Deranged Rhino Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 You are the fool that does not answer questions. I asked you questions before in the other thread that you NEVER bothered to answer, yet you ridiculed what I said. That is what people do who are egotistical low life's. You don't like what someone says, but won't answer questions. What do you think the pastor's meant by saying that Forensics and autopsies are interpreted, and because they are, they cannot be trusted? Do you think they believe forensics and autopsies are biased in some way against black people? You like to lump everyone together and assign them all the same motivation. Life doesn't work that way, even if you'd like it to. People are individuals, with individual motivations. Until you grasp that rather simplistic fact of life, your opinion on such matters are purely comical and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Which explains why you don't even understand that I am, in fact, answering your questions with ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 You like to lump everyone together and assign them all the same motivation. Life doesn't work that way, even if you'd like it to. People are individuals, with individual motivations. Until you grasp that rather simplistic fact of life, your opinion on such matters are purely comical and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Which explains why you don't even understand that I am, in fact, answering your questions with ridicule. Yes, people as individuals. But, there are three types here that are active in the Ferguson debate that are anti-establishment that are very important and fueling this. The third group is the profiteering group - Sharpton is not the only one here; bullet proof vest salesmen, machine gun store operators and hysterical folks who use this to their advantage are in this group. The first two are the important ones. They are the group of people who groupthink and hive mind any of the easy subplots to characterize themselves as victims. They are the ones, for whatever reason, who fall in line with this storyline. Carry a sign demanding change for an outcome that would not affect them or claim intolerance when not relevant. The second group is the ones who believe it is their right and/or responsibility to create a special term that is brandished. "Awareness." These people drive in from out of town and go in front of others and tell them that we must stop this, start this, change that or think or don't think, etc... These last two are the ones that get lumped together by the common man. And rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 What do you think the pastor's meant by saying that Forensics and autopsies are interpreted, and because they are, they cannot be trusted? Do you think they believe forensics and autopsies are biased in some way against black people? Could a medical examiner's "interpretation" be biased? Certainly, though not very likely given the sheer number of people who will get a crack at it. Is the pastor's opinion biased against white people in favor of black people? Absolutely. I'll believe any of these race mongers are genuine the minute they demand justice for children like Antonio Smith, Knijah Bibband, and McKenzie Elliot. Until that day, they can take their ridiculous pandering and shove it up their collective asses. I empathize with the lower income people who have to deal with both the scumbags in their neighborhoods and the police who are tired of dealing with the whole situation. It's a microcosm of the whole liberal ideal. Welcome to getting what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Yes, people as individuals. But, there are three types here that are active in the Ferguson debate that are anti-establishment that are very important and fueling this. The third group is the profiteering group - Sharpton is not the only one here; bullet proof vest salesmen, machine gun store operators and hysterical folks who use this to their advantage are in this group. The first two are the important ones. They are the group of people who groupthink and hive mind any of the easy subplots to characterize themselves as victims. They are the ones, for whatever reason, who fall in line with this storyline. Carry a sign demanding change for an outcome that would not affect them or claim intolerance when not relevant. The second group is the ones who believe it is their right and/or responsibility to create a special term that is brandished. "Awareness." These people drive in from out of town and go in front of others and tell them that we must stop this, start this, change that or think or don't think, etc... These last two are the ones that get lumped together by the common man. And rightfully so. And each of those groups -- not that I agree with your categorization but for the sake of discussion let's roll with it -- would have their own answers to Security's question about motive, which was my point. When it comes to sussing out the finer points of society or complicated issues like race, religion, or what-have-you, letting someone with the nuance of Security interpret things for us is like letting a man born without arms tell us what throwing a baseball feels like. Edited November 3, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Security Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 You like to lump everyone together and assign them all the same motivation. Life doesn't work that way, even if you'd like it to. People are individuals, with individual motivations. Until you grasp that rather simplistic fact of life, your opinion on such matters are purely comical and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Which explains why you don't even understand that I am, in fact, answering your questions with ridicule. No, you gave no answer. These are Yes/No questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 And each of those groups -- not that I agree with your categorization but for the sake of discussion let's roll with it -- would have their own answers to Security's question about motive, which was my point. When it comes to sussing out the finer points of society or complicated issues like race, religion, or what-have-you, letting someone with the nuance of Security interpret things for us is like letting a man born without arms tell us what throwing a baseball feels like. Those arguments always turn to the simple statements of "you're wrong, we're right." Welcome to the reason the two party system is so successful. It's very easy to blame one other person and its very complicated to place blame on anyone else, especially when some of it might arrive at your back door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 No, you gave no answer. These are Yes/No questions. They're not yes or no questions when you structure them correctly. When you structure them to fit your limited (and woefully simplistic) world view, only then do they become yes or no answers. You don't have the basic understanding of the subject matter to ask thoughtful questions, all you want to ask are questions that stir the hate fire building inside you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 They are saying forensics are autopsies are interpreted, so I am interpreting they are saying forensics and autopsies are deemed an interpreted because they are biased against blacks, that is the only way to understand what they are saying. did they actually say that forensics, autopsies, or evidence is actually interpreted as being biased against blacks? I thought they were just voicing concerns that 'authorites' (my word, not theirs) may be biased in their own favor. that's a lot different than making accusations of racial bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 did they actually say that forensics, autopsies, or evidence is actually interpreted as being biased against blacks? I thought they were just voicing concerns that 'authorites' (my word, not theirs) may be biased in their own favor. that's a lot different than making accusations of racial bias. Subtleties are not Securities strong suit. And I agree with you, it's an important difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 No, you gave no answer. These are Yes/No questions. Shut up already, you !@#$ing tool. You're taking something I already said, and making it infinitely stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) #Ferguson Protestors Deliver “Rules of Engagement” to Police Message: Police priority should be facilitation of protest, not preserving law and order CNN is reporting that the #Ferguson protestors have delivered to police a list of 18 “Rules of Engagement.” These essentially amount to a set of constraints on police response to the violence expected to result when the grand jury declines to indict Police Officer Darren Wilson for his self-defense shooting of Mike Brown, the 290-pound black adult male who, in what seems like an all too common moment of poor judgment, attacked and tried to kill the police officer. I’ve embedded the list, as linked on the CNN site, below, but the first item is worthy of particular note: 1) The first priority shall be preservation of human life. The irony fairy was unavailable for comment. Edited November 7, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/us/ferguson-police-involved-shootings-killings-data/ CNN really reaching on this. (CNN) -- As a Missouri grand jury nears a decision on whether to indict Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson, some people seethe with suspicion that, in the end, nothing will happen.On the street where Wilson killed teenager Michael Brown and in surrounding neighborhoods, many say the officer won't be indicted because, they contend, cops rarely are. "After what I witnessed from the 40 years I've been in St Louis, I would say I don't think there will be an indictment," protester Larry Miller said. "I consider the killing of Michael Brown a modern-day lynching." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 You think that's a reach. How about the parents of Michael Brown somehow going to Switzerland to talk to the U.N. Committee on Torture http://news.yahoo.com/parents-slain-missouri-teen-return-home-u-n-005714148.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 You think that's a reach. How about the parents of Michael Brown somehow going to Switzerland to talk to the U.N. Committee on Torture http://news.yahoo.co...-005714148.html Well, even if he is innocent he is still going to get fired if he is indicted. And even if he is not the city is going to hold a meeting to decide hismfuture after the GJ verdict. FERGUSON, Mo.—Senior officials here said the town hasn’t decided whether Officer Darren Wilson will return to the police force if a grand jury doesn’t indict him in the shooting death of an unarmed local teenager. Police Chief Thomas Jackson said on Saturday that Mr. Wilson will be fired if indicted by a grand jury and that the city has yet to decide if Mr. Wilson will return to normal duty if not indicted. He added that the city will conduct its own investigation into Mr. Wilson’s actions in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9. http://online.wsj.com/articles/officials-say-no-decision-on-ferguson-policemans-future-if-he-isnt-indicted-1416074986 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2...-killings-data/ CNN really reaching on this. You can set Obama's amnesty announcement to the moment the grand jury reaches its verdict. Mark it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Buckle up, Ferguson. Once the verdict is released, the community organizers have these places on their hit list. This is going to get ugly fast. UPDATE: Missouri governor declares state of emergency ahead of ruling. Edited November 17, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Buckle up, Ferguson. Once the verdict is released, the community organizers have these places on their hit list. This is going to get ugly fast. UPDATE: Missouri governor declares state of emergency ahead of ruling. I know whenever I see social injustice I blame Budweiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 I know whenever I see social injustice I blame Budweiser. I tend to blame those 40 oz. Colt 45's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I know whenever I see social injustice I blame Budweiser. Release the Clydesdales ! ! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I know whenever I see social injustice I blame Budweiser. Keep following Gateway Pundit. He's reporting all the behind-the-scenes training of protesters on where to bring the violence and damage when the verdict comes down. The entire thing is orchestrated for maximum violence, damage and mayhem. This is why you know you can essentially time Obama's amnesty order with the protests. He met with the protest organizers the day after the mid-terms, according to this NYT story, which is something to remember when you see buildings burning and people stealing schitt while Obama starts handing out freebies to 5 million illegal immigrants. This is what happens you put a community organizer in charge of the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts