jakee

What exactly is circular about telling you that a guy who murdered a BLM protestor for being a BLM protestor is a racist? I actually warned you this wasn’t a hill to die on but you just couldn’t let it go. Don’t blame me for that. But sure, vote for a bunch of racist enabling culture warriors because a guy on the internet hurt your feelings. I’m sure that’ll make sense to someone.

But seriously though - don’t vote for amoral white supremacist enablers just because you think it’s fun to own the libs. Don’t you like your country? Vote for the only party currently demonstrating that it is made up of grownups who genuinely want to protect the country.

You do realise that says nothing about me and everything about you, right? Maybe take a minute to reflect on how you got to the point of writing something that’s just so damn sad.

But you can’t have examined it very closely to have ended up here arguing that he wasn’t a racist murderer. Anyway - I can’t help but think of the parallels with the Mississippi Burning case early in the civil rights era. 3 activists (only 1 of whom was black but yes, all 3 murders were racist) abducted and murdered by the KKK. Local and State authorities refused to investigate, so the FBI stepped in. When the FBI identified the murderers, the State refused to prosecute. The FBI was able to secure some token jail terms for civil rights violations, but it served as a major driver of wide ranging civil rights protections passed by the Government through the decade. And what now? The police do investigate. The state does prosecute. A jury does convict. But a governor decides no, that’s not good enough, what we want is Texas Burning. Today, 60 years on, in the 21st Century, Jim Crow style lynching should be legal and acceptable in our enlightened society. And all the while the Supreme Court works on rolling back what civil rights protections are left. This is what the morally bankrupt, power obsessed mainstream Republican Party is willing to promote in exchange for a few votes. That’s why it matters who you vote for. Is that really the side you want to be on?

Every church in the world caters to the vice of having sex. It's one of the central pillars of what they do. Deciding not to be ok with homosexual sex is just rank bigotry.

Again though, saying he was going to kill someone at a BLM protest and then doing it is also what we would generally call ‘a clue’.

The racist murderer’s publicly stated intention was to kill someone at a Black Lives Matter protest. So while you are indeed confused, I’m really not sure why. You think he might have just picked that particular set of protests at random? If so, try this from Wiki: Following his murder conviction, messages Perry sent of him self-identifying as "a racist" and of him calling black protesters "monkeys" were revealed to the public. Honestly dude, this is not a hill you want to die on.

Yes, that is a quote from the racist murderer, one that is not corroborated by any other witness. How much is it worth to you? Another quote from the racist murderer at the time: I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know. So again, he shot a guy who was simply, legally, open carrying a gun and who categorically did not threaten him with it.

Not even that. Foster didn’t pull a gun, he was simply open carrying a gun.

If anyone ever wants to argue that Stand Your Ground laws don’t legalise premeditated murder just show them that. The only question is whether the governor took such an immediate personal interest more because he supports murder in general or racist murder in particular.

And in many cases, this is because the people who want to engage in corrupt behaviour have decided to legalise the ways in which they want to be corrupt. The fact that they are able to do this does not change the ethics of the actions. And in the same fashion, congresspeople legalising the ability for interested parties to give them large amounts of money in exchange for access and influence doesn't help the perception of corrupt politicians. So again, I get the distinction - you have not yet shown any difference. It really does seem that it's only your unwillingness to admit a mistake that leads you to insist that there is one. Why are you taking this so personally? Just relax dude, it's only a conversation. It's really not as important as you think it is.

Why so defensive that you need to deploy such a transparent dodge? You set the goalposts of 'true corruption' as what is actually illegal, even though you also claim people who the justice system has decided are not engaged in corrupt behaviour are in fact guilty of corruption. Those are your goalposts, and you're still gonna have to explain how they're both on the same field despite your attempt at ad hom distraction.

OK, so you disagree with the person whose opinion you were posting and you do think it's the government's business to overrule the parents. Not sure why that had to be so hard to find out.

You think? One issue is that the legislative branch has decided certain types of political profiteering are not illegal. The other issue is that the judicial branch has decided certain types of political profiteering are not illegal. I see the distinction, but you'll have to explain the difference. (Interestingly - you seem to be suggesting that Congresspeople who have been given a pass by the independent Supreme Court are still being corrupt, but Congresspeople who have given themselves a pass are not. Common sense would normally suggest the benefit of the doubt should go the other way, if at all.)

Then why did you call them guilty if your point is that they are not guilty? "When you can no longer prosecute the guilty, everyone gets painted by the same brush."

When the foxes vote to allow themselves to kill chickens, the chickens still end up just as dead.

Christ yes. At least he was forced out. My local MP at the time claimed for the plumbing under his tennis courts and never even apologised.

Coincidentally, Jon Stewart just did a decent bit about the amount of rampant profiteering that occurs throughout Congress which Congress themselves have ensured, through legislation and internal rules, is legally not corruption. Even though it sure as hell sounds like it.

What is the discussion? You keep posting what someone else’s opinion is, but what’s yours?

What exactly is your point though?

Sometimes you have to wonder if Trump isn't the greatest performance artist since Andy Kauffman.

Haha right! You can see the tagline now "Vote Barron 2044: I'm not one of those elite political insiders!"

Georges Melies would beg to differ.

Problem is that every time a study finds that harsh prison conditions lead to higher recidivism rates the political response is "Well I guess we just didn't try hard enough yet!"

After all their whining and crying about involving "these CHILDREN!!!" (ie his middle age, fully complicit progeny) in Trump's fraud case, this seems like a pretty transparent ploy to draw some comments about him that they can spin as unfair vicious democrat attacks against an innocent child. Of course conveniently ignoring the fact that he has now chosen to be involved in public life. And it never faild to amuse that for all their yelling about the Biden Crime Family, they happily handed over control of first the White House and now the entire GOP to the wider Trump family grift machine. If you ever want to find out what a Republican is actually doing, just listen to what they accuse the Democrats of doing.