Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure about who the woman you describe may or may not be politically aligned with, but your use of the term "low information voter" and your generally pro-police stance indicates you get your own information from Rush Limbaugh, and, let's be honest... he and his ilk are hardly any more informed than the Obama-ites. Whether your "facts" come from Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Keith Olbermann, or Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, they're all just as full of ****.
You don't have to be an Obama supporter to argue that the police get special treatment and the people they kill are posthumously determined to be guilty by the character assassination attempts of the state and its minions.
Again, sweeping assumptions on your part which are false.
For starters my "pro-police stance" started well before Rush Limbaugh ever became a famous person. I was taught from a very young age to always respect the police. Furthermore I was raised to know that even if you run into a bad/jerk policeman, you respect the badge and uniform, even if you don't like the person. That combined with having LEO's in my family makes me give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when dealing with criminals(of which both Garner & Brown were).
As to the low information voter tag I used, it is clear that to elect one of the least qualified and inexperienced people to the highest office in the land, they had little to no education. My goodness, this guy had all sort of skeletons in his closet as well. Yet people bought the packaging without knowing about the lack of substance.
I am not a big Howard Stern fan, as a matter of fat I cannot stand him. That said, he and his staff did a interview with many people in Harlem to prove that the blacks were voting for Obama, strictly on race. They proved it by attributing all of McCains positions to Obama, then asking the people if they supported "Obama's positions", even though anyone with half a brain would know were not his. Sure enough the low information voters all said they were with Obama.
There was a protest the other week. Three families are upset that their sons were shot by police. Two were white, the third was Asian. At most 20 people showed up. Nobody from the black community, none of the usual marxist anti-racist types, essentially just members of the respective families. Yet today there was a protest in Toronto that drew 100s but only, apparently, because it concerned the Brown/Garner issues. If this is really about police violence, why are people being selective in the victims they are protesting for?
Weed does NOT make you want to fight or incite aggression.
Everyone knows this.
Hmmm, so your defense of your position is based on an assumption that everyone knows this?
I see you did not list your qualifications to make such a comment, even despite me pointing out that pot, just like booze affects different people differently. Every knowledgeable person knows this, but there is documentation and studies to prove this.
Also tell the victim of the human Zombie who was a dope smoker, that he had his face eaten off, but it had nothing to do with the THC in the guys system.
Sure pot makes some people mellow, maybe even 51% or more. Still it effects others in ways that cause them to get stupid and do insane things. To deny this is the epitome of ignorance or being obtuse.
Again, sweeping assumptions on your part which are false.
For starters my "pro-police stance" started well before Rush Limbaugh ever became a famous person. I was taught from a very young age to always respect the police. Furthermore I was raised to know that even if you run into a bad/jerk policeman, you respect the badge and uniform, even if you don't like the person. That combined with having LEO's in my family makes me give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when dealing with criminals(of which both Garner & Brown were).
As to the low information voter tag I used, it is clear that to elect one of the least qualified and inexperienced people to the highest office in the land, they had little to no education. My goodness, this guy had all sort of skeletons in his closet as well. Yet people bought the packaging without knowing about the lack of substance.
I am not a big Howard Stern fan, as a matter of fat I cannot stand him. That said, he and his staff did a interview with many people in Harlem to prove that the blacks were voting for Obama, strictly on race. They proved it by attributing all of McCains positions to Obama, then asking the people if they supported "Obama's positions", even though anyone with half a brain would know were not his. Sure enough the low information voters all said they were with Obama.
There is no lower information voter than viewers of FauxNews channel. Those viewers cannot think for themselves and simply parrot the talking points provided by the like of Fox and Friends, O'Reilly and Hannity. There was an example, of this type of voter who called into CSPAN back in 2008 on the Republican line. She had received a mailer from the Repugs indicating that Obama's middle name was Hussein and a Muslim. She asked the host if it was true about his middle name. The host responded with something like what if it is? Her come back was that she could not vote for some with such a name. BINGO.
There is no lower information voter than viewers of FauxNews channel. Those viewers cannot think for themselves and simply parrot the talking points provided by the like of Fox and Friends, O'Reilly and Hannity. There was an example, of this type of voter who called into CSPAN back in 2008 on the Republican line. She had received a mailer from the Repugs indicating that Obama's middle name was Hussein and a Muslim. She asked the host if it was true about his middle name. The host responded with something like what if it is? Her come back was that she could not vote for some with such a name. BINGO.
As much I as I hate the liberal position on almost everything and think MSNBC aka BSMSM is a gigantic brain drain on the lefty half of the American populace, I have to agree with this. Fox News is especially trash. BSMSM can spin anything to make anyone sound like a racist/sexist/feminist/liberal-demon-of-the-day, but holy s**t is Fox News just COMPLETELY full of it.
With the notable exceptions of Andrew Napolitano who's pretty much good on everything, and John Stossel who gets WAY more **** right than wrong.
The advancement of a Police State is safe in America.
So what do you prefer then? How about we just get rid of cops period. Is that what you want? Anarchy? Survival of the fittest? Policing isn't perfect in this country. No one disputes that. But boy do we have it good compared to others. You think it's bad here, try Russia, Syria or Gaza, where it's shoot first and ask questions later. And protests? Shoot, Putin wouldn't have any of it.
LordSquidworth"At that point it wasn't about the loose cigarettes, it was about his refusal to comply. Given his arrest record, he knew exactly how the cops would react."
The other 30 times, the cop did NOT kill him. I guess that is what he should have expected given your luny statement above, but on that point, you are correct. He should be alive, the other 30 cops were obviously qualified, while 31 was more inept than Barney Fife.
LordSquidworth"At that point it wasn't about the loose cigarettes, it was about his refusal to comply. Given his arrest record, he knew exactly how the cops would react."
The other 30 times, the cop did NOT kill him. I guess that is what he should have expected given your luny statement above, but on that point, you are correct. He should be alive, the other 30 cops were obviously qualified, while 31 was more inept than Barney Fife.
Eric Garners death was labeled a homicide by the medical examiner, not criminally negligent homicide.
This means that someone did something that directly contributed to someone's death, though not intentionally.
The choke hold was a reason for Eric Garners death. One contributing factor that was not intentional. Therefor it has not been ruled a criminally negligent homicide. Eric Garner also had his health working against him.
With the above information, the thing that matters most, was that Eric Garner was breaking the law, and he died as a result. Resisting arrest is a crime, regardless of the circumstances. If you resist arrest, officers have the right to take necessary actions to subdue that person.
The only lunacy is those here looking to make martyrs out of those who die in the process of breaking laws. Laws that anyone should know to follow since they are small children. Laws that any intelligent person can follow. Laws that are not infringing on anyone's rights. You don't argue with police, you argue in the courtroom.
It's the American way to always look to blame someone else these days. The days of personal responsibility are long gone. Eric Garner is at fault for his death. Can some blame be put to others? Yes, but not to the criminal extent. At the end of the day, Eric Garner made the decision to resist arrest, to break the law, and as a result die while being subdued for that choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
