Ferguson, Missouri - typifies the difference between Conservatives and Liberals

[Samson]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

Ferguson, Mo. is typical stupidity from the left. The so called victim was nothing more then a thug. Cop did his job and the idiots on the left praise the thug. IDIOTS!!!!

If it is the job of cops to shoot thugs, then most are doing a shitty job.

 

[Sallow]

Obama has lost total control , we are a destroyed nation.

You should be looking for new digs then.

I recommend Tea Party Russia. The new Christian homeland.

It's ruled by Tea Party Putin. Conservative hero Eric Snowden lives there.

Maybe you can look him up.

 

[Samson]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

ya utah and idaho are gigantic failures aren't they.

try using your brain.

Utah and Idaho have industries that depend HEAVILY on government subsidies.

Is there a state that doesn't have a Federally subsidized basket weaving industry??

Washington DC must remain relevant somehow.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Obama has lost total control , we are a destroyed nation.

You should be looking for new digs then.

I recommend Tea Party Russia. The new Christian homeland.

It's ruled by Tea Party Putin. Conservative hero Eric Snowden lives there.

Maybe you can look him up.

Libtards need to move to russia, communism fits them perfectly.

 

[Samson]

Obama has lost total control , we are a destroyed nation.

You'd think that having a mulatto President would prevent racially based rioting.

Oh well, guess not.


Perhaps we'll need to elect someone who is competent?

 

[occupied]

What does the private ownership of guns have to do with Furgenson and the riots? The only thing I read was their were store owners protecting their stuff with the use of weapons. I guess what they should be doing is using a broom to shoo those rioters away.

Read closely, I am commenting on the vast difference in value conservatives have between the 1st amendment and the second. For gun ownership there can be no restrictions no matter who is getting shot, for mass protests cops need to get in there and put them down before some property gets hurt.

What you are saying isn't really true. A person, without permit, can't own a machine gun. So saying "no restrictions" is not really true. That said, I still do not see a connection between riot and gun ownership. And I am not a big supporter of every Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a gun everywhere they go. My brother does and I ask him why he feels the need, he said "because." Then he rationalized it by saying that for all his years he has not had a problem, which isn't exactly true to begin with. But I countered with that I being older, having traveled all over the country without a gun, and I have never had the need for a gun so I guess my way is the better way.

Of course I was speaking generally which has the peril of not pertaining to every individual. I do not dislike guns themselves and have some myself but the political aspect of the gun lobby is despicable in it's cold attitude towards the damage that gun violence does to our society. I am not in favor of banning guns but I'll be damned if I stand with people who seeing a tragedy reflexively worry about their guns and fuck the dead and wounded. If I had the exact same attitude towards the first amendment I would not give a fuck if a protest burned entire neighborhoods to the ground. For both the first and second reality must rule. Too many protests are met by force before anything bad happens with the show of force often sparking the violence in the first place. Cops cannot be allowed to just push people around and always feel they are in the right.

 

[Freewill]

Aren't Ferguson and St. Louis County BOTH controlled by elected Democrats?

And Detroit, and Chicago.....the list goes on.

The mayor of Ferguson is a Republican

Is there some law of averages that states that the police force should be a representation of the population?

So, if this be the case then it would be OK in predominately white areas to have no blacks on the police force? Correct? Blacks wouldn't even be considered for the job.

Ferguson Is Mostly Black. Why Is Its Government So White?

Just substitute Republican for white and you can see that what you propose is the division that we have been offered for the last 8 long democrat lead years. Your mere suggestion indicates to me that you do not trust people to act right, you expect Republicans to mistreat Democrat. And you then must expect whites to naturally target blacks. Now do you see where this is leading? Do you see where saying that the shooting had anything to do with something other then a robbery and perhaps a struggle over a gun leads? The presumption of guilt because of race or political affiliation is nothing less then bigotry and racism no matter which way the finger is pointed.

 

[konradv]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

Ferguson, Mo. is typical stupidity from the left. The so called victim was nothing more then a thug. Cop did his job and the idiots on the left praise the thug. IDIOTS!!!!

Regardless of what he was, he shouldn't have been gunned down without the cop's life being threatened. It's axiomatic that, if "thugs" get that kind of discretion, the rest of us don't have much to worry about.

 

[Freewill]

Read closely, I am commenting on the vast difference in value conservatives have between the 1st amendment and the second. For gun ownership there can be no restrictions no matter who is getting shot, for mass protests cops need to get in there and put them down before some property gets hurt.

What you are saying isn't really true. A person, without permit, can't own a machine gun. So saying "no restrictions" is not really true. That said, I still do not see a connection between riot and gun ownership. And I am not a big supporter of every Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a gun everywhere they go. My brother does and I ask him why he feels the need, he said "because." Then he rationalized it by saying that for all his years he has not had a problem, which isn't exactly true to begin with. But I countered with that I being older, having traveled all over the country without a gun, and I have never had the need for a gun so I guess my way is the better way.

Of course I was speaking generally which has the peril of not pertaining to every individual. I do not dislike guns themselves and have some myself but the political aspect of the gun lobby is despicable in it's cold attitude towards the damage that gun violence does to our society. I am not in favor of banning guns but I'll be damned if I stand with people who seeing a tragedy reflexively worry about their guns and fuck the dead and wounded. If I had the exact same attitude towards the first amendment I would not give a fuck if a protest burned entire neighborhoods to the ground. For both the first and second reality must rule. Too many protests are met by force before anything bad happens with the show of force often sparking the violence in the first place. Cops cannot be allowed to just push people around and always feel they are in the right.

There are two ways to approach this problem. I am giving an off the top analogy here so bare with me. Say there is a rash of people being killed with shovels. One way to solve the problem would be to take away all the shovels. Another way would be to find out the reason for the killings and solve that problem. There are so many guns in the country today that I seriously doubt that we could remove them all. So logically the second option is the only really viable option. How do we do that? In my opinion we respect life. We respect the life of an infant and we respect the lives of the victims of crime. I pretty much oppose the death penalty and abortion both of which I think trivializes life. I am against government abuse such as happened at Waco where no one on the government side was really ever held responsible. Even for the death of an unarmed man outside the compound.

My opinion is that hearts and minds need changed and I don't see that happening in a positive direction.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe we need to ban guns like the Europeans too? I'll never understand why the 1st is highly conditional to conservatives but the 2nd is inviolate to the point that they simply accept the collateral cost of it. Is it so hard to accept the collateral costs of not restricting the 1st amendment as well?

We don't want to change the 2nd Amendment because of the collateral benefit of it...on average there are around 11-12 thousand gun murders a year, which are mainly committed by drug gangs in inner cities in democrat controlled cities and states...


There are over 100,000 self defense uses,of guns where violent criminals are stopped and lives are saved...that number is also very low...it is closer to 250,000 to 350,000 times a year...

Murders...11,000 a year...crimes stopped and lives,saved...250,000-350,000 times a year (and the total may be much higher than that)

so you do the math...the net benefit of guns in the hands of private law abiding citizens far outweighs the number,of times criminals use them to kill people...

 

[Freewill]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

Ferguson, Mo. is typical stupidity from the left. The so called victim was nothing more then a thug. Cop did his job and the idiots on the left praise the thug. IDIOTS!!!!

Regardless of what he was, he shouldn't have been gunned down without the cop's life being threatened. It's axiomatic that, if "thugs" get that kind of discretion, the rest of us don't have much to worry about.

Of course what you say is right but the problem is that we don't know the facts. The FBI will investigate and then we will know. But the reaction of the liberal left is really detrimental to the country. The implication of what you posted, even though I don't think that is what you mean, is that there is some policy by the largely white police force to just gun down black at random. Do you really think that is the case? Or, if the black man was just "gunned down." Then it was a rogue cop and he should be tried and convicted. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater seems to me to just be another case of the left wing using a tragedy to further their agenda. Which to me is the second real tragedy.

 

[occupied]

What you are saying isn't really true. A person, without permit, can't own a machine gun. So saying "no restrictions" is not really true. That said, I still do not see a connection between riot and gun ownership. And I am not a big supporter of every Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a gun everywhere they go. My brother does and I ask him why he feels the need, he said "because." Then he rationalized it by saying that for all his years he has not had a problem, which isn't exactly true to begin with. But I countered with that I being older, having traveled all over the country without a gun, and I have never had the need for a gun so I guess my way is the better way.

Of course I was speaking generally which has the peril of not pertaining to every individual. I do not dislike guns themselves and have some myself but the political aspect of the gun lobby is despicable in it's cold attitude towards the damage that gun violence does to our society. I am not in favor of banning guns but I'll be damned if I stand with people who seeing a tragedy reflexively worry about their guns and fuck the dead and wounded. If I had the exact same attitude towards the first amendment I would not give a fuck if a protest burned entire neighborhoods to the ground. For both the first and second reality must rule. Too many protests are met by force before anything bad happens with the show of force often sparking the violence in the first place. Cops cannot be allowed to just push people around and always feel they are in the right.

There are two ways to approach this problem. I am giving an off the top analogy here so bare with me. Say there is a rash of people being killed with shovels. One way to solve the problem would be to take away all the shovels. Another way would be to find out the reason for the killings and solve that problem. There are so many guns in the country today that I seriously doubt that we could remove them all. So logically the second option is the only really viable option. How do we do that? In my opinion we respect life. We respect the life of an infant and we respect the lives of the victims of crime. I pretty much oppose the death penalty and abortion both of which I think trivializes life. I am against government abuse such as happened at Waco where no one on the government side was really ever held responsible. Even for the death of an unarmed man outside the compound.

My opinion is that hearts and minds need changed and I don't see that happening in a positive direction.

No, it is not. Sometimes force is required, to be sure, but it seems that the ability to use force to keep the peace has been placed in the hands of authoritarian reactionary individuals who are incapable of discretion and understanding when dealing with the public. This whole thing started with yet another incident of undue force being used against an individual, when people got angry it was met with further undue force. We are subject to the law as citizens but we are not subject to the police. They need to be continually reminded that they are not our masters and that we have a duty as citizens not to put up with their criminal actions.

 

[Stephanie]

holy smokes

everything is political in the insane mind of this one

Democrats THE HEROS AGAIN

how amazing are they

blaaaaa

 

[tinydancer]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

rdean you are the biggest partisan hack on this board. Your posts and threads embody every thing I hate about Progressives.

You are a pathological liar.

I rate rdean's OP:

 

[Freewill]

Of course I was speaking generally which has the peril of not pertaining to every individual. I do not dislike guns themselves and have some myself but the political aspect of the gun lobby is despicable in it's cold attitude towards the damage that gun violence does to our society. I am not in favor of banning guns but I'll be damned if I stand with people who seeing a tragedy reflexively worry about their guns and fuck the dead and wounded. If I had the exact same attitude towards the first amendment I would not give a fuck if a protest burned entire neighborhoods to the ground. For both the first and second reality must rule. Too many protests are met by force before anything bad happens with the show of force often sparking the violence in the first place. Cops cannot be allowed to just push people around and always feel they are in the right.

There are two ways to approach this problem. I am giving an off the top analogy here so bare with me. Say there is a rash of people being killed with shovels. One way to solve the problem would be to take away all the shovels. Another way would be to find out the reason for the killings and solve that problem. There are so many guns in the country today that I seriously doubt that we could remove them all. So logically the second option is the only really viable option. How do we do that? In my opinion we respect life. We respect the life of an infant and we respect the lives of the victims of crime. I pretty much oppose the death penalty and abortion both of which I think trivializes life. I am against government abuse such as happened at Waco where no one on the government side was really ever held responsible. Even for the death of an unarmed man outside the compound.

My opinion is that hearts and minds need changed and I don't see that happening in a positive direction.

No, it is not. Sometimes force is required, to be sure, but it seems that the ability to use force to keep the peace has been placed in the hands of authoritarian reactionary individuals who are incapable of discretion and understanding when dealing with the public. This whole thing started with yet another incident of undue force being used against an individual, when people got angry it was met with further undue force. We are subject to the law as citizens but we are not subject to the police. They need to be continually reminded that they are not our masters and that we have a duty as citizens not to put up with their criminal actions.

So your answer is disarm everyone? You do realize a whole lot of people can own a shovel and not kill anyone with it. You also have to realize the same with guns. Why the cop used his gun is anyone's guess today. What force would you say that the police should use to stop a riot which is burning and stealing other people's stuff? If the rioters were to attack a police station that would make some sense, but they didn't. They used the opportunity to steal other people's stuff. So one looks to motive. What is the profit in what the rioters are doing in Ferguson? Well if they attack a police station they are making a statement. If they attack businesses and steal people's stuff there is a direct profit to them. So it is easy to see what the motive is really behind the riots.

 

[Stephanie]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

rdean you are the biggest partisan hack on this board. Your posts and threads embody every thing I hate about Progressives.

You are a pathological liar.

I rate rdean's OP:

I can't believe it's a real person...because if it is, that is one scary mind at work

 

[Samson]

And Detroit, and Chicago.....the list goes on.

The mayor of Ferguson is a Republican

Is there some law of averages that states that the police force should be a representation of the population?

So, if this be the case then it would be OK in predominately white areas to have no blacks on the police force? Correct? Blacks wouldn't even be considered for the job.

Ferguson Is Mostly Black. Why Is Its Government So White?

Just substitute Republican for white and you can see that what you propose is the division that we have been offered for the last 8 long democrat lead years. Your mere suggestion indicates to me that you do not trust people to act right, you expect Republicans to mistreat Democrat. And you then must expect whites to naturally target blacks. Now do you see where this is leading? Do you see where saying that the shooting had anything to do with something other then a robbery and perhaps a struggle over a gun leads? The presumption of guilt because of race or political affiliation is nothing less then bigotry and racism no matter which way the finger is pointed.

Hey, all I did was state the fact.

 

[occupied]

There are two ways to approach this problem. I am giving an off the top analogy here so bare with me. Say there is a rash of people being killed with shovels. One way to solve the problem would be to take away all the shovels. Another way would be to find out the reason for the killings and solve that problem. There are so many guns in the country today that I seriously doubt that we could remove them all. So logically the second option is the only really viable option. How do we do that? In my opinion we respect life. We respect the life of an infant and we respect the lives of the victims of crime. I pretty much oppose the death penalty and abortion both of which I think trivializes life. I am against government abuse such as happened at Waco where no one on the government side was really ever held responsible. Even for the death of an unarmed man outside the compound.

My opinion is that hearts and minds need changed and I don't see that happening in a positive direction.

No, it is not. Sometimes force is required, to be sure, but it seems that the ability to use force to keep the peace has been placed in the hands of authoritarian reactionary individuals who are incapable of discretion and understanding when dealing with the public. This whole thing started with yet another incident of undue force being used against an individual, when people got angry it was met with further undue force. We are subject to the law as citizens but we are not subject to the police. They need to be continually reminded that they are not our masters and that we have a duty as citizens not to put up with their criminal actions.

So your answer is disarm everyone? You do realize a whole lot of people can own a shovel and not kill anyone with it. You also have to realize the same with guns. Why the cop used his gun is anyone's guess today. What force would you say that the police should use to stop a riot which is burning and stealing other people's stuff? If the rioters were to attack a police station that would make some sense, but they didn't. They used the opportunity to steal other people's stuff. So one looks to motive. What is the profit in what the rioters are doing in Ferguson? Well if they attack a police station they are making a statement. If they attack businesses and steal people's stuff there is a direct profit to them. So it is easy to see what the motive is really behind the riots.

Don't paint everyone protesting police brutality with the same broad brush and I will not generalize all gun owners as militia nutballs bent on overthrowing the government. Focusing on the worst troublemakers and casting everyone in the same light is how protests are discredited by the authorities.

 

[Sallow]

Just like in Iraq, the conservative approach is guns, threats, tear gas, swat teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons.

Then, after the brutality failed, Democrats stepped in to calm the nerves and handle the situation.

We've seen it everywhere Republican policies are implemented.

Liberals had no problem with the excessive use of force by law enforcement when it came to Branch Davidian Waco Tx and Elian Gonzalez.

The Branch Davidians?

Excessive? LOL

 

[Listening]

I quickly scanned the thread to this point.

AsswipeDean has not posted since the OP.

I keep telling you folks to ignore him and to let his threads sink off the first page.....fast.

He's a left wing Obamacocksucking Libfool.

His rhetoric is aimed at agitation.