Lou Dobbs and the Deep State

Post by ajohnstone
It seems as if the FOX TV pundit associates the use of US Postal
Inspection Service in the arrest of Steve Bannon as an indication of the
existence of the Deep State in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/21/steve-bannon-lou-dobbs-deep-state-conspiracy-theory
I forego the present controversy of the current head of the USPS, Trump's
pick, Dejoy, but i wonder if Dobbs knows that the last agency to interview
LHO before his murder was indeed a US Postal Inspector.
Just an indication of just how extensive the powers of this department can
be. I doubt very much if the UK post office's investigation branch would
have access to the murder of a prime minister even if a PO Box was used.
But is it a sign of the existence of the Deep State...no, i don't think
so.

Since Oswald used the USPS to order the rifle and did so using an alias,
the USPS would rightfully have some concerns. I don't know if Oswald broke
any postal regulations when he did this, but it is understandable the USPS
would want to get involved. Since Oswald denied ever owning the rifle, I
doubt he gave the USPS inspector much information.

ajohnstone

2020-08-23 02:26:23 UTC

Post by John Corbett
Since Oswald used the USPS to order the rifle and did so using an alias,
the USPS would rightfully have some concerns. I don't know if Oswald broke
any postal regulations when he did this, but it is understandable the USPS
would want to get involved. Since Oswald denied ever owning the rifle, I
doubt he gave the USPS inspector much information.

I merely wished to highlight with the LHO example that the powers of the
USPS in the USA exceed many other post office around the world and the use
of them in a high-level criminal investigation does not imply the
existence of a deep-state as Dobbs appear to be suggesting.

John Corbett

2020-08-23 17:56:54 UTC

The deep state permeates throughout the federal government. Unelected
bureaucrats who keep their jobs even when the party in power changes.
These people have their own agendas which as often as not, maybe even more
often, does not align with the policies of the elected President. In many
cases, they work to undermine those policies. The USPS is not an exception
to this. The Congress and the president through constitutionally
questionable legislation has transferred considerable amounts of power to
these fiefdoms, allowing them to rules and regulations by which Americans
must live by. The EPA is a prime example. There is nothing in the
Constitution which empowers them to make quasi-legislation yet they do it
all them time and it has the force of law. The way the republic was set
up, these bureaucrats should be enforcing laws, not creating them. That is
the job for elected officials.

There is nothing new about any of this. The term deep state has its roots
in the 1950s regarding the Turkish government and has more recently been
used regarding the entrenched and powerful bureaucracy that has existed
for a very long time in the US. It seems to have come to a head with the
Trump administration because so many of these deep state bureaucrats were
incensed that he got elected and are adamantly opposed to his policies.

ajohnstone

2020-08-24 10:59:25 UTC

Unelected bureaucrats who keep their jobs even when the party in power
changes.

In the UK you are describing what is the civil service such as the
existence of permanent secretaries whose duties are to advise ministers
regardless of which political party holds office. There are supposed to ne
non-partisan and neutral. The UK has had over 300 years to perfect the
system of a non-politicalized civil service and still they have
controversies about bias.

Go to You Tube and watch any episode of the comedy series "Yes Minister"

It may be described as the Establishment in the sense that there are
common origins in their membership such as privileged education. It also
describes the diplomatic corps with its professional career ladder and not
political appointees as we saw with political fund donor Sondland buying
an ambassadorship. The same with the judiciary in the UK other than the
most senior who is indeed a prime minister recommended officer.

You may not recollect but on this website i did previously ask about
whether elected or appointed officials was the better democratic practice
(it was related to the actions of the district attorney in the Arbery
case)...to elect judges and prosecutors and coroners and what not and make
them campaign and subject them to the vagaries of the electors prejudices.
Or have them appointed to a an unelected career structure and are full
employees of the Crown where the there may well be what is called the old
school tie class bias connections.

John Corbett

2020-08-24 18:47:15 UTC

Unelected bureaucrats who keep their jobs even when the party in power
changes.

One would have to be incredibly naive to think these holdovers are
non-partisan and neutral.

Post by ajohnstone
Go to You Tube and watch any episode of the comedy series "Yes Minister"
It may be described as the Establishment in the sense that there are
common origins in their membership such as privileged education. It also
describes the diplomatic corps with its professional career ladder and not
political appointees as we saw with political fund donor Sondland buying
an ambassadorship. The same with the judiciary in the UK other than the
most senior who is indeed a prime minister recommended officer.
You may not recollect but on this website i did previously ask about
whether elected or appointed officials was the better democratic practice
(it was related to the actions of the district attorney in the Arbery
case)...to elect judges and prosecutors and coroners and what not and make
them campaign and subject them to the vagaries of the electors prejudices.
Or have them appointed to a an unelected career structure and are full
employees of the Crown where the there may well be what is called the old
school tie class bias connections.

Neither system is going to produce unbiased people. The brilliance of our
founders was they understood that people who come to power either as a
result of election or appointment are flawed and prone to abusing their
power. That is why a system of checks and balances was put in place to
mitigate such abuses. It has worked well if not perfectly.

ajohnstone

2020-08-24 10:59:28 UTC

As an after-thought, should the Supreme Court be considered part of the
Deep State as it is staffed by appointed judges for life so their tenure
extends over several presidencies?

John Corbett

2020-08-24 18:47:17 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
As an after-thought, should the Supreme Court be considered part of the
Deep State as it is staffed by appointed judges for life so their tenure
extends over several presidencies?

No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy. An independent judiciary was seen as a necessary
component in the system of checks and balances. It can put the breaks on
when the legislative and executive branches exceed their constitutional
authority. Both SCOTUS and lower federal court judges are given lifetime
appointments so they can rule without worrying about the political
consequences. The judiciary will not be subject to being blown about by
the political winds. This is not to say the individual justices and judges
don't have biases. Having a Supreme Court consisting of nine justices
diminishes the power of any one justice. Having a court that at any one
time is going to be comprised of justices appointed by multiple presidents
prevents any one president from having undo influence. The current make up
of the court has one Bush41 appointee, two Clinton appointees, two Bush43
appointees, two Obama appointees, and two Trump appointees. No one
president has had an undo influence on the make up of the court. That
could all change of course if the Democrats win both houses of Congress
and the White House and go through with their threat to pack the court
with six additional justices. That would give Biden or Harris (who would
soon become our 47th POTUS) the power to radically shift the balance of
the court and make it highly partisan.

ajohnstone

2020-08-25 03:03:27 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

In the former Soviet Union, partially emerging from the early Bolshevik
Party intelligensia, there existed the apparatchik and the nomenclatura,
who performed the social role of the ruling class. Through various
privileges and nepotism they could in many cases pass down political power
as dynasties can today,(the Kennedys, the Bushes) so not necessarily a
meritocracy.

But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the
ex-Brit, Fiona Hill, who gave testimony in the impeachment trial who
reveals the class divide in America but also i think explains well the
more inclusive approach of the US to newcomers.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/fiona-hill-trump-putin-populism-interview

John Corbett

2020-08-25 14:55:52 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

The Clintons. Oh, wait. That one didn't work out so well. But there's
always Chelsea.

Post by ajohnstone
But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the
ex-Brit, Fiona Hill, who gave testimony in the impeachment trial who
reveals the class divide in America but also i think explains well the
more inclusive approach of the US to newcomers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/fiona-hill-trump-putin-populism-interview

Fiona Hill is a prime example of a deep state holdover working to
undermine the elected president. The president sets foreign policy. It is
the job of the unelected bureaucrats to carry out those policies although
obviously that is not the way it actually works. It is perfectly
legitimate for these people to give advice to the president which might be
contradictory to those policies but the president is the one who has the
final say in these matters. She seems to be pissed off that Trump didn't
follow her advice.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-26 00:22:58 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

The Clintons. Oh, wait. That one didn't work out so well. But there's
always Chelsea.

Post by ajohnstone
But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the

Bullshit. You're just repeating crazy rightwing nuts.

Post by ajohnstone
ex-Brit, Fiona Hill, who gave testimony in the impeachment trial who
reveals the class divide in America but also i think explains well the
more inclusive approach of the US to newcomers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/fiona-hill-trump-putin-populism-interview

Your definition makes no sense. One rebel does not make a "Deep State."

BOZ

2020-08-26 21:09:31 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

The Clintons. Oh, wait. That one didn't work out so well. But there's
always Chelsea.

Post by ajohnstone
But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the

Bullshit. You're just repeating crazy rightwing nuts.

Your definition makes no sense. One rebel does not make a "Deep State."

Marsh are you still blaming the CIA for the Yellow River Flood?

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-28 01:25:01 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

The Clintons. Oh, wait. That one didn't work out so well. But there's
always Chelsea.

Post by ajohnstone
But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the

Bullshit. You're just repeating crazy rightwing nuts.

Your definition makes no sense. One rebel does not make a "Deep State."

Marsh are you still blaming the CIA for the Yellow River Flood?

Was it even in existence then? You want to deny that the CIA EVER did
anything wrong.

BOZ

2020-08-28 13:42:37 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

The Clintons. Oh, wait. That one didn't work out so well. But there's
always Chelsea.

Post by ajohnstone
But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the

Bullshit. You're just repeating crazy rightwing nuts.

Your definition makes no sense. One rebel does not make a "Deep State."

Marsh are you still blaming the CIA for the Yellow River Flood?

Was it even in existence then? You want to deny that the CIA EVER did
anything wrong.

John Brennan, the former CIA Director, illegally spied on Trump. That's
wrong.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-29 03:31:42 UTC

Post by John Corbett
No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy.

The Clintons. Oh, wait. That one didn't work out so well. But there's
always Chelsea.

Post by ajohnstone
But i'm not saying that the USA Deep State is identical to the USSR's.
Just that such things can most definitely exist. It was however the

Bullshit. You're just repeating crazy rightwing nuts.

Your definition makes no sense. One rebel does not make a "Deep State."

Marsh are you still blaming the CIA for the Yellow River Flood?

Was it even in existence then? You want to deny that the CIA EVER did
anything wrong.

John Brennan, the former CIA Director, illegally spied on Trump. That's
wrong.

No, he didn't.
How could he spy on Trump when he was in the CIA?

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-26 00:22:53 UTC

No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy. An independent judiciary was seen as a necessary

By that you mean anyone who doesn't agree with your far right ideology.

Post by John Corbett
component in the system of checks and balances. It can put the breaks on

You say rhey BREAK legislation? How do they have the power to brreak
anything?

Post by John Corbett
when the legislative and executive branches exceed their constitutional
authority. Both SCOTUS and lower federal court judges are given lifetime
appointments so they can rule without worrying about the political
consequences. The judiciary will not be subject to being blown about by
the political winds. This is not to say the individual justices and judges
don't have biases. Having a Supreme Court consisting of nine justices
diminishes the power of any one justice. Having a court that at any one
time is going to be comprised of justices appointed by multiple presidents
prevents any one president from having undo influence. The current make up
of the court has one Bush41 appointee, two Clinton appointees, two Bush43
appointees, two Obama appointees, and two Trump appointees. No one
president has had an undo influence on the make up of the court. That
could all change of course if the Democrats win both houses of Congress
and the White House and go through with their threat to pack the court
with six additional justices. That would give Biden or Harris (who would
soon become our 47th POTUS) the power to radically shift the balance of
the court and make it highly partisan.

How about when Trump's rigfhtwing nuts voted WITH the Liberals?

BOZ

2020-08-26 17:35:52 UTC

No, the deep state is comprised of the nameless people who wield power
within the bureaucracy. An independent judiciary was seen as a necessary

By that you mean anyone who doesn't agree with your far right ideology.

Post by John Corbett
component in the system of checks and balances. It can put the breaks on

You say rhey BREAK legislation? How do they have the power to brreak
anything?

How about when Trump's rigfhtwing nuts voted WITH the Liberals?

Marsh are you still blaming the CIA for the emasculation of John Wayne
Bobbitt?

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-25 03:03:21 UTC

The deep state permeates throughout the federal government. Unelected
bureaucrats who keep their jobs even when the party in power changes.
These people have their own agendas which as often as not, maybe even more
often, does not align with the policies of the elected President. In many
cases, they work to undermine those policies. The USPS is not an exception
to this. The Congress and the president through constitutionally
questionable legislation has transferred considerable amounts of power to
these fiefdoms, allowing them to rules and regulations by which Americans
must live by. The EPA is a prime example. There is nothing in the
Constitution which empowers them to make quasi-legislation yet they do it
all them time and it has the force of law. The way the republic was set
up, these bureaucrats should be enforcing laws, not creating them. That is
the job for elected officials.
There is nothing new about any of this. The term deep state has its roots
in the 1950s regarding the Turkish government and has more recently been
used regarding the entrenched and powerful bureaucracy that has existed
for a very long time in the US. It seems to have come to a head with the
Trump administration because so many of these deep state bureaucrats were
incensed that he got elected and are adamantly opposed to his policies.

Oh, so if you're the expert, tell us who is The Deep State? The YMCA?

BOZ

2020-08-25 14:55:32 UTC

The deep state permeates throughout the federal government. Unelected
bureaucrats who keep their jobs even when the party in power changes.
These people have their own agendas which as often as not, maybe even more
often, does not align with the policies of the elected President. In many
cases, they work to undermine those policies. The USPS is not an exception
to this. The Congress and the president through constitutionally
questionable legislation has transferred considerable amounts of power to
these fiefdoms, allowing them to rules and regulations by which Americans
must live by. The EPA is a prime example. There is nothing in the
Constitution which empowers them to make quasi-legislation yet they do it
all them time and it has the force of law. The way the republic was set
up, these bureaucrats should be enforcing laws, not creating them. That is
the job for elected officials.
There is nothing new about any of this. The term deep state has its roots
in the 1950s regarding the Turkish government and has more recently been
used regarding the entrenched and powerful bureaucracy that has existed
for a very long time in the US. It seems to have come to a head with the
Trump administration because so many of these deep state bureaucrats were
incensed that he got elected and are adamantly opposed to his policies.

Oh, so if you're the expert, tell us who is The Deep State? The YMCA?

Frank Bender and Johnny Bender from THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

ajohnstone

2020-08-25 17:49:26 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
tell us who is The Deep State? The YMCA?

When discussing the Deep State, we should be very careful not to fall into
related theories such as the New World Order, those imaginary Illumanati.

Supranational global organisations do exist, but one thing the present
pandemic has highlighted, that the nation-state remains sovereign, and
when push comes to shove, nationalism prevails.

Some transnational organisations have been used as global policy tools,
The World Bank and the IMF, for instance, and can be criticized for
foreign intervention in the domestic politics of various countries often
on behalf of other international bodies such as multinational
corporations.

In many ways such conspiracies are modern developments of traditional
anti-semitism (ZOG), anti-Jesuitism, (a reason that it took until JFK for
a Roman Catholic to become president)

I think the hippie era probably best expressed what exists - the
Establishment...or the Black Panthers - the Man.

Or perhaps George Orwell's Big Brother, that surveillance state where laws
are passed against thought-crimes, now evolving into Google agorithyms
tracking and the commercialization of private data that now overlaps into
political behavior targeting.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-23 00:34:37 UTC

To find out where he go the rifle from.
They never found out where he got the ammo frome\ because both the DPD
and the WC were incompetent.

BTW, I can't imagine why anyone would think the Postal Service is THE
Deep State. They are out in the public.
Is someone playing Q-ANON to hoax people?

Bud

2020-08-25 17:49:32 UTC

To find out where he go the rifle from.
They never found out where he got the ammo frome\ because both the DPD
and the WC were incompetent.
BTW, I can't imagine why anyone would think the Postal Service is THE
Deep State. They are out in the public.
Is someone playing Q-ANON to hoax people?

Interesting that the media is so interested that a right wing conspiracy
group exists, they seem to think it is significant and ominous. Where was
the interest when there was a left wing conspiracy group saying that Bush
was behind 9-11? Did the mainstream media attack and condemn the Truther
movement?

ajohnstone

2020-08-26 02:59:34 UTC

Post by Bud
Interesting that the media is so interested that a right wing conspiracy
group exists, they seem to think it is significant and ominous

Bud - Antifa - the left-wing conspiracy group.

As for the 9/11 truthers, don't they cross-over left and right? And i do
believe they were heavily critiqued by the MSM

JC - Actually, Fiona Hill is the prime example of a very professional and
extremely knowledgeable civil servant, not at all a sign of a deep state
operative. She gave evidence as an employee because she was called upon.
There is no suggestion from any of her questioners that she exceeded her
role by determining Ukrainian or Russian policy. Her job-role was as an
independent analyst. Not a lawyer-cum-amateur diplomat or
donor-cum-amateur ambassador.

The importance of having dedicated experts that survive different
administrations is a very clear benefit. Or do you suggest that each new
president insists that new staff is employed and re-learn everything from
the start again?

To remind you of what she actually said, the full transcript can be read
here. I suggest you refresh your memory.

https://www.scribd.com/document/434065486/Fiona-Hill-testimony

She makes clear her personal impartial attitude to Trump. I would not make
any attempt to malign her motives because of being "pissed off". Hill was
not the person politicalizing the situation with Ukraine with the downside
to that with allies. She offers an informed and insightful look at how
foreign relations are carried out, probably by all countries, but in
particular the USA way.

That is not to deny that she had her own feelings admitting anger in the
case of the dismissal of the Ambassador Yovanovitch partly due to what she
says was "an anti-semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to
basically target nonpartisan career officials and also some political
appointees..."

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-26 21:09:40 UTC

Post by Bud
Interesting that the media is so interested that a right wing conspiracy
group exists, they seem to think it is significant and ominous

Bud - Antifa - the left-wing conspiracy group.

Abtifa is not an organized group as you try to frame it.
Nor could you rant about the Hippy Party.

Post by ajohnstone
As for the 9/11 truthers, don't they cross-over left and right? And i do
believe they were heavily critiqued by the MSM

Yes, you can find conspirary theories of man flavors.
What about the UFOs?

Post by ajohnstone
JC - Actually, Fiona Hill is the prime example of a very professional and
extremely knowledgeable civil servant, not at all a sign of a deep state
operative. She gave evidence as an employee because she was called upon.
There is no suggestion from any of her questioners that she exceeded her
role by determining Ukrainian or Russian policy. Her job-role was as an
independent analyst. Not a lawyer-cum-amateur diplomat or
donor-cum-amateur ambassador.
The importance of having dedicated experts that survive different
administrations is a very clear benefit. Or do you suggest that each new
president insists that new staff is employed and re-learn everything from
the start again?
To remind you of what she actually said, the full transcript can be read
here. I suggest you refresh your memory.
https://www.scribd.com/document/434065486/Fiona-Hill-testimony
She makes clear her personal impartial attitude to Trump. I would not make
any attempt to malign her motives because of being "pissed off". Hill was
not the person politicalizing the situation with Ukraine with the downside
to that with allies. She offers an informed and insightful look at how
foreign relations are carried out, probably by all countries, but in
particular the USA way.
That is not to deny that she had her own feelings admitting anger in the
case of the dismissal of the Ambassador Yovanovitch partly due to what she
says was "an anti-semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to
basically target nonpartisan career officials and also some political
appointees..."

BOZ

2020-08-27 13:45:35 UTC

Post by Bud
Interesting that the media is so interested that a right wing conspiracy
group exists, they seem to think it is significant and ominous

Bud - Antifa - the left-wing conspiracy group.

Abtifa is not an organized group as you try to frame it.
Nor could you rant about the Hippy Party.

Post by ajohnstone
As for the 9/11 truthers, don't they cross-over left and right? And i do
believe they were heavily critiqued by the MSM

Yes, you can find conspirary theories of man flavors.
What about the UFOs?

Why do you support Antifa? Why do you hate capitalism?

ajohnstone

2020-08-28 03:27:32 UTC

Post by BOZ
Why do you support Antifa?

I do not support antifa and if you ever took the time to read my posts
before making knee-jerk replies, you would have known this from my earlier
posts.

I accept Marx's view that if you are against censorship of opinions, it
means tolerating the expression of all views, those you have sympathy with
and those that you oppose.

Antifa mistakenly tries to suppress the far-right, denying them a
platform. Even if it could be done, which i seriously doubt, it merely
drives such ideas underground.

Another objection i have is that any attempt to deny the right their
freedoms, can so easily be turned against the left. History has shown this
only too clearly.

Post by BOZ
Why do you hate capitalism?

I have made the reasons abundantly clear in past posts and will not ignore
McAdam's recommendation that we try not to distract too much with either
Marx's politics or my own.

You can only lead a horse to water, you cannot force it to drink.

As an aside, i recently read an article on Jesse Owens and this is what he
had to say, which i think reflects on how myths are made and can be
accepted as true.

"Hitler didn't snub me — it was our president who snubbed me. The
president didn't even send me a telegram."

Only the white Olympians were invited to the White House in 1936 by
Roosevelt.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-29 03:31:45 UTC

Post by BOZ
Why do you support Antifa?

I do not support antifa and if you ever took the time to read my posts
before making knee-jerk replies, you would have known this from my earlier
posts.
I accept Marx's view that if you are against censorship of opinions, it
means tolerating the expression of all views, those you have sympathy with
and those that you oppose.
Antifa mistakenly tries to suppress the far-right, denying them a
platform. Even if it could be done, which i seriously doubt, it merely

Oh really? So you say that citizens protesting denies the Nazis a
platform? Then how would we even know they are Nazies if they didn't
already use that platform to show off their Nazism?

Post by ajohnstone
drives such ideas underground.

Yes, there are underground Nazis, but antifa still protests about them
too.

Post by ajohnstone
Another objection i have is that any attempt to deny the right their
freedoms, can so easily be turned against the left. History has shown this
only too clearly.

Which freedoms? You mean freedoms to kill?
We give them the freedome of speech here every day.

Post by BOZ
Why do you hate capitalism?

I have made the reasons abundantly clear in past posts and will not
ignore McAdam's recommendation that we try not to distract too much with
either Marx's politics or my own.

You still don't get it. You are new here.
McAdams wants all the hate speech here so that we don't talk about the
JFK Assassination. Someone might accidentally reveal the truth.

Post by ajohnstone
You can only lead a horse to water, you cannot force it to drink.
As an aside, i recently read an article on Jesse Owens and this is what he
had to say, which i think reflects on how myths are made and can be
accepted as true.
"Hitler didn't snub me ??? it was our president who snubbed me. The
president didn't even send me a telegram."
Only the white Olympians were invited to the White House in 1936 by
Roosevelt.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-28 03:27:35 UTC

Post by Bud
Interesting that the media is so interested that a right wing conspiracy
group exists, they seem to think it is significant and ominous

Bud - Antifa - the left-wing conspiracy group.

Abtifa is not an organized group as you try to frame it.
Nor could you rant about the Hippy Party.

Post by ajohnstone
As for the 9/11 truthers, don't they cross-over left and right? And i do
believe they were heavily critiqued by the MSM

Yes, you can find conspirary theories of man flavors.
What about the UFOs?

Why do you support Antifa? Why do you hate capitalism?

Why do you misrepresent what I say.
Because you represent Trump and his rightwing hate groups.

I never said anything about supporting Antifa and I don't hate capitalism.
But I do hate liars, criminals an racists.

ajohnstone

2020-08-27 20:03:56 UTC

I'm well aware of antifa not being in any way a structured organization or
even an organized movement. My point was that the right will designate it
as so as to support a conspiracy theory such as antifa was being supported
by Soros (recall the media hype about supplies of bricks being planted by
Soros operatives to be used by antifa/BLM rioters)

I did not make any rant about Hippies, merely, suggested that their
terminology was perhaps more useful as it was less definitive than "deep
state"

It reflected more the establishment versus the counterculture.

In the UK we have Oxbridge dominating the seats of power. Perhaps your Ivy
League is more about maintaining privilege and power rather than academic
merit, too.

Bud

2020-08-28 01:25:10 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
I'm well aware of antifa not being in any way a structured organization or
even an organized movement.

Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized
they are in this video...

Post by ajohnstone
My point was that the right will designate it
as so as to support a conspiracy theory such as antifa was being supported
by Soros (recall the media hype about supplies of bricks being planted by
Soros operatives to be used by antifa/BLM rioters)
I did not make any rant about Hippies, merely, suggested that their
terminology was perhaps more useful as it was less definitive than "deep
state"
It reflected more the establishment versus the counterculture.

The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture, it is people like the kid
who killed two and wounded one who are the new counter culture.

Post by ajohnstone
In the UK we have Oxbridge dominating the seats of power. Perhaps your Ivy
League is more about maintaining privilege and power rather than academic
merit, too.

ajohnstone

2020-08-28 21:30:52 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are

You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.

The actual reality is very different.

We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement. And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

Bud

2020-08-29 03:35:46 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by John Corbett
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Post by John Corbett
but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

I think what the kid did was great. He stood up for law and order
against anarchy and destruction. The leftist anarchists just couldn`t
stand to see someone standing against their tantrums, they think they are
entitled to destroy what other people have worked hard for. They attacked
him and he defended himself.

Post by John Corbett
And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?

Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package.

John McAdams

2020-08-29 03:39:37 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Post by ajohnstone
but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

Since people want to talk about the Kenosha situation, I'll allow
posts on it for a couple or three days.

Eventually, I will close it down, but only with 24 hour notice.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 01:12:49 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Since people want to talk about the Kenosha situation, I'll allow
posts on it for a couple or three days.
Eventually, I will close it down, but only with 24 hour notice.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

OK, but pro forma make sure that your minions get to post all the most
vile racist sruff they want, THEN close it down before I have a chance to
respond. Remember, I am retired so I don't wake up until noon. 9AM EST
would be the best time to close down threads.

John McAdams

2020-08-30 01:47:07 UTC

On 30 Aug 2020 01:12:49 -0000, Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Since people want to talk about the Kenosha situation, I'll allow
posts on it for a couple or three days.
Eventually, I will close it down, but only with 24 hour notice.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

OK, but pro forma make sure that your minions get to post all the most
vile racist sruff they want,

Tony's definition of racist: anything that contradicts a politically
correct narrative of racial grievance.

Post by Anthony Marsh
THEN close it down before I have a chance to
respond. Remember, I am retired so I don't wake up until noon. 9AM EST
would be the best time to close down threads.

OK, I'll do that. For all your fussing, people see clearly that you
have more than ample opportunity to express your opinions here.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

ajohnstone

2020-08-30 02:42:28 UTC

I'll leave aside the time-line of the events to what led to the shootings
because no-one here has the full knowledge. Too often people have made
their determination upon suppositions rather than facts (i plead guilty to
this but i am most definitely not alone, am i?, but i have some integrity
that others lack)

What concerns me is this.

I am surprised that any parent would permit a teenage son to engage in
such activities.

A 17 yr old strutting around, openly brandishing a semi-automatic, is
committing a criminal offence in that state yet not one police officer
made any attempt to question a youth about his age. This certainly raises
an issue on the impartiality of law enforcement.

In addition you are aware aren't you that under international law to
permit an under-18 to engage in any combat role is a war-crime. This
apples equally to the official military or to any militia.

Bud

2020-08-30 14:36:22 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
What concerns me is this.
I am surprised that any parent would permit a teenage son to engage in
such activities.

In case you haven`t noticed, here in America thousands of teenage kids
have been burning, looting and killing. Some might see actively protecting
the property of those unable to do so themselves against this sort of
mayhem to be something noble.

Post by ajohnstone
A 17 yr old strutting around, openly brandishing a semi-automatic,

If he didn`t have it he might not be alive today.

Post by ajohnstone
is
committing a criminal offence in that state yet not one police officer
made any attempt to question a youth about his age.

You realize that entire cities are being destroyed because leftists
refuse to let the police do their jobs, right? But this kid, he is the one
that merits their attention, not the ones throwing bricks, bombs, molotov
cocktails, it is this kid not bothering anyone that needs the attention.

Post by ajohnstone
This certainly raises
an issue on the impartiality of law enforcement.

If nobody attacks this kid, nothing happens. It is only because these
leftist children feel they are justified to attack anyone they see as an
enemy that this situation became a violent one.

Post by ajohnstone
In addition you are aware aren't you that under international law to
permit an under-18 to engage in any combat role is a war-crime. This
apples equally to the official military or to any militia.

Oh, stop with the age thing. The whole thing plays at exactly the same
if he was 18. He still gets attacked, he still defends himself.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 20:07:09 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
What concerns me is this.
I am surprised that any parent would permit a teenage son to engage in
such activities.

In case you haven`t noticed, here in America thousands of teenage
kids have been burning, looting and killing. Some might see actively
protecting the property of those unable to do so themselves against this
sort of mayhem to be something noble.

In case you are new to our country, we have rights, but we also have
laws. But here in America, they are only enforced against black people,
not white people. So Whites are allowed to kill blacks.
So you claim rhat thousands of teenage kids are going around killing.
Please list all their names. You just make up crap.
Out of thousands of looters, very few are under 21.

Post by ajohnstone
A 17 yr old strutting around, openly brandishing a semi-automatic,

If he didn`t have it he might not be alive today.

I like that defense. Try using it in court.
Claim that you went out and shot and killed someone at random because
you were afraid that you might be killed some day.

Post by ajohnstone
is
committing a criminal offence in that state yet not one police officer
made any attempt to question a youth about his age.

You realize that entire cities are being destroyed because leftists

Not entire cities. Maybe a block or two. Reductio ad Absurdum. Show me
the photos of an ENTIRE city destroyed by leftists.
Maybe you think Laura was a leftist.

Post by Bud
refuse to let the police do their jobs, right? But this kid, he is the one

No, silly. The police were there doing their job.
Except arresting a killer.
How many were killed there and how many were arrested for murder?

Post by Bud
that merits their attention, not the ones throwing bricks, bombs, molotov

Great, show me the bombs. All you do here is make up crap.

Post by Bud
cocktails, it is this kid not bothering anyone that needs the attention.

Yeah, he had just shot and killed someone.
But that does not matter to you if the victim is black.
What is that called?

Post by ajohnstone
This certainly raises
an issue on the impartiality of law enforcement.

If nobody attacks this kid, nothing happens. It is only because these

False. Just threatening would be enough, Show mw video of him being
attacked.

Post by Bud
leftist children feel they are justified to attack anyone they see as an
enemy that this situation became a violent one.

Now you are changing your tune. Now you say just being an enemy if enough
to attack, but for the white guy you said he is supposed to wait until he
is attacked before he can kill. Might be too late by then. How about just
a mean face or the middle finger? Isn't that enough to trigger you to
kill?

Oh, stop with the age thing. The whole thing plays at exactly the same
if he was 18. He still gets attacked, he still defends himself.

Maybe if it was illegal for him to have that gun he would not have shot
and killed anyone.

Bud

2020-08-31 03:10:26 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
What concerns me is this.
I am surprised that any parent would permit a teenage son to engage in
such activities.

In case you haven`t noticed, here in America thousands of teenage
kids have been burning, looting and killing. Some might see actively
protecting the property of those unable to do so themselves against this
sort of mayhem to be something noble.

In case you are new to our country, we have rights, but we also have
laws.

And local liberal governments are preventing those laws from being
enforced.

Post by Anthony Marsh
But here in America, they are only enforced against black people,
not white people.

Nonsense.

Post by Anthony Marsh
So Whites are allowed to kill blacks.

More nonsense.

Post by Anthony Marsh
So you claim rhat thousands of teenage kids are going around killing.
Please list all their names. You just make up crap.
Out of thousands of looters, very few are under 21.

Didn`t hear any bitching in the MSM about these underaged protesters.
Suddenly age became significant, why was that do you suppose?

Post by ajohnstone
A 17 yr old strutting around, openly brandishing a semi-automatic,

If he didn`t have it he might not be alive today.

I like that defense. Try using it in court.
Claim that you went out and shot and killed someone at random because
you were afraid that you might be killed some day.

You ignorance about what I wrote is only surpassed by your ignorance of
the shooting itself.

Post by ajohnstone
is
committing a criminal offence in that state yet not one police officer
made any attempt to question a youth about his age.

You realize that entire cities are being destroyed because leftists

Not entire cities.

Really? Check out what is happening in New York, Portland, Chicago.
These cities are ruined.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe a block or two. Reductio ad Absurdum. Show me
the photos of an ENTIRE city destroyed by leftists.
Maybe you think Laura was a leftist.

Post by Bud
refuse to let the police do their jobs, right? But this kid, he is the one

No, silly. The police were there doing their job.
Except arresting a killer.
How many were killed there and how many were arrested for murder?

Where, across the country?

Post by Bud
that merits their attention, not the ones throwing bricks, bombs, molotov

Great, show me the bombs. All you do here is make up crap.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-officers-injured-after-protesters-throw-improvised-explosives-seattle/LGJ624HG5FHKJDYRKLY7X7NQ6A/

https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/police-49-cops-injured-in-organized-attack-at-chicago-protest-LoyY5yHkppiaixbq/

Post by Bud
cocktails, it is this kid not bothering anyone that needs the attention.

Yeah, he had just shot and killed someone.

Not at that point in time he hadn`t.

Post by Anthony Marsh
But that does not matter to you if the victim is black.

Not if he has a handgun trying to kill someone I don`t.

Post by Anthony Marsh
What is that called?

Just desserts.

Post by ajohnstone
This certainly raises
an issue on the impartiality of law enforcement.

If nobody attacks this kid, nothing happens. It is only because these

False. Just threatening would be enough,

Show he threatened anyone.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Show mw video of him being
attacked.

They are all over, I posted links to several. Watch this video, it might
cure some of your ignorance...

http://youtu.be/B1KNwy3OzPc

Post by Bud
leftist children feel they are justified to attack anyone they see as an
enemy that this situation became a violent one.

The leftists hit a 71 year old man who was trying to protect his
property with a hunk of concrete. Is this what you call a "peaceful
protest"?

Oh, stop with the age thing. The whole thing plays at exactly the same
if he was 18. He still gets attacked, he still defends himself.

Maybe if it was illegal for him to have that gun he would not have shot
and killed anyone.

It is illegal to burn down other people`s property, that doesn`t seem to
bother you much. Is it Some Laws Matter?

John Corbett

2020-08-30 20:06:39 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
I'll leave aside the time-line of the events to what led to the shootings
because no-one here has the full knowledge. Too often people have made
their determination upon suppositions rather than facts (i plead guilty to
this but i am most definitely not alone, am i?, but i have some integrity
that others lack)
What concerns me is this.
I am surprised that any parent would permit a teenage son to engage in
such activities.
A 17 yr old strutting around, openly brandishing a semi-automatic, is
committing a criminal offence in that state yet not one police officer
made any attempt to question a youth about his age. This certainly raises
an issue on the impartiality of law enforcement.

Those under 18 are allowed to carry rifles and shotguns for hunting. The
law is vague as to whether it applies outside of hunting. One attorney
said the law is very poorly written and in such cases, the courts tend to
side with the accused.

I'd love to see The Hague get involved in this one. Openly carrying a
firearm does not constitute a combat role. Defending yourself with that
firearm is not a crime. Exercising the right to self defense is not
illegal under international law.

ajohnstone

2020-08-31 12:32:02 UTC

Post by John Corbett
Those under 18 are allowed to carry rifles and shotguns for hunting.

And of course the police weren't curious about what he was intending to
hunt with his semi-automatic rifle in the streets of Kenosha.

Post by John Corbett
I'd love to see The Hague get involved in this one.

Well we all know America's disregard for international law with what is
nicknamed the Hague Invasion Law

Note that it extend much further than US citizens and encompasses US
allies which it of course selectively picks.

The US is very happy to take other nationals to international courts and
to participate in their prosecution. But exempts itself in an act of
hypocrisy.

Post by John Corbett
Openly carrying a firearm does not constitute a combat role.

He was performing a role of armed guard - in military parlance - a sentry
- in what many would see and have described as a war-zone. Once again i
call into question the lack of responsibility of those adults who let a
boy participate in such activities. The guilt is not on Rittenhouse but
those around him and the police for not sending the boy home to his mom.

Regardless of whether he he was allegedly provoked or not, whether it was
supposedly in self-defense of not, that youngster now has the deaths of
two people and the crippling of another on his conscience for the rest of
his life. And yet some here offer approval. Shame on them.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 20:07:07 UTC

Well, kinda.
2 problems.
Was he old enough to legally buy that gun? In his state?
Was he old enough to carry it around in that state?
Does he need to have a permit to carry it, own it?
Depends on the state. When I was a kid I owned a rifle.
He had just shot it in public. That should be enuogh cause to detain him
in most states.
He could claim that he was shooting it at the killer. Then detain him
and investigate.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 20:07:03 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 30 Aug 2020 01:12:49 -0000, Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Since people want to talk about the Kenosha situation, I'll allow
posts on it for a couple or three days.
Eventually, I will close it down, but only with 24 hour notice.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

OK, but pro forma make sure that your minions get to post all the most
vile racist sruff they want,

Tony's definition of racist: anything that contradicts a politically
correct narrative of racial grievance.

Post by Anthony Marsh
THEN close it down before I have a chance to
respond. Remember, I am retired so I don't wake up until noon. 9AM EST
would be the best time to close down threads.

OK, I'll do that. For all your fussing, people see clearly that you
have more than ample opportunity to express your opinions here.

Wrong. Tell everyone here how many of my posts you have deleted. Can you
count that high?

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

2020-08-30 01:45:25 UTC

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 22:39:37 -0500, John McAdams
<***@marquette.edu> wrote:

Blake was a scum bag. Which doesn't mean the cops were justified in
shooting him. But notice how it's scum bags who get themselves in
trouble with the cops.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-before-you-honor-jacob-blake-as-a-martyr-read-the-criminal-complaint-against-him

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 20:07:11 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 22:39:37 -0500, John McAdams
Blake was a scum bag. Which doesn't mean the cops were justified in

Where did you learn that trick? In law school.
So your defense is always that the other person was a scumbag or on
drugs or whatever, so you are free to take a gun to a protest and shoot
people at random.

Post by John McAdams
shooting him. But notice how it's scum bags who get themselves in
trouble with the cops.

You mean like all of Trump's associates?

Post by John McAdams
https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-before-you-honor-jacob-blake-as-a-martyr-read-the-criminal-complaint-against-him
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

BOZ

2020-08-30 00:42:31 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package.

Great shooting. Self Defence. I wish he had shot a couple more.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 20:07:14 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package.

Great shooting. Self Defence. I wish he had shot a couple more.

PROVE in court that it was self-defense. You only say that when the
shooter is white and the victim is black.

Bud

2020-08-31 03:10:29 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package.

Great shooting. Self Defence. I wish he had shot a couple more.

PROVE in court that it was self-defense. You only say that when the
shooter is white and the victim is black.

Liberals don`t care about black people being murdered, and Black Lives
matter doesn`t care about black people being murdered...

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-gun-violence-9-dead-at-least-28-wounded-in-shootings-across-city/2331241/

ajohnstone

2020-08-30 00:42:34 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

John McAdams

2020-08-30 00:47:36 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

The Brennan Center is a left-wing operation.

Post by ajohnstone
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

People have a God-given right to protect their lives, liberty and
property.

When government fails to do that, they have a right to defend
themselves.

If a bunch of Klansman were threatening a black person, you would see
the issue more clearly.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 20:07:17 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

The Brennan Center is a left-wing operation.

Brennan had an operation? For what?
Deep State requires a lot of people. Tell me all their names.
Just one person all by himself does not make The Deep State.
You have a lot of paranoia, but no facts.

People have a God-given right to protect their lives, liberty and
property.
When government fails to do that, they have a right to defend
themselves.

So you are an anarchist.

Post by John McAdams
If a bunch of Klansman were threatening a black person, you would see
the issue more clearly.

NO. You would approve of that. You'd say he was on drugs.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bud

2020-08-30 01:13:30 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

The article was left wing tripe, for the reasons I gave...

"Just because you have cops posting racial things does not make them
connected and organized. And who gets to decide which groups are radical
and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But
a teacher or social worker can be a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is
the coordination shown?

Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package."

Whether it is from stupidity or dishonesty, as long as people on the
left misrepresent simple self defense with vigilantism there can be no
grounds for peace.

John Corbett

2020-08-30 01:16:48 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes. There are
people who aren't going to stand by and watch their cities destroyed by
gangs and when the police are prevented from stopping the rioting,
looting, and burning, they will take up arms to prevent this. We can argue
whether it is right or legal for them to do so, but it is a simple fact it
is going to happen.

In another newgroup I participate in on a regular basis, I predicted this
would happen if the defund-the-police movement took hold. Kenosha didn't
defund their police but by ordering them to stand down and allow rioters
to destroy property, it had the same effect. In stepped the vigilantes
with predictable results. A violent confrontation took place. Two people
are dead, one critically wounded, and a 17 year old kid faces the
possibility of spending a good portion of his adult life in prison. All
this because the mayor of Kenosha, like big city mayors all over the
country, wouldn't allow police to do the job they are supposed to do,
maintain law and order. Police should have started making arrests with the
very first act of looting or burning. If necessary they should have been
backed up by National Guard manpower. To stand buy and watch businesses
being destroyed by rioters is unconscionable.

Bud

2020-08-30 02:42:31 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes.

Kyle Rittenhouse was *not* a vigilante, don`t but into what the media is
feeding you. What he was was a fanboy for law and order. He saw the
lawlessness and destruction and people having their property destroyed and
felt he had to take a stand against it. That doesn`t make him a vigilante,
it makes him an enemy of destruction and lawlessness.

The problem is that the idiots on the extreme left feel that if you
don`t agree with them, or in any way stand against them, they are
justified to attack you.

Post by John Corbett
There are
people who aren't going to stand by and watch their cities destroyed by
gangs and when the police are prevented from stopping the rioting,
looting, and burning, they will take up arms to prevent this. We can argue
whether it is right or legal for them to do so, but it is a simple fact it
is going to happen.
In another newgroup I participate in on a regular basis, I predicted this
would happen if the defund-the-police movement took hold. Kenosha didn't
defund their police but by ordering them to stand down and allow rioters
to destroy property, it had the same effect. In stepped the vigilantes
with predictable results. A violent confrontation took place. Two people
are dead, one critically wounded,

They found out what Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Arbery and many
other people have found out. You can`t attack people with guns and expect
it to turn out well.

Post by John Corbett
and a 17 year old kid faces the
possibility of spending a good portion of his adult life in prison. All
this because the mayor of Kenosha, like big city mayors all over the
country, wouldn't allow police to do the job they are supposed to do,
maintain law and order. Police should have started making arrests with the
very first act of looting or burning. If necessary they should have been
backed up by National Guard manpower. To stand buy and watch businesses
being destroyed by rioters is unconscionable.

John Corbett

2020-08-30 14:37:02 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes.

This is the definition of vigilante according to the online dictionary:

vigilante
[ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē]

NOUN

a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law
enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because
the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

I think that perfectly describes what those people were doing in Kenosha.

Post by Bud
The problem is that the idiots on the extreme left feel that if you
don`t agree with them, or in any way stand against them, they are
justified to attack you.

They found out what Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Arbery and many
other people have found out. You can`t attack people with guns and expect
it to turn out well.

I've seen an unconfirmed report that the first shooting victim had earlier
been taunting those with guns and daring them to shoot him. Looks like one
finally did.

Bud

2020-08-31 01:13:03 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes.

vigilante
[ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē]
NOUN
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law
enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because
the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
I think that perfectly describes what those people were doing in Kenosha.

It does, and it is a meaning I`ve never known to be associated with the
word. The word as commonly used has negative connotations, but words
sometimes pick up baggage along the way. The source you are working from..

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/vigilante#:~:text=vig%C2%B7i%C2%B7lan%C2%B7te,in%20Indo%2DEuropean%20roots.%5D

Several of the definitions mention "vigilance committee".

Wikipedia has this about "vigilance committee"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilance_committee

So a person who helped slaves to freedom would also be a vigilante. But
I think the more common understanding of the word would be...

"A person who unlawfully takes the enforcement of law into his or her
own hands."

Our mayor here in Philly throws the word around with negative
connotations...

https://6abc.com/city-leaders-condemn-vigilante-justice/6227470/

Of course he is a batshit crazy liberal.

Post by Bud
The problem is that the idiots on the extreme left feel that if you
don`t agree with them, or in any way stand against them, they are
justified to attack you.

They found out what Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Arbery and many
other people have found out. You can`t attack people with guns and expect
it to turn out well.

I've seen an unconfirmed report that the first shooting victim had earlier
been taunting those with guns and daring them to shoot him. Looks like one
finally did.

Yeah he did. 4 chan is having a ball with this...

WARNING: SOME GRAPHIC VIOLENCE...

https://is2.4chan.org/gif/1598648969177.webm

John Corbett

2020-08-31 04:35:20 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes.

It does, and it is a meaning I`ve never known to be associated with the
word. The word as commonly used has negative connotations, but words
sometimes pick up baggage along the way. The source you are working from..
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/vigilante#:~:text=vig%C2%B7i%C2%B7lan%C2%B7te,in%20Indo%2DEuropean%20roots.%5D
Several of the definitions mention "vigilance committee".
Wikipedia has this about "vigilance committee"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilance_committee
So a person who helped slaves to freedom would also be a vigilante. But
I think the more common understanding of the word would be...
"A person who unlawfully takes the enforcement of law into his or her
own hands."
Our mayor here in Philly throws the word around with negative
connotations...
https://6abc.com/city-leaders-condemn-vigilante-justice/6227470/
Of course he is a batshit crazy liberal.

Regardless of the definition of the word "vigilante", they would be
unnecessary if the mayors of these cities would allow the police to do
their job rather than turning the streets over to the rioters....excuse
me, mostly peaceful protesters. Oops, there goes another car up in
flames.

Post by Bud
The problem is that the idiots on the extreme left feel that if you
don`t agree with them, or in any way stand against them, they are
justified to attack you.

They found out what Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Arbery and many
other people have found out. You can`t attack people with guns and expect
it to turn out well.

I've seen an unconfirmed report that the first shooting victim had earlier
been taunting those with guns and daring them to shoot him. Looks like one
finally did.

Yeah he did. 4 chan is having a ball with this...
WARNING: SOME GRAPHIC VIOLENCE...
https://is2.4chan.org/gif/1598648969177.webm

I liked how they slipped in John Travolta's character from Pulp Fiction.

By the way. What kind of an idiot would bring a skateboard to a gunfight?

ajohnstone

2020-08-30 20:06:45 UTC

So now in Portland a right-winger has been shot dead.

And before any here suggests i approve, any sensible person would be
condemning political murders committed by whatever group against whatever
other group. Unfortunately already partisan politics have skewed peoples
attitudes here that a killer is seen as as a hero...no, several killers
are viewed as legitimate

But moreover any sane person would be calling for the end of the right to
bear arms under the 2nd Amendment

In no developed democratic CIVILIZED nation would any police force permit
such vigilantism to occur.

Sadly, Americans have only themselves to blame if this escalates into
tit-for-tat shootings or develop into something far worse. You however
deserve pity

Bud

2020-08-31 03:10:16 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
So now in Portland a right-winger has been shot dead.

What makes him a "right-winger"? Because he wore something supportive of
the police?

Post by ajohnstone
And before any here suggests i approve, any sensible person would be
condemning political murders committed by whatever group against whatever
other group.

By and large lately it has been the left using violence as an ends to a
means. Many people have been attacked for wearing MAGA hats and whatnot.
When this Kyle kid was being chased, almost all the people chasing him had
weapons. Who on the left, who in the media has been decrying these people
bringing weapons to protests and committing violence?

Post by ajohnstone
Unfortunately already partisan politics have skewed peoples
attitudes here that a killer is seen as as a hero...

I think it is heroic to put yourself in harms way to protect innocent
people and their property.

Post by ajohnstone
no, several killers
are viewed as legitimate

Some killings are legitimate, like when someone is try to kill you.

Post by ajohnstone
But moreover any sane person would be calling for the end of the right to
bear arms under the 2nd Amendment

The left would love that, so they can attack unarmed people.

Post by ajohnstone
In no developed democratic CIVILIZED nation would any police force permit
such vigilantism to occur.

I don`t think the police in liberal cities should be allowed to be
attacked with impunity, but this seems to be the course of action set my
many liberal city governments.

Post by ajohnstone
Sadly, Americans have only themselves to blame if this escalates into
tit-for-tat shootings or develop into something far worse. You however
deserve pity

It has been "tat-tat-tat" for a long time, for years Trump supporters
have been getting attacked, for months leftists have been burning,
looting, assaulting, destroying, killing, ect, but now that some of these
violent rioters got hurt, now it is seen as a problem.

John Corbett

2020-08-31 03:10:23 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
So now in Portland a right-winger has been shot dead.
And before any here suggests i approve, any sensible person would be
condemning political murders committed by whatever group against whatever
other group. Unfortunately already partisan politics have skewed peoples
attitudes here that a killer is seen as as a hero...no, several killers
are viewed as legitimate
But moreover any sane person would be calling for the end of the right to
bear arms under the 2nd Amendment

Oh, great. First we tell the cops not to maintain law and order and now
you want to deprive people of the tools needed to defend themselves. We
are keeping 2A. If you want to see bloodshed, try taking away people's
right to keep and bear arms.

Post by ajohnstone
In no developed democratic CIVILIZED nation would any police force permit
such vigilantism to occur.

But it's OK for the police to permit rioting, looting, and burning.

Post by ajohnstone
Sadly, Americans have only themselves to blame if this escalates into
tit-for-tat shootings or develop into something far worse. You however
deserve pity

I'm perfectly happy living where I do and I want to keep things as they
are.

Bud

2020-08-31 04:36:38 UTC

In an interesting turn of events Oregon County is voting to be a "Second
Amendment Sanctuary". Stealing a page from the left with their Immigration
Sanctuary cities, if passed, Oregon County will not cooperate with local,
state or the Federal government when it comes to enforcing gun laws.

Bound to happen once the door was opened to allow localities to pick and
chose which laws they would enforce.

Post by ajohnstone
In no developed democratic CIVILIZED nation would any police force permit
such vigilantism to occur.
Sadly, Americans have only themselves to blame if this escalates into
tit-for-tat shootings or develop into something far worse. You however
deserve pity

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:12:54 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes.

Kyle Rittenhouse was *not* a vigilante, don`t but into what the media is

It wasn't HIS property, it wasn't his city, it wasn't his state.

Post by Bud
feeding you. What he was was a fanboy for law and order. He saw the

Fanboy? Is that what you call a murderer?

Post by Bud
lawlessness and destruction and people having their property destroyed
and felt he had to take a stand against it. That doesn`t make him a
vigilante,

It's not HIS dam property.
Why didn't he go to China and kill them for stealing our intellecual
property? Or russia for hacking our elections?

Post by Bud
it makes him an enemy of destruction and lawlessness.

It makes him a racist punk.

Post by Bud
The problem is that the idiots on the extreme left feel that if you
don`t agree with them, or in any way stand against them, they are
justified to attack you.

YOU? Did they attack YOU? Boy boy. Why didn't you shoot them all before
they could get organized? Slacker!

Did anyone prevent anything? No. You are just dreaming again.

Post by John Corbett
whether it is right or legal for them to do so, but it is a simple fact it
is going to happen.
In another newgroup I participate in on a regular basis, I predicted this

Is that the Boogaloo Boys?

Post by John Corbett
would happen if the defund-the-police movement took hold. Kenosha didn't

No one is being defunded except for the Post Offic. I don't see you
protesting that, no matter how many deaths that causes.

They found out what Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Arbery and
many other people have found out. You can`t attack people with guns and
expect it to turn out well.

Bud

2020-08-31 04:35:23 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes.

Kyle Rittenhouse was *not* a vigilante, don`t but into what the media is

It wasn't HIS property, it wasn't his city, it wasn't his state.

Does it belong to the leftists burning it down?

And where were the people Rittenhouse shot from?

People should watch the video here, the mainstrean media are just such
blatant liars...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/maryland-official-fired-posting-memes-appearing-support-teen/story?id=72714401

Says the kid "opened fire on demonstrators protesting the death of Jacob
Blake". Yes, he just showed up and started blasting. If Trump did nothing
else, he helped expose the media as fake news.

Post by Bud
feeding you. What he was was a fanboy for law and order. He saw the

Fanboy? Is that what you call a murderer?

You think he should have let himself be murdered. I told you all that
"punch a Nazi" nonsense would backfire.

Post by Bud
lawlessness and destruction and people having their property destroyed
and felt he had to take a stand against it. That doesn`t make him a
vigilante,

It's not HIS dam property.

"But when they destroyed my neighbor`s property, I did nothing, because
it was not mine. But when they came for my property, I had no one to help
me stand up for mine."

Post by Anthony Marsh
Why didn't he go to China and kill them for stealing our intellecual
property? Or russia for hacking our elections?

I think he did good here. You have to understand that if those people
didn`t attack him they would be alive today.

Post by Bud
it makes him an enemy of destruction and lawlessness.

It makes him a racist punk.

Contrive any false narrative that makes you feel comfortable.

If you don`t allow leftist bullies to do anything they want, destroy
anything they want, this makes you a racist. I`m sure Trump appreciates
your support.

Post by Bud
The problem is that the idiots on the extreme left feel that if you
don`t agree with them, or in any way stand against them, they are
justified to attack you.

YOU? Did they attack YOU?

They would, they feel they are justified to attack anyone. Bawl like
babies when violence is used back against them. Cry and play the victim.
Wahh, where are the cops?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Boy boy. Why didn't you shoot them all before
they could get organized? Slacker!

It might get to that point yet. Remember what I told you before, my side
is much better suited for a fight than your side. They bring a skateboard
to a gun fight.

Did anyone prevent anything?

I know of a few that won`t be destroying anyone else`s property any time
soon.

Post by Anthony Marsh
No. You are just dreaming again.

Some more background video can be found here.

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/08/28/kenosha-shooting/

Video can be seen of the leftists (including the first victim) can be
seen trying to roll a burning dumpster into the gas station. They are
stopped by Rittenhouse and the other armed defenders. The dumpster fire is
put out with a fire extinguisher by those on Rittenhouse`s side. Of course
this angers the children, who feel they should be able to destroy anything
they like. It escalates from there, with Rittenhouse`s eventual victim
getting in their face saying "Shoot me, shoot me". Be careful what you
wish for, I say.

Also video there of Rittenhouse helping injured protesters. He wasn`t
vindictive, he just didn`t want the violent crowd destroying other
people`s property.

Post by John Corbett
whether it is right or legal for them to do so, but it is a simple fact it
is going to happen.
In another newgroup I participate in on a regular basis, I predicted this

Is that the Boogaloo Boys?

Still obsessed with your boogey men.

Post by John Corbett
would happen if the defund-the-police movement took hold. Kenosha didn't

No one is being defunded except for the Post Offic. I don't see you
protesting that, no matter how many deaths that causes.

The Post Office is another leftist social experiment gone wrong.
Privatize it, watch how quick it starts turning a profit.

They found out what Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Arbery and
many other people have found out. You can`t attack people with guns and
expect it to turn out well.

ajohnstone

2020-08-31 12:32:07 UTC

Post by Bud
The Post Office is another leftist social experiment gone wrong.
Privatize it, watch how quick it starts turning a profit.

You are again quit mistaken. The British post office correctly called the
Royal Mail had been under state ownership for hundreds of years. It's
privatization began with Thatcher who first sold off the Post Office bank,
the Girobank, a highly profitable and very efficient bank. The price was
300 million pounds. The new owners immediately re-valued it at a
billion.

The privatization proper has not been a financial success envisaged by its
purchaser and there is practically unanimous opinion that the service has
deteriorated.

Perhaps in America if the private carriers are ordered to provide the same
sort of obligations as the USPS, they might not hive off the more
lucrative parts of the mail industry and then pass on the non-profited
bits to USPS

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:12:50 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical bullshit reporting of the left.

The Daily Mail is a British right-wing tabloid. It is reporting a study by
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
I have made my position clear about so-called vigilante "justice" so i
need not repeat it other than to add that when people like yourself
justify and legitimize such actions then there is a very dark future
ahead.

Unfortunately when the police are ordered to stand down, this creates a

Sure. Where and when were the police ordered to stand down?
You meanthe LA riots? Was that Antifa?

Post by John Corbett
void and that void will be filled by gangs and vigilantes. There are

You mean like the KKK?

Post by John Corbett
people who aren't going to stand by and watch their cities destroyed by
gangs and when the police are prevented from stopping the rioting,

You mean like rightwing terrorists? Now, they'll do it themselves.
Like the Oklahoma bombing. Or the original race riots.

Chicago race riot of 1919 was a violent racial conflict started by white
Americans against black Americans that began on the South Side of
Chicago, Illinois on July 27, and ended on August 3, 1919. During the
riot, thirty-eight people died (23 black and 15 white).
Date: July 27 ??? August 3, 1919
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States

Chicago race riot of 1919 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org ??? wiki ??? Chicago_race_riot_of_1919

Post by John Corbett
looting, and burning, they will take up arms to prevent this. We can argue
whether it is right or legal for them to do so, but it is a simple fact it
is going to happen.
In another newgroup I participate in on a regular basis, I predicted this

Was that the Bugaloo Boys newsgoup?

Post by John Corbett
would happen if the defund-the-police movement took hold. Kenosha didn't

Who ordered them to stand down? When and why?
Does that mean that they literally have to stand on the sidelines and
watch people killing each other?

Post by John Corbett
defund their police but by ordering them to stand down and allow rioters
to destroy property, it had the same effect. In stepped the vigilantes
with predictable results. A violent confrontation took place. Two people
are dead, one critically wounded, and a 17 year old kid faces the
possibility of spending a good portion of his adult life in prison. All
this because the mayor of Kenosha, like big city mayors all over the
country, wouldn't allow police to do the job they are supposed to do,
maintain law and order. Police should have started making arrests with
the very first act of looting or burning. If necessary they should have
been backed up by National Guard manpower. To stand buy and watch
businesses being destroyed by rioters is unconscionable.

Off-topic. Delete, delete.
This thread is about The Deep State not vigilantism.

John Corbett

2020-08-30 00:42:38 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

It remains to be seen whether these homicides were justified or not. The
use of deadly force is legal if one is threatened with death or great
bodily harm but not to protect property. In order for these shootings to
be justified, the person resorting to deadly force must have a REASONABLE
belief he/she is in danger of death or great bodily harm. It is also
necessary for the person resorting to deadly force cannot be the aggressor
in a confrontation. The following story seems to show some support for
that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/victims-of-shooting-during-kenosha-protest-engaged-gunman/ar-BB18tCcr?ocid=msedgdhp

The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot. It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the shooter.
To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a concealed carry
license. If someone tried to take my gun from me, I would consider that a
threatening gesture and would resort to deadly force to prevent that. If
he succeeds in taking my gun from me, I would be in danger of death or
great bodily harm.

As for the subsequent victims, they chased the shooter for some distance
before he fell to the ground, there were multiple people coming after him.
I think in that circumstance it was reasonable for him to believe he was
in danger of great bodily harm.

One other factor that must be considered is the duty to retreat. Even if
one perceives one is in danger of death or great bodily harm, that person
has a duty to retreat from that situation if that can be done without
exposing the person to greater risk. States with stand-your-ground laws
relieve a person from the duty to retreat but Wisconsin does not have such
a law. In the second shooting, the shooter was clearly attempting to
retreat. We don't know what the circumstance was in the first shooting.

The videos and the above story don't answer all these questions but do
raise the possibility this might have been a justifiable shooting. If self
defense is claimed, and the kid's lawyer has indicated it will be, the
state will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
deadly force was not justified. Had this happened in Ohio where I live,
the accused would have the burden of proving by the preponderance of
evidence that deadly force was justified.

In any case, we should refrain from rushing to judgement based on a few
seconds of video and sketchy reports. Let's let the facts come out and let
the chips fall where they may.

John McAdams

2020-08-30 00:52:10 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

Notice how it says "engaged" gunman?

They actually attacked him!

You have given me yet another good example of biased media language to
use in my class!

Post by John Corbett
The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot. It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the shooter.
To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a concealed carry
license. If someone tried to take my gun from me, I would consider that a
threatening gesture and would resort to deadly force to prevent that. If
he succeeds in taking my gun from me, I would be in danger of death or
great bodily harm.
As for the subsequent victims, they chased the shooter for some distance
before he fell to the ground, there were multiple people coming after him.
I think in that circumstance it was reasonable for him to believe he was
in danger of great bodily harm.
One other factor that must be considered is the duty to retreat. Even if
one perceives one is in danger of death or great bodily harm, that person
has a duty to retreat from that situation if that can be done without
exposing the person to greater risk. States with stand-your-ground laws
relieve a person from the duty to retreat but Wisconsin does not have such
a law. In the second shooting, the shooter was clearly attempting to
retreat. We don't know what the circumstance was in the first shooting.
The videos and the above story don't answer all these questions but do
raise the possibility this might have been a justifiable shooting. If self
defense is claimed, and the kid's lawyer has indicated it will be, the
state will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
deadly force was not justified. Had this happened in Ohio where I live,
the accused would have the burden of proving by the preponderance of
evidence that deadly force was justified.

Good analysis.

Post by John Corbett
In any case, we should refrain from rushing to judgement based on a few
seconds of video and sketchy reports. Let's let the facts come out and let
the chips fall where they may.

Then how do you feel about media that did rush to judgment?

A satirical take on this:

https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-rush-to-cover-story-before-facts-can-get-in-the-way/

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2020-08-30 14:36:39 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

Notice how it says "engaged" gunman?
They actually attacked him!
You have given me yet another good example of biased media language to
use in my class!

When I posted this in the other newsgroup I participate in,
talk.politics.guns, I too put the word engaged in quotes for obvious
reasons.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?oldui=1#!topic/talk.politics.guns/sgXF1ToPaOs

Good analysis.

Then how do you feel about media that did rush to judgment?

I've become used to it. I have tuned out most of the mainstream media.
They couldn't be more biased if they shook blue pom-poms and wore big D's
on their blue sweaters.

Post by John McAdams
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-rush-to-cover-story-before-facts-can-get-in-the-way/

It reminds me of the attack they made Nicholas Sandmann, the kid from
Covington, KY who committed the unpardonable sine of wearing a MAGA hat
following an anti-abortion rally. The mainstream media had a feeding
frenzy and now they have had to settle multi-million dollar libel suits.
CNN was the first to pay up and more recently the Washington Post. The
latter won't suffer because it is just pocket change for Jeff Bezos. The
amount of the settlements was made confidential but most analysts believe
they would have been in 7 figures each. Even after the lawyers'
contingency fees, that should make Mr. Sandmann a very rich young man.
Good for him.

What's most appalling about the mainstream media these days is that even
when they get caught in a blatant lie, there is no contrition. They just
move on to the next lie. I believe it was back in the 1980s when NBC News
got caught rigging a test on a Chevrolet car by using explosives to cause
a fiery crash. Bob Woodward was asked to comment on this and he said they
need to do what his old boss Ben Bradlee called "a full grovel". That was
back in the days when even the left wing media had some sense of
integrity. Those days are long gone. Now they don't care if they get
caught. They pretend it never happened.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:13:07 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

Notice how it says "engaged" gunman?
They actually attacked him!
You have given me yet another good example of biased media language to
use in my class!

When I posted this in the other newsgroup I participate in,
talk.politics.guns, I too put the word engaged in quotes for obvious
reasons.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?oldui=1#!topic/talk.politics.guns/sgXF1ToPaOs

Good analysis.

Then how do you feel about media that did rush to judgment?

I've become used to it. I have tuned out most of the mainstream media.
They couldn't be more biased if they shook blue pom-poms and wore big D's
on their blue sweaters.

Post by John McAdams
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-rush-to-cover-story-before-facts-can-get-in-the-way/

It reminds me of the attack they made Nicholas Sandmann, the kid from

What attack? Was he shot and killed? The only reason you feel sorry for
him is because he is a racist.

Post by John Corbett
Covington, KY who committed the unpardonable sine of wearing a MAGA hat

OMG, isn't that enough reason to shoot and kill him?
Why are people still weaing those hats?
How many years will it take to Make America Great Again? 100?
Trump failed to do it in 4. But he did succeed in reocrd numbers of
deaths and unemployment. So you can brag about that.
Make America Broke Again.

Post by John Corbett
following an anti-abortion rally. The mainstream media had a feeding

I think the confrontations had little to do with abortion. The trouble was
started by a handul of Black Hebrew Israelites on purpose. I don't know if
it is fair to call them a cult, but they eact that way.

Post by John Corbett
frenzy and now they have had to settle multi-million dollar libel suits.
CNN was the first to pay up and more recently the Washington Post. The
latter won't suffer because it is just pocket change for Jeff Bezos. The
amount of the settlements was made confidential but most analysts believe
they would have been in 7 figures each. Even after the lawyers'
contingency fees, that should make Mr. Sandmann a very rich young man.
Good for him.
What's most appalling about the mainstream media these days is that even
when they get caught in a blatant lie, there is no contrition. They just

Sounds more like Fox and trump. And now Fox is part of the
Administration. They were the only dishonest people he could find.

Post by John Corbett
move on to the next lie. I believe it was back in the 1980s when NBC
News got caught rigging a test on a Chevrolet car by using explosives to
cause a fiery crash. Bob Woodward was asked to comment on this and he
said they need to do what his old boss Ben Bradlee called "a full
grovel". That was back in the days when even the left wing media had
some sense of integrity. Those days are long gone. Now they don't care
if they get caught. They pretend it never happened.

John Corbett

2020-08-30 14:36:56 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

Notice how it says "engaged" gunman?
They actually attacked him!
You have given me yet another good example of biased media language to
use in my class!

Good analysis.

Then how do you feel about media that did rush to judgment?

I've become used to it. I have tuned out most of the mainstream media.
They couldn't be more biased if they shook blue pom-poms and wore big D's
on their blue sweaters.

Post by John McAdams
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-rush-to-cover-story-before-facts-can-get-in-the-way/

John Corbett

2020-08-31 03:10:20 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

Notice how it says "engaged" gunman?
They actually attacked him!
You have given me yet another good example of biased media language to
use in my class!

When I posted this in the other newsgroup I participate in,
talk.politics.guns, I too put the word engaged in quotes for obvious
reasons.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?oldui=1#!topic/talk.politics.guns/sgXF1ToPaOs

Good analysis.

Then how do you feel about media that did rush to judgment?

I've become used to it. I have tuned out most of the mainstream media.
They couldn't be more biased if they shook blue pom-poms and wore big D's
on their blue sweaters.

Post by John McAdams
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-rush-to-cover-story-before-facts-can-get-in-the-way/

This is a partial duplication of the post right above it. I'm not sure how
this happened but I am using the new Google Groups and it is loaded with
bugs. I don't think they bothered to test it out before they released it.
I think they want the users to find the bugs and report it back to them.
They have even provided a link to do just that.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:13:00 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

It remains to be seen whether these homicides were justified or not.

I Thought your standard was whether you like the victim or not. YOU
could say the victim was on drugs.

Post by John Corbett
use of deadly force is legal if one is threatened with death or great

I was threatened a few years go. So you say it is OK to kill my neighbor
today?

Post by John Corbett
bodily harm but not to protect property. In order for these shootings
to be justified, the person resorting to deadly force must have a
REASONABLE belief he/she is in danger of death or great bodily harm. It
is also necessary for the person resorting to deadly force cannot be
the aggressor in a confrontation. The following story seems to show
some support for that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/victims-of-shooting-during-kenosha-protest-engaged-gunman/ar-BB18tCcr?ocid=msedgdhp

Notice how it says "engaged" gunman?
They actually attacked him!
You have given me yet another good example of biased media language to
use in my class!

Is that what you are teching? That the leftist media is biased?
But not Fox?

Post by John Corbett
The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot. It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the
shooter. To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a
concealed carry license. If someone tried to take my gun from me, I
would consider that a threatening gesture and would resort to deadly
force to prevent that. If he succeeds in taking my gun from me, I would
be in danger of death or great bodily harm.
As for the subsequent victims, they chased the shooter for some
distance before he fell to the ground, there were multiple people
coming after him. I think in that circumstance it was reasonable for
him to believe he was in danger of great bodily harm.
One other factor that must be considered is the duty to retreat. Even
if one perceives one is in danger of death or great bodily harm, that
person has a duty to retreat from that situation if that can be done
without exposing the person to greater risk. States with
stand-your-ground laws relieve a person from the duty to retreat but
Wisconsin does not have such a law. In the second shooting, the shooter
was clearly attempting to retreat. We don't know what the circumstance
was in the first shooting.
The videos and the above story don't answer all these questions but do
raise the possibility this might have been a justifiable shooting. If
self defense is claimed, and the kid's lawyer has indicated it will be,
the state will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that deadly force was not justified. Had this happened in Ohio where I
live, the accused would have the burden of proving by the preponderance
of evidence that deadly force was justified.

Good analysis.

Then how do you feel about media that did rush to judgment?

Mark Lane copyrighted that. Do you mean the WC's Rush to Judgment?

Post by John McAdams
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-rush-to-cover-story-before-facts-can-get-in-the-way/

So you think we should wait for all the facts to come in before a story is
reported? Like JFK assassination? Exactly how many seconds did it take
before the shooting was reported?

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bud

2020-08-30 02:42:17 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

It remains to be seen whether these homicides were justified or not.

Anyone with two eyes and any sense whatsoever can see for themselves.

Post by John Corbett
The
use of deadly force is legal if one is threatened with death or great
bodily harm but not to protect property. In order for these shootings to
be justified, the person resorting to deadly force must have a REASONABLE
belief he/she is in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Have you seen any of the footage?

Post by John Corbett
It is also
necessary for the person resorting to deadly force cannot be the aggressor
in a confrontation. The following story seems to show some support for
that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/victims-of-shooting-during-kenosha-protest-engaged-gunman/ar-BB18tCcr?ocid=msedgdhp

Oh for fucks sake! "Engaged"? What, to be married? They chased him down,
and the intent of that chase was to do him bodily harm.

Post by John Corbett
The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot.

"followed"? They chased him with the intent to do bodily harm, they are
"attackers". Something in flames was thrown at him during this chase, and
many of the people chasing him have weapons in their hands. A gun goes
off, not Kyle`s.

The guy who he shot in the arm "appeared to have a gun", are you kidding
me? He clearly was standing over Rittenhouse with a handgun leveled at
him.

The other guy used his skateboard to "make contact" with Rittenhouse
while he was on the ground.

Do yourself a favor, don`t get your information from the mainstream
media.

Here is some raw video...

WARNING: Some images of people being shot and killed...

https://i.4cdn.org/gif/1598632690689.webm

Note that there is something flaming thrown at him. Note that some of
the people "following" him are carry long sticks.

https://is2.4chan.org/gif/1598669418419.webm

They chased him to that location with the intent to do him harm. They
caught up with him (Kyle in the green shirt), and he was forced to shoot
the first victim. After shooting this person, he immediately got on his
phone to report the shooting to the police. He was rushed by more people,
and was forced to flee again. During this run he fell...

EXTRA WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGE OF BLOODY WOUND...

https://i.4cdn.org/gif/1598669596300.webm

One person hit him with a skateboard while another person ran up to him
with a handgun. One attacker shot and killed, the one with the gun shot
and wounded in the arm.

Post by John Corbett
It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the shooter.
To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a concealed carry
license. If someone tried to take my gun from me, I would consider that a
threatening gesture and would resort to deadly force to prevent that. If
he succeeds in taking my gun from me, I would be in danger of death or
great bodily harm.
As for the subsequent victims, they chased the shooter for some distance
before he fell to the ground, there were multiple people coming after him.
I think in that circumstance it was reasonable for him to believe he was
in danger of great bodily harm.
One other factor that must be considered is the duty to retreat. Even if
one perceives one is in danger of death or great bodily harm, that person
has a duty to retreat from that situation if that can be done without
exposing the person to greater risk. States with stand-your-ground laws
relieve a person from the duty to retreat but Wisconsin does not have such
a law. In the second shooting, the shooter was clearly attempting to
retreat. We don't know what the circumstance was in the first shooting.
The videos and the above story don't answer all these questions but do
raise the possibility this might have been a justifiable shooting. If self
defense is claimed, and the kid's lawyer has indicated it will be, the
state will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
deadly force was not justified. Had this happened in Ohio where I live,
the accused would have the burden of proving by the preponderance of
evidence that deadly force was justified.
In any case, we should refrain from rushing to judgement based on a few
seconds of video and sketchy reports. Let's let the facts come out and let
the chips fall where they may.

There is a very good chance that if his gun jammed, or they got it off
him, or if he was knocked out by the skateboard, he would be dead today.
You shouldn`t be charged for luckily escaping death at the hands of a
violent mob.

This might give you some much needed perspective...

http://youtu.be/B1KNwy3OzPc

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:13:10 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

It remains to be seen whether these homicides were justified or not.

Anyone with two eyes and any sense whatsoever can see for themselves.

Have you seen any of the footage?

Oh for fucks sake! "Engaged"? What, to be married? They chased him down,
and the intent of that chase was to do him bodily harm.

Post by John Corbett
The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot.

Show me.

Post by Bud
The other guy used his skateboard to "make contact" with Rittenhouse
while he was on the ground.
Do yourself a favor, don`t get your information from the mainstream
media.
Here is some raw video...
WARNING: Some images of people being shot and killed...
https://i.4cdn.org/gif/1598632690689.webm

Oh, we can't look, it might be the Mainstrem Media!

Post by Bud
Note that there is something flaming thrown at him. Note that some of
the people "following" him are carry long sticks.
https://is2.4chan.org/gif/1598669418419.webm
They chased him to that location with the intent to do him harm. They
caught up with him (Kyle in the green shirt), and he was forced to shoot
the first victim. After shooting this person, he immediately got on his
phone to report the shooting to the police. He was rushed by more people,
and was forced to flee again. During this run he fell...
EXTRA WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGE OF BLOODY WOUND...
https://i.4cdn.org/gif/1598669596300.webm
One person hit him with a skateboard while another person ran up to him
with a handgun. One attacker shot and killed, the one with the gun shot
and wounded in the arm.

Post by John Corbett
It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the shooter.
To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a concealed carry

Maybe he was trying to take the gun away from him to prevent a murder.

Post by John Corbett
license. If someone tried to take my gun from me, I would consider that a
threatening gesture and would resort to deadly force to prevent that. If
he succeeds in taking my gun from me, I would be in danger of death or
great bodily harm.

So you would preemptively shoot anyone near you, as long as they are
black.

Post by John Corbett
As for the subsequent victims, they chased the shooter for some distance
before he fell to the ground, there were multiple people coming after him.
I think in that circumstance it was reasonable for him to believe he was
in danger of great bodily harm.
One other factor that must be considered is the duty to retreat. Even if
one perceives one is in danger of death or great bodily harm, that person
has a duty to retreat from that situation if that can be done without
exposing the person to greater risk. States with stand-your-ground laws
relieve a person from the duty to retreat but Wisconsin does not have such
a law. In the second shooting, the shooter was clearly attempting to
retreat. We don't know what the circumstance was in the first shooting.
The videos and the above story don't answer all these questions but do
raise the possibility this might have been a justifiable shooting. If self
defense is claimed, and the kid's lawyer has indicated it will be, the
state will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
deadly force was not justified. Had this happened in Ohio where I live,
the accused would have the burden of proving by the preponderance of
evidence that deadly force was justified.
In any case, we should refrain from rushing to judgement based on a few
seconds of video and sketchy reports. Let's let the facts come out and let
the chips fall where they may.

There is a very good chance that if his gun jammed, or they got it off
him, or if he was knocked out by the skateboard, he would be dead today.
You shouldn`t be charged for luckily escaping death at the hands of a
violent mob.
This might give you some much needed perspective...
http://youtu.be/B1KNwy3OzPc

Bud

2020-08-31 04:35:25 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

It remains to be seen whether these homicides were justified or not.

Anyone with two eyes and any sense whatsoever can see for themselves.

Have you seen any of the footage?

Oh for fucks sake! "Engaged"? What, to be married? They chased him down,
and the intent of that chase was to do him bodily harm.

Post by John Corbett
The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot.

Show me.

You`ll avert your eyes because it goes against the fake news the
mainstream media has fed to you.

Oh, we can't look, it might be the Mainstrem Media!

Don`t look, you can`t handle the truth.

Post by John Corbett
It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the shooter.
To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a concealed carry

Maybe he was trying to take the gun away from him to prevent a murder.

I gotta say, he botched that.

So you would preemptively shoot anyone near you, as long as they are
black.

Black people have nothing to fear from me. Now other black people, that
might be a problem.

There is a very good chance that if his gun jammed, or they got it off
him, or if he was knocked out by the skateboard, he would be dead today.
You shouldn`t be charged for luckily escaping death at the hands of a
violent mob.
This might give you some much needed perspective...
http://youtu.be/B1KNwy3OzPc

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:12:57 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement.

It may depended on where you live. In my state you have an obligation to
flee.

Post by John Corbett
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/victims-of-shooting-during-kenosha-protest-engaged-gunman/ar-BB18tCcr?ocid=msedgdhp
The story states that the first victim followed the shooter into a car
lot. It further states that he tried to take the rifle from the shooter.
To me, that would be a very threatening act. I have a concealed carry
license. If someone tried to take my gun from me, I would consider that a
threatening gesture and would resort to deadly force to prevent that. If
he succeeds in taking my gun from me, I would be in danger of death or
great bodily harm.
As for the subsequent victims, they chased the shooter for some distance
before he fell to the ground, there were multiple people coming after him.
I think in that circumstance it was reasonable for him to believe he was
in danger of great bodily harm.
One other factor that must be considered is the duty to retreat. Even if
one perceives one is in danger of death or great bodily harm, that person
has a duty to retreat from that situation if that can be done without

Depends on the state.

Post by John Corbett
exposing the person to greater risk. States with stand-your-ground laws
relieve a person from the duty to retreat but Wisconsin does not have such
a law. In the second shooting, the shooter was clearly attempting to
retreat. We don't know what the circumstance was in the first shooting.
The videos and the above story don't answer all these questions but do
raise the possibility this might have been a justifiable shooting. If self
defense is claimed, and the kid's lawyer has indicated it will be, the
state will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
deadly force was not justified. Had this happened in Ohio where I live,
the accused would have the burden of proving by the preponderance of
evidence that deadly force was justified.
In any case, we should refrain from rushing to judgement based on a few
seconds of video and sketchy reports. Let's let the facts come out and let
the chips fall where they may.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 01:12:46 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops

When you say things like that you self identify as an extreme
rightwinger. Are you happy with that?

Post by Bud
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who

Except that there are newsgroups and Twitter groups like this one where
the extreme right racists hang out and amplify hatred and racism. Are you
OK with that?

Post by Bud
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I

Me. I get to decide. Pay attention.

Post by Bud
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be

Are you saying you are already a member?
How extreme are they? Not extreme enough for you?
How about the Boogaloo Boys? You get to wear Hawaiian shirts.

Post by Bud
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish

No, they don't.

Post by Bud
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package.

Not fair. Not all cops are racists.

Bud

2020-08-30 02:42:25 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops

When you say things like that you self identify as an extreme
rightwinger. Are you happy with that?

If telling the truth makes me a right winger, I`m ok with that.

Post by Bud
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who

Except that there are newsgroups and Twitter groups like this one where
the extreme right racists hang out and amplify hatred and racism. Are
you OK with that?

What cities are they burning down?

Post by Bud
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I

Me. I get to decide. Pay attention.

This is the problem, you can`t have the worst thinkers making these
kinds of calls.

Post by Bud
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be

Are you saying you are already a member?
How extreme are they? Not extreme enough for you?
How about the Boogaloo Boys? You get to wear Hawaiian shirts.

You seem to know more about them than I do. Are you already a member?

Post by Bud
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish

No, they don't.

Why yes, yes they do...

http://youtu.be/fqqGGqLlrw4

Post by Bud
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized,
and yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is
somehow all lumped together in a neat package.

Not fair. Not all cops are racists.

Not all leftists are idiots. In theory.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:13:14 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops

When you say things like that you self identify as an extreme
rightwinger. Are you happy with that?

If telling the truth makes me a right winger, I`m ok with that.

Post by Bud
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who

Except that there are newsgroups and Twitter groups like this one where
the extreme right racists hang out and amplify hatred and racism. Are
you OK with that?

What cities are they burning down?

Post by Bud
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I

Me. I get to decide. Pay attention.

This is the problem, you can`t have the worst thinkers making these
kinds of calls.

You mean like Trump? Make America Broke Again

Post by Bud
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be

Are you saying you are already a member?
How extreme are they? Not extreme enough for you?
How about the Boogaloo Boys? You get to wear Hawaiian shirts.

You seem to know more about them than I do. Are you already a member?

Post by Bud
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish

No, they don't.

Why yes, yes they do...
http://youtu.be/fqqGGqLlrw4

Post by Bud
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized,
and yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is
somehow all lumped together in a neat package.

Not fair. Not all cops are racists.

Not all leftists are idiots. In theory.

Bud

2020-08-31 04:35:31 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops

When you say things like that you self identify as an extreme
rightwinger. Are you happy with that?

If telling the truth makes me a right winger, I`m ok with that.

Post by Bud
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who

Except that there are newsgroups and Twitter groups like this one where
the extreme right racists hang out and amplify hatred and racism. Are
you OK with that?

What cities are they burning down?

Post by Bud
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I

Me. I get to decide. Pay attention.

This is the problem, you can`t have the worst thinkers making these
kinds of calls.

You mean like Trump? Make America Broke Again

If you were so concerned about fiscal responsibility perhaps you should
have joined the Tea Party.

Post by Bud
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be

Are you saying you are already a member?
How extreme are they? Not extreme enough for you?
How about the Boogaloo Boys? You get to wear Hawaiian shirts.

You seem to know more about them than I do. Are you already a member?

Post by Bud
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish

No, they don't.

Why yes, yes they do...
http://youtu.be/fqqGGqLlrw4

Post by Bud
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized,
and yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is
somehow all lumped together in a neat package.

Not fair. Not all cops are racists.

Not all leftists are idiots. In theory.

Bud

2020-08-30 01:13:11 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."

You leftists should stop spouting so much nonsense.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...

We have political extremists, terrorists and racists dictating events.

Typical bullshit reporting of the left. Just because you have cops
posting racial things does not make them connected and organized. And who
gets to decide which groups are radical and hate groups? If I`m a cop, I
can`t be a member of the Proud Boys? But a teacher or social worker can be
a member of BLM or Antifa? And where is the coordination shown?
Interesting that Antifa, who act in coordination like a school of fish
in the video I linked to aren`t considered structured and organized, and
yet every instance of something racial by any cop anywhere is somehow all
lumped together in a neat package.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 01:12:43 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement. And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

How about that cop refusing to arrest that 17-ear-old white kid walking
down the street with his loaded AR-15 after just killing a protestor? He
said he didn't actually see the kid shoot him.

17-year-old from Illinois arrested in fatal shootings during Kenosha
protest; Wisconsin authorities ID cop who shot Jacob Blake. In one
interview he said he was there to protect property. But it wasn't HIS
property. He was from a different state. What he meant was WHITE property.

The racist pollice are OK with racist punks running around with their
AR-15s, but shoot unarmed black kids.

I think anyone who wears his baseball cap on backwards like that should be
shot on the spot.

Bud

2020-08-30 02:42:20 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement. And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

How about that cop refusing to arrest that 17-ear-old white kid walking
down the street with his loaded AR-15 after just killing a protestor?

You mean the kid who killed someone who was attacking him?

Post by Anthony Marsh
He
said he didn't actually see the kid shoot him.

Maybe he didn`t.

Post by Anthony Marsh
17-year-old from Illinois arrested in fatal shootings during Kenosha
protest; Wisconsin authorities ID cop who shot Jacob Blake. In one
interview he said he was there to protect property. But it wasn't HIS
property. He was from a different state. What he meant was WHITE property.
The racist pollice are OK with racist punks running around with their
AR-15s, but shoot unarmed black kids.

The left like to inflict violence on others but cry like little babies
when it is employed against them. Get used to it, it is going to happen
more and more.

BLM showed up at the Sturgis, look who had to protect them, the evil
police...

And BTW, the black person Rittenhouse shot wasn`t unarmed, but don`t let
facts get in the way of your false narratives.

Post by Anthony Marsh
I think anyone who wears his baseball cap on backwards like that should be
shot on the spot.

Loading Image...

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-31 01:13:17 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement. And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

How about that cop refusing to arrest that 17-ear-old white kid walking
down the street with his loaded AR-15 after just killing a protestor?

You mean the kid who killed someone who was attacking him?

Post by Anthony Marsh
He
said he didn't actually see the kid shoot him.

Maybe he didn`t.

The left like to inflict violence on others but cry like little babies
when it is employed against them. Get used to it, it is going to happen
more and more.
BLM showed up at the Sturgis, look who had to protect them, the evil
police...

Not all Police are evil. How do you know these police were evil?

Post by Bud
http://youtu.be/T1fzhngiHDc
And BTW, the black person Rittenhouse shot wasn`t unarmed, but don`t let
facts get in the way of your false narratives.

Post by Anthony Marsh
I think anyone who wears his baseball cap on backwards like that should be
shot on the spot.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/kidzworld_photo/images/2014327/56b70a2b-59f3-4bd1-8077-b04ac9408c35/Obama_Baseball_Cap_1.jpg

Bud

2020-08-31 04:35:28 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement. And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

How about that cop refusing to arrest that 17-ear-old white kid walking
down the street with his loaded AR-15 after just killing a protestor?

You mean the kid who killed someone who was attacking him?

Post by Anthony Marsh
He
said he didn't actually see the kid shoot him.

Maybe he didn`t.

The left like to inflict violence on others but cry like little babies
when it is employed against them. Get used to it, it is going to happen
more and more.
BLM showed up at the Sturgis, look who had to protect them, the evil
police...

Not all Police are evil. How do you know these police were evil?

For one thing they are protecting Antifa and BLM clowns from getting
torn apart.

Post by Bud
http://youtu.be/T1fzhngiHDc
And BTW, the black person Rittenhouse shot wasn`t unarmed, but don`t let
facts get in the way of your false narratives.

Post by Anthony Marsh
I think anyone who wears his baseball cap on backwards like that should be
shot on the spot.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/kidzworld_photo/images/2014327/56b70a2b-59f3-4bd1-8077-b04ac9408c35/Obama_Baseball_Cap_1.jpg

BOZ

2020-08-30 02:42:22 UTC

Post by Bud
Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized

they are
You so easily respond that anything that disagrees with your view is
"leftist nonsense."
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a
hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups
and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated and has no chain of
command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information
about far-right activity across regional and national borders through
loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and
solidarity"...FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said on June 4, 2020
that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue
violent, extremist agendas", testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee
in July 2020 that the agency "considers antifa more of an ideology than an
organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
I certainly do not accuse the right of being as one identifiable
organization with one agreed and accepted structure and objective but
accept that it indeed coordinates and engages in joint activities.

Post by Bud
The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture

As for the right being the under-dog and the victims, that simply is
misrepresentation. We do have a shift in media attention and a change of
the political narrative...but the same thing was said in the 1960s. I am
not defending political opportunism nor the race for tv ratings. As
Malcolm X explained, some prefer to be a fox rather the wolf to dupe folk
with pretend empathy.
The actual reality is very different.
We have that kid being congratulated by law-enforcement. And the evidence
of police collaborating with the right-wing is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8671473/Report-White-supremacists-far-right-vigilante-militias-infiltrated-police-US.html

How about that cop refusing to arrest that 17-ear-old white kid walking
down the street with his loaded AR-15 after just killing a protestor? He
said he didn't actually see the kid shoot him.
17-year-old from Illinois arrested in fatal shootings during Kenosha
protest; Wisconsin authorities ID cop who shot Jacob Blake. In one
interview he said he was there to protect property. But it wasn't HIS
property. He was from a different state. What he meant was WHITE property.
The racist pollice are OK with racist punks running around with their
AR-15s, but shoot unarmed black kids.
I think anyone who wears his baseball cap on backwards like that should be
shot on the spot.

Black Lives Matter wants to abolish prisons, but wants to send a 17 year
white kid to prison for life for committing self defence.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-29 03:31:48 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
I'm well aware of antifa not being in any way a structured organization or
even an organized movement.

Typical leftist nonsense. See how coordinated, structured and organized
they are in this video...
http://youtu.be/fqqGGqLlrw4

The Left and BLM are the new dominant culture, it is people like the kid

Why? Because you keep killing black people.
Just stop killing black people and the protests will go away.
But, no, you never learn.

Post by Bud
who killed two and wounded one who are the new counter culture.

YOU have no tight to declare whar is the new counter culture.

Post by Bud
http://youtu.be/RJb4xEPhiVQ

Post by ajohnstone
In the UK we have Oxbridge dominating the seats of power. Perhaps your Ivy
League is more about maintaining privilege and power rather than academic
merit, too.

John Corbett

2020-08-27 00:41:28 UTC

That's utter nonsense. Her entire testimony was nothing but opinions and
expressions of her displeasure that Trump had ignored the advice of the
career diplomats.

Goldman: "So it is it your understanding then that president Trump
disregarded the advice of his senior officials about this theory and
instead listened to Rudy Giuliani’s views?” asked
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman.

Hill: "That appears to be the case, yes,” Dr Hill said.

Hill is not offering evidence of wrongdoing. She is expressing her
displeasure that Trump didn't follow the advice of holdover diplomats and
instead listened to Giuliani. It is a president's prerogative to choose
whose advice to follow and it is also his prerogative to change the course
of foreign policy even if it to the chagrin of the career diplomats who
had shaped the previous policies. I'd say she is pissed off.

It is the president's job to determine foreign policy. It is the job of
diplomats like Hill, who serve at his pleasure, to implement those
policies whether they agree with them or not. If they are opposed to doing
that, they should turn in their resignations, not undermine those
policies.

Her entire testimony was nothing but her opinions and impressions. Not one
bit of it dealt with first hand knowledge she had of any wrongdoing by
Trump, but of course, that pretty much sums up the case against Trump. A
bunch of whiny crybabies who didn't like the direction of Trump's foreign
policy and were out to take him down by any means necessary because he was
setting foreign policy instead of allowing them to do so.

ajohnstone

2020-08-27 20:03:53 UTC

It is the job of diplomats like Hill, who serve at his pleasure, to
implement those policies whether they agree with them or not. If they are
opposed to doing that, they should turn in their resignations, not
undermine those policies.

First, can you offer any actual evidence that Hill acted against Trump's
policy towards Ukraine. What actions did she take to undermine what was
occurring?

Your quote demonstrates that a president does not need to heed the
supposed "deep state", nor is it at all evidence that the "deep state"
acted against him.

Her role was an advisor. She did so. She had no political power nor
authority to carry out any policy. She issued no orders or instructions
because her job role was not to do so.

And several times if you read the full testimony she said if she was
placed in a position of acting contrary to her conscience or role, she
would have resigned, having already been guaranteed a future job. She was
not tied to any career within the administration

Post by John Corbett
Her entire testimony was nothing but her opinions and impressions.

Secondly, she was directly asked for her personal opinions and impressions
and that was what she did. That was why she was a witness. How can you
hold that against her?

However, i see nothing in your reply that supports your earlier argument
that she is an example of a "deep state" other than being a dedicated
public official. In fact, so far, i see little evidence of any "deep
state" sabotaging the present government as envisaged by its supporters.

Quite the contrary. Those with divergent views are being dismissed and
replaced by more compliant officials.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate your understanding of the authority of the
presidency and remember it was against the exercise of supreme power of a
monarch that your rebellion was supposed to be about.

John Corbett

2020-08-28 03:27:30 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
It is the job of diplomats like Hill, who serve at his pleasure, to
implement those policies whether they agree with them or not. If they are
opposed to doing that, they should turn in their resignations, not
undermine those policies.
First, can you offer any actual evidence that Hill acted against Trump's
policy towards Ukraine. What actions did she take to undermine what was
occurring?
Your quote demonstrates that a president does not need to heed the
supposed "deep state", nor is it at all evidence that the "deep state"
acted against him.
Her role was an advisor. She did so. She had no political power nor
authority to carry out any policy. She issued no orders or instructions
because her job role was not to do so.
And several times if you read the full testimony she said if she was
placed in a position of acting contrary to her conscience or role, she
would have resigned, having already been guaranteed a future job. She was
not tied to any career within the administration

Post by John Corbett
Her entire testimony was nothing but her opinions and impressions.

Secondly, she was directly asked for her personal opinions and impressions
and that was what she did. That was why she was a witness. How can you
hold that against her?
However, i see nothing in your reply that supports your earlier argument
that she is an example of a "deep state" other than being a dedicated
public official. In fact, so far, i see little evidence of any "deep
state" sabotaging the present government as envisaged by its supporters.
Quite the contrary. Those with divergent views are being dismissed and
replaced by more compliant officials.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate your understanding of the authority of the
presidency and remember it was against the exercise of supreme power of a
monarch that your rebellion was supposed to be about.

The opinions she offered were clearly intended to undermine Trump and
bring about his impeachment. Anyone who saw her testimony could not have
viewed her as a hostile witness, that is hostile in the legal sense.
Someone who does not want to testify and is only doing so because she was
legally required to do so.

Her entire testimony was a hit piece.

Coincidently, I came across this interview of Ronald Reagan by Johnny
Carson from 1975. He touches on a wide variety of subjects but early on he
speaks to the very subject of the entrenched and powerful bureaucracy. The
term "deep state" is fairly new as it applies to the US government but it
has long been recognized. Reagan stated that it had been built up over the
past 40 years. That takes us back to FDR and his New Deal. That was the
beginning of government bloat and the entrenchment of a permanent
bureaucracy that often wields more power than the elected government.

He begins to speak of this permanent, unelected government at about the
1:37 mark.

ajohnstone

2020-08-28 21:30:56 UTC

As you say the term "deep state" is relatively a new one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

Rather than Reagan, we can go back to Eisenhower and his speech raising
the specter of the military-industrial complex.

And why ignore the power of corporate lobbying and politician campaign
funding?

Post by John Corbett
The opinions she offered were clearly intended to undermine Trump

and bring about his impeachment.

Trump was already being impeached. Fiona Hill was subpoenaed to appear for
questioning. How can she be implicated in undermining Trump?

Can you refer me to any source that suggests that she exceeded her
position in the course of her duties. Explain any actions that she may
have taken prior to her appearance as a witness.

Hill said she left Brookings to work in the administration precisely
because she agreed with the president’s stated foreign policy
goals. “I heard President Trump say that he wanted to improve the
relationship with Russia. I believe we have to. We can’t be in
this unending confrontation with Russia,” she said during the
hearing.

If she appears to you that she undermined Trump's position, then perhaps
you should consider that her observations were pertinent in a criticism of
Trump.

I think your problem is that you will not acknowledge that Trump was
acting in his own personal interest and not the wider interests of the
USA. And advisors exist to indicate what is and what isn't in the national
interests. And that is your issue with Hill.

Hill was not even working in the White House at the time of the call with
the Ukrainian president on July 25th. Hill resigned *before* the infamous
call.

Has any one seriously challenged Hill's expertise in her field? Do you
consider as uninformed and lacking knowledge?

You still have not proved, at least to my satisfaction, that Hill was a
member of a "deep state". But i am aware of conspiracists who say she was
a mole of George Soros. She isn't part of the "deep state".

John Corbett

2020-08-29 11:44:40 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
As you say the term "deep state" is relatively a new one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States
Rather than Reagan, we can go back to Eisenhower and his speech raising
the specter of the military-industrial complex.

Not the same as the deep state. He was speaking to the symbiotic
relationship between the defense industry and the defense department.

Post by ajohnstone
And why ignore the power of corporate lobbying and politician campaign
funding?

I don't. It's just not the same thing as the entrenched bureaucracy.

Post by John Corbett
The opinions she offered were clearly intended to undermine Trump

I would but those Schiff hearings were conducted in secret.

Post by ajohnstone
Hill said she left Brookings to work in the administration precisely
because she agreed with the president’s stated foreign policy
goals. “I heard President Trump say that he wanted to improve the
relationship with Russia. I believe we have to. We can’t be in
this unending confrontation with Russia,” she said during the
hearing.
If she appears to you that she undermined Trump's position, then perhaps
you should consider that her observations were pertinent in a criticism of
Trump.

Doesn't change the fact she worked for him at his pleasure. He didn't work
at her pleasure.

Post by ajohnstone
I think your problem is that you will not acknowledge that Trump was
acting in his own personal interest and not the wider interests of the
USA. And advisors exist to indicate what is and what isn't in the national
interests. And that is your issue with Hill.

No evidence was presented during the entire impeachment sham that Trump
was not working in the interest of the US.

Post by ajohnstone
Hill was not even working in the White House at the time of the call with
the Ukrainian president on July 25th. Hill resigned *before* the infamous
call.
Has any one seriously challenged Hill's expertise in her field? Do you
consider as uninformed and lacking knowledge?

I consider her a back stabber.

Post by ajohnstone
You still have not proved, at least to my satisfaction, that Hill was a
member of a "deep state". But i am aware of conspiracists who say she was
a mole of George Soros. She isn't part of the "deep state".

It is not my mission to satisfy you.

John Corbett

2020-08-30 00:42:44 UTC

If found this article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel which does a
good job of framing the legal issues involved in the Kenosha shooting.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

ajohnstone

2020-08-30 01:12:40 UTC

"O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have
ears but do not hear" - Jeremiah, 5-21

Such can be political denialism.

As an outsider looking in, i have no horse in this race.

Republican or Democratic Party - Arsenic or Strychnine - Choose your
poison

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-30 01:12:52 UTC

Post by John Corbett
The opinions she offered were clearly intended to undermine Trump

and bring about his impeachment.
Trump was already being impeached. Fiona Hill was subpoenaed to appear for
questioning. How can she be implicated in undermining Trump?

Well, if she told the Truth for example.

Post by ajohnstone
Can you refer me to any source that suggests that she exceeded her
position in the course of her duties. Explain any actions that she may
have taken prior to her appearance as a witness.
Hill said she left Brookings to work in the administration precisely
because she agreed with the president???s stated foreign policy

How could she even know then exactly what Trump was planning?

Post by ajohnstone
goals. ???I heard President Trump say that he wanted to improve the
relationship with Russia. I believe we have to. We can???t be in
this unending confrontation with Russia,??? she said during the
hearing.
If she appears to you that she undermined Trump's position, then perhaps
you should consider that her observations were pertinent in a criticism of
Trump.
I think your problem is that you will not acknowledge that Trump was
acting in his own personal interest and not the wider interests of the
USA. And advisors exist to indicate what is and what isn't in the national
interests. And that is your issue with Hill.
Hill was not even working in the White House at the time of the call with
the Ukrainian president on July 25th. Hill resigned *before* the infamous
call.
Has any one seriously challenged Hill's expertise in her field? Do you
consider as uninformed and lacking knowledge?
You still have not proved, at least to my satisfaction, that Hill was a
member of a "deep state". But i am aware of conspiracists who say she was
a mole of George Soros. She isn't part of the "deep state".

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-29 03:31:57 UTC

Post by John Corbett
Her entire testimony was nothing but her opinions and impressions.

Secondly, she was directly asked for her personal opinions and impressions
and that was what she did. That was why she was a witness. How can you
hold that against her?
However, i see nothing in your reply that supports your earlier argument
that she is an example of a "deep state" other than being a dedicated
public official. In fact, so far, i see little evidence of any "deep
state" sabotaging the present government as envisaged by its supporters.
Quite the contrary. Those with divergent views are being dismissed and
replaced by more compliant officials.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate your understanding of the authority of the
presidency and remember it was against the exercise of supreme power of a
monarch that your rebellion was supposed to be about.

The opinions she offered were clearly intended to undermine Trump and
bring about his impeachment. Anyone who saw her testimony could not have
viewed her as a hostile witness, that is hostile in the legal sense.
Someone who does not want to testify and is only doing so because she was
legally required to do so.
Her entire testimony was a hit piece.
Coincidently, I came across this interview of Ronald Reagan by Johnny
Carson from 1975. He touches on a wide variety of subjects but early on he
speaks to the very subject of the entrenched and powerful bureaucracy. The
term "deep state" is fairly new as it applies to the US government but it
has long been recognized. Reagan stated that it had been built up over the
past 40 years. That takes us back to FDR and his New Deal. That was the
beginning of government bloat and the entrenchment of a permanent
bureaucracy that often wields more power than the elected government.
http://youtu.be/CNmnmdtcdcg
He begins to speak of this permanent, unelected government at about the
1:37 mark.

Why don't you point out Eisenhower warning us about the Military
Industrial Complex?

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-29 03:31:51 UTC

Which is what they have been doing in droves in the Trump administration
so that he can replace them with corrupt, incompetent cronies.

Post by ajohnstone
First, can you offer any actual evidence that Hill acted against Trump's
policy towards Ukraine. What actions did she take to undermine what was
occurring?

Acted or criticized?
Trump does nor allow criticism.

Post by ajohnstone
Your quote demonstrates that a president does not need to heed the
supposed "deep state", nor is it at all evidence that the "deep state"
acted against him.

But Trump can rely on an army of rightwing conspiracy nuts to spread his
propaganda for him. Like Q-Anon.

Post by ajohnstone
Her role was an advisor. She did so. She had no political power nor
authority to carry out any policy. She issued no orders or instructions
because her job role was not to do so.
And several times if you read the full testimony she said if she was
placed in a position of acting contrary to her conscience or role, she
would have resigned, having already been guaranteed a future job. She was
not tied to any career within the administration

Post by John Corbett
Her entire testimony was nothing but her opinions and impressions.

Secondly, she was directly asked for her personal opinions and
impressions and that was what she did. That was why she was a witness.
How can you hold that against her?
However, i see nothing in your reply that supports your earlier argument
that she is an example of a "deep state" other than being a dedicated
public official. In fact, so far, i see little evidence of any "deep
state" sabotaging the present government as envisaged by its supporters.
Quite the contrary. Those with divergent views are being dismissed and
replaced by more compliant officials.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate your understanding of the authority of the
presidency and remember it was against the exercise of supreme power of a
monarch that your rebellion was supposed to be about.

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-28 03:27:37 UTC

That's utter nonsense. Her entire testimony was nothing but opinions and
expressions of her displeasure that Trump had ignored the advice of the
career diplomats.
Goldman: "So it is it your understanding then that president Trump
disregarded the advice of his senior officials about this theory and
instead listened to Rudy Giuliani???s views???? asked
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman.
Hill: "That appears to be the case, yes,??? Dr Hill said.
Hill is not offering evidence of wrongdoing. She is expressing her
displeasure that Trump didn't follow the advice of holdover diplomats and
instead listened to Giuliani. It is a president's prerogative to choose
whose advice to follow and it is also his prerogative to change the course
of foreign policy even if it to the chagrin of the career diplomats who
had shaped the previous policies. I'd say she is pissed off.
It is the president's job to determine foreign policy. It is the job of
diplomats like Hill, who serve at his pleasure, to implement those
policies whether they agree with them or not. If they are opposed to doing
that, they should turn in their resignations, not undermine those
policies.
Her entire testimony was nothing but her opinions and impressions. Not one
bit of it dealt with first hand knowledge she had of any wrongdoing by
Trump, but of course, that pretty much sums up the case against Trump. A
bunch of whiny crybabies who didn't like the direction of Trump's foreign
policy and were out to take him down by any means necessary because he was
setting foreign policy instead of allowing them to do so.

Some people's opinions and impressions are more important when they
actully KNOW the subject. Do you personally know Trump?
Do you personally know anything?

Anthony Marsh

2020-08-26 21:09:37 UTC

To find out where he go the rifle from.
They never found out where he got the ammo frome\ because both the DPD
and the WC were incompetent.
BTW, I can't imagine why anyone would think the Postal Service is THE
Deep State. They are out in the public.
Is someone playing Q-ANON to hoax people?

They did cover it. But it was too crazy to take seriously.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-08-29 11:44:32 UTC