Originally Posted By ecdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A John Oliver is, of course, spot on.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Why do you insist on dragging this false equivalency into it.<< Because he's a badge licker.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I'm tired of folks like RT equating the peaceful protesters who live in Ferguson with the looters who are mostly from out of the area, some of whom have been identified as gang members from St Louis. By and large for the most part, the looters are *not* local residents from Ferguson. For those of you claiming that until the looters go away and stop being violent, that nothing will change... did it ever occur to you that those agitators are being told to show up and cause trouble by those who don't want things to change? That's precisely what happened in Oakland a few years back during the OWC protests. Several of the most violent agitators were, in fact, discovered to be working covertly to make the OWC look bad so public opinion would turn against them. Given the actions on the part of the Ferguson PD towards peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and citizens in their own backyards watching these events unfurl... I have no doubt that this kind of tactic is not beneath them in order to sway public opinion in their favor as they continue to hide their cop instead of turning him over to face a murder investigation.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I haven't seen RT equate the looters with the protesters. He's straight-up said that they are likely different groups. But he did say that when the looters or those being violent use the cover of the protesters, police are justified in setting boundaries for the protests.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ EXACTLY. They persist in claiming I've said something I never have. And their repeating the claim incessantly isn't going to make it true. I will try to put it in a non-police context so they can consider it without their usual knee-jerk reaction to authority. There have been major rock concerts where the unruly actions of a FEW have led the artists to feel they had to halt the concert. That allowing the concert to continue would put both themselves and the audience in danger. Was this unfair to the great majority of those in the audience who were causing no trouble and had paid good money to see the artists perform? NO, it probably wasn't. Did the artists do the right thing? YES, they did. Is it the fault of the troublemakers or the artists that the event was terminated early. THE TROUBLEMAKERS... there is no question. You are RIGHT to feel that the protesters are being denied something because of actions totally outside their control. But you are BLAMING the WRONG DAMNED GROUP. Get over hour hatred of police and open your damned eyes.
Originally Posted By hopemax Although there is no Constitutional right to attend a concert, even if you paid a lot of money for it. I would say this is exactly the sort of circumstance why the Founders thought it so darn important to spell out the right to peaceably assemble and freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights in the first place. It's not for circumstances like puppy parades, it's for when the proverbial crap hits the fan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "But you are BLAMING the WRONG DAMNED GROUP. " Just as you didn't equate the protesters with the looters, no one here is excusing the looters. However, it's perfectly valid to say that given the relatively low level of bad actors and actions, the police response was excessive. There were a minority of bad actors doing bad things, and a police response was justified. The actual response was excessive. Both these things can be true.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Because he's a badge licker." Except for a couple of posts, I've mainly stayed out of this thread. My father in law, whom we recently buried, was a Sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department. He was also with the New York City Police Department before LAPD and served in the Korean War. He had to stop being a police officer after he saved five occupants of a wrecked vehicle by tearing out the windshield with his bare hands. He tore up both shoulders in the process and was never the same. We are still hearing from people don't know how he helped their lives. The LAPD Police Chief himself came alone to my mother in law's house to deliver his condolences and gave her some unexpected good news about his life insurance and her survivor's benefits. So you'll have to pardon me when I read crap like "he's a badge licker" and get incredibly angry. There's a whole lot more I could say, but I'm not in a hurry to get banned.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I can certainly understand why you, as the son of an officer, would be offended by the term "badge licker". But personally, it didn't bother me a bit. It is so silly and juvenile that it says far more about them than it says about me. Or course their maturity level has been displayed frequently by the opinions they've expressed here, so that is nothing new. Move along folks... nothing to see here...
Originally Posted By Donny I would like to see the leaders of the Black community come out and call the looters and instigators criminals and thugs
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < It is so silly and juvenile that it says far more about them than it says about me. > About "them?" Or about the one person who actually used the term?
Originally Posted By Donny As I watch a few of the speeches black leaders are giving I wonder why they don't speak about how a vote can be more powerful then a bullet could ever be.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Many of them have in the past - hell, beating back voter suppression is actually a pretty big topic lately - but right now they're focusing on the justice (or lack thereof) in this particular incident, which is understandable. It amazes me the number of things people can come up with to criticize the black community for, rather than deal with the issues at hand. And if we'd had a spate of "remember the importance of voting" messages lately, they'd have been criticized for "politicizing a tragedy" or whatever the talking points were.
Originally Posted By utahjosh So Eric Holder is heading in for an investigation. Justice will be done. Okay, so now what are the protesters trying to accomplish?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Okay, so now what are the protesters trying to accomplish?<< Gee, I can't figure out why African Americans would be suspicious that the government wouldn't actually do justice for them. Why is this on the protesters? I thought they had the right to assembly? I thought they had the right to free speech? But instead, people are using the bad behavior of a tiny minority to shut down the rights of thousands of people. Do the cops have any responsibility in this? Protesters are angry. They have every right to be angry, and neither you nor anyone else is entitled to have them behave the way you think they should.
Originally Posted By ecdc I get it. When fat white guys in a tri-cornered hat and wig march, it's because they're patriots who just care about their country. When black people do it, we wonder what their deal is and what their problem is. Makes perfect sense.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I wonder why they don't speak about how a vote can be more powerful then a bullet could ever be<< Hey, funny you should mention that. A group started a voter registration drive by setting up a tent near where Michael Brown was killed. Guess who's not happy about it? Shocker! Republicans. In fact, they called it "disgusting." <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/missouri-gop-leader-calls-ferguson-voter-registration-drive-disgusting">http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...sgusting</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When fat white guys in a tri-cornered hat and wig march, it's because they're patriots who just care about their country. When black people do it, we wonder what their deal is and what their problem is.<< You just won the Internet today. ecdc. On a similar note, I've long felt that the fastest way things like "open carry" would come to a screeching halt is if black people started doing it. Many of those who are all for open carry would twist themselves into knots trying to explain why it's just liberty in action for them (white guys) to walk around with a gun on their hip, while it's a menace to society for young black men to do the same thing.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Many of those who are all for open carry would twist themselves into knots trying to explain why it's just liberty in action for them (white guys) to walk around with a gun on their hip, while it's a menace to society for young black men to do the same thing.<< Bingo. BTW, why don't we just replace a few words in some of the comments on this board today: "Why are the protesters still marching in Selma? What do they want? President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act last year, so what do they want? Why is Martin King still agitating and stirring up trouble? When is he going to speak out against the defiance to the cops and tell people to just go home and vote?"
