“So, I’m not in favor of killing cops”. Woo-hoo!

Apparently, that didn’t go without saying. Still, better than the cheers resounding from other American liberals today.

To borrow a phrase, these are what the rationalizations and equivocations of oppression-theory levelers look like.

Can you explain the silence of most mainstream Democrats (up until the cop massacre in Dallas)? What’s going on there?

Wait. There are “cheers resounding from other American liberals today”?

I’m not gonna go looking to confirm this.

HM, if I could, I’d help you with the storage-moving stuff, I’d join you for a beer or three, and I’d do my best to keep either of us (or your nieces and nephews) from getting shot in the face. I’m just going to try to do my best in general this weekend. That’s about all I can manage, because this stuff is breaking my heart.

It may be cowardly but I’m just going to try my best to ignore all of it.

Actually, it’s shaping up to be something which good and decent and sophisticated white progressives, ordinarily suffused as a default matter with guilt and shame over Race and Crime, like sackcloth and ashes, will want to simply ignore reality as long as possible this time before the minimizing and blame-shifting ensue. You greasy enablers and shameless exploiters sowed the toxic wind of selective, perpetual group-victimhood; now we’re all reaping the whirlwind.

This subject to full-boat confirmation of course, but reports are the dead race-hater was one Micah X. Johnson, ex-military (Afghanistan), with the “X” in tribute to Malcolm X, and that the suspects attended a South Dallas mosque. Perhaps Johnson like Obama Rose Garden honoree Bowe Bergdahl had a leftist epiphany concerning the true villains in the war on sharia-Muslim aggression. You kids just pop in a “West Wing” episode and brew up some Tension Tamer, m’kay?

Fuck off, berrow. Go masturbate somewhere else.

Aww, Nequam, did you figure Helmut’s Dallas circle-jerk was just for choirloft liberals? Don’t get me wrong–I know you folks don’t pull and punches here on Sadly, No when it comes to debates over the color of cassocks and the length of surplices. But no site censorship this time to protect hothouse social-justice sensibilities–so far, anyway. Meanwhile, something tells me that even a certified non-hypocrite like you wasn’t inveighing sullenly against overreaction and outrage after Charleston with Dylann Roof…..

OK I was just going to say “Amen” to Helmut’s sermon, because shit is this violence of all types getting repetitive and infuriating. But then Inkie had to just go in and be a buttchimp.
Nobody should be getting shot at and the terrorist snipers in Dallas are clearly trying to escalate the situation, which has pretty much been as peaceful as any movement in reality (rather than the gauzy fairy tales of happy civil rights workers and please ignore the 5 hot summers).
Still Inkie’s buds continue to feign ignorance by saying Black Lives Matters really means Kill Whitey Especially If He Has a Badge. Oh and “X” in Michael X. Johnson was not part of a Nation of Islam practice (long abandoned by the way). It stood for Xavier.

Histro, Helmut is not only an excellent polemicist but in my experience an honest person as well.

Subject to him correcting me on this, he would have had a full-bore indictment of Bad Cops and black victimhood sitting here right now if the murderous black race-hater in Dallas had not harshed his buzz, and yours.

[the killings in LA and MN both look like criminal homicides by police officers to me, as they do to most others, liberal or conservative]

Suddenly the need for Context and Equivalencies and Sober Perspective manifested itself instead! Certified liberal non-hypocrites like you are ready to Move On, and leave that dead Dallas horse alone, right?

Never mind that the mouthbreathers at #BLM are still repeating their toxic fable “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, not to mention chanting “Oink Oink, Bang Bang”, and “What Do We Need? Dead Cops”. Ambulatory filth.

Inky, that telling stain just below your belt buckle is making itself somewhat obvious again which is less offensive than the bulge that proceeded it.

Change her drawers before leaving the house bub.

Xoxox,
Her pal.

Yet another certified non-hypocrite in Providers!

Cuz we all know if the militant-racist scumbag in Dallas had stayed home, Providers would have been critical of overheated rants against America’s police in the wake of the LA and MN cases..

What gets me is… All this about the cops?

We’d need several times more cops killed before they even scratched the number of non-hispanic blacks murdered in the US.

There’s 600,000 to a million armed officers in the US (it varies wildly based on different methods of counting.) Blacks in the US face a startling 19.5 in 100,000 murder rate.

So we’d need over a hundred police officers shot and killed before they’d even approach the danger of being a black man in the US.

Crissa, the statistical danger of being a black man in America derives overwhelmingly from other black men in America.

Non-black homicide victims are killed by police at several times the rate as a percentage of the total as are blacks by police.

Let’s set aside for now the sheer childish fatuity of apposing as groups “blacks” and “police officers” as you’ve done here.

Did you ask, “All this about the gays” after Orlando? At least admit you hate cops. Spare the token procedural folderol.

Blinky, I love your attention. And your neologisticline acumen.

It is wonderful that the authorities don’t have to concern themselves with this blog as you have their six well covered.

This a good week for patrioting, good sir, well done!
…

On the bright side, Teh Ho mentioned this morning that we haven’t seen or heard from Ann Coulter in quite a while. So that’s something.

Hey, stinkbarrel, you do know that cops routinely stop and question and search innocent blacks frequently compared to white people…?

And that black people have not failed to notice this fact?

Pup—

Even Ann Coulter is correct when she says 2 + 2 = 4. Sure, we need to check the math, and to confirm its application to the circumstances at hand, but a reflexive, repetitious resort to ad hominem avoidance is lazy and puerile.

Some–

The logical (being charitable here!) extension of your simplistic formulation is that cops, prosecutors, juries and judges in bluer than blue American cities, most of them with decades now of black police chiefs, integrated police forces and majority city governance of color, are all in on the Big Anti-Black Criminal Justice System, at least tacitly. Teachers in public schools too. Those Democrats have secret or subconscious hatreds! That said, I think you’re going to get a good grade no matter what, if it’s your thesis for a term paper at Howard or Harvard or Lincoln Junior High.

The “New Jim Crow” cottage industry in academia is comprised mostly of sloppy, outcome-driven social “science” stats, studies with reckless methodologies, purposed to scapegoat and shake down the criminal justice system, just as corporations, public education, higher education and even the Oscars have been scapegoated and shaken down, so as to find politically acceptable reasons, however intellectually dishonest, ethically bankrupt and downright fanciful and self-referential they may be (“microagressions”, anyone?), all to explain the continued, often worsening comparative low-functioning and failure of blacks as a socioeconomic demographic, under the golden, loving tutelage of liberals since the Great Society days. (Stalin had to go to wreckers, saboteurs and Jews when his tractor factory numbers didn’t “match”.) Naturally, any factors incompatible with post-Marxist oppression-theory premises and unconditional noncontributory group victimhood must be shouted down as counterrevolutionary.

Meanwhile, way, way too young blacks are convinced by stupid and/or America-hating leftist enablers and exploiters in media, government and academia that even in 2016–especially in 2016–they are all-purpose victims of society, with the arch-racist blueshirts who enforce white privilege (against blacks and illegal immigrant Latinos) considering then fair game for shooting on sight. Gosh, what a shock that self-pity parties, anti-social entitlement mentalities, and angry, materialistic outlaw fatalism abound, amid the bold, principled true-to-the-music rejection of “white” mores–and Asian and Latino and non-career-victim black mores–such as family, educational and vocational ethics. If it’s reparations sought–and I believe that is where these latter-day “civil rights” agitators are going–let’s start talking about accord-and-satisfaction amounts right now, just as Dave Chappelle lampooned before he was reined in for being too accurate, so we can all build a bridge and start to get over the Middle Passage and Jim Crow. At least to be able as a society to ignore those who insist on muttering and malingering on the other side…

“Jim Crow” cottage industry.!.!.!.!???

Brilliant!

Will toilets on ceilings be next?
…..

The phrase is “The New Jim Crow”, Sparky, and a book with that title by African-American law professor and social justice activist Michelle Alexander gave a now widely-used name to the ongoing and wide-ranging systemic liberal identity-politics critique of crime and punishment in America.

Far from “brilliant”, it’s a sad–yet sadly influential–example of the simplistic reliance upon disparate-impact statistical methodology to “prove” racial discrimination, by comparing e.g. arrests, sentences and jail/prison populations by race demographic with demographic populations overall.

Validity, reliability and inconvenient variables need not apply. But you knew all that already, right Pup?!

So clearly American liberalism is utterly bankrupt. So sayeth Inkberrow. I guess that means we’re all supposed to throw in for Trump so that the totally non-Jim-Crow-like police murder spree can be, um, continued so that, um…black people will get back in their places, I guess? Yeahhhhh, OK.

[the killings in LA and MN both look like criminal homicides by police officers to me, as they do to most others, liberal or conservative]

But those police murders are far less important to you than your hurt feelings over BLM’s harsh words. These murders get one parenthesis from you in passing and done! whereas BLM’s supposed rhetorical excesses have caused you to type, I think you’re up to one million words now, of paraphrased opinion columns out of Breitbart and Stromfront.

OK, you’ve made your point! You despise blacks, and you don’t give a shit if cops and cop wannabes kill them right and left with complete impunity, and you own a thesaurus, and you type real purty. We know, we know. Go away, tedious cracker.

Ink : Are we in agreement on a couple of basic assumptions ?
1. There is still systemic racial bias in US society.
2. The police force is militarized, heavily armed and mostly does not suffer serious consequences for use of excessive force.
3. Where these two assumptions intersect, we have potential for tragedy.
Would you agree on those ?

Nice list, suezboo.

I’ve noticed that inky and his fellow conservatives often deliberately muddy the water of point number one— “But the president is black!” “But the mayor is black!” “But the police chief is black!”

But, hey, Mr. Denier, take a look at this, and let’s hear you answer this ONE little question…

http://hw-mobile.worldstarhiphop.com/u/vid/2016/01/xojL4Vq0C6a7_mobile.mp4?ri=512000&rs=850

W.K.—

I said “criminal homicides”, not murders, the most likely and proper charges for the Sterling and especially the Castile killings being some degree of manslaughter, or maybe crim neg hom. The Dallas killings, however, were apparently cold-blooded murders, and it was the feelings of the victim families most hurt by the predictable consequences of #BLM’s “harsh words”, followed by patriotic Americans.. #BLM is to Micah X. Johnson’s New Black Panther Party, or the African American Defense League, what CAIR is to violent jihadists.

“My” point? Your characterization of it is pure projection, once again on this site from its cadre of partisan liberals. It’s not that I “despise blacks”, it’s that you’re conditioned to patronize and mascotize them, with anything short of deferential all-purpose group victimhood somehow constituting racism or “hate”. Again projecting, I suspect, with your anemic thesaurus jab—“thesaurus” is the defensively accusatory word which springs to mind in folks with middling vocabularies when they see words they are not used to reading or writing.

Suezboo—

1. No, we’re not in agreement on “systemic”. “Racial bias”, yes. When the SCOTUS made the disastrous decision to credit a legally operable inference of systemic racial bias from disparate-impact “proofs”, described above, versus requiring proof of disparate treatment, also known as “actual” racism, the Court ushered in the modern era of quotas, shakedowns, and assumptions of racism in stupid, angry, irresponsible–and opportunistic–people, whenever target populations do not match population numbers overall. The crack versus powder cocaine sentencing canard is still credited by the folks who still think Mike Brown was “murdered”.

2. Agreed.

3. I’ll meet you part-way. These days if an Asian or white is shot by cops, it’s a local story, on those legs alone anyway, with police justification the default and preferred outcome. With blacks that’s now turned on its head, with substantial but not completely satisfactory justification, because #BLM true believers and related militants still cannot separate the wheat (Walter Scott) from the chaff (Freddie Gray). Thank goodness for body cameras and cellphone video. Bottom line for me–in 2016, anyway, the black community’s wounds are primarily self-inflicted. That perception is starting to sink in nationally, so the reaction against it from those who batten upon group victimhood narratives is correspondingly shrill, hyperbolic and, as we’ve seen, violent.

Inkberrow, the only one you are fooling here is yourself. We get it, just like a lot of cultists, the only way you can maintain your ever-more-remote-from-reality worldview is through constant reinforcement.

Just like those people who have heavily invested in Florida coastal real estate, who deny the ever-higher tides from global warming lest they acknowledge the rapidly approaching day when their investment will only be as valuable as any other shallow lagoon with rotting buildings for picturesque effect, you too must dedicate hours to maintain your belief that the US is a post-racial meritocracy and any disparity of arrest or police murder of black people is surely due to some inherent flaw in what you seem to consider to be the unalterably criminal and violent minds of black Americans, and not as seems obvious to many of us, the effect of racist people operating fundamentally racist institutions, in a way that is designed to deliver especially harsh punishment, up to and including summary execution to black people for any interaction with the police.

The just world fallacy, you’re sitting in it. Nobody likes to learn the game they’ve been winning since childhood is rigged heavily in their favor.

I notice that Mr. Denial studiously avoided my question.

Would YOU like to be treated the way black people are treated in our society?

Yes or no?

Severian—

So you too shouldn’t let “all or nothing” be the enemy of grown-up moderation and nuance, even if they are, to borrow a phrase, not always black and white. Western liberalism isn’t even “bankrupt”, let alone “utterly”. Just morbidly preoccupied with self-flagellation over oppression-theory nostrums, to the harm primarily of those they claim to be atoning for.. Finally, for the safety of my family and the very globe, I myself reluctantly prefer the corrupted, soulless technocrat to the erratic, uninformed arrested-adolescent.

Some—

I ignored your “question” initially because it was offensive to me, and to all others who object on principle to considering African-Americans, or any race/ethnic group, monolithically. I would object to being treated like Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile; I would not object to being treated like Jay-Z, or like a black high school senior with a 75th percentile SAT. Harvard or Yale greeting me with a red carpet, personal tutor, spotlight, microphone and certified Victim Of Society weeds would be quite acceptable indeed.

Helmut—

As to your first paragraph, admonition accepted for review, but with your often jejune commentariat in mind I must say that “Physician, heal thyself” resonates as well.

You of all folks here should be willing to acknowledge then locate the broad middle ground between “post-racial meritocracy” and maudlin, crippling race-victimhood pathology.

You too will be obliged to use “manslaughter” when “murder” is inaccurate, and to prove up “fundamentally racist” with something more than the disparate-impact pap I’ve described.

Addendum, Helmut—

There is a corollary of the just-world fallacy, just as the old Gospel of Wealth was accompanied by the equally fatuous Social Gospel. No, it’s not a just world because I like the place of me and mine in it. Neither is it an unfair world in the absence of demographic identicality. Gauging equality of opportunity by equality of outcome may bring “equity” and social “justice” as you and yours presently define them, but it’s a gerrymandered, false-faced justice, and everybody involved knows it.

I especially like Inkberrow’s invocation of “patriotic Americans”, therefore implying that anyone who doesn’t agree is unpatriotic.

Nice one.

I ignored your “question” initially because it was offensive to me, and to all others who object on principle to considering African-Americans, or any race/ethnic group, monolithically.

Well, then! You are either one extremely noble and anti-racist white person…

… either that, or a white privilege guy who doesn’t really give a shit how badly cops treat black people…

We could take a vote…?

You of all folks here should be willing to acknowledge then locate the broad middle ground between “post-racial meritocracy” and maudlin, crippling race-victimhood pathology.

You too will be obliged to use “manslaughter” when “murder” is inaccurate, and to prove up “fundamentally racist” with something more than the disparate-impact pap I’ve described

You are mistaken. You wildly overestimate my so called “obligations” to you. For instance I have no obligation to take anyone seriously who can type “maudlin, crippling race-victimhood pathology” to describe anyone other than neoconfederate white supremacists. Furthermore, this is not a court of law, it is a blog. And while I try to use only the language on this blog that I would use in a face to face conversation, I don’t see any point in mincing words either. So when I say the cops straight up murdered someone, that is because that is my interpretation of events. I know full well that in the USA, if those cops are charged, they will be faced with the lightest possible charges the DA can bring and still maintain the fiction that they are being fairly penalized. So, you’ll have to forgive me, but I don’t recognize any kind of obligation to cater to the hurt feelings of murderers in the uniform of public servants, or their racist defenders. I certainly don’t care to follow rules imposed on me by some random troll who thinks that he’s having a reasoned debate by clothing his every objection to building a more just, more equitable, society in the same rhetoric or “dog whistles”, if you will, of “scientific” racism espoused by people like Charles Murray who have made a career out of twisting statistics in an attempt to justify the continuation of policies and beliefs that disproportionately criminalize and impoverish black Americans.

For example, this particularly warm nugget of horseshit:

Gauging equality of opportunity by equality of outcome may bring “equity” and social “justice” as you and yours presently define them, but it’s a gerrymandered, false-faced justice, and everybody involved knows it.

is the same kind of language that has been used to oppose affirmative action since the Civil Rights act was being debated. No one is claiming that the Platonic ideal of raising every child in a loving and prosperous family, sending them to challenging and rewarding schools, preparing them for a career of meaningful and remunerative work, which will allow them to raise happy healthy families of their own, will be achieved through proactive civil rights and social justice legislation. But we could approach that ideal far closer than we do currently. And what exactly would you say to all of those people who could be helped but aren’t? What reason precisely is good enough to tell a student why they can’t have good textbooks, nutritious food and safe schools and neighborhoods? What precisely is a good enough reason to tolerate the ongoing murder campaign American police are inflicting on a disproportionate number of black Americans? Is no justice at all, and a heaping helping of “Fuck You For the Crime of Being Born Black in America” supposed to be better than ‘gerrymandered, false-faced justice’?

Helmut—

I was referencing your “obligations” to me in a rhetorical, not an interpersonal sense, except of course to the extent you acknowledge the existence of a substantive debate on assessing racism in which we and others are engaged. If there isn’t really one, as you see it, okay.

It is not “mincing words” to use accurate factual and legal terminology, especially concerning such inflammatory subject matter. “Murder” is not an “interpretation”, but an irresponsible libel until proved, and dangerously influential upon both the credulous and the stupid. The trendy conflation of “rape” and “sexual assault” is another such problem, especially when the latter in most campus and in military usage includes unwanted sexualized verbal attentions.

I’ve already learned from the assorted hipsters here I have no notion of the word “troll”, but “random” is a bit silly by now even from this site, let alone the years at the sadly defunct old IOZ commenting platform.

I invite you to apply that vaunted skepticism of Charles Murray’s schtick to its very inverse, namely disparate-impact methodology to “prove” racism against e.g. African-Americans. Unless the politically favored outcome is all…

Sentence-disparity “studies” for instance, conflate simple white-boy coke possession sentences with “simple” black coke possession without controlling for related plea bargaining, say a dismissed delivery or gun charge, or relevant priors.

That is why I spend time urging a proverbial middle ground between, er “neoconfederate white supremacists” and professional blacks (as opposed to black professionals) and their sanctimonious, tokenizing white liberal enablers.

That’s why I lampoon and deplore the cognitive dissonance in defenders of affirmative action who cite its supposed goodness and necessity as a general matter but affect indignation at the very notion of inquiries and harms in individual cases.

That is why I spend time urging a proverbial middle ground between, er “neoconfederate white supremacists” and professional blacks (as opposed to black professionals) and their sanctimonious, tokenizing white liberal enablers.

Of course you do. Because you don’t care that the police kill black people at the rate of just less than one a day so far this year. You have no sense of urgency, and seemingly have no respect for the totally avoidable suffering those deaths have caused, and are continuing to cause.

I won’t say you don’t care, because I suspect you do, that black people kill other black people at many, many times over that rate. That suffering is just not a big priority, apparently not for them even more so than for you. More’s the pity.

Maybe you don’t care that the vast bulk of police homicides are perfectly justified, including Ferguson, from which soil the toxic #BLM mushrooms sprouted. If the point is systemic scapegoating and blame-shifting, truthiness suffices.

black people kill other black people at many, many times over that rate

Indeed.

And white people kill white people at many, many times over that rate, too.

Shouldn’t we expect, I don’t know, just a BIT more from police than we do from murderers?

the vast bulk of police homicides are perfectly justified

I’m sure a lot of Germans said the same thing about the Gestapo.

There are always a lot of fools like you ready to believe this.

And since, as FBI Director Comey points out, the police keep remarkably sketchy records about police homicides, it IS kind of hard to know exactly what’s going on there.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/police-shootings-race-and-the-fear-defense?mbid=nl_160712_Daily&CNDID=38655892&spMailingID=9190746&spUserID=MTI5NTY0OTA2MDk0S0&spJobID=960946162&spReportId=OTYwOTQ2MTYyS0

Quick Alzheimer’s test:
Do you remember when people believed the 2nd Amendment was about the rights of citizens to possess a gun to fight the tyranny of the government?

It was just last week. If you don’t remember it, see your doctor immediately.

Some—

Of course we should expect more from our police than from murderers. And police amply satisfy those expectations the vast bulk of the time. Rank and file liberal and default-liberal mouthbreathers in this drive-by, sloganeering social media era are perfect targets for the blandishments of primacy and recency and other forms of selective emphasis. For the reparations shakedown, anyway, black lives matter much, much more if taken by whites, or by uniformed enforcers of white privilege, justified or not. Otherwise, black lives when taken make the Tribune or Sun-Times between the traffic report and the Jumble, not as “Remember Their Names!” invitees to the great grand group self-pity party. Your Gestapo assay is as worthless as any tautology.

Berto—

The left-wing attack on the Second Amendment’s individual rights is about marginalizing political opponents, not about curbing criminal gun violence, which is the pretext. How do we know?

Easy measures to deter gun violence exist which liberals will never, ever approve: stop-and-frisk, with body cameras required, and mandatory minimums for possessing guns illegally.

Such measures would disparately impact liberal victim constituencies, so offend political allies, so they are no-go for liberals even though they’d save lives immediately.

Ink completely misses the first part of the post:

Dallas is what a “Second Amendment Solution” looks like.

“Patriots” shooting police, and ultimately military, if you take it to its logical end.

Could I introduce you to the American Legislative Exchange Council………..

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

They have many names. Then you can go here…..

http://www.prwatch.org/topics/alec-exposed.

The NRA is a very large part of ALEC.

Not sure if you are aware of the politics in AZ, but AZ is a breeding ground for ALEC. I know this because I research. I had a very illegal court case go down in AZ and I couldn’t figure out how this could happen. I started researching the HB, SB laws and Brewer was Governor then. She would change 35-38 laws a day.

Not sure where you live, but in many states, the police have DRE’s, drug recognition experts. 3-7 weeks of training…must be off probation and they determine, by no scientific means if you are impaired or not. In fact in trials, the words of the medical doctors means nothing. However, they have sent many to jail under the guise of their so called expertise. It was started in CA. The police would bring suspected DUI’s to doctors who would not see the same thing. So, in the name of making money, the police created their own squad. I was a victim of this and it destroyed me.

So perhaps, this is not a party labeling issue. This is about creating police states. Both Dems and Republicans are involved and ALEC is everywhere. If you are in government, you are often protected and the police have their own brotherhoods. I have friends who were and are police officers.

Check it out. Much larger than most people know.

Rank and file liberal and default-liberal mouthbreathers in this drive-by, sloganeering social media era are perfect targets for the blandishments of primacy and recency and other forms of selective emphasis. For the reparations shakedown, anyway

…I have to congratulate you, Inkberrow. Until I made the mistake of reading those words, I never understood how useful a phrase “doubleplusgood duckspeaker” could really be.

Major—

Dallas is what a left-wing Second Amendment solution looks like. Transactional rooting preferences are clear among SJWs here as everywhere. The conservative solution in part is above—stop-and-frisk and gun man-mims.

Austin—

There are many, many more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your vocabulary. I remain willing to consider substantive offerings from you when you decide you are ready.

Ink – Now you’re just being silly, well no, actually you were being silly before too.

Unless everybody in the Sovereign Citizen and Militia movements is left-winger your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Stop-and-frisk raises serious 4th Amendment issues, but then when has a conservative ever cared about any amendment but the 2nd?

Aren’t conservatives sweet and kind, to be so concerned about black people dying?

It’s getting so you have to practically fight your way into the ghetto to get past all those concerned conservatives!

Take Flint, Michigan, for example!

When those kind, compassionate conservatives found out that all the black people’s water supply was contaminated with lead poisoning, they immediately… um… well, to tell the truth I’ve forgotten exactly what it was that they did… but you know it had to be something wonderful!

And I remember last summer after that racist maniac shot all those black people, all the southern conservatives felt so bad they were ashamed to wave their guns around and fly their Confederate flags.

Major–

The reason it didn’t make sense may be that it was a riff on what you said. Deferring nonetheless to your obvious Constitutional acumen, just about every crime and punishment policy raises “serious” issues for the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. Stop and frisk passes muster on its face, so the application must be monitored, as with body cameras. We conservatives care about the Tenth Amendment too. Wish it wasn’t a dead letter.

Some–

I can’t say I care that much about black people dying, at least the foolhardy, self-absorbed men who comprise the bulk of violent-crime victims, overwhelmingly at the hands of fellow mouthbreathers. I do care greatly about the ones who join most of humanity in observing family, educational and vocational ethics. As to Flint, I learned about it in the newspapers like President Obama and his EPA chief, and I share their outrage.

CONservatives n the news…

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a46755/wayne-simmons-fox-news-cia/

s to Flint, I learned about it in the newspapers like President Obama and his EPA chief, and I share their outrage

Oh for God’s sake, you spilled the beans right there. Flint was under state control, meaning the Fed had jack-shit first priority. A state appointed ‘Emergency Manager’, who attempted to minimize cost. If you Republicans cannot accept the fact that y’all fuck up everything you touch (the Mess in Messapotamia, for instance), then just give it up, plebe. See, ‘personal responsibility’ means Republicans should man-up and accept the blame for their legitimate faults. But since Republicans can admit no wrong, it’s all Obama’s fault. Look, goddammit, you can be *against* government or *for* government, just pick a consistent side.

Oh yeah, consistent side, aka principle, of which Republicans have jack shit. Other than the principle of opportunism, which you demonstrate quite clearly.

And you are, and never were, a LEO.

Sorry, Aren’t a law enforcement officer.

Oh no? If you are, it kinda proves the racist point.

yeah yeah yeah, now come back with yet another lame non sequiter.

See, ‘personal responsibility’ means Republicans should man-up and accept the blame for their legitimate faults.

That’s what “personal responsibility” means to objective observers, not to Republicans. To Republicans, “personal responsibility” means Jimmy Carter is personally responsible for everything bad that happened in or to the United States between August 9, 1974 and August 21, 1992; Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the bad stuff that happened from then until August 9, 2007; and Barack HUSSEIN Obama is personally responsible for all the bad things after that.

But since Republicans can admit no wrong, it’s all Obama’s fault.

Why should they admit wrong? God is on their side. It says so right in the Bible, after all, and the Bible is infallible; it says so right in the Bible, after all.

(“The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.”)

Look, goddammit, you can be *against* government or *for* government, just pick a consistent side.

Again, why should they? They’ve never had to on any other issue: whether Barack Obama is a ruthless atheist Muslim Communist schemer or too stupid to introduce himself without a TelePrompTer; whether Bill Clinton was a “Mayberry Machiavelli” who spent his every waking moment scheming to destroy Christianity and capitalism or a “hillbilly with a hard-on” who spent his every waking moment trying to jam his “distinguishing characteristic” into anything that couldn’t outrun him and wasn’t Hillary; et cetera ad vomitam.

Little—

Doubtless you’re utterly then that shortly after the Flint story finally broke nationwide the regional EPA chief resigned, throwing herself on the sword in the off chance the lapdog news media would look beyond the Republican governor to the federal agency with power over him and prior knowledge of the lead danger. Never mind where the fish started rotting, plus the failed lightweight is on his way out to the book-deal and speaking circuit world anyway.

Not sure where you’re going with the LEO reference. No, I’m not one but I have extensive professional knowledge of and interaction with them. Is that a “non sequiter” [sic], lame or otherwise? No, one need not be “either” for or against government, unless one is writing a frosh Poli Sci cri de couer, or comments on Sadly No!. But I don’t want to overstay my welcome here, on this of all days. You SJWs have some more “Dead Cop, Black Revenge” celebrating to do.

Just thought I’d point out that my son-in-law is a law enforcement officer in Florida.

Is there some reason anybody here feels the need to continue giving tugjobs to Inkberrow? It’s making a gawdawful mess.

Seeing all the other children running around makes keeping my toddler sitting in the pew nearly impossible (think major meltdowns)

Nequam, I for one keep thinking there’s some amount of mockery we can inflict on him that will make him say “You know, maybe I should provide something resembling evidence for my assertions if I want these people to take them seriously”, in much the same way he keeps thinking “If I just repeat my Sublime Truths enough times, these loony libs will accept that I’m right and they’re wrong” (according to the proverb “Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed”; therefore, if you’re telling somebody the truth and they don’t believe you, it can only be because they didn’t understand you). I tell you what, though; it’s a perfect purple shame he’s not doing this someplace where he’d find the audience he deserves, like e.g. WHTM.

Major—

The liberal’s version of “I have black friends”? Yeah, I’ve known cops that were really cool…

Nequam—

Standing near loosely denominated allies makes your meager contribution here a Winner!

Daphne—

If only Gavin E. Long and Micah X. Johnson’s mothers had been so attentive. Fathers? Meh…

Austin—

No one here has even acknowledged disparate-impact methodology, let alone plausibly defended it.

Sticking with Blake, however, my cite is “Listen to the fool’s reproach. It is a kingly title”.

You SJWs have some more “Dead Cop, Black Revenge” celebrating to do.

And you can go fuck yourself, asshole. We’ve wasted enough time dealing with your idiotic delusions.

Googling any of the sentences daphne posts will reveal them to be out-of-context excerpts from Salon articles. Personally, I suspect her to be a spambot; she certainly doesn’t seem to be interested in dialogue (or, for that matter, in trying to convince herself that she’s interested in dialogue).

No one here has even acknowledged disparate-impact methodology, let alone plausibly defended it.

Initial reaction: “Boy, Inky sure takes an awful lot of words to say NO U.”

Reaction on some thought, and on googling what disparate-impact methodology actually is, and comparing it with your claim that SJWs are “[g]auging equality of opportunity by equality of outcome”, and rereading some of your earlier comments in which your complains about it are treated with at least as much respect as they deserve:

Boy, the Cold War really never ended for some people, did it? The only difference I can see between these comments and Winston Churchill’s 1920 complaints about a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality” is the eloquence of Churchill. And all these people play variations on that theme, and they all seem to think either that we’ve never heard it before or that nobody else had the shaft of exquisite rightness that would pierce the walls the Cathedral built around our brains.

(“Perhaps we are both doing what we think right. But what we think right is so damned different that there can be nothing between us in the way of concession.”)

Some—

Sounds like the truth hurts even vulgarian SJWs! Yes, you’ve wasted time, but not “dealing with” my critiques. Proving they are “delusions” is step one, not tapdancing ignorantly around that which you lazily dismiss unconsidered.

Austin—

It doesn’t take a lot of words to say “disparate impact methodology”, which–yet once again–permits an inference of racism based on comparison between race representation in a target population with race in the population overall.

Try to concentrate on that short definition. Then do some research, especially by reference to SCOTUS caselaw on the subject, expanding requirements of disparate treatment. Good start using Google to inform yourself. Now focus.

Does Inkberrow think he’s clever by blaming NRA cant about 2nd Amendment Right to fight the government on “liberals”?

That’s the problem with debating conservatives. They like to act like they’re too stupid to learn anything, but really they aren’t stupid. They’re liars.

I don’t know of anyone on the left who’s come out in favor of shooting cops. Oh I’m sure you could find some obscure anarchist blogger that’s said something, but nobody in the mainstream left.

It’s the right that’s always blathering about using their guns to stop “government tyranny”.

Which they can never define, they just know it’s something their guns protect them from.

If government tyranny ever comes for real, just who exactly do they think will be enforcing it?

Major, we’ve already had one example of the right using their guns to stop “government tyranny”— the Civil War.

1. Does Berto imagine that challenging Inky indirectly is a sign of confidence and subject-area aptitude? It certainly isn’t indicative of reading comprehension skills.

2. Major, you need to get out a bit more. Or stay in, if indeed you’re not unsympathetic to #Blue Lives Matter. America’s leftists after Dallas and Baton Rouge can be analogized to the aggregation of Muslims worldwide after 9/11: some openly celebrating, some celebrating in tactful privacy, and those who deplore the loss of life but consider it the unfortunate but predictable and unavoidable concomitant of America’s geopolitical and social-justice chickens coming home to roost.

3. To, er, Some extent, left and right and law and order and 2nd Amendment debate are not lining up the same way any more. Most cops these days don’t want citizens with guns on them or even readily available in the home, lawfully or not. And besides reparations to folks most of whom think that “Middle Passage” signifies an important part of the human body, the next emanation of all this civic upheaval is going to be the federalizing of law enforcement, beginning with centralized standards and practices.

Conservatives: asserting every lunatic’s “right” to assault weapons to correct “government tyranny”.

Then, when cops get shot, blaming blacks and the left.

beginning with centralized standards and practices.

“Ah!” said Mr Podsnap. “Easy to say somewhere; not so easy to say where! But I see what you are driving at. I knew it from the first Centralization. No. Never with my consent. Not English.”

In Micah Johnsons case he was legally open carrying an assault rifle. So stop and frisk is a moot point. However I am quite sure that Inkberrow would be nonplussed if he was randomly subjected to a legal stop and frisk by an African-American police officer.

Some—

Yes, I have the temerity to blame blacks and the left for the deaths of cops who were shot because blacks and the left associate them with whites and the right.

Austin—

Back to merits-avoidant tapdancing, eh? Ah well.. Two steps forward, one step back. You could have at least used the Central Scrutinizer from “Joe’s Garage”.

Herr—

Even if the value of stop-and-frisk rose and fell with Johnson’s example–it doesn’t–you’re wrong anyway. Possession of a firearm with intent to use unlawfully is a felony.

Your fatally tendentious hypo involving me fails too, even if it were dispositive (it’s not). A legal stop-and-frisk cannot be “random”. There must be reasonable suspicion.

“Temerity”—? No.

“Assholishness”? Yes.

Back to merits-avoidant tapdancing, eh?

No, I just hadn’t actually read the part of your comment that was addressed to me.

permits an inference of racism based on comparison between race representation in a target population with race in the population overall.

I got that. It’s just that I happen to think that such an inference is like inferring that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, while you think it’s like, I don’t know, inferring that the moon is made of green cheese.

You could have at least used the Central Scrutinizer from “Joe’s Garage”.

Even if I knew Joe’s Garage well enough for it to be my first thought, I’d probably have thought the Charles Dickens quote was more relevant. Particularly a later passage:

But Mr Podsnap felt that the time had come for flushing and flourishing this meek man down for good. So he said: “I must decline to pursue this painful discussion. It is not pleasant to my feelings; it is repugnant to my feelings. I have said that I do not admit these things. I have also said that if they do occur (not that I admit it), the fault lies with the sufferers themselves. It is not for me” — Mr Podsnap pointed “me” forcibly, as adding by implication that it may be all very well for you — “it is not for me to impugn the workings of Providence. I know better than that, I trust, and I have mentioned what the intentions of Providence are.* Besides,” said Mr Podsnap, flushing high up among his hair-brushes, with a strong consciousness of personal affront, “the subject is a very disagreeable one. I will go so far as to say it is an odious one. It is not one to be introduced among our wives and young persons, and I–” He finished with that flourish of his arm which added more expressively than any words, And I remove it from the face of the earth.

You might want to read the book that the quotes come from, particularly the portions containing John Podsnap. It will, as Mr Podsnap himself would and did say, render you cautious how you fly in the face of Providence.

(* “As a so eminently respectable man, Mr Podsnap was sensible of its being required of him to take Providence under his protection. Consequently he always knew exactly what Providence meant. Inferior and less respectable men might fall short of that mark, but Mr Podsnap was always up to it. And it was very remarkable (and must have been very comfortable) that what Providence meant, was invariably what Mr Podsnap meant.”)

Inkberrow agrees with Black Lives Matter that every day hundreds of African-Americans are illegally stopped and frisked because the searches are randomly conducted.

Some–

Fulmination? Yes.

Austin—

Sure you hadn’t read it. Strike another pose.

Herr—

I’ll just bet you understand what question-begging is!