Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Barton

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89
1
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:48:14 PM »
Is that a racist bone I'm seeing in Amy's body?

2
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:36:02 PM »
The rally folk do seem robotic, Banks.   Could it be we're living in a dystopian version of Westworld?   

3
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:31:42 PM »
Buh  bye, drone.

No messin with 45.

That was dishonest.   And, in a politics forum, bad faith.   You won't answer the question, you won't provide any facts to support your childish rejection of a real dialog or debate.   I am probably the last Independent on this forum you could have had a real dialogue with, but no, you have been brainwashed by the Trump cult of personality.   You are a pathetic piece of shit.  And don't have the balls to confront the question three members have put to you.   

4
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:01:07 PM »
Quote
   TRUMP quotes Omar as saying: “You don’t say ‘America’ with this intensity. You say ‘al-Qaida,’ it makes you proud. Al-Qaida makes you proud. You don’t speak that way about America.”

THE FACTS: This is a wholly distorted account of what the Minnesota Democrat said. She did not voice pride in the terrorist group.


Trump is referring to an interview Omar gave in 2013. In it, she talked about studying terrorism history or theory under a professor who dramatically pronounced the names of terrorist groups, as if to emphasize their evil nature.


“The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘al-Qaida,’ he sort of like — his shoulders went up” and he used a menacing, intense tone, she said. Her point was that the professor was subtly rousing suspicions of Muslims with his theatrical presentation, while pronouncing “America” without the intensity he afforded the names of terrorist groups.

At no point did she say “al-Qaida” should be uttered with intensity or pride and that “America” shouldn’t.   

- AP

Double check these facts, if you want.   But you still need to accept the reality:  The President of the United States committed slander, and defamed a member of Congress, in public, on the record.   He singled out a person from a religious and ethnic minority, slandered them, and also directed a racist slur at them.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?  IS THAT THE AMERICA YOU WANT TO LIVE IN?  DO YOU WANT YOUR GRANDCHILDREN TO SEE THIS PRESIDENT, AS CHILDREN OFTEN DO WITH PRESIDENTS, AS A ROLE MODEL???

GIVE A STRAIGHT FUCKING ANSWER.   

5
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:32:55 PM »
  What is your response to the POTUS lying to people, and slandering a U.S. Congresswoman?  No idea what "heh" means.

Again, please explain that earlier post.   What do you think of Trump fabricating total lies about a Congresswoman?

Lies go both ways

What do you think of Trump fabricating lies about a Congresswoman?  No deflecting, no bullshit, just give a straight fucking answer to a direct question.  Did you read the fact check about Omar? 

6
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:30:24 PM »
"Send her back"...nothing wrong with that, not racist either.

This is what can happen when people buy a ticket to ride the politics express and start spruiking their point of view.
Some people might disagree with that point of view and be offended.

Nothing wrong with Trump's telling people that if they don't like it in America to go back to where they came from.

Yes there is, you ignorant asswipe.   You know nothing about US history or how "go back to [    ] where you came from" has been a racist slur for a long time.  It's a crude and nasty insult, not a legitimate "point of view."   

7
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:20:10 PM »
MSNBC is great television this afternoon.

Recounting the NC Trump rally (it's a RALLY, you dumb fucks) as a danger to society.

It’s a rally targeting a member of Congress with lies and stands there while the crowd screams, “Send her back!”

This motherfucker is George Wallace on steroids. This is gonna get ugly and you think people reacting to this are dumb?

Remember when I said kiid, Red and luee were being measured for their Brown shirts?

Any questions, now?

Well, no - that isn't what the rally was for.  And opposition is fair game, especially when they have been aggressive with their own mouths.

Slander is slander.   Nothing fair about it.  Did you read the facts as to what she really said?  Are you going to answer Oil's question?  Where do you stand on the leader of a nation lying about a Congress person?  Do you find racist attacks acceptable behavior from a President?   

8
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:15:11 PM »
Barack Obama called a cop stupid in July 2009 and lost white support for the rest of his presidency.

Because the facts did not back him up.
It quickly became a pattern.

Yeah, they did. Cop arrested a guy in his house after he knew it was his house. He was arrested because he didn’t kiss the cop’s ass hard enough.
In your telling.

Nope.  Those were the facts, reported all over the media.   If you have evidence that contradicts them, post it. 

9
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 18, 2019, 09:23:59 AM »

10
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 17, 2019, 04:42:07 PM »

I answered a question. Honestly. That's rare for the one who asked it. Your concern about where to post is with him.

Fully aware of DOJ and Barr.

Followed the case all along.

Lawbreaker resists arrest. Died. You can question the police training and work to improve it.

But he didn't die from being choked.

He is no loss to society.

Nothing has changed my opinion about the original incident.

Your racism is so profound, you can't see it at all, you can't sense its existence at all, can you?  "He is no loss to society."  This remark, its callous disregard for the value of human life aside, begs the obvious question:  What would his life have been?  the one he wasn't allowed to live?   You don't have that information.  When did it become the right of people like you, or the police, to make rulings on the value of a man's life?   

How well do you, Hamilton, think you would fare if it were up to your fellow forumites to rule on your life's value?   Or your right to keep breathing until facts can be determined?   I suspect you would at least hope to keep breathing until you had your day in "court." 

There will be only a mockery of justice in this country until "I feared for my life [from the mortal danger of an unarmed man with a) hands in the air, or b) running in terror away from me, or c) lying on the ground hoping not to die]" is recognized as a self-serving lie from a cowardly killer.




11
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 17, 2019, 04:19:49 PM »
The classic psychological projection of racists everywhere:  "No, it's [insert name of group currently prone to being pinned down under an institutional jackboot] who are really racist!" 

When someone cries out "I can't breathe!" (eleven times!) it goes beyond "negligence" to keep on choking them.  When did the complacent stupidity of Americans completely swamp their common sense?

I thought it was reported that the officer "went in and out of the maneuver".

Farewell, common sense!

When a man is held in an illegal chokehold, pushed to the ground, and the choking is then continued after he's subdued and said he can't breathe many times, that it homicide. 

This, from The Verge article, seems to address your curious unwillingness to confront the facts of the matter, captured on video, and supported by a medical examiner's findings:

Humans are inherently, psychologically motivated to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and fewer things will create more painful cognitive dissonance than watching those sworn to protect shoot and kill a civilian who posed no threat to them. Our minds protect us, often without our realizing it, by latching on to narratives that can reconcile such tragic opposing facts. It is easier to see the victims as one-dimensional criminals, threatening the fearful police, and therefore deserving of whatever comes their way.   


12
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 17, 2019, 12:01:53 PM »
The classic psychological projection of racists everywhere:  "No, it's [insert name of group currently prone to being pinned down under an institutional jackboot] who are really racist!" 

When someone cries out "I can't breathe!" (eleven times!) it goes beyond "negligence" to keep on choking them.  When did the complacent stupidity of Americans completely swamp their common sense?





13
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 17, 2019, 11:50:06 AM »
He’s exemplary, Hammy. You are the fool.

The cabal of illiberal Leftists gathers, as one of their own refuses to answer a direct question regarding his opinion, the same tactic they say their opposition routinely employs.
The only reason for anyone to respond to you is to occasionally remind anyone who has forgotten what a fucking racist asshioe you are.

The cabal gathers outrage, repeating its lies.


How to get away with murder...

https://www.gq.com/story/eric-garner-william-barr-civil-rights-division

How to turn a petty criminal into a martyr? Just keep ignoring the facts of the case.

Your dismissal of Garner, by reducing his entire being to "pretty criminal" says a lot about you, and very little about Garner.  You're obsessed with outrage from forumites, but where is the outrage for, as the writer put it, "William Barr furthers the administration’s efforts to protect law enforcement officers from accountability." ??  Have you actually followed these developments?  Are you aware that DOJ overruled the attorneys in its own Civil Rights division and their recommendation to charge Panteleo?

As for y'all debating Civil War history, etc. I checked...we have a forum for that:

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php?topic=45.0

Could you take your time traveler based theories over there?




14
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:48:33 AM »
Takei delivers timely story about what happens when a group of people are defined as the enemy and forced into camps....

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/17/742558996/george-takei-recalls-time-in-an-american-internment-camp-in-they-called-us-enemy




15
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 16, 2019, 10:55:04 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/stevens-says-supreme-court-decision-on-voter-id-was-correct-but-maybe-not-right/2016/05/15/9683c51c-193f-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html


Quote
  ....(Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the panel’s opinion, has since said that he got it wrong and that the photo-ID requirement is “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”)

The Supreme Court said in the 2008 case that the lower courts “correctly concluded that the evidence in the record is not sufficient to support a facial attack on the validity of the entire statute.”

When the court decides a law is “facially” unconstitutional, it means the measure could never be applied in a way that would overcome its shortcomings.

Stevens, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, mentioned a dozen times in the opinion that it was based on “the record” in the case.

“I learned a lot of things outside the record that made me very concerned about that statute,” Stevens said in the conversation with Kagan and Wood. “So I had the question: Should I rely on my own research or what’s in the record?”


“And I thought in that case I had a duty to confine myself to what the record did prove, and I thought it did not prove the plaintiffs’ case. And as a result, we ended up with a fairly unfortunate decision.”

Stevens alluded to his quandary in a footnote in the opinion: “Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional adjudication.”

In the conversation, Stevens noted that dissenting justice David H. Souter did not share his reluctance.

“I thought David wrote one of his best opinions, relying partly on material that was outside the record,” Stevens said.

Kagan the justice briefly became Kagan the journalist as she asked the right follow-up question after Stevens explained his approach.

“Would you do it the same way again?” she asked.


“I think I would,” replied Stevens, who turned 96 last month and mentioned that he is writing a new book. “That’s a tough question. I really don’t know for sure.”

A Stevens switch would not have changed the outcome of the case. And some think his approach gave Roberts and Kennedy a chance to join an opinion that said future challenges to photo-ID laws were possible, rather than join fellow conservatives in a opinion that would have more firmly shut the door....   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89