 07:04 pm
The EFFECT of the Stand Your Ground law, though, has been to get a kid who had gone to the store to get an iced tea for his brother and was only talking on the phone to his girlfriend shot dead. Let us the important thing here. A KID IS DEAD. You talk about the right to self-defense as some sort of primary right. The right to life is considerably more primary, and Trayvon Martin was deprived of that. Any law that leads to that consequence is bad law.

Not to mention that prosecutors and the police are angry at the law, because they say it's let those left standing in gang wars go free, it's let those left alive in bad drug deals go free, and it's let people who succumb to road rage go free. It's bad law. It's fully as bad as the medieval "trial by combat", when it was thought god would see to it that the guilty party got whacked. Strange how it was always the poorer swordsman who was guilty. Didn't work that way then. Doesn't work that way now. Bad law.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 09:34 pm
@parados,
We disagree. It seems to me that looking at the guy tells you he isn't white. Knowing that, it is safe to assume he's been the object of some race-based treatment - and even though he may not self-identify as Hispanic - that is the category he has likely found himself in... based on what most people base their perceptions on - appearance.

Anyway, you seem to have some emotion invested in trying to say this guy is white. Why is that?

This is beginning to remind me of a black guy I know who is virulently anti-black. He wants so desperately to disassociate with being black that he constantly points to negative news items that portray black people badly. I wonder if Zimmerman had a touch of this.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 11:59 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The EFFECT of the Stand Your Ground law, though, has been to get a kid
who had gone to the store to get an iced tea for his brother and was only [??] talking
on the phone to his girlfriend shot dead.
I doubt that was the "only" thing he was doing.
My sense of the situation is that he attacked Mr. Z from the rear,
based on media reports. Admittedly: I remain uncertain about it.
I can't help but wonder if he was trying to rob Mr. Z of his gun when it discharged.
That sort of thing has happened b4.




MontereyJack wrote:
Let us the important thing here. A KID IS DEAD. You talk about
the right to self-defense as some sort of primary right.
YES, indeed! More basic than any other right; I do.





MontereyJack wrote:
The right to life is considerably more primary,
That is nonsense. There is no "right to life". There never was.
If there was, then if u die from a heart attack or a lightning strike,
your rights woud have been violated. If u fall down in medical distress in front of me,
there is a fairly decent chance that I will call 911, but I owe u nothing.
If I see that u r about to accidentally walk over a cliff,
there is a moderately decent chance that I 'll mention it to u,
but I have no duty (moral nor legal) to do so.
( I think that it was Justice Kennedy who referred to that fact
in the law of torts during argument of obamacare. )
If I see u smoking I have no duty to counsel u qua its dangers.
That is because we live in a free country.




MontereyJack wrote:
and Trayvon Martin was deprived of that.
My sense of the situation is that he probably brought it on himself,
not that Mr. Z chose to assassinate him, knowing that police were about to arrive in a few minutes or in a few seconds.
If he DID violently attack Mr. Z, then I 'm glad that the rest of us r safe from him.
I am sure that if I had been in his position, I 'd remain in pristine condition.
There 'd have been no violence.





MontereyJack wrote:
Any law that leads to that consequence is bad law.
Its terrible law for predatory, violent criminals.
It gives their victims a much better chance of survival,
at the expense of the safety of the predators.
From interviewing violent criminals in prisons,
we know that thay fear & disapprove of well armed victims.
Gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals, protecting them on-the-job
from the defenses of their victims.
Stand Your Ground Laws re-inforce the danger to violent predators.







MontereyJack wrote:
Not to mention that prosecutors and the police are angry at the law,
Its not the function of the law
to make our public employees HAPPY.
Their due is to get PAID their salaries; that 's all.




MontereyJack wrote:
because they say it's let those left standing in gang wars go free,
When criminals decide to fight among themselves,
thay will do so. Thay always have. Its OK with me.





MontereyJack wrote:
it's let those left alive in bad drug deals go free,
GOOD! There is no Constitutional reason that anyone
shud be confined for selling drugs. Its better that the politicians
who supported the unConstitutional War On Drugs be in prison for raping the Constitution.






MontereyJack wrote:
and it's let people who succumb to road rage go free. It's bad law.
It reflects Man's natural rights; the right of self defense, without hindrance from his lowlife employee, government.
It is bad enuf that someone falls victim to the predatory violence of man or beast.
It is beyond ineffably bad that his servant, government, shud put salt in his wounds
adding civil or criminal litigation to the victim 's problems.

The liberal position against freedom of ez self defense shows liberalism's affinity with the purest essence of evil.
It annoys u to have the bad guys exposed to the dangers of victims successfully defending themselves.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 12:27 am
re David
Your arguments as usual are completely wrong-headed. If someone takes your life, your alleged "right" of self-defense (never, I repeat, mentioned in the Consitution--your cites said NOTHING) means absolutely nothing if SOMEONE--we are not talking lightning strikes or drowning hereneither of which would be in any way averted by shooting them--if someone deprives you of your life. This awful law, the way it has played out in practice, completely absolves people who make terrible, mistaken decisions with no basis in reality at all for their mistakes that kill someone totally innocent, or even partially innocent. It escalates something that before it might have only involved screaming at each other, or an ugly look, all the way up to death. Look at someone wrong and they can shoot you, and get away with it, even in the absence of any overt action. BAD law.

Prosecutors hate it because it lets the bad guys walk. They're in effect exempt from any punishment even tho they were equally to blame, or even more, but just happened to be a better shot. There's no chance of putting the other half of the gangers shooting at each other in jail, or the drug dealers, or that asshole who yelled at you because he thought you cut him off. They don't even go to jail, which is where they SHOULD be, bcause they claim self-defense and walk. STUPID law.

And your "sense" of what happened is pure fantasy and unsupported hypothesis. He "could have pulled on the gun", he "attacked Zimmerman from behind". Sheer fantasy. His girlfriend says he was on the phone to her and she heard him ask Zimmerman "Why are you following me". Do you usually talk to the back of someone's head? You're making up your "facts" as you go along. Did you look at the videos of Zimmerman's arrival at the Sanford police department that night? No blood can be seen and mashed noses bleed all over the place, no apparent damage to his nose at allno disarranged clothing, all his clothes look neat and clean, no wound visible on the back of his head, totally normall walk uncharacteristic of someone who allegedly just got beaten and had his head bashed on the sidewalk. Your version of events, which you've clung to tenaciously to try to exonerate George Zimmerman from what it clearly is, at the very least manslaughter, is despicable. Fox news made much of a mystery witness who supposedly said it was Zimmerman on the ground, according to a police leak. That witness appears to be a minor, whose mother said the Sanford police,who didn't even talk to him until a week after the shooting, tried to pressure him to change his account. He says he couldn't tell who it was on the ground because it was too dark. The police wanted him to implicate Trayvon. He wouldn't. The way this whole thing has been handled stinks to high heave, right along with the rancid law.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 12:42 am
@Lash,
Quote:
We disagree. It seems to me that looking at the guy tells you he isn't white. Knowing that, it is safe to assume he's been the object of some race-based treatment - and even though he may not self-identify as Hispanic - that is the category he has likely found himself in... based on what most people base their perceptions on - appearance


We have ALL been the object of some race-based treatment, because Americans are obsessed with race. Me, I dont give a damn.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 12:50 am
If there is no right to life in the US, why have laws on murder?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 02:03 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
If there is no right to life in the US, why have laws on murder?
U have the right that no one steal your life from u,
that no one interfere with u.





David
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 02:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Exactly.
And in this case, your hero killed a kid. The gun nut interfered with with this kid's right to walk and breathe and then he stole his life.
I'm glad you've have finally seen the light and see things the way the rest of us living, breathing people do.
Miracles will never cease.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 03:22 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
re David
Your arguments as usual are completely wrong-headed.
It pleases me that a deviant (i.e., liberal) believes that of me.
Otherwise, I 'd be in distress.




MontereyJack wrote:
If someone takes your life, your alleged "right" of self-defense
I see that u cast doubt on the right to counter-attack evil. R u a satanist?? ( just wondering )





MontereyJack wrote:
(never, I repeat, mentioned in the Consitution--your cites said NOTHING)
The 2nd, 9th, and 14th Amendments all protect n defend the right of self defense.






MontereyJack wrote:
means absolutely nothing if SOMEONE--we are not talking lightning strikes or drowning
here neither of which would be in any way averted by shooting them--if someone deprives you of your life.
U mean like my other property, if it has been robbed from me.





MontereyJack wrote:
This awful law,
I wish that it were explicitly enshrined in the US Constitution;
its a superb law--very anti-criminal.




MontereyJack wrote:
the way it has played out in practice, completely absolves people who make terrible,
mistaken decisions with no basis in reality at all
U have fallen into error:
the law says: "reasonably".





MontereyJack wrote:
for their mistakes that kill someone totally innocent, or even partially innocent.
It escalates something that before it might have only involved
screaming at each other, or an ugly look, all the way up to death.
The IMPORTANT thing
is that after a victim successfully kills a bad guy in self defense,
he will remain immune from any perverted liberal D.A. who wishes
to avenge the predator, in order to appeal to his demografic at election time.
The victim will also remain immune from civil litigation from the criminal predator's survivors.






MontereyJack wrote:
Look at someone wrong and they can shoot you, and get away with it,
even in the absence of any overt action. BAD law.
That is nonsense.




MontereyJack wrote:
Prosecutors hate it because it lets the bad guys walk.
I care not about the emotions
of public employees (tho I used to be one for several years).





MontereyJack wrote:
They're in effect exempt from any punishment even tho they were equally to blame, or even more, but just happened to be a better shot. There's no chance of putting the other half of the gangers shooting at each other in jail, or the drug dealers, or that asshole who yelled at you because he thought you cut him off. They don't even go to jail, which is where they SHOULD be, bcause they claim self-defense and walk. STUPID law.
Your hysterical tantrum is devoid of effect.
I 'll be magnanimous, inasmuch as the good guys r winning, anyway.





MontereyJack wrote:
And your "sense" of what happened is pure fantasy and unsupported hypothesis.
Will Rogers & I just know what we read in the newspapers (and TV).






MontereyJack wrote:
He "could have pulled on the gun", he "attacked Zimmerman from behind". Sheer fantasy.
I don 't think so.
U have permission to believe otherwise.




MontereyJack wrote:
His girlfriend says he was on the phone to her and she heard him ask Zimmerman
"Why are you following me". Do you usually talk to the back of someone's head?
It coud happen.




MontereyJack wrote:
You're making up your "facts" as you go along.
Baloney !




MontereyJack wrote:
Did you look at the videos of Zimmerman's arrival at the Sanford police department that night?
Yes.





MontereyJack wrote:
No blood can be seen and mashed noses bleed all over the place, no apparent damage to his nose at allno disarranged clothing, all his clothes look neat and clean, no wound visible on the back of his head, totally normall walk uncharacteristic of someone who allegedly just got beaten and had his head bashed on the sidewalk.
As an expert on that,
will u tell us HOW thay walk?????




MontereyJack wrote:
Your version of events, which you've clung to tenaciously to try to exonerate George Zimmerman
from what it clearly is, at the very least manslaughter, is despicable.
I don 't think much of u, either.




MontereyJack wrote:
Fox news made much of a mystery witness who supposedly said it was Zimmerman on the ground,
according to a police leak. That witness appears to be a minor,
A black one, which u forgot to mention.
I saw him interviewed by a TV reporter ALONE,
with no police around. He said the guy in the red shirt
was on the ground.




MontereyJack wrote:
whose mother said the Sanford police,
who didn't even talk to him until a week after the shooting,
Is that significant ?



MontereyJack wrote:
tried to pressure him to change his account.
O, really??? Tell the Attorney General; that 's a crime.




MontereyJack wrote:
He says he couldn't tell who it was on the ground because it was too dark.
No. He said it was the guy in the red shirt. ( Mr. Z )
( and he accuses ME of making up facts !!! )

U know, Jack, I don 't care much,
but regarding your hysteria,
u might take a tip from Rosie O'Donnell,
who said: "when I scream, no one can hear me."





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 03:40 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Exactly.
And in this case, your hero killed a kid.
Maybe; maybe not.
I wonder whether he tried to rob Z of his gun and pulled it.
That has had the effect of discharging it, if the owner's finger is on the trigger.



Ceili wrote:
The gun nut
How do u know that he is a "gun nut"?? Is everyone who is armed a "gun nut"??



Ceili wrote:
interfered with with this kid's right to walk
There is nothing rong in watching for burglars
or in following anyone. There is nothing rong
with asking anyone what he is doing; freedom of speech, perfectly honorable.



Ceili wrote:
and breathe and then he stole his life.
Martin might have STARTED a fight with him.
I don 't think that its very likely that Mr. Z 'd decide
that this was an opportune moment to commit murder,
with the police actively ON THEIR WAY, expected to arrive in a few seconds.
What was he to gain from murder almost in front of the police????

Ceili, woud U commit a purposeless, futile murder on a complete stranger,
if u knew that police 'd arrive in a few seconds and find u with a bloody corpse in front of u ??

Does that impress u as a clever idea ????????



Ceili wrote:
I'm glad you've have finally seen the light and see things the way the rest of us living, breathing people do.
Miracles will never cease.
That is another topic.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:34 am
As I say, David, sheer fantasy. Your scenarios are full of "might haves" and "could happens". They both "could have been abducted by aliens and false memories implanted". Probably didn't happen that way though. A kid is dead and you''ve done nothing but defend the shooting and INVENT scenarios where it was his fault. Disgusting.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:44 am
@MontereyJack,
Agreed. OmsickDavid's response has been predictably sickening. IMO, the next most sickening thing has been everyone else's continuing to reply to him on this as on other threads, allowing him to effectively neutralize and drag down any useful discussion.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:47 am
Quote:
Richard Kurtz, the funeral director who prepared Martin's body, was asked if there were any signs on his hands that he had punched someone.

"The only thing that I was able to see was the gunshot wound," Kurtz told The Last Word. "I could not see evidence like he had been punching somebody as the news media say he was punching ... It just did not add up to me."
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:54 am
It looks to me as if "law enforcement" in this case is going to ultimately have their reluctant hand forced by the sheer weight of evidence piling up and (thankfully) being fed to us by the media, enen though they have resisted doing what has been the obviously just thing from the beginning - arresting and indicting Zimmerman.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 08:01 am
@Lash,
Quote:

Anyway, you seem to have some emotion invested in trying to say this guy is white. Why is that?

Facts are facts. You are the one that is trying to deny his being white by putting him in a category that is NOT race.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 10:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
U have the right... that no one interfere with u.

Didn't you just object to me saying the same thing on another thread?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/23/2020 at 10:21:13