Jan 6 Hearings

[hollodero]

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would counter that a person's pattern of behavior eventually leads to them not getting the benefit of the doubt.  Is that not an argument that we've heard used against Trump on numerous occasions?  I certainly think Waters qualifies in this regard.

Yes, I thought about Trump even, and I sure argued in that manner (benefit of the doubt is gone at a certain point), and asked myself in other matters whether this is awful on its own or just because it's coming from Trump. It was a counterargument used all the time (aka "you just hate the guy"), and in rare instances it was a fair counter, in most it was not. This particular case of video one, I don't know which one it is. Overall, I am not really trying to defend Maxine Waters, who at best was deliberately reckless in her choice of words for sure.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here I cannot agree.  You cannot discount a valid criticism simply because others will use that criticism to minimize or excuse unacceptable behavior.  This line of thinking is why trust in the media is in the toilet.  Bad faith actors will always conduct themselves in that regard.  You only push more people into their camp when you deny the evidence of people's own two eyes.  The ideal solution would be for the media to actually conduct themselves in a fair and impartial manner.  This strikes me as a less than likely outcome.  The less palatable solution is to acknowledge when the media is being biased, e.g. the following pic;



An even better example is the coverage of the Rittenhouse incident and trial.  The media was near universal in condemning the kid, some going so far as to label him a white supremacist.  Hell, someone on this very board, the day after the shooting, posted a picture of the kid in a police explorer uniform like it was some gotcha proof of his ill intent.  Meanwhile you have myself and Bel pointing out that it's as clear a case of self defense as we've ever seen, and we are not on the same ends of the political spectrum by any means.  But, aside from Fox, the media has been full square behind the BLM protests, regardless of the damage caused, or the people injured or killed and equally opposed to anyone who dares to point that out.  Respectfully, when you defend this, or rather dislike it being pointed out, because to not do so only gives ammunition to people who would act in the same fashion for right wing protests, you're only adding fuel to the fire.  Either we can acknowledge what is fair or we contribute to what is unfair.  We cannot control those who would act in bad faith, we can only act in good faith ourselves.  I think Bill Maher is a good example of a far left liberal who has realized this and is speaking out accordingly.

But I was not argueing against valid critizism. If anyone on this board or FOX or anyone speaks the words you just spoke, I will not discount this critizism, as I do not discount yours (for the most part at least). Pointing this out is not the issue, on the contrary it's a good thing. Where I run into problems is your argument of creating balance through a counternarrative. In the Rittenhouse case, that would be the counter of declaring this guy a hero, which FOX et al. did. This is not in the name of balance, it's just using the same instruments of distortion that gets critizised, and this is what I consider to be equally wrong; meaning this is the point where I'd say, either critizise the initial distortion of the media or engage in that behaviour yourself to counter it, but you can't do both. Not directed at you, but at your point about balance.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I get why it was done.  But all it did was show that the restrictions were largely bullshit.  Either this was a public health emergency or it was not.

But it doesn't. Oversimplified, if these decisions were up to me, with the information and the experts opinions I'd probably get in such a position, I could see myself agreeing with the restrictions as the best way to protect the populace. But then the Floyd thing happened, and that is just a different decision to make. Even as a believer in the restrictions, would I really use my power to disperse protests, counter with heavy police force, water throwers and whatnot (you'd know more about the measures to dissolve the gatherings), would I think that's still the best thing to do for society. And that's not even a question of ideology or if I believe the protesters' grievances are legit, it's just these folks are angry and this would make them even way angrier, maybe resulting in unrest and violence lasting for years to come. I'd possibly let it be, for that imho is the reality of such decisions, they can seldomly be noble and principled and all that, they are often lousy, messy compromises, decisions between two bad outcomes and which own belief to betray. At least that's the way I see it, and so that it does not mean the restrictions were BS to begin with.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I got to see my mother for exactly ten minutes, while she lay dying in the hospital for five days.  My father didn't get to sit with her in her dying moments after being married to her for over fifty years.

I am so sorry about that.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But the protestors can run around in public elbow to elbow, in dense groups thousand strong, because enforcing the mandates we were all told we had to live by would be seen as racist?  All while some of them loot businesses, commit arson and assault and, in some extreme cases, murder people?  Seriously, eff that argument with a rake.  

Yeah I get that sentiment. It would be seen as racist, though it would not be, that's the reality of things and it stinks. And trying to carry that hot iron, I have to agree that those that are ultimately to blame are the organizers of the protests. All citizens were asked to respond accordingly to what was indeed a health crisis and they chose not to comply and knew they would get away with it. I'm not defending them (though I understand their anger), I do have understanding for the decision makers that reached the again messy compromise to let them get away to avoid lasting riots and unrest. It might have been the most sensible reaction, even if it's a bad and unfair one.
Just to be clear, I'm certainly not point blank defending every measure taken in the name of Covid. Like the heartbreaking one that led to your parents not even getting to say their proper goodbyes. These stories make me sad and again I am so sorry for them and for you.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, technically terrorism is any criminal act used to try and effect political change.  Setting a police car on fire with Molotov cocktails may not have directly injured anyone, in this instance, but the intent behind doing so is rather obvious.  I don't think you have to cross the line to actual murder to make it a very serious crime.  

Maybe. I just wonder if the word terrorism should not be restricted to even more severe actions, or else it might be a slippery slope and more and more crimes get painted as such if there's no line. I think it was you who brought up what we do with terrorists. And not to defend these guys, but I would not be in favor of them being sent to Guantanamo.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2022, 06:41 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'll take medical advice from LEOs when they decide that everything isn't a target thank you very much.

Yeah. I think roughly every tenth time you use a line like that you deserve someone telling you that you shouldn't. Constantly isinuating that every LEO is an awful and trigger-happy person is just a crappy thing to do, not to mention unfair and possibly ungrateful even.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-02-2022, 11:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah. I think roughly every tenth time you use a line like that you deserve someone telling you that you shouldn't. Constantly isinuating that every LEO is an awful and trigger-happy person is just a crappy thing to do, not to mention unfair and possibly ungrateful even.

K. I'll be sure to thank the next cop I see for all the unarmed folks they've assaulted and killed over the last few years. Wouldn't wanna be ungrateful.

Wait - that just makes me sound racist, sexist, and agesist. I think I'll stick to calling it like I see it, thanks.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(08-02-2022, 11:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah. I think roughly every tenth time you use a line like that you deserve someone telling you that you shouldn't. Constantly isinuating that every LEO is an awful and trigger-happy person is just a crappy thing to do, not to mention unfair and possibly ungrateful even.

Being honest here, I'd have more respect for him as a supposed LEO if I saw any form of defense from him for the Capitol Police in a January 6th thread. Lots of defense of police mentioning BLM and Antifa, but can't be bothered in a January 6th hearing thread to say anything bad about the attackers or the moron that enticed them . . . You'd think he'd be interested in finding out the details behind possibly the most broadcasted assault on LEOs in American history, but no. I've seen lots of pettyfog, avoiding questions and deflecting by him and that's pretty much about it. But if there's video of a black person disrespecting a LEO, who is most likely going to be the first to post it?

[GMDino]

(08-02-2022, 12:33 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Being honest here, I'd have more respect for him as a supposed LEO if I saw any form of defense from him for the Capitol Police in a January 6th thread. Lots of defense of police mentioning BLM and Antifa, but can't be bothered in a January 6th hearing thread to say anything bad about the attackers or the moron that enticed them . . . You'd think he'd be interested in finding out the details behind possibly the most broadcasted assault on LEOs in American history, but no. I've seen lots of pettyfog, avoiding questions and deflecting by him and that's pretty much about it. But if there's video of a black person disrespecting a LEO, who is most likely going to be the first post it?

That's primarily because they have to "other side" this even on January 6th to defend it all.

"Oh!  So NOW leftists care about the police!!1!!1!!!1!!!" Is the defense.  As if we are all other there celebrating police being attacked any time.

It's convenient to mislead the discussion.

However I have no doubt SSF does care about the capitol police much as he cares about any LEO who is hurt in the line of duty.  Probably more than he cares about the actual events of January 6th or who was behind them and why, but he does care.  That is his profession and he is nothing if not loyal to those in his profession.  And I mean that sincerely.  No matter how much he hates me I know what he cares about in a real, human way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2022, 11:06 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yes, I thought about Trump even, and I sure argued in that manner (benefit of the doubt is gone at a certain point), and asked myself in other matters whether this is awful on its own or just because it's coming from Trump. It was a counterargument used all the time (aka "you just hate the guy"), and in rare instances it was a fair counter, in most it was not. This particular case of video one, I don't know which one it is. Overall, I am not really trying to defend Maxine Waters, who at best was deliberately reckless in her choice of words for sure.

Yeah, I get that you're not familiar with her to that degree.  Honestly, don't waste your time getting to that point, I certainly wish I was less familiar with her.

Quote:But I was not argueing against valid critizism. If anyone on this board or FOX or anyone speaks the words you just spoke, I will not discount this critizism, as I do not discount yours (for the most part at least). Pointing this out is not the issue, on the contrary it's a good thing. Where I run into problems is your argument of creating balance through a counternarrative. In the Rittenhouse case, that would be the counter of declaring this guy a hero, which FOX et al. did. This is not in the name of balance, it's just using the same instruments of distortion that gets critizised, and this is what I consider to be equally wrong; meaning this is the point where I'd say, either critizise the initial distortion of the media or engage in that behaviour yourself to counter it, but you can't do both. Not directed at you, but at your point about balance.

Yes, it is absolutely true that there are people who knee jerk this response and use it when it's clearly an attempt at obfuscation.  The problem is that all such comparisons get lumped into this category and in so doing I think it's pushing a lot of moderates towards that extreme camp.  Like I said, when you're told that what you're seeing with your own two eyes isn't true you begin to wonder if the extremists don't have a very good point.  They don't, as we both agree, but you're certainly setting them up to look that way when you discount valid criticisms in this vein.

Quote:But it doesn't. Oversimplified, if these decisions were up to me, with the information and the experts opinions I'd probably get in such a position, I could see myself agreeing with the restrictions as the best way to protect the populace. But then the Floyd thing happened, and that is just a different decision to make. Even as a believer in the restrictions, would I really use my power to disperse protests, counter with heavy police force, water throwers and whatnot (you'd know more about the measures to dissolve the gatherings), would I think that's still the best thing to do for society. And that's not even a question of ideology or if I believe the protesters' grievances are legit, it's just these folks are angry and this would make them even way angrier, maybe resulting in unrest and violence lasting for years to come. I'd possibly let it be, for that imho is the reality of such decisions, they can seldomly be noble and principled and all that, they are often lousy, messy compromises, decisions between two bad outcomes and which own belief to betray. At least that's the way I see it, and so that it does not mean the restrictions were BS to begin with.

The problem is that well before Floyd's murder we were bombarded about how dire this situation was, millions will die if we don't "flatten the curve".  Don't see your friends and family, stay inside as much as possible, wash your hands after touching any surface as Covid can survive for days on any surface!  The the protests start and the same damn "experts" are on TV saying that attending protests is perfectly safe, just wear a mask.  The severe inconsistency is what rankles, because I've continually stated that an inconsistent opinion is a worthless opinion.  To anyone even slightly inclined to view it as such, it looked like the restrictions were a lie, that they weren't important and that it's ok to violate them if you're angry enough.  As you correctly stated, the issue was radioactive at that point and it would have taken leadership, at any level, to display some real courage and stand up and say no, the restrictions are important, just like we've been saying for months.  But we have nothing close to that level of integrity at any level of government.

Quote:I am so sorry about that.

Yeah, it sucked, especially for my father.

Quote:Yeah I get that sentiment. It would be seen as racist, though it would not be, that's the reality of things and it stinks. And trying to carry that hot iron, I have to agree that those that are ultimately to blame are the organizers of the protests. All citizens were asked to respond accordingly to what was indeed a health crisis and they chose not to comply and knew they would get away with it. I'm not defending them (though I understand their anger), I do have understanding for the decision makers that reached the again messy compromise to let them get away to avoid lasting riots and unrest. It might have been the most sensible reaction, even if it's a bad and unfair one.
Just to be clear, I'm certainly not point blank defending every measure taken in the name of Covid. Like the heartbreaking one that led to your parents not even getting to say their proper goodbyes. These stories make me sad and again I am so sorry for them and for you.

I really addressed this above so I won't repeat here.  I do appreciate the kind words, thank you.

Quote:Maybe. I just wonder if the word terrorism should not be restricted to even more severe actions, or else it might be a slippery slope and more and more crimes get painted as such if there's no line. I think it was you who brought up what we do with terrorists. And not to defend these guys, but I would not be in favor of them being sent to Guantanamo.

I think the term terrorism gets thrown around far too casually, so I would agree.  I certainly wouldn't throw them in Gitmo.  But only getting a few years, which means you're out in less than one?  No thanks.  You're (not you personally) only fueling the perception that left wing violence is handled with kid gloves and right wing violence is treated as a national emergency.  There is absolutely a perception of a two tiered justice system based on ideology right now and Biden's DOJ is doing nothing but reinforcing it.  Yet another crack in the foundation that is only widening.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2022, 11:29 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: K. I'll be sure to thank the next cop I see for all the unarmed folks they've assaulted and killed over the last few years. Wouldn't wanna be ungrateful.

Wait - that just makes me sound racist, sexist, and agesist. I think I'll stick to calling it like I see it, thanks.

I'm going to say this once and then move on, because honestly this is boring.  I don't know what flip got switched that turned you into whatever it is you are now, but you used to be someone you could have an interesting discussion with.  That is no longer the case.  I have no doubt you don't care about my perception of this at all but there it is and I'll leave it at that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2022, 12:33 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Being honest here, I'd have more respect for him as a supposed LEO if I saw any form of defense from him for the Capitol Police in a January 6th thread. Lots of defense of police mentioning BLM and Antifa, but can't be bothered in a January 6th hearing thread to say anything bad about the attackers or the moron that enticed them . . . You'd think he'd be interested in finding out the details behind possibly the most broadcasted assault on LEOs in American history, but no. I've seen lots of pettyfog, avoiding questions and deflecting by him and that's pretty much about it. But if there's video of a black person disrespecting a LEO, who is most likely going to be the first to post it?

I think you're lumping me in with the Brads and tiger bloods on this one, because I have never defended the Capitol riots or excused them.  Also, taking my lack of participation in the thread about it as damning evidence, some kind of guilt by omission, is a weak argument.  Also, your assertion that I deflect or avoid questions is pure garbage.  If anything I've been criticized for going into too much detail by addressing every part of a post.  If you doubt this, put it to the test right now and ask me anything you want, within reason.  I will give you a direct answer.

(08-02-2022, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's primarily because they have to "other side" this even on January 6th to defend it all.

"Oh!  So NOW leftists care about the police!!1!!1!!!1!!!" Is the defense.  As if we are all other there celebrating police being attacked any time.

It's convenient to mislead the discussion.

Again, not something I've done, but you can always post proof of this claim.  

Quote:However I have no doubt SSF does care about the capitol police much as he cares about any LEO who is hurt in the line of duty.  Probably more than he cares about the actual events of January 6th or who was behind them and why, but he does care.  That is his profession and he is nothing if not loyal to those in his profession.  And I mean that sincerely.  No matter how much he hates me I know what he cares about in a real, human way.

You are correct about everything but my hating you.  I do dislike you, but honestly it's because you're actually the person disaplaying the behavior Forever was ascribing to me in his post above when he, incorrectly, asserted that I am quick to post any story or video of an LEO being disrespected.  While absolutely not true in my case, and again this is easily disproven if I am wrong, it is absolutely true of you in the reverse, or at least in the past.  You had several threads solely dedicated to posting stories about alleged LEO malfeasance.  It was title "Good Cop/Bad Cop" but all you ever posted, or ever post, are negative stories.  Every single positive story was posted by someone other than you.  So, in all honesty, maybe if you did some introspection as to why you feel the need to do this we could actually come to some kind of detente.  Because you're stated reason that you want LEO's to "do better" does not hold water to me, the vitriol is clear in your posts and I don't know if you're even cognizant of it.

I will leave off by thanking you for the sentiment above, sincerely.

[GMDino]

(08-02-2022, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's primarily because they have to "other side" this even on January 6th to defend it all.

"Oh!  So NOW leftists care about the police!!1!!1!!!1!!!" Is the defense.  As if we are all other there celebrating police being attacked any time.

(08-02-2022, 12:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, not something I've done, but you can always post proof of this claim.

I didn't mention anyone.

(01-11-2021, 10:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, it didn't take long from "we feel bad for the LEO's who were injured/killed" to, "they were complicit!" from the far left.  GM is a good weathervane in this regard.  I'm sure the strain of pretending was getting to them. 

(02-03-2021, 12:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting that CNN and the Dems suddenly care about the lives of law enforcement.

(02-03-2021, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the Dems suddenly caring about law and order and the lives of law enforcement when they've spent most of the last year castigating the police as the brownshirts of an inherently racist criminal justice system.

(02-03-2021, 01:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they don't.  But when your political party spent the last year castigating an entire profession suddenly showing support for that profession because it's politically expedient absolutely reeks of dishonesty.  

(02-12-2021, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Like you care about LEO's.  A better question is why this guy was ordered back to work when a psych evaluation would have easily determined he wasn't ready.  Seems like a major failure at the administration level to me.

(02-24-2021, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably your constant dismissal of any violence perpetrated by Antifa or your accusations of "both sides do it" whenever the topic is brought up.



Probably.

(02-24-2021, 06:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Somehow I doubt that.



Look who just caught up!


No.  You consistently ignore or excuse violence from those sharing your political bent and focus solely on the violence committed by those who do not.  Just pointing it out for others to see.

(10-11-2021, 02:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't act like you actually care about them. 

(10-11-2021, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll tell you exactly why and I'll use Trump as an example.  If Trump made comments about people being mean on twitter he would be roundly, and correctly, mocked for his blatant hypocrisy.  So, when Dino makes a post about caring about law enforcement when he's literally shit on law enforcement for years I'm going to give him the same treatment.  The guy's literal introduction to this sub forum was criticizing an officer for a bad shoot when there was actual video showing the suspect pulling a gun on the officer.  Since then he's made scores of threads and posts that consistently portray law enforcement in a horrible light.  So, when you couple that with the general shit we get on a daily basis, no, I am not going to let him make such a comment without pointing out the insane level of hypocrisy behind it.  If you don't agree, that's fine, but from what I've seen from him for years it irrefutable fact.

(10-12-2021, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now, if your question is can I interact with Dino without rancor on any subject, the answer is yes.  Although, to be fair, he contributes to making that difficult.  But if you're talking about his using support for law enforcement as a talking point, then no, never.  I will always call that out, I will never let him hide behind any claim of support for law enforcement nor will I allow him to condemn others for a perceived lack of support without comment.

I hope that's clear.

  

(08-02-2022, 12:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct about everything but my hating you.  I do dislike you, but honestly it's because you're actually the person disaplaying the behavior Forever was ascribing to me in his post above when he, incorrectly, asserted that I am quick to post any story or video of an LEO being disrespected.  While absolutely not true in my case, and again this is easily disproven if I am wrong, it is absolutely true of you in the reverse, or at least in the past.  You had several threads solely dedicated to posting stories about alleged LEO malfeasance.  It was title "Good Cop/Bad Cop" but all you ever posted, or ever post, are negative stories.  Every single positive story was posted by someone other than you.  So, in all honesty, maybe if you did some introspection as to why you feel the need to do this we could actually come to some kind of detente.  Because you're stated reason that you want LEO's to "do better" does not hold water to me, the vitriol is clear in your posts and I don't know if you're even cognizant of it.

I will leave off by thanking you for the sentiment above, sincerely.

Well, I tried.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2022, 02:04 PM)GMDino Wrote:










  



Well, I tried.

Dear god, I was responding to your first line, as follows;

That's primarily because they have to "other side" this even on January 6th to defend it all.

I am accused by certain people of doing exactly that, hence my repeated denial.  I have condemned the Capitol riots, and did so while they were happening.  I have never defended or excused the actions that day.  Of course I've called out the left for suddenly caring about police officers.  You think I'm so effing stupid that I would claim I never said something I state on a consistent basis?  I will continue to reiterate it as long as law enforcement is being consistently attacked by the same people claiming to care about them in this one instance.  Seriously, I don't even know why I try with you, you're determined to view this whole thing as a childish attempt to score E points on the internet.

[GMDino]

(08-02-2022, 02:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear god, I was responding to your first line, as follows;

That's primarily because they have to "other side" this even on January 6th to defend it all.

I am accused by certain people of doing exactly that, hence my repeated denial.  I have condemned the Capitol riots, and did so while they were happening.  I have never defended or excused the actions that day.  Of course I've called out the left for suddenly caring about police officers.  You think I'm so effing stupid that I would claim I never said something I state on a consistent basis?  I will continue to reiterate it as long as law enforcement is being consistently attacked by the same people claiming to care about them in this one instance.  Seriously, I don't even know why I try with you, you're determined to view this whole thing as a childish attempt to score E points on the internet.

1) You should have been more clear then.  It helps with discussions.

B) I don't care about the rest.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-02-2022, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to say this once and then move on, because honestly this is boring.  I don't know what flip got switched that turned you into whatever it is you are now, but you used to be someone you could have an interesting discussion with.  That is no longer the case.  I have no doubt you don't care about my perception of this at all but there it is and I'll leave it at that.

K.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2022, 02:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) You should have been more clear then.  It helps with discussions.

B) I don't care about the rest.

Maybe use your critical faculties?  As I said, why would I deny saying something I say repeatedly and will reiterate right now?  Regardless, moving on.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2022, 12:33 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Being honest here, I'd have more respect for him as a supposed LEO if I saw any form of defense from him for the Capitol Police in a January 6th thread. Lots of defense of police mentioning BLM and Antifa, but can't be bothered in a January 6th hearing thread to say anything bad about the attackers or the moron that enticed them . . . You'd think he'd be interested in finding out the details behind possibly the most broadcasted assault on LEOs in American history, but no. I've seen lots of pettyfog, avoiding questions and deflecting by him and that's pretty much about it. But if there's video of a black person disrespecting a LEO, who is most likely going to be the first to post it?

OK. I'm sorry in advance for quoting you, for I am willing to respond to you in a civil manner. Yeah SSF tends to take a position outside of the main narrative, and if it's for better or for worse and if the choice of attitude always fits, yeah I had varying thoughts about that and I sure told him so. I understand your perception to a point. I don't understand it when it comes to your accusation of him not saying anything bad about the attackers or the moron that enticed them. For anyone who reads there can be no doubt how his perspective on these people is. He sees them pretty much just as you and me see them. He said so. Repeatedly.

Now you get the friendly part; some other posts just make me angry. SSF, no matter how one perceives him, is not responsible for every police misdeed. And for the most part, policemen are not villains or morons or folks just shooting around and killing people at will. That is just such nonsense. The vast majority, and I have zero reason to believe that SSF is not a part of said vast majority, are brave and dedicated and decent folks who do a difficult, not exactly well paid job that is essential for society and everyone in it. That's what most policemen are, honorable people. If one can't see it that way, one is seeing it wrong, and that is in no way denying that police deserves increased scrutiny or a claim that there isn't anything wrong with american police. But it is so damn uncalled for, and so offensive, to tell someone to shoot around at random, or that he thinks everything's a target, or that he happily breaks in houses and kills folks and hurts infants or whatever BS I read throughout the last few months, just because this person is a LEO. It is awful and should make everyone who posts this kind of garbage, and I explicitely address Mr. PapaKain, feel bad. And in my humble opinion, an apology would be the only way out of this. I'd say respectfully, but I have to say my respect kinda vanishes at that point.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-02-2022, 08:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: *I didn't delete it out of disrespect, but because it drives me a bit nuts when the quote is longer than the response*

I'll apologize when there's a police overhaul and they quit seeing everything as a nail and they're a hammer. I'm tired of the 'we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing' BS I see in 90% of stories of cops shooting first and asking questions later, or refusing to act. 'To protect and serve' is a motto written by a fifth grader that they're not beholden to enact, but act like they do. It's nonsense.

I have no doubts SSF isn't one of the racist or idiotic pieces of shit that have weaseled their way onto police forces and have been poisoning those wells for decades. But failure to hold your peers accountable makes you guilty by association in my eyes.

Am I being heavy handed? Absolutely. Am I out of line? Probably. Am I going to apologize for it? Probably not any time soon. They've done the damage to their image, not the citizens.

I'd also like to remind everyone that statistically speaking you're in more danger in your job as a landscaper than a cop. Link because you won't believe me. Where's the 'Thin Green Line' flags?

Again, heavy handed. Again, meh.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 07:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Jamie Raskin has now stated that anyone wishing to refute Ms. Hutchinson will be free to do so under oath.

Whelp...

Despite numerous credulous media accounts that Mr. Ornato would testify that Cassidy Hutchinson's 1/6 testimony was false (because he didn't tell her that FPOTUS lunged at the neck of his driver), Mr. Ornato never provided that testimony. Today, he resigned from Secret Service. https://t.co/4qWag2n5J8

— Mitchell Epner (@MitchellEpner) August 29, 2022

 

[GMDino]

Interesting info.