Juror#8

Whence does this "satire" idea come from? I'm identifying with my brother Sig who has valid points that I think will "make America great again" like it was in the 40s and 50s. I. Change up ... My point is well served because the **** is hitting on all 8 cylinders and it just makes sense when you think about it. It's even less of a point than a rebuke towards the idea that because some bruhs have been justifiably hurt/shot by police - and that that harm has been met with outcry, that every instance of police shooting is justifiable and that the outcry, though similar in voice, culture, and scope, can't be legitimate. That sometimes the relative docility (vis a vis the ultimate harm perpetrated) of the 90% of the video that you can see tells the tale fairly well and that you don't have to contrive a 10% scenario where the victim was looking to effectuate a harm when the video context, as seen, doesn't affirmatively show that. II. I'm back ... And nobody on this board does anything the same way I do it. For better or for worse, I carve my own place out on this board, outside of the echo chamber and essentially label-less. There are people who are more "intellectual" and analytical than me (Gg, Take you to Tasker, Magox), there are people who are more observant and thoughtful and objective than me (Ryan L, Taro, Robs House, Levi), and there are people more interesting and entertaining than me (La and Oc and Chef); but I don't do **** than anyone else does ... by design. You can attribute that to the pigment. I'm label-less. Well, maybe except for "insufferable jerk." Which I'll take happily, nutsucker.

I'm saying that blacks and minorities are leeching off society. Those apes disgust me. You're argument is cogent and objective and entirely dispassionate. I'm not sure that it can be stated better or be more American and right. You're just saying that a man is a leech because he is a convicted felon (with a gun in his pocket), who has ostensibly paid his debt to society, and, at least from witnesses that have come forth to date, was minding his own business and had a good raporte with his community. That's not even marginally presumptuous. In fact, I agree with you except if they're Martha Stewart, Tim Allen, Mick Jagger, Tom Sizemore et cetera ... They're not leeches, because outside of they're obvious racial superiority, they're also on tv. And to me that mitigates their (in some cases multiple) felonies and leechiness. And if you read my posts, I've provided ample rebuttal - even to the liberties that you've taken with facts. I'm not going to go back and itemize that rebuttal for you. Because they're most assuredly there. But if you can't see it, like really really can't see it, maybe it's because we truly agree on everything. Which would make me smile. Because at he end of the day, being aligned with your coherence and imperturbability and even-handedness, is a place that I want to be.

Very true. It's like this weird logical block around the idea that a traditionally respected figure could do wrong. I think that this dissonance is exacerbated when the traditionally respected figure is doing wrong to someone that one can't relate with phenotypically or, at least, culturally.

This is true. But it's interesting to see how candid people can be and whence their deepest and truest feelings about a circumstance comes.

Another salient point that I missed because your overall post is so compelling. You're making my point so demonstrably though you may not realize it. Thank you brother. Anyway, blacks and minorities are doing everything they can to steal and suck every piece of vitality from this great country but then they had the audacity to complain when they catch some heat to the chest when they are inarguably in the wrong and aggressively attacking law enforcement. !@#$ing apes ...

Tell em Sig!! I wouldn't even worry about these libs. You're wasting your time trying to reason with them. They're always going to blame the officers and it's never the black victim's fault. The black always gets a free pass. Those officers are good Americans and the mere suggestion that could have used excessive force or act in any way extrajudicially when faced with an unfamiliar or uncomfortable situation is an affront to any traditional right-minded sense of decency and doesn't dignify a serious response from you. I would have leaned on red herrings and appeals to patriotism too because officers don't make mistakes and their infallibility is the reason that they're given the solemn responsibility to protect and serve in the first place. It's a damned shame that anyone could watch that video and see anything at all other than two guys who love baseball and equity and who are fairly and disapassionately and temperately doing their jobs. Obviously sterling did everything that he could to be shot and his actions, as far as we can tell on the video, inarguably, demonstrates that he was the aggressor who may have been going for the officer's sidearm. If the black didn't want to be shot, the black shouldn't have been moving especially after being tased and body slammed with someone kneeing, pressing, and pushing in just about every area of his massive frame. Someone messaged me once and said I don't agree with much of what you say but you say what you say better than anyone says anything that I agree with. I write for him. I polemicize for him. And that's what you're reading friend. I'm just fed up with these blacks thinking that they can get away with attacking police officers just because they're black and have blm at their back. Racism never existed and slavery/segregation was a farce and overstated ... especially in the South. People familiy's don't hold on to separatist and racist feelings especially just 1-2 generation removed from legal segregation and Jim Crow. To be sure, show me one officer who ever admitted to using excessive force? Exactly. In the last 300 years, if that really existed, someone would have admitted to it if that was a real thing instead of a creation of the deranged liberal mind, right? Right?

Thankfully, in this country, questioning the reason for an arrest, being physically and emotionally agitated after being tased and then tackled to the ground, while there is a suspicion that the suspect has a gun or knife but with none having been produced *during* the confrontation, has classically been a justifiable reason to shoot a suspect in the chest over whom you have control and with backup present. You can watch that exact same situation on the show "Cops" all the time and it seems to end the same way. All shot. White folks, gun, knives, meth, missing teeth (instead of gold teeth), struggle, trailer park, screaming chick, wife named Trisha, mullet, lt1 f body Camaro with "intimidator" window decal and mis-matched tires, hostess cinnamon, powder, and plain cake donuts, jorts, whitesnake 1987 Texas jam concert faded t-shirt, calf-height socks, pbr vintage snap back hat, emaciated, dale/Denny/Junior, skin always jaundiced, pre-paid flip phone and unending supply of prescription pain medication in various Centrum chewable containers. All shot. You can watch the show "cops" and see for yourself. Seriously, just watch the show "Cops." Search YouTube. Where is bman? I'm sure he can come through with his unique brand of plagiarism and show everyone some peer reviewed articles or objective video so that we can leave these poor 'completely-in-the-right' officers alone. Why does no one cry for the white man on "cops" who are constantly being shot point blank in the chest while doing the exact same thing? It's reverse racism. #whitelivesmatter #whitesnakeandmotleycrue #mybrotherlegitimatelyisamemberofmensaandthatprobablymakeshimsmarterthanyourdaughterandcatcombined #70yearoldswillprobablysellyouvicodinpillsfordennysmoneyorif yougivethemrandom15%couponstoplaces #kurtvonnegutislaughingatyou Bat signal for bman ... Bed time. Court tomorrow. Wish me luck.

Apparently the victim, Alton Sterling, was a convicted felon and should not have had a gun. That said, the store owner, who took one of the videos and was standing with an unencumbered view of the incident, said that the gun remained in Mr. Sterling's pocket and the officers took it out after he was shot. I believe that that shows in the video. The store owner said that he wasn't sure why the cops were there and that Sterling was a nice guy who never had a problem in the five or six years that he had been selling cds outside his establishment. I guess that the Baton Rouge, La officers had an apprehension of immediate danger and/or threat to their livelihood or the livelihood of others when Mr. Sterling was on the ground (having just been tased) pinned by two police officers on either end of his body, one with gun drawn and one with a taser or gun.

I don't vote democratic. I haven't since 2000 (gore) and 2010 in a statewide election. But I would guess it has something to do with racial separatists in statewide elections as republicans, and Republicans legislators fighting the removal of the confederate flag from government state houses - the same confederate flag that white nationalists use as part of their uniform to protest black and brown folks living in "their" country. And probably to some degree members of the kkk saying "vote republican and support trump; he is our best hope ..." (paraphrasing). I'm not sure. Call it in a shot in the dark. But something about those things seems antithetical to the self interest of many black and brown folks. And may tend to make them steer clear of that party even though the republican platform, in my estimation, is more naturally aligned with, specifically, black cultural interests.

In order to remain viable, Republicans need to do nothing more than repudiate racist and bigoted comments by people who are associating themselves with the party. They can also realize that the party doesn't have to be traditionalist or monolithic to survive. This country will be minority-majority by 2045. Fact bitches. Minorities are voting democratic at like an 80% clip. The crotchety, cantankerous, out-of-touch anglos (that comprise the echo chamber of this board) are becoming a fading political voice. To be sure, these same folks keep !@#$ing up election prognostications, and guessing wrong on political trends, and don't realize that their gut feeling around 'the pulse of the nation' is actually gas and indigestion. Republicans can build a thriving political party with a 25% minority contingent that actually agrees with 75% of their views but instead they want to welcome white nationalists into the mainstream party dialog and label Republicans as "liberal" who think that the aca, or social services for the indigent are good programs. Out of touch crotchety mo!@#$ers are going to tank the Republican Party that I call home. I'll just go back to reading the articles that bman plagiarizes, in lieu of actual individual thoughts on topics of political moment, and remind myself that these are the folks who want to be the grassroots voice of the party.

My 40 acres and a mule n***a.

Just noticed George Will in the crowd with sunglasses and "Hillary 2016" shirt.

Bwahaha!!!! Touché. Not even going to lie, I'm three in on Blanton's and counting. But you could have at least quoted the edited post!!!

Conspiracy, boogey man, conspiracy!! Bwahahahaha!!!!! Dont be mad. Get drunk, find a thot and catch a lay. But more on that later ... If the "conspiracy" involves a republican, it's a leftist media creation. No more on that later. "Paper chasin tell that paper 'look I'm right behind ya,' bittcch real g's move in silence like 'lasagna'." Marinate on that later. And somebody in here said that lack of intent almost always excuses criminal culpability. That would be interesting ... well except for strict liability offenses. Or else what do you make of all the 21 year old thots that are in prison for riding some 17 year old d when the 17 year showed a fake id that showed his age as 21. Or all those jackasses who are in jail for dui offenses or vehicular manslaughter ... That's a lot to be outside the "almost always" category. Mmmmm 21 year old thots ... Later bitches.

Bruh I'm not sure that you read my post. You should read it again and reply to my actual post. I never said that anything was an "abomination." I never gave a pass to the "black pride" movement. In fact I called them out for their inanity. The only thing that I did was say that one group advocates a physical separation and in some instances, and among some groups, have promoted a concept of "war." That was the distinction that I drew. At the end of the day, I support any group's right to spew their whatever in a public, but peaceful, way. Maybe you missed that sentiment too from my post. So, you may want to consider re-reading my ****. I think that you're responding to yourself and you're expressing your frustration at the first target that you can find that doesn't completely align themselves with your vision of the world. I don't feel comfortable being the surrogate and caretaker for the things that you don't agree with ideologically on this planet. You should reply to what I actually said instead of creating positions on my behalf and then responding to them as if they're attributable to me. Thanks in advance. With respect to your first point, if there are, I haven't see that - especially advocating violence to accomplish those means. Not doubting you, I just don't see the two as parallel. Both ideologically misplaced in many ways. Different means and ends though. That is where I see the distinction.

I fully support their right to assemble and march. I think it's great actually. ****, at least they care. They were marching and assembling peacefully. Maybe that makes me "bad" that I support their right to march and speak their ideology to others. In fact I think that they should assemble again in multiple places across the nation and have the full support of law enforcement present to protect them from bubble heads and criminals who want to encroach upon their first amendment privileges. I also like Obama and think that he is a really nice guy who loves this country. I know someone in the military, a republican, who has met him in his professional capacity on a few occasions and he shares my complimentary opinion about the president as a man and a citizen despite their ideological differences. I know others who have worked around the Whitehouse in various capacities and they have nothing but really nice and complimentary things to say about him. He is a good man and a good American. I'll even go as far as to say that if you met him, and could talk with him, you would actually like him because the odd veneer of partisan cable news and talking heads and boogeymanism that has come to define our politics wouldn't be the sole conduit through which you're getting to know your president.

Race is such a sensitive subject here. Not especially for me, but it is for some - and maybe rightly so. I've been watching some of the cnn coverage of this today. Interesting scenario. A couple thoughts, in no particular order (hehe): 1. Please let's not conflate the ideology of black pride, etc. with the "white pride" movement as it's articulated by some white nationalist groups today. Many of the white nationalist groups (I'll stop just short of saying "all"), advocate full physical separation of the races in segmented, geographically distinct parts of the country. Other more militant groups under the banner of "white pride" advocate for a full on "race war" to determine racial supremacy. As !@#$ed up as the black pride, black panther, blm movements have been in many instances and as misguided ideologically as they tend to be, I don't see a lot of racial separation talk articulated as part of their ideological platform. It's typically around a sense or longing for equality that they feel is unattainable and institutionally kept from them. Each has an agenda though - there is no denying that. But arguably, when you look at the apotheoses of both, they are different to a degree that I think can only really be understood exponentionally. And that's just real my nigs. 2. Keep it in perspective though, I'm all about any group's right to assemble peaceably and exercise their first amendment right of free speech in order to accomplish that publicly. That is just about about as essential as it gets to the type of robust political dialog that the founders specified as essential to a free and vibrant republic. If you don't like what Joe is talking about, argue your contrasting views in a similar forum and let trustees and democracy dictate what's "right" and what's not, rather than sticks and fists. I may not like what you say but I'll advocate completely for your right to say it. **** you can call my black ass a "niggggger" to my face and I'm good with it as long as you're courteous and say the **** politely. It appears that this traditionalist party group was assembling to spread their message in a peaceable fashion and in the designated public forum as according to their permit. Unfortunately, some folks who held views contrary to that group decided that they wanted to be the legislators of what types of views it is that people should hold. They should have stayed away from the traditionalist party's march if they didn't like the message articulated during that march. Instead the protestors of the march caused a conflict which resulted in overt criminal behavior. It saddens me that people can't express their thoughts - wayward, offensive, separatist or otherwise - without others feeling the need to suppress those thoughts if they don't agree.

More guns, not less guns. This country needs more guns in the hands of law abiding, responsible, citizens. Guns should be responsibly kept and maintained in schools by certified administrators, in hospitals, and more freely able to be carried concealed in more public commercial places. Also the federal government needs to standardize interstate travel requirements with respect to handguns so one doesn't have to stop at every state border to figure out how their gun is permissibly able to be transported within the cabin of their car. Also, I firmly believe that "may issue" states should carry the burden to provide articulable reasons why they are not issuing a ccp. And I think that individuals who have had a ccp for 10 years with no issue and no change to their carry status (e.g., no violent issues or offenses, arrests, etc), should not be required to continue to apply for recertification of their permit. And there should be more "unrestricted" states so long as an initial finding of competency to carry is established. More guns. More guns. More guns.

1. You missed much of my point in the point about race. For one, I said that there have been periodic racial insensitivity by national republican figures that, rightly or wrongly, have been made attributable to the party at large by association. Also, I mentioned that I wasn't saying that the attribution was fair or right. But considering that I've typically voted "republican," you can see how much I concern myself with those sensitivity issues. 2. We are arguing over opinion as if it's provable fact. You don't think the aca was a good idea, and I think that it was. You hate the post-aca universe, and some feel that it's the best thing since sliced bread. The last approval rating that I saw it at was ~43% ... incidentally 30% higher than than the gop Gongress' approval rating. Does that make either a bad/good idea or institution? And to close this section, just because it's your opinion (or mine) doesn't make it dispositive. 3. I've done a lot of reading about Trump. His time in Atlantic City was enlightening from the standpoint of a political spectator. Stories around him and his relationship with his mentor, Roy cohn, is similarly enlightening. I'm not saying that you did. You may have referred to me as a "lefty" or lumped me into that category. But I may be wrong. Some dolt indirectly called me a liberal. That couldn't be further from the truth. To be fair, there are things that I'm left-of-center on (healthcare reform, public welfare programs, environment), but I'm more conservative more often than not (2nd amendment, foreign policy, immigration, traditional social mores, etc.). I don't often do this but there literally is nothing that you said that I can disagree with or even have said better. Well, hold on, I think that we may have a peppercorn of disagreement around the timing of healthcare reform. I feel that at needed to be done now and the lip service around it for the better part of the last five decades was both dry and disingenuous. There are a lot of smart people on this planet who, at any point during the last five decades, could have envisaged, and later implemented, a functional healthcare management system that didn't pass the cost of non-payment along to others. But it hasn't happened. So I was ok with a start - as unsophisticated, and even draconian, as the start was.

What's up bro. I hope that you're well. I understand about being busy. I hope that you get an opportunity to drop some knowledge here when you have an opportunity. I always enjoy reading your posts - even where/when I don't agree. Like eugenics? It does, at least, appear that if you discuss race in a way that's critical, you're labeled a "liberal."

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm supposed talk about what you want to talk about so that I can demonstrate my ideological bona fides. Umm, that's ok. I don't give a **** what you think I am. What I do feel confidently about is that the idea behind the aca, effectively everyone having healthcare in the most wealthy, and powerful, and advanced country in the universe is, conceptually, a very good idea. To say otherwise seems both callous and inhumane. It also was good that someone recognized that the extant situation, people using the emergency room as their primary care physician, was both irresponsible and likely unsustainable for a variety of socio-demographic reasons. One can say "oh well we should have done this or tried that instead," but in 45 years of talking about reformation of the healthcare system, nothing was ever done. Where the aca failed was in its execution. And in some cases the deleterious [read: punitive] impact on the middle-class is where it seems to be continuing to fall flat on its face. In the post that follows (#742), and the subsequent conversation that we had, I was wrong and I believe that you were right: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179671-gop-debates/page-38?hl=trump&do=findComment&comment=3860672

I'm going to point-by point your post. It to be condescending but to ensure that I'm addressing your points in total. 1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate. There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments. I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association. But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential. 2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.). But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway. So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist. 3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it. They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened. 4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game. I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere. To be fair, I also had some great conversations with some thoughtful and insightful trump supporters at the rally. I agree 100%. Bush was saddled with the same personal hatred and unfairness. People were disgusting and petty towards him - unfairly. He was a good man who did his best for the country during a difficult time. I feel the same way about Obama too. He is a good man who is doing his best for the country. The personalized attacks are silly and beneath people in a civilized nation - especially those who have the ability to principally and intelligently disagree without demonizing someone in the process.

That's very deep; thank you.

Yes, I was responding to your latest. And I edited my last post. I'll wait for your response.

I've been nothing but cordial towards you and, despite that, you continue with the ad hominems and your posts are unfocused and rambling at that. We will agree to disagree but I don't see a lot of value in our continued conversation.