• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

Biggus Deacus said:
How often is this specific issue raised in campaigns electing lawmakers and other officials? I could be wrong, but I would guess that there's a general "keep the streets safe" pitch given by hopefuls and incumbents and nothing more. As such, it's a misguided attack to say that Tea Partiers and Libertarians "don't seem to mind" when officers kill civilians "without due process." Your assertion assumes that this issue is paramount, while in reality it's is something all voters never really hear about or consider when casting a ballot.

Now, if you're talking about Tea Party/Libertarian's starting blogs, web sites, fundraising for foundations, outreach, etc., your assertion likely true, but I'd guess Liberals/Progressives have done nothing of note in that area for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

The issue would be paramount if they minded. You did a better job explaining my point than I did. Thanks.
 
PhDeac said:
In general, you'd think libertarians and tea party types would be against the government killing people without due process but they don't seem to mind.
Click to expand...

How often is this specific issue raised in campaigns electing lawmakers and other officials? I could be wrong, but I would guess that there's a general "keep the streets safe" pitch given by hopefuls and incumbents and nothing more. As such, it's a misguided attack to say that Tea Partiers and Libertarians "don't seem to mind" when officers kill civilians "without due process." Your assertion assumes that this issue is paramount, while in reality it's is something all voters never really hear about or consider when casting a ballot.

Now, if you're talking about Tea Party/Libertarian's starting blogs, web sites, fundraising for foundations, outreach, etc., your assertion is likely true, but I'd guess Liberals/Progressives have done nothing of note in that area for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
In general, you'd think libertarians and tea party types would be against the government killing people without due process but they don't seem to mind.
Click to expand...

How often is this specific issue raised in campaigns electing lawmakers and other officials? I could be wrong, but I would guess that there's a general "keep the streets safe" pitch given by hopefuls and incumbents and nothing more. As such, it's a misguided attack to say that Tea Partiers and Libertarians "don't seem to mind" when officers kill civilians "without due process." Your assertion assumes that this issue is paramount, while in reality it's is something all voters never really hear about or consider when casting a ballot.

Now, if you're talking about Tea Party/Libertarian's starting blogs, web sites, fundraising for foundations, outreach, etc., your assertion is likely true, but I'd guess Liberals/Progressives have done nothing of note in that area for obvious reasons.

You should pick up the banner and champion this issue publicly. If you don't, you "don't seem to mind" either.

(sorry for the double post)
 
Last edited:
Classic libertarian/tea party move. Instead of responding to legit criticisms, keep repeating the same talking points.

;)
 
I do champion these issues in what I do in my everyday life. That shows I care.

If politicians, pundits, etc who publicly bring up other issues, but don't bring up these issues, it's a pretty clear sign they don't care.

A regular person shouldn't have to become a political figure to show they care about an issue.
 
Wow.

CNN really pressing the piss poor Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake for allowing the cops to stand in the middle of the street all day (and not call in the National Guard after Saturday's ruckus). And pressing the fatty governor for not pressing the mayor to do something.

Good for them.

Oh, and I do not think anyone actually supports these riots, and if you do...not sure what to say.
 
Complacent Deac said:
Wow.

CNN really pressing the piss poor Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake for allowing the cops to stand in the middle of the street all day (and not call in the National Guard after Saturday's ruckus). And pressing the fatty governor for not pressing the mayor to do something.

Good for them.

Oh, and I do not think anyone actually supports these riots, and if you do...not sure what to say.
Click to expand...

Seriously though, is there even a right answer for how to respond to this behavior, at least in the immediate sense? The more the police step up their presence, the more the rioters step up their rioting. I am all for the looters, arsonists, and those committing assault being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But beyond a certain point, how much do you accomplish in terms of protection of people and property by having law enforcement become more aggressive in this scenario?
 
Ta-Nehisi Coates weighs in. Make sure to read the whole thing, but I'll put these quotes in:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...iolence-as-compliance/391640/?utm_source=SFFB

The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began, intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:

[examples of victims of police violence who won judgements or settlements]

The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they remained well beyond any semblance of justice.
Click to expand...



Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?
Click to expand...

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.
Click to expand...
 
wfumike02 said:
Seriously though, is there even a right answer for how to respond to this behavior, at least in the immediate sense? The more the police step up their presence, the more the rioters step up their rioting. I am all for the looters, arsonists, and those committing assault being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But beyond a certain point, how much do you accomplish in terms of protection of people and property by having law enforcement become more aggressive in this scenario?
Click to expand...

Violence begets violence.

What is the proper community response to actually get results? That's the real question. What can people who feel oppressed by their local government due to draw national attention to their plight?
 
I've been watching FOX for the past hour and conservatives are OBSESSED with mayors.
 
bym051d said:
Isn't civil unrest usually not covered?
Click to expand...

It's harder to excuse the senselessness and pointlessness of the violence if you insist on injecting reason into the discussion. Please be respectful of other poster's feelings.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It's harder to excuse the senselessness and pointlessness of the violence if you insist on injecting reason into the discussion. Please be respectful of other poster's feelings.
Click to expand...

jhmd, leading by example...;)
 
Do life insurance policies pay out when people are killed by police?
 
PhDeac said:
In general, you'd think libertarians and tea party types would be against the government killing people without due process but they don't seem to mind.
Click to expand...

Libertarians are most definitely against the government killing it's citizens without due process. They are also, however, against citizens destroying other honest, peaceful citizens' livelihoods without due process and therefore would be unlikely to participate in poverty pimping or race baiting riots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top