Explaining the Narcissistic Rage of the Left

[gsdx]

not by whether a reasonable person would have felt in danger, but whether they did.

You mean like George Zimmerman?

 

[Kulindahr]

You mean like George Zimmerman?

I think the Florida Stand Your Ground law does allow for a fair parallel.

 

[gsdx]

^ How about Charles Kinsey?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ How about Charles Kinsey?

The Kinsey case is a bit bizarre -- it turns out that the cops wasn't shooting at him, the cop missed his target and it hit Kinsey.

And they say we should only let cops have guns because they're better shots! The truth is that cops train less on average than the typical concealed-carry permit holder who belongs to a shooting group,whether it's a gun club or the Pink Pistols even.

 

[ballcaphair]

I have a cycling friend from Brazil and he casually mentioned, "shootings are a very American thing." I think that is sadly true. He said it so matter of factly.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have a cycling friend from Brazil and he casually mentioned, "shootings are a very American thing." I think that is sadly true. He said it so matter of factly.

Not as much as the media would have us believe, but somewhat.

Underlying that is that antagonistic relationships are a very American thing. In most of the world, unions and management work together; in the U.S. they are antagonists. In most of the world, health care providers and payers work together; in the U.S. they are antagonists. In much of the world, the government really does work for the people; in the U.S. they are antagonists. It isn't without reason that so many Americans regard politicians, police, and more as the enemy -- they treat us as the enemy!

 

[gsdx]

I have a cycling friend from Brazil and he casually mentioned, "shootings are a very American thing." I think that is sadly true. He said it so matter of factly.

As in 'casual' and 'random' shootings, I completely agree. Do people shoot other people in other countries for taking a parking space or for not getting out of a phone booth?

 

[Benvolio]

Not as much as the media would have us believe, but somewhat.

Underlying that is that antagonistic relationships are a very American thing. In most of the world, unions and management work together; in the U.S. they are antagonists. In most of the world, health care providers and payers work together; in the U.S. they are antagonists. In much of the world, the government really does work for the people; in the U.S. they are antagonists. It isn't without reason that so many Americans regard politicians, police, and more as the enemy -- they treat us as the enemy!

Much of that antagonism is a calculated policy of the democrats. The fracturing of society is a technique taught by Marx. So democrats have turned employment into an adversarial relationship.
A major part of the cost of healthcare in the US results from the democrat supported trial lawyers and their lawsuits, requiring doctors, hospitals, drug companies etc to pay large amounts for malpractice insurance. They wouldn't pay for all those national TV ads if there was not big, big money in it, and a major reason drug companies advertise is to avoid lawsuits for not agvising of all the side effects. Trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to the democrats who block all efforts at tort reform.

 

[offthewall14420]

More Americans need to vote. That won't happen when people get emotional over politics. It's a great way to get elected, but they can't govern.

 

[ballcaphair]

More Americans need to vote. That won't happen when people get emotional over politics. It's a great way to get elected, but they can't govern.

Our commander in cheat is exhibit A.

 

[mikey3000]

One would think that you would appreciate the significance of murders done by the abuse of governmental authority to use deadly force and why it is more significant than more conventional murders. The former should always be a matter of sigificant concern no matter how small the numbers are in comparison.

How about the number of first responders; police, fire and paramedics, who are deliberately ambushed and slaughtered to forward an agenda? Don't their lives matter? It's difficult to support BLM when BL are the ones taking the BL, no?

 

[Kulindahr]

More Americans need to vote. That won't happen when people get emotional over politics. It's a great way to get elected, but they can't govern.

It won't happen so long as many people look at the ballot and don't see anyone who would represent them. As examples, I knew two who didn't vote last time because they loved Bernie except for his positions on the Second Amendment -- indeed, I know quite a few people who would rush to vote for Democrats if they would just stop trying to disarm victims; instead, they don't vote at all.

- - - Updated - - -

How about the number of first responders; police, fire and paramedics, who are deliberately ambushed and slaughtered to forward an agenda? Don't their lives matter? It's difficult to support BLM when BL are the ones taking the BL, no?

Are you claiming that it's only black cops who shoot unarmed blacks?

 

[Benvolio]

It won't happen so long as many people look at the ballot and don't see anyone who would represent them. As examples, I knew two who didn't vote last time because they loved Bernie except for his positions on the Second Amendment -- indeed, I know quite a few people who would rush to vote for Democrats if they would just stop trying to disarm victims; instead, they don't vote at all.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you claiming that it's only black cops who shoot unarmed blacks?

Your gun lovers are about to begin a long downward spiral. The Las Vegas massacre convinces almost everyone we must limit automatic weapons.

 

[Stardreamer]

How about the number of first responders; police, fire and paramedics, who are deliberately ambushed and slaughtered to forward an agenda? Don't their lives matter? It's difficult to support BLM when BL are the ones taking the BL, no?

Of course, they matter, ALL LIVES MATTER! But it is even more of a reason why we must be concerned about the potential abuse of legal force that provided the pretext for that agenda. By engaging in that abuse, they undermined the public's respect for the law and endangered their fellow officers. The BLM movement did not start in a vacuum. It does not excuse the actions of the killers who ambushed and killed first responders, they are criminals who deserve all that the law can throw at them. BUT those actions do not excuse the abuse of government force either.

 

[Benvolio]

Of course, they matter, ALL LIVES MATTER! But it is even more of a reason why we must be concerned about the potential abuse of legal force that provided the pretext for that agenda. By engaging in that abuse, they undermined the public's respect for the law and endangered their fellow officers. The BLM movement did not start in a vacuum. It does not excuse the actions of the killers who ambushed and killed first responders, they are criminals who deserve all that the law can throw at them. BUT those actions do not excuse the abuse of government force either.

BLM began as a reaction after the Ferguson shooting. But in that incident Brown robbed a store, reached into the police to grab the police gun which fired. He moved away, then turned and charged the policeman, who felt endangered. The shooting was determined by a grand jury to be justified self defense. The police are not obligated to engage in wrestling matches with criminals. It is not a sporting event. But it is incidents such as this which they are marching about.

 

[Benvolio]

The Ferguson incident involved the killing of an unarmed man. It illustrates that you cannot assume that the unarmed men in the statistics are innocent and harmless. If cops are being attacked by an unarmed man they are nevertheless entitled to defend with lethal force.

 

[ballcaphair]

The Ferguson incident involved the killing of an unarmed man. It illustrates that you cannot assume that the unarmed men in the statistics are innocent and harmless. If cops are being attacked by an unarmed man they are nevertheless entitled to defend with lethal force.

Police are supposed to protect and serve. Any unarmed people, regadless of color or demeanor, should be treated with respect. "Defend" does not require lethal force. I am respecting the officers too! Statistics are pointless when people are dying.

 

[Benvolio]

Police are supposed to protect and serve. Any unarmed people, regadless of color or demeanor, should be treated with respect. "Defend" does not require lethal force. I am respecting the officers too! Statistics are pointless when people are dying.

Respect "regardless of demeanor"? It is hard to respect someone who is charging you with intent to do great bodily harm. Police also deserve respect. Last year, 16 unarmed blacks were killed by police, but that includes cases of legitimate self defense by police as well as accidents. [Text: Removed][Link: Removed]

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Refusing the custom to stand for the national anthem is divisive, the very antithesis of We the People. The purpose of standing is to show solidarity and unity, especially with the people who have and are fighting and dying for our county. The purpose of no standing is to show rejection of that unity. A rude slap in the face of those who pay the big salaries of the players.

This is not memorial day ceremonies at the tomb of the Unknown, Arlington National Cemetery. This is not some Governmental sponsored patriotic 4th of July concert on the grounds of the Mall in Washington, D.C.. This is not some Dec 7th wreath laying at the WWII Valor in the Pacific National Monument at Pearl Harbor, HI.

This is a god damn, beer drinking, drunken, parting sporting entertainment for profit, big profit private non governmental function.

What you clearly state is a prime example of fascism. Hearing Fascist comments from your post is not shocking though.

[Text: Removed]

 

[Stardreamer]

The Ferguson incident involved the killing of an unarmed man. It illustrates that you cannot assume that the unarmed men in the statistics are innocent and harmless. If cops are being attacked by an unarmed man they are nevertheless entitled to defend with lethal force.

I agree completely but when you have unarmed men lying on the ground with their hands up clearly trying to explain and de-escalate the situation being shot, you can't just assume that things are simple self-defense either simply because the person doing the shooting is a police officer. They are expected to be held to a higher standard and responsibility when it comes to the use of lethal force. Which was the point of my reply to Mikey.