LaxPower Back-Up Stick

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:22 am Apparently there is a vicious anti-white racial bias at work among Democrats and apparently people like me.
We're the true racists.

The Fox piece is nonsensical logic, but of course, there are many who eat it up.

No migrants were struck by the reins being whirled, according to the Border Patrol, which may or may not be true (let's assume true)...but that's not the necessary point of what bothered folks. Riders on horseback don't use that motion to control their horses, they do it when they're herding cattle. The whirling reins are scary to the animals being herded, not the horse. Likewise, the use of the horses was the same as when herding cattle.

This needn't mean that the BP riders were conscious that what they were doing had the look of treatment of cattle...or slaves...nor that they themselves have any individual racial issues...but the appearance of the use of power in that way was indeed alarming and offensive. Not ok.

Some of the hyperbolic reaction was indeed over the top (IMO) but sentiments about how people were being treated at the border, without dignity, run hot.

Versus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 am Versus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:36 am

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:22 am Apparently there is a vicious anti-white racial bias at work among Democrats and apparently people like me.
We're the true racists.

The Fox piece is nonsensical logic, but of course, there are many who eat it up.

No migrants were struck by the reins being whirled, according to the Border Patrol, which may or may not be true (let's assume true)...but that's not the necessary point of what bothered folks. Riders on horseback don't use that motion to control their horses, they do it when they're herding cattle. The whirling reins are scary to the animals being herded, not the horse. Likewise, the use of the horses was the same as when herding cattle.

This needn't mean that the BP riders were conscious that what they were doing had the look of treatment of cattle...or slaves...nor that they themselves have any individual racial issues...but the appearance of the use of power in that way was indeed alarming and offensive. Not ok.

Some of the hyperbolic reaction was indeed over the top (IMO) but sentiments about how people were being treated at the border, without dignity, run hot.

Versus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.

I agree with the bolded, if and when it actually happens, though I'd broaden that to include "disparate treatment depending on your race, religion, gender, economic means, fame or power...and politics".

By example, is anyone "above the law"?...well, we've seen disparate treatment demanded by certain powerful, rich, connected, or famous people...and sometimes they even get such disparate treatment. I assume you agree that's also a "threat to civil society"? And we know that the quality of defense is highly dependent upon economic means. Is that not too a "threat to civil society"? And, yes, we see rather significant disparate treatment based on gender and race, sometimes statutorily, sometimes in de facto practice. These too are "threats to civil society" yes?

I quite disagree that "The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking." Of course, there are indeed those who are "hostile to religion"...for all sorts of quite valid reasons, ranging from extremist terrorism (of a variety of sorts), to child abuse, to perpetuation of sexist and even misogynistic practices and social constructs, to rank hypocrisy...and, of course, the insistence by some that the State should be subservient to the Church...in America. A demand for theocracy. I don't think one has to be on the "left" to find these abuses of "religion" for power to be antithetical to what all of the major religions actually call for at their core. So, "left" or "right", we can and should call out such abuses.

Now as to what particular example you are referring to, I'd be happy to look at the facts of an instance in which the FBI took an aggressive stance toward someone that went much too far...because of their religion or religious/political views. Certainly we have plenty of history of FBI over reach towards all sorts of groups and people, including on the "left", so it's entirely possible that such might occur again with someone deemed dangerous, though not actually dangerous.

But how that refutes the particular point about Border Patrol agents whirling their reins to intimidate migrants, I don't "get it to X".

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:36 am

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:22 am Apparently there is a vicious anti-white racial bias at work among Democrats and apparently people like me.
We're the true racists.

The Fox piece is nonsensical logic, but of course, there are many who eat it up.

No migrants were struck by the reins being whirled, according to the Border Patrol, which may or may not be true (let's assume true)...but that's not the necessary point of what bothered folks. Riders on horseback don't use that motion to control their horses, they do it when they're herding cattle. The whirling reins are scary to the animals being herded, not the horse. Likewise, the use of the horses was the same as when herding cattle.

This needn't mean that the BP riders were conscious that what they were doing had the look of treatment of cattle...or slaves...nor that they themselves have any individual racial issues...but the appearance of the use of power in that way was indeed alarming and offensive. Not ok.

Some of the hyperbolic reaction was indeed over the top (IMO) but sentiments about how people were being treated at the border, without dignity, run hot.

Versus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.

I agree with the bolded, if and when it actually happens, though I'd broaden that to include "disparate treatment depending on your race, religion, gender, economic means, fame or power...and politics".

By example, is anyone "above the law"?...well, we've seen disparate treatment demanded by certain powerful, rich, connected, or famous people...and sometimes they even get such disparate treatment. I assume you agree that's also a "threat to civil society"? And we know that the quality of defense is highly dependent upon economic means. Is that not too a "threat to civil society"? And, yes, we see rather significant disparate treatment based on gender and race, sometimes statutorily, sometimes in de facto practice. These too are "threats to civil society" yes?

I quite disagree that "The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking." Of course, there are indeed those who are "hostile to religion"...for all sorts of quite valid reasons, ranging from extremist terrorism (of a variety of sorts), to child abuse, to perpetuation of sexist and even misogynistic practices and social constructs, to rank hypocrisy...and, of course, the insistence by some that the State should be subservient to the Church...in America. A demand for theocracy. I don't think one has to be on the "left" to find these abuses of "religion" for power to be antithetical to what all of the major religions actually call for at their core. So, "left" or "right", we can and should call out such abuses.

Now as to what particular example you are referring to, I'd be happy to look at the facts of an instance in which the FBI took an aggressive stance toward someone that went much too far...because of their religion or religious/political views. Certainly we have plenty of history of FBI over reach towards all sorts of groups and people, including on the "left", so it's entirely possible that such might occur again with someone deemed dangerous, though not actually dangerous.

But how that refutes the particular point about Border Patrol agents whirling their reins to intimidate migrants, I don't "get it to X".

The fact that you're upset that people who broke the law to come here are not "treated with dignity" is a tell. I can guarantee you they were treated much worse by any coyote/cartel members that got them to the border. You also have no idea what was going through the BP agent's minds, you just want to see racism everywhere you turn. There is so little real overt racism in America that it needs to be supplemented with the occasional hoax, a la Jussie Smollett, Bubba Wallace and this latest beauty from Opelika, AL.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/1 ... lack-teen/

Is there episodic racism by some luddites? Sure, but all of this talk of systemic racism, meaning codified into law, is a bunch of pasture patties.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:55 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 am Versus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.

And your race and financial standing.

You realize that what you and BLM are saying are the same thing, yes?

You're BOTH complaining that certain policing agencies are abusing their power, and taking it out on citizens. The difference, obviously, is that the pro-life citizen made it to jail in one piece. Many of his fellow citizens are winding up dead for no reason.

BLM should be your allies. And I honestly don't understand why they are not.....you're both complaining about out of control government and reckless policing procedures.

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:36 am

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:22 am Apparently there is a vicious anti-white racial bias at work among Democrats and apparently people like me.
We're the true racists.

The Fox piece is nonsensical logic, but of course, there are many who eat it up.

No migrants were struck by the reins being whirled, according to the Border Patrol, which may or may not be true (let's assume true)...but that's not the necessary point of what bothered folks. Riders on horseback don't use that motion to control their horses, they do it when they're herding cattle. The whirling reins are scary to the animals being herded, not the horse. Likewise, the use of the horses was the same as when herding cattle.

This needn't mean that the BP riders were conscious that what they were doing had the look of treatment of cattle...or slaves...nor that they themselves have any individual racial issues...but the appearance of the use of power in that way was indeed alarming and offensive. Not ok.

Some of the hyperbolic reaction was indeed over the top (IMO) but sentiments about how people were being treated at the border, without dignity, run hot.

Versus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.

I agree with the bolded, if and when it actually happens, though I'd broaden that to include "disparate treatment depending on your race, religion, gender, economic means, fame or power...and politics".

By example, is anyone "above the law"?...well, we've seen disparate treatment demanded by certain powerful, rich, connected, or famous people...and sometimes they even get such disparate treatment. I assume you agree that's also a "threat to civil society"? And we know that the quality of defense is highly dependent upon economic means. Is that not too a "threat to civil society"? And, yes, we see rather significant disparate treatment based on gender and race, sometimes statutorily, sometimes in de facto practice. These too are "threats to civil society" yes?

I quite disagree that "The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking." Of course, there are indeed those who are "hostile to religion"...for all sorts of quite valid reasons, ranging from extremist terrorism (of a variety of sorts), to child abuse, to perpetuation of sexist and even misogynistic practices and social constructs, to rank hypocrisy...and, of course, the insistence by some that the State should be subservient to the Church...in America. A demand for theocracy. I don't think one has to be on the "left" to find these abuses of "religion" for power to be antithetical to what all of the major religions actually call for at their core. So, "left" or "right", we can and should call out such abuses.

Now as to what particular example you are referring to, I'd be happy to look at the facts of an instance in which the FBI took an aggressive stance toward someone that went much too far...because of their religion or religious/political views. Certainly we have plenty of history of FBI over reach towards all sorts of groups and people, including on the "left", so it's entirely possible that such might occur again with someone deemed dangerous, though not actually dangerous.

But how that refutes the particular point about Border Patrol agents whirling their reins to intimidate migrants, I don't "get it to X".

The fact that you're upset that people who broke the law to come here are not "treated with dignity" is a tell. I can guarantee you they were treated much worse by any coyote/cartel members that got them to the border. You also have no idea what was going through the BP agent's minds, you just want to see racism everywhere you turn. There is so little real overt racism in America that it needs to be supplemented with the occasional hoax, a la Jussie Smollett, Bubba Wallace and this latest beauty from Opelika, AL.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/1 ... lack-teen/

Is there episodic racism by some luddites? Sure, but all of this talk of systemic racism, meaning codified into law, is a bunch of pasture patties.

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:49 pm BLM? You mean "Buy Large Mansions"? Break up the nuclear family? Marginalize black men? Take close to $100 million in donations and use it as a personal piggy bank? I'm not saying anything they are saying.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:38 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 2:40 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 12:18 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:14 am I just don't understand a US holiday for a guy who wasn't from this country, who never set foot in what was to become the United States. If the Italians want to have a holiday celebrating him, good with me...but why the United States.

Who is the District of Columbia named after?

Seems like Columbus/Columbia is kind of a thing here in the US of A.

Yes, a feminine personification derived from 'Columbus' used "patriotically" in the early period for the nation, later was largely displaced by Lady Liberty, though that symbolism has some derivation fom the feminine personification of Columbia as well.

Initially represented as an "Indian princess", it referenced all of the "Americas", as one of the Four Continents", later representing European colonization (all of the Americas were claimed). Interesting history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_ ... ification)

Let's note that Columbus, the man, was not the symbol...

Maybe Columbus was trans....what could be more American & worth celebrating ?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:05 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:49 pm BLM? You mean "Buy Large Mansions"? Break up the nuclear family? Marginalize black men? Take close to $100 million in donations and use it as a personal piggy bank? I'm not saying anything they are saying.

Yes. You are. And this is my exact point.

So when you talk about your "pro-life citizen", I can do what you did and list the grifters making money on THAT cause with no problem. You understand that, yes? Pro life Televangelists and their massive mansions come to mind.

Does the fact that there are a few grifters and bad actors mean the whole concept of pro-life is bad? Of course not!

This is what you and your "enemies" do-----you tar and feather the other side, instead of finding the obvious common ground.

So yep, you're right, there are some grifters in BLM and the Pro life movement.

My point is: don't complain about the FBI sticking it to the pro life guy if you sat by idly when the same thing (or worse) happened to a group that YOU don't like.

Because guess what? Now you have zero sympathy for the FBI storming that guy's home. No one wants to hear your complaint because you turned a blind eye when it happened to someone else.

Here's an idea: treat everyone equally. That way when you have a grievance about a guy you like being treated badly? BLM (in keeping with your example) will have your back, because you were there for them when the tables were turned. I'd rather that both your pro lifer AND that black man in Minnesota not have to face that treatment from the government. Seems like a reasonable stance.

Instead? You're telling me that you'd prefer that each political group has to fend for themselves. The 1%ers (and the government) LOVE this, my man.

Food for thought.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:20 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:05 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:49 pm BLM? You mean "Buy Large Mansions"? Break up the nuclear family? Marginalize black men? Take close to $100 million in donations and use it as a personal piggy bank? I'm not saying anything they are saying.

Yes. You are. And this is my exact point.

So when you talk about your "pro-life citizen", I can do what you did and list the grifters making money on THAT cause with no problem. You understand that, yes? Pro life Televangelists and their massive mansions come to mind.

Does the fact that there are a few grifters and bad actors mean the whole concept of pro-life is bad? Of course not!

This is what you and your "enemies" do-----you tar and feather the other side, instead of finding the obvious common ground.

So yep, you're right, there are some grifters in BLM and the Pro life movement.

My point is: don't complain about the FBI sticking it to the pro life guy if you sat by idly when the same thing (or worse) happened to a group that YOU don't like.

Because guess what? Now you have zero sympathy for the FBI storming that guy's home. No one wants to hear your complaint because you turned a blind eye when it happened to someone else.

Here's an idea: treat everyone equally. That way when you have a grievance about a guy you like being treated badly? BLM (in keeping with your example) will have your back, because you were there for them when the tables were turned. I'd rather that both your pro lifer AND that black man in Minnesota not have to face that treatment from the government. Seems like a reasonable stance.

Instead? You're telling me that you'd prefer that each political group has to fend for themselves. The 1%ers (and the government) LOVE this, my man.

Food for thought.

Nothing more Un American than that.

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:07 pm The notion that there isn’t any systemic racism against non-white Americans is so racist that it is strong evidence that such systemic racism exists.

DocBarrister

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:03 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:07 pm The notion that there isn’t any systemic racism against non-white Americans is so racist that it is strong evidence that such systemic racism exists.

DocBarrister

Please cite some examples for me. To me, systemic means from a system. The Jim Crow South was systemic. What system today can survive our sensitivity to racism if it were to carry on it's own form of racism? Maybe public schools, where inner city schools are keeping their minority students from reaching their full potential, and even then, it isn't codified in any laws. It's just the NEA protecting crappy teachers.

Throwing around terms like "racist", "fascist" and "Nazi" have diluted the meaning of the words to the point where it's like the teacher in "Charlie Brown". "Wah wah wah, a wah wah wah wah".

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:07 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:03 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:07 pm The notion that there isn’t any systemic racism against non-white Americans is so racist that it is strong evidence that such systemic racism exists.

DocBarrister

Please cite some examples for me. To me, systemic means from a system. The Jim Crow South was systemic. What system today can survive our sensitivity to racism if it were to carry on it's own form of racism? Maybe public schools, where inner city schools are keeping their minority students from reaching their full potential, and even then, it isn't codified in any laws. It's just the NEA protecting crappy teachers.

Throwing around terms like "racist", "fascist" and "Nazi" have diluted the meaning of the words to the point where it's like the teacher in "Charlie Brown". "Wah wah wah, a wah wah wah wah".

You mean what was legal. As for systemic, pick one or these synonyms:

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/anoth ... temic.html

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:03 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:07 pm The notion that there isn’t any systemic racism against non-white Americans is so racist that it is strong evidence that such systemic racism exists.

DocBarrister

Please cite some examples for me. To me, systemic means from a system. The Jim Crow South was systemic. What system today can survive our sensitivity to racism if it were to carry on it's own form of racism? Maybe public schools, where inner city schools are keeping their minority students from reaching their full potential, and even then, it isn't codified in any laws. It's just the NEA protecting crappy teachers.

Throwing around terms like "racist", "fascist" and "Nazi" have diluted the meaning of the words to the point where it's like the teacher in "Charlie Brown". "Wah wah wah, a wah wah wah wah".

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:17 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:07 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:03 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:07 pm The notion that there isn’t any systemic racism against non-white Americans is so racist that it is strong evidence that such systemic racism exists.

DocBarrister

Please cite some examples for me. To me, systemic means from a system. The Jim Crow South was systemic. What system today can survive our sensitivity to racism if it were to carry on it's own form of racism? Maybe public schools, where inner city schools are keeping their minority students from reaching their full potential, and even then, it isn't codified in any laws. It's just the NEA protecting crappy teachers.

Throwing around terms like "racist", "fascist" and "Nazi" have diluted the meaning of the words to the point where it's like the teacher in "Charlie Brown". "Wah wah wah, a wah wah wah wah".

You mean what was legal. As for systemic, pick one or these synonyms:

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/anoth ... temic.html

They all mean the same thing, universal or from a system. Racism is sporadic and episodic, not systemic. The only thing universal about racism is white progressives telling black people they are inferior so they need the white progressive's help to make it in the world. Look at how black people respond to white progressives saying voter ID is racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:19 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:03 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 3:07 pm The notion that there isn’t any systemic racism against non-white Americans is so racist that it is strong evidence that such systemic racism exists.

DocBarrister

Please cite some examples for me. To me, systemic means from a system. The Jim Crow South was systemic. What system today can survive our sensitivity to racism if it were to carry on it's own form of racism? Maybe public schools, where inner city schools are keeping their minority students from reaching their full potential, and even then, it isn't codified in any laws. It's just the NEA protecting crappy teachers.

Throwing around terms like "racist", "fascist" and "Nazi" have diluted the meaning of the words to the point where it's like the teacher in "Charlie Brown". "Wah wah wah, a wah wah wah wah".

I gave you one: cash bail system. Refute it if you can.

get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:32 pm Agreed a fan. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt from me until they prove me wrong. And the proof for me? Do they treat everyone equally ?(Especially me ) BLM has less to do with blacks and more to do with Marxism, which is why I won't give them the benefit of the doubt. Nor do I give the preachers in their Bentleys the benefit of the doubt. Scams are scams.