Ferguson, MO

Post Reply New Topic

Slow to respond? Where did that imaginary narrative come from? Does it kill you that much to give libertarians credit on anything? You really need to stop watching MSNBC and reading Salon, I think it's killing brain cells. Libertarians are pretty much the only people decrying militarism in nation's police and overseas these days whereas the left only likes to latch on when it fits their racial narrative and turn the other way when their dear leader does something they condemned Bush for not too many years ago. If you wanted to see Cliven Bundy and his family murdered by the government then I have to ask what your real problem is with what's going on in Ferguson?

Pretty much anyone who isn't a liberal. I have a problem with police, millitarized or otherwise.

I never said I want to see Cliven Bundy killed; I just said he's in the wrong, and a racist assh*le to boot.
And does it kill you if liberals get credited for anything?

No specific charge, then.; just hearsay and innuendo along the same lines of Weaver being ex-special forces and having a huge cache of illegal weapons at his place.
Mmmm hmmmm...........[/quote]

I in fact recall more than one interview with the Weaver's neighbors, and I have no reason to question their honesty. As I said already, the Weavers were cut from the same cloth as the Aryan Nations, and the racist terrorist groups they had spawned. Again, there is this bullsh*t that has been circulating ever since the siege at Ruby Ridge that the Weavers had been law abiding, if not eccentric people who just wanted to be left alone, and who left everyone else alone. Well, that is simply not the real Weaver family.
As far as the notion that Weaver had been special forces in Vietnam - that's not hearsay, that's an out and out lie he repeatedly told about himself. Unfortunately, the feds really f*cked up by not checking out his story, because then they would have known he was not a killing machine, but just some peckerwood, cracker, white trash racist, as they had gone in with guns blazing because they had believed his outrageous lies.

So, you give the feds a pass on shooting his son, his dog, and his pregnant wife because they, the government, couldn't be bothered to check their own records as to the man's military service? Remember, that raid was so f*cked that not only was no one actually convicted of anything, but the feds had to shell out millions in settlements, including to a kid that killed one of the agents; do you not realize how bad things had to have been for the state to pay out to a cop killer? All for a bogus weapons charge trumped up by a sketchy informant, and yet you still try and spin this thing every time it's brought up because "oh, they were racists, they at least kinda sorta maybe deserved it...".
'

As Jacoby has pointed out, where has this "slow to respond" narrative come from? Reason, the premier libertarian site on the net, was on this immediately, http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/10/misso ... en-spark-a , and has had massive coverage of the story since, Rand Paul waited because he was publishing a full op-ed in Time and had to wait on their publishing schedule, and Radley Balko has been the leading voice on police abuse since at least the early 2000s, having been cited multiple times at the Supreme Court. Libertarians were on this story from the beginning, and in fact were the loudest and most consistent voices on the underlying issues before it even happened, which makes your ass-pulled assertions even more galling. Obama hasn't said a word about police militarization, where's your outrage?

^^^
Dox, I am sorry Weaver lost his wife and son, and even his dog. But the whole situation happened because of the air of genuine fear caused by people like the Weavers who had poured into the north Idaho panhandle. As I had said, these were violent racists who had no problem with committing robbery and murder. And as I recall, I had said the feds had definitely f*cked up, but none of that would have happened had the area hadn't been turned into white supremacist central. You might be interested in knowing that a skin head who had been on his way to the Aryan Nations' compound in Idaho had stopped off at the Spokane bus station, when he opened fire on an interracial couple. His excuse was that the Bible justified his actions. Randy Weaver and the others were cut from the same cloth.
As for Rand Paul being slow to respond till he knew the facts - well, that might very well be true when all is said and done. But considering his less than stellar opinions about how civil rights laws shouldn't force private business to serve blacks, and how he had employed a white supremacist/Neo-Confederate nut bar calling himself the Southern Avenger (complete with pro-wrestling mask!), not to mention his own father's infamous reputation on race, I think it's fair to question the motives for his slowness to make a statement.

Dude stop watching Maddow, you're repeating her dumb talking points verbatim. At least try Chris Matthews for a bit, he at least sometimes says something interesting in between his Obama leg tingles. I suggest dropping MSNBC altogether, try it for a couple months and just get your news neutral sources online without daily ideological shilling from cable news. Try to develop a belief system outside of republicans bad democrats good, challenge your own beliefs and see what holds up.

Also your prejudice against Weaver could just as easily be prejudice used against blacks. You don't even realize what you're doing is the same thing. Libertarianism is the one true anti-racist ideology as it looks at people as individuals not as groups, it's just willful ignorance to try to frame it by race obsessed leftist politics with no critical thinking whatsoever. Just the typical leftist echo chamber hysterics, HE SAID WHATTTTTTTTTT?????? The political discourse in this country has been destroyed, nothing can be discussed candidly because idiots getting offended on other people's behalf. Nobody debates anybody, everybody just stays in their own echo chamber. It's so sad to watch news programs from back in the 60s or whenever where you see people actually discuss the real issues without the hysterics and propaganda mouthpieces. Now we have hashtag activists spreading outrage, it's just a straight up joke.

(Sigh) I don't recall saying all libertarians were racists, but I also refuse to say that none are. Ron Paul has made and written racist utterances, and if Rand Paul's statements about how civil rights enforcement shouldn't be applied to private businesses are not racist, then they are at least extremely stupid and thoughtlessly cruel. And then there's the less than enlightened views of many tea party members on race relations. And while taking people simply as individuals rather than groups sounds great in ideology, the simple fact is it's not realistic, people are still going to be motivated by racial prejudice. Plus, it's easy to say everyone should be taken as individuals, but the real meaning might be to strip away civil rights protections. Until libertarians earn the same civil rights credentials as liberals, I'm going to be skeptical of them.
As for me being unfairly prejudiced against Randy Weaver - am I supposed to be tolerant of the intolerant? I am at a total loss as to explain any more clearly that yes, he suffered great injustice at the hands of the federal government, but he and the other racist fanatics who he associated with were the ones who had created the situation that had led to that tragedy in the first place.

Throughout my life liberals have constantly complained about police tactics. From individual police shootings, to OWS removal tactics, to WTO protest police responses, to anti-war protester treatment during the Iraq war and stretching all the way back to the Vietnam war. Experiencing and complaining about mistreatment by the cops is like a right of passage for hard lefties.

Libertarians and Liberals simply have different demographics and tend to highlight different examples of what they believe to be overreach. They arent generally interested in each other's problems.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon sending in National Guard into Ferguson

LINK

Dox-

I forgot to mention - yes, I wish the President would speak out about the use of paramilitary equipment and tactics by the police. But then again, every other time Obama had spoken out about police (or self appointed neighborhood watch) abuse when the suspect was black, the right had thrown a sh*tfit.

Heh, bringing in the military is always the best way to show how under-militarized your police force is.

So, what you're saying is, they kinda, sorta, maybe, deserved it because of their political views? EXACTLY like I've been pointing out for years now... Where are you even coming up with this "they had no problem committing robbery and murder" bunk? The whole standoff with Weaver was precipitated by an informant claiming that Randy sold him a shotgun that was a 1/4 inch too short, the illegality of which being a whole other can of worms.



And? A crazed liberal shot up a conservative think tank in D.C. a while back, perhaps the feds should start treating all of you like potential threats and send in the SWAT teams on trumped up charges.




You mean his reservations about compelling private business owners to do things against their will using the power of the state, despite the good intentions? If only more people thought things through like that, perhaps we wouldn't have the worlds largest prison population and a set of federal laws so dense that literally everyone is constantly committing felonies. Unfortunately, liberals treat this kind of nuance the way Republicans used to treat critical thinking on crime; by making hysterical moral pronouncements attempting to shame the thinker for having the temerity to go against the orthodoxy.

I also like how you manage to make his waiting to get a better idea of what really happened before shooting his mouth off into a bad thing, that's really an example you could learn from yourself.

As to Ron Paul's "infamous" reputation on race, I can only assume you're referring to the newsletters published under his name in the 80s, most likely penned by Lew Rockwell. It was undoubtedly foolish to allow someone to publish under his name without reviewing the content, but even the briefest examination of his congressional record shows not a trace of racism, with many of the policies he favored directly benefiting minorities. Unlike you, I don't put a lot of stock in what a man says, or in this case allows to be said in his name, I pay attention to his actions, which is why I think of Obama as the spying/assassinating/secretive president, as opposed to the hope and change and transparency guy he sold himself as.

Same deal with Rand and his decision to stay loyal to a friend despite the political liability; any examination of his record shows that he's doing more for minorities than anyone else in congress at the moment, especially in getting the GOP off of its decades long "tough on crime" posturing that has done so much damage to the country. Again, I could care less who the man chooses to spend his time with, I judge him by his record, which an honest man would admit is an admirable one.

I strongly support the police dressing in SWAT gear when appropriate. There is a lot of firepower out there. For instance, I myself own a Browning BAR M1918, which is capable of firing between 350 to 555 rounds per minute. I also own a British Sten, minus the receiver. I can easily obtain the receiver or build it, for which I have the instructions for. If I was in a stand off with the police, would you want to come through my door wearing only slacks and a button down shirt, while only carrying a nine shot 9mm? I don't think so. So given the proper circumstances, SWAT attire and gear is not only desirable, it is necessary.

Ferguson definateley fits the bill for proper circumstance. Let's see. They are rioting, looting. Last night the rioters shot at and hit civilians, shot at police and threw home made bombs at police. The black panthers (the African American answer to the Klan) has come in from out of state and is joining in the riots and shooting. It is not the neighborhood people they are fighting with at night. The police would be insane to enter this foray wearing trousers and a button down shirt.

My coworkers sister works in a Hospital in St Louis. People are being admitted nightly. Here's a news flash, these people are not being hurt by the police.

It appears the media's sole purpose is to create a race or class war "oh look at this poor beleaguered neighborhood being attacked by the police". Its not what is happening. It would behoove everyone to stop watching the news and buying the agenda they are selling.

Kraichgauer,

You seem to be mixing up Libertarians and those who play pretend. The Tea Party may have been started by people who had many similar beliefs as Libertarians, but was quickly hijacked by fundamentalists and politicians that don't act the way they talk (or in any consistent manner). Tea Party is not the same as Libertarian. Libertarians have always been against all forms of government over-reach, especially where the militarization of law enforcement is concerned. Another thing to consider is that not all are in favor of completely unfettered capitalism as you often assume; many are worried about the implications of it to be a threat to private property rights. Just keep in mind that there are a lot of self-proclaimed "Libertarians" out there who are anything but.

I do find it amusing that both far left liberals and libertarians both would do almost anything to guarantee the freedoms and rights of the individual (although the ideas on how to get there are much different), yet many of both groups accuse the other of thinking otherwise. I also find it amusing that so many Republicans like to talk big about smaller government, yet insist on a larger military and constantly vote to increase funding for any of their personal pet projects. Most Republicans really only seem to want to make cuts to social programs (instead of reform them), and make cuts to any agency that might rein in large businesses in any way. Democrats aren't much better, though; they rarely can agree amongst themselves about the specifics of anything other than "Republicans=bad."