democrats: willing pawns of Black Lives Matter

Spread the love

Loading

 

Move me on to any black square
Use me anytime you want
Just remember that the goal
Is for us all to capture all we want

As soon as I saw this picture I thought of that song.

The pandering has gotten ridiculous. Over at The Conservative Treehouse Sundance also had a great take on this:

Today democrats took a knee in a great obsequious ceremony for all to see when they presented their bill basically meant to eviscerate police departments across the country. In essence, they pledged fealty.

democrats refused to condemn – or even acknowledge- the Antifa violence:

Every Democrat in the Senate has refused to acknowledge the violence caused by antifa throughout the protests and riots that have occurred since the death of George Floyd.

The Daily Caller contacted every Senate Democrat asking if they would consider legislation to label the group a terrorist organization. Each office was given over 24 hours to respond to the question. The group has been participating in riots since Floyd died while in police custody after an officer put his knee into the back of his neck for over eight minutes while he was handcuffed and on the ground.

democrats cemented their allegiance to BLM and to Antifa when they refused to say whether they were in favor of defunding, disbanding or dismantling police departments:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Democrats have largely embraced the activists packing into streets nationwide to decry the killings of black men and women by law enforcement but so far express wariness at protesters’ calls to defund the police.

While they are clearly attuned to the cries of demonstrators from New York to Los Angeles, some top Democratic elected officials are proceeding cautiously with any suggestion they would slash police budgets to fund programs to address other social ills.

Corey Booker took the coward’s way out:

Senator Cory Booker said during an interview Sunday on NBC News that he understood the sentiment behind the “defund the police” push but would not use that phrase.

Meet the new DNC boss:

Black Lives Matter leader has declared war on the police and plans to release a blueprint for change that involves Black Panther style armed ‘patrols’ monitoring the behavior of officers on the streets, DailyMailTV can reveal.

Hawk Newsome, Chairman of BLM’s Greater New York chapter, says the black rights group is ‘mobilizing’ its base and aims to develop a highly-trained ‘military’ arm to challenge police brutality head on.

Hawk is calling the shots now. Even at the NY Times and the Washington Post

See this scarf they’re wearing?

About that:

Andrea Mitchell laments that this anti-police rhetoric could be used against democrats in the fall:

No one needs to demonize democrats. They did that all on their own. All Republicans need do it remind America of it. No one thinks the police are perfect and can’t do with a bit of improvement but Americans overwhelmingly support them.

We’ll take all those pawns.

Check mate

I’ve seen all good people turn their heads each day
So satisfied I’m on my way
I’ve seen all good people turn their heads each day
So satisfied I’m on my way

Oh, and that song..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3eHs5eHx4

0 0 votes
Article Rating
209 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Michael: Bitch, you got owned…by Jay.

@Jay: @Nathan Blue: Alas, to late he is sobbing into his pillow, he interpreted my post as “I have a balloon and you dont”
I asked him to, Picture your mom home alone calling 911 and being put on hold because of divesting.
Just imagine or picture, he was to involved in making a false point explained by Jay to perfection.

@Jay:

If the other protest groups – and/or the Democrats disagree with the plain ‘This means 100% of the funding’ statement, where have they made any public statements to that effect?

Here:

Biden’s campaign rejected the phrase “defund the police” and called for more funding for police departments to implement policy changes. But the former vice president also supports some of the principles the phrase’s advocates champion.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) broke from progressive counterparts in calls to defund the police, saying instead that the country needs “well-trained, well-educated, and well-paid professionals in police departments.”

On Friday, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters that “What I’ve heard from people in neighborhoods is that they want more police protection, not less.”

“Defunding police departments are not the answer,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat of Maryland, told CNN on Monday. “We need police departments; we need to keep peace and order

Others were more blunt. “That’s stupid. OK, that’s crazy and anyone that talks about that is nuts,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative West Virginia Democrat.

“No one is talking about eliminating all police or anything like that; it sounds at first glance like they are,” said House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, who plans to hold a committee vote on his new policing bill as soon as next week.

“I do not support defunding the police,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat facing voters in the fall. “The police departments are out there protecting citizens, and the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and police are protecting citizens.”

“I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Sen. Doug Jones, an Alabama Democrat facing a tough road to reelection. “Defunding and disbanding is not something I would ever, ever support.”

Just because you don’t see this stuff does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

So, for the eleventeenth time: the calls to “defund the police” mean different things to different people. You will find people on the Left who do, in fact, want to eliminate the police altogether. These people will not be taken seriously as this discussion progresses. You will also find people who take “defund the police” to mean reallocating tasks and funding to other groups who can deal with things that don’t require an armed response: performing wellness checks; dealing with the homeless and the mentally ill.

The fact that some people who say “defund the police” mean “eliminate the police” does not mean that all people who uses the phrase means the same thing. I know that you must understand this; you just need to pretend that you don’t.

@Jay:

As the protesters run around destroying the past.

You have a child’s view of history.

Taking statues out of the public square does not destroy history. I do not think that there is a single public statue of Adolf Hitler standing—perhaps anywhere on planet Earth—yet we are in no danger of forgetting who he is and what he did.

If you desperately want to see statues of traitors and villains, they can be moved to museums—those places where we preserve the artifacts and memories of the past. We do not need statues of traitors and villains in a place of honor in the public square.

@Jay:

It’s easy to pretend that the only version of “defunding the police” being discussed is the one being discussed by the most extreme advocates. I haven’t said one time in this thread that that interpretation of the term wasn’t out there; all I’ve said is that it wasn’t the only interpretation.

Here are some others–actual words written and spoken by actual people:

Defunding the police is shorthand for a divest and invest model: divesting money from local and state police budgets and reinvesting it into communities, mental health services, and social service programs.

The idea is that American communities have come to rely on their more than 18,000 police agencies to do much more than police. They’re fighting terrorism abroad, performing homeless services, working with children in schools, responding to calls for mental health crises, performing social work and welfare checks, mediating domestic disputes, and responding to drug overdoses. Often, they’re not trained to perform these tasks.

Those who call for police defunding say they would rather have some duties handled by nonviolent specialists trained in social work, education, or drug counseling.

Here:

Even some cops resent society’s overreliance on them. “We’re just asking us to do too much,” said former Dallas police chief David Brown in a 2016 interview. “Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.” And the outcome can be deadly: In 2015, the Washington Post found that one in four people killed by a police officer suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of their death.

Here:

Municipalities can begin by changing policies or statutes so police officers never respond to certain kinds of emergencies, including ones that involve substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness or mental health. Instead, health care workers or emergency response teams would handle these incidents. So if someone calls 911 to report a drug overdose, health care teams rush to the scene; the police wouldn’t get involved. If a person calls 911 to complain about people who are homeless, rapid response social workers would provide them with housing support and other resources. Conflict interrupters and restorative justice teams could mediate situations where no one’s safety is being threatened. Community organizers, rather than police officers, would help manage responses to the pandemic. Ideally, people would have the option to call a different number — say 727 — to access various trained response teams.

The good news is, this is already happening. Violence interruption programs exist throughout the country and they’re often led by people from the community who have experience navigating tricky situations. Some programs, like one in Washington, D.C., do not work with the police; its staff members rely instead on personal outreach and social connections for information about violence that they work to mediate and diffuse. We should invest in these programs, which operate on shoestring budgets, so they have their own dedicated dispatch centers outside of 911.

Dallas is pioneering a new approach where social workers are being dispatched to some 911 calls that involve mental health emergencies. The program has shown success, and many of the people receive care that they would never have gotten in jails or overcrowded hospitals.

Here:

On Sunday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law and a co-director of the university’s Innovative Policing Program. Lopez describes the idea as “not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds,” noting that a “defunding” in this instance wouldn’t mean completely cutting funds, nor would “abolishing” mean doing away with police departments in their entirety.

“Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need,” she explains. “It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.”

Here:

Taken literally, calls to defund police departments conjure images of empty precinct stations and the proliferation of citizen patrols. But if the ideas behind the movement take hold, their implementation may look less like the Minneapolis City Council’s vote to disband its police department and instead resemble more moderate experiments already underway in cities and towns around the country. That includes projects like RIGHT Care that don’t reject police or seek to take away their entire budget but rather aim to decrease their role in situations that are not dangerous, while allowing medical and social services workers to take the lead.

“There is no magic switch to turn off and boom there’s no police department,” said Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College, whose 2017 book “The End of Policing” has become a manifesto for protesters and police-reform advocates.

Here:

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti vowed to cut as much as $150 million that was part of a planned increase in the police department’s budget, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday that the city would move funding from the NYPD to youth initiatives and social services, while keeping the city safe.

@Michael: Democrats will make token gestures, cutting budgets or not allocating any increases, the defund thing isnt going to happen,. that said the protests are scheduled for the long hot summer to bring pressure on the politicians. Antifa and BLM will continue to injure officers destroy public property such as our historic states, even the Lincoln Memorial was vandalized. So much for them only after confederates.
By giving in just a bit when they have no authority or mass backing for their stupid demands it seems the democrats agree with them all or in part.
Hence willing pawns to malcontents and miscreants.
Minneapolis city charter forbids what the city counsel has unanimously voted to do.
The logical thing to do is arrest by federal agents and prosecute them as they commit their crimes during these stupid organized protests. Liberal cities are not punishing them. The feds should hold them No bail.

@Michael:

Just because you don’t see this stuff does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

Just because you’ve been indoctrinated into seeing things with a limited and politically advantageous view doesn’t mean it exists in that way.

The absolutism of the Left, coming to teenage level consciousness but not progressing further, is one that can now be leveraged to produce violence.

You think you are right in a complete and absolute sense, though you only have a small part of the picture.

It’s easy to pretend that the only version of “defunding the police” being discussed is the one being discussed by the most extreme advocates.

The ultimate goal is to make the police Leftist saturated, as with other institutions. That’s why the pretend-racism, and the complete ignoring of actual crime statistics and improved policing numbers.

Black men are over-policed because they are over-committing crime. White people can’t solve that by telling them it’s not their fault and White Privilege is to blame. That is actual racism, and keeps blacks in a kind of mental oppression.

The Democrats are the party of black slavery, pure and simple. Idiots like you with a child’s view of history and anthropology are hapless foot soldiers.

@Michael:

Taking statues out of the public square does not destroy history. I do not think that there is a single public statue of Adolf Hitler standing—perhaps anywhere on planet Earth—yet we are in no danger of forgetting who he is andwhat he did.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the people that these torn down statues represent, Confederate soldiers, Christopher Columbus, an abolitionist, all represent people who are equitable to Hitler so there is no need to have them as history will remember the evil they represent anyway?

If you desperately want to see statues of traitors and villains, they can be moved to museums—those places where we preserve the artifacts and memories of the past. We do not need statues of traitors and villains in a place of honor in the public square.

And are you also in agreement that all statues on federal, state and local property, that represent the Buffalo Soldiers should also be relegated to museums?

@Michael #153

[If the other protest groups – and/or the Democrats disagree with the plain ‘This means 100% of the funding’ statement, where have they made any public statements to that effect?]

Here:

Biden’s campaign rejected the phrase “defund the police” and called for more funding for police departments to implement policy changes…

Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) broke from progressive counterparts in calls to defund the police, saying instead that the country needs “well-trained, well-educated, and well-paid professionals in police departments.”

Defunding police departments are not the answer,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat of Maryland, told CNN on Monday. “We need police departments; we need to keep peace and order

Others were more blunt. “That’s stupid. OK, that’s crazy and anyone that talks about that is nuts,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative West Virginia Democrat.

“I do not support defunding the police,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat

“I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Sen. Doug Jones, an Alabama Democrat facing a tough road to reelection. “Defunding and disbanding is not something I would ever, ever support.

Just because you don’t see this stuff does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

So, for the eleventeenth time: the calls to “defund the police” mean different things to different people

True enough. I stand corrected. At least for not having seen these.

However, did you happen to notice that not a single one of those politicians equivocated about what ‘defund’ meant? About it having different meanings for different people or any nuances in interpretation?

It seemed pretty clear that they knew precisely what ‘defund the police’ meant. Just sayin’

I found this one interesting.

On Friday, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters that “What I’ve heard from people in neighborhoods is that they want more police protection, not less.”

So, in that case does ‘defunding the police’ actually mean giving them more money? I’m not sure how you provide more police protection otherwise.

I know that you must understand this; you just need to pretend that you don’t.

I don’t need to pretend anything. You say you see shades and nuances and penumbras in what is meant. I say they said what they meant to say and when it polled badly they started trying to spin their way out of it.

The grass-roots movement in the wake of George Floyd’s death to defund the police — or at least reallocate some police money to other community services — is not something Democratic politicians in Washington want to touch. And a new poll shows why.

An ABC-Ipsos poll out Friday is the first major national poll to ask about this, and it finds that 64 percent of Americans oppose the movement to defund the police. That’s a strong majority saying they think what’s become a rallying cry among a sizable number of protesters is a bad idea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/12/potentially-dangerous-politics-defund-police-democrats/

64 percent of the population opposed to something the Dems supported would be a lock on a second term for President Trump. I don’t need a magic 8 Ball to see why the weasel words to try and redefine the term started.

We have a difference of opinion. Not the first time I’ve disagreed with someone, won’t be the last.

@retire05:

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the people that these torn down statues represent, Confederate soldiers, Christopher Columbus, an abolitionist, all represent people who are equitable to Hitler so there is no need to have them as history will remember the evil they represent anyway?

No. I’m saying that moving or even eliminating a statue does eliminate the knowledge of the period of history the statue represents. Statues, in other words, are not the primary means by which history is remembered.

You are, of course, not stupid, so I don’t understand what the point was of pretending you don’t understand that.

And are you also in agreement that all statues on federal, state and local property, that represent the Buffalo Soldiers should also be relegated to museums?

I believe that we probably shouldn’t celebrate Americans killing other Americans, so yes. The Indian Wars are a shameful part of our history. Museum: yes. Town square: no.

@Michael #154

[As the protesters run around destroying the past.

You have a child’s view of history.

Taking statues out of the public square does not destroy history. I do not think that there is a single public statue of Adolf Hitler standing—perhaps anywhere on planet Earth—yet we are in no danger of forgetting who he is and what he did.

Oops – Godwin’s Law

Of course we won’t forget. How could the left condemn every Republican president (or candidate for president) as ‘literally Hitler’ if he got ‘unpersoned’.

They might have to start discussing substantive policy issues rather than name calling.

Apparently our current colleges ‘don’t know much about history’ – or at least can’t teach it.

Rioters deface monument honoring all-black regiment of Union Civil War soldiers

Exactly 123 years to the day that it was dedicated, the Shaw Memorial, a monument honoring the first all-volunteer black regiment of the Union Army in the Civil War, was defaced by rioters demanding justice for African-Americans.

One of the soldiers, Sgt. William Harvey Carney carried the American flag throughout the battle, never dropping it despite being shot 7 times. Carney was the first black American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor for action.

Liz Vizza, the executive director…was shocked that a memorial to black soldiers was defaced by rioters. She noted that the black men who fought in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment were not only risking death, but also the potential of being enslaved if they had been captured.
https://disrn.com/news/monument-honoring-all-black-regiment-of-civil-war-soldiers-defaced-by-black-lives-matter-rioters

Not sure what defacing it did to promote the cause, but if it’s a monument, it must be bad, right?

Plus these two:

Protesters have defaced a statue of Philadelphia abolitionist Matthias Baldwin…Baldwin argued for the right of African Americans to vote in Pennsylvania during the state’s 1837 Constitutional Convention, and helped establish a school for African American children where he paid teachers’ salaries for years.

“He hired blacks in his shops when that was not the norm,” Walsh said. “He was BLM [Black Lives Matter] before there was a slogan.”

Protesters also defaced Philadelphia’s Civil War Soldiers and Sailors monument with graffiti reading “BLM.” That monument’s inscription reads, “All who have labored today in behalf of the Union have wrought for the best interests of the country and the world not only for the present but for all future ages.”

“The irony of vandalizing a monument to those who died to end slavery is lost on the morons who don’t know their history,” Walsh said.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/park-volunteer-outraged-over-vandalism-of-monument-to-philadelphia-abolitionist-he-was-blm-before-there-was-a-slogan/

And *my* view of history is ‘childlike’?

Are those ‘traitors and villains’?

@Jay:

Apparently our current colleges ‘don’t know much about history’ – or at least can’t teach it.

History, real history, is not taught anywhere.. Many schools use Howard Zinn’s book. Now thousands of schools are using the NYSlime’s 1619 Project lesson plans. Parents don’t know, or rather, don’t bother to know, what is being taught in our public schools.

Are minority students taught the real history of the race in America? No, you would think that black history began in 1965. No mention ever of Crispus Attucks, Salam Poor, James Armistead or even taught about Booker T. Washington.

If this Michael is the same Michael that used to sully the pages of FA, he is a teacher. I wonder if he got his teaching degree at UC Berkley.

@Michael: I’m glad you realized you can’t debate with me.

Good boy.

Now go read some books and stop bothering the adults.

Word and fact parsing is a very junior-level approach to discussion and doesn’t make your case in any way.

@Michael:
@Jay:

I believe that we probably shouldn’t celebrate Americans killing other Americans, so yes. The Indian Wars are a shameful part of our history. Museum: yes. Town square: no.

This is the oldest trick in the book: destroy a people’s tie to the past as to better subjugate them. I’ll keep our history, blood and all. The CHAZ citizens literally don’t know our history, but a skewed politically minded version that allows them to be willing pawns.

Keep the Buffalo Soldiers up. Keep them all up. Let citizens know what happened here, warts and all….

…or…destroy the culture so they can’t resist. Works every time. Germany, Russia, China, and every bloody place where a population was made to suffer.

@Jay:

However, did you happen to notice that not a single one of those politicians equivocated about what ‘defund’ meant? About it having different meanings for different people or any nuances in interpretation?

It seemed pretty clear that they knew precisely what ‘defund the police’ meant. Just sayin’

Sure. And the people who set up the CHAZ are pretty clear about what they mean when they say “defund the police,” and it’s very, very different. And then there were people in the quotes in my other comment who stake out a position between those two extremes. All of this just goes to reinforce my initial points, which were a) this topic is now part of the national discussion and b) there is a spectrum of definitions to the term “defund the police.”

@Michael:

All of this just goes to reinforce my initial points, which were a) this topic is now part of the national discuss and b) there is a spectrum of definitions to the term “defund the police.”

Very disingenuous to say. There is no national discussion, just another Left-wing relativist cause to vilify and marginalize their enemies with, and the subsequent cowardly relativist speak about what you just said doesn’t actually mean what you said.

Reminds me of Bill Clinton: “Define the meaning of the word ‘is’…”

In case you are too young, too uneducated, or too Leftitized, that was what a sitting President of the United states said at his real impeachment.

No national discussion, just Democrat chaos.
No spectrum of meaning. De-fund means to shrink and eventually do away with.

@Jay:

And *my* view of history is ‘childlike’?

Yes. Your childlike view does not preclude the childlike views of other people. People are generally idiots. The protests seem to have idiots, just as all gatherings of people do.

Are those ‘traitors and villains’?

No, but other statues that have been taken down in the course of the protests are of traitors and villains. Robert E. Lee was a traitor. It’s incredible to me that he is venerated. Christopher Columbus was a villain. He was a consequential villain in our country’s history, but he was a horrible, horrible person.

@Nathan Blue:

No national discussion

Despite the fact that the topic is literally being discussed by Lefties and Righties, in government and out, in newspapers, on radio, TV, podcasts and blogs (including this one). Trump has addressed it. McConnell has addressed it. Right. Gotcha. Except for all that discussion by all those people across all those different media, it’s not being discussed at all.

No spectrum of meaning. De-fund means to shrink and eventually do away with.

Except for all the people I’ve quoted in this thread, from presidential candidates to big-city mayors to academics to reporters, staking out various positions on the topic of what “defund the police” looks like, you’re absolutely correct. Except for all that.

@Michael: Christopher Columbus was a villain. He was a consequential villain in our country’s history, but he was a horrible, horrible person. A 1920s Klan smear campaign still lives and breathes in the hearts of progressive anti Catholic bigoted fools.

@Michael: So the media and favored politicians who like the camera is your idea of a “national discussion”?

I can see your problem quite plainly, now.

A national discussion happens when I can voice my views and not get fired or vilified for them.

A national discussion does not take down the CEO of Crossfit for saying what the majority of American’s think.

Again, your “point” is inane.

@Michael: De-fund the police means to limit and/or end law enforcement. You can fallaciously interpret things to mean what serves your agenda, of course, but please remember all this when the first police department goes.

@kitt:
Well, he wasn’t recalled from his governorship of Hispaniola and brought back to España in chains for shits and giggles.

@Nathan Blue:

A national discussion happens when I can voice my views and not get fired or vilified for them.

You voice your views here pretty regularly. Have you been fired or harassed for your foolishness?

@kitt:

A 1920s Klan smear campaign still lives and breathes in the hearts of progressive anti Catholic bigoted fools.

Is the Encyclopedia Britannica objective enough for you, or is it, too, in the pocket of Big 1920s Klan?

Columbus’s report to his sovereigns from the second voyage, taken back by Torres and so known as the Torres Memorandum, speaks of sickness, poor provisioning, recalcitrant natives, and undisciplined hidalgos (gentry). It may be that these problems had intensified, but the Columbus family must be held at least partly responsible, intent as it was on enslaving the Taino and shipping them to Europe or forcing them to mine gold on Hispaniola.

@Michael: He had his political enemies and took full responsibility in court for his poor leadership and oversight.
It was a different time with vastly different ways of common thought than today. He never stepped foot on the mainland it was viking explorers that discovered America, Columbus just believed the world was a globe and brave enough to try to prove it.

How It’s Done: Asheville, NC Protesters Attempt an Autonomous Zone, Police Immediately Dismantle It

The difference between leadership and lack thereof.

Witness how rule of law will prevail over lawlessness…

Then this:

Antifa Faction Of Occupy Seattle Group Turns Violent – CHAZ Community Attacks and Chokes Christian Speaker…

Things are slowly devolving into violent confrontation in the nation of CHAZ Seattle. However, the violence is not with law enforcement; the violence is internal as Antifa factions within the occupy movement begin doing what they are famous for, being violent.

An openly christian man walks into the occupied zone within Seattle, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or CHAZ, to share the message of Jesus Christ. The Antifa elements immediately confronted the man, threw him to the ground and began choking him.
The Christian Preacher professed his own humanity and proclaimed he was a “free man”, but the rulers within the CHAZ community would not accept his cries for freedom.

The Chazukstan mob surround the preacher, shouting at him, berating him, and eventually trying to beat him into submission. At one point they sat atop the preacher in the same choking position that killed George Floyd. No-one noticed the irony.

The occupying CHAZ mob can be heard cheering for blood shortly before they stole the preachers possessions. The preacher said “stealing is not right” but the crowd did not care. This is the anarchist nation of CHAZ, where the mob rules.

@Michael:

What was the point of that? The information you shared about your mother fit into the conversation in no way other than to gloat about the fact that your mom is alive and mine’s dead.

kitt issued a scenario where a helpless old woman (your “mother”) needed police protection but it would be unavailable because of defunding. You showed that since your actual mother is no longer alive, you don’t really care about the dangers the elderly would face without police protection. kitt noted HER mother was still alive and she DID care about her safety. Actually, YOU insulted HER, showing how you didn’t care about her mother’s safety.

I’m not even saying that I’m behind the idea of “defunding” the police. The police are an important part of our society. I’m simply pointing out that a) the discussion is happening, whether you want it to or not, and b) people are coming to the discussion with a wide variety of agendas, not the single-minded one that you are envisioning.

Defund means defund. But, I realize the Democrat leadership is merely stringing their ignorant radical left along. However, as Seattle shows, that radical component is no completely under control. Democrats have released a monster.

hese people will not be taken seriously as this discussion progresses. You will also find people who take “defund the police” to mean reallocating tasks and funding to other groups who can deal with things that don’t require an armed response: performing wellness checks; dealing with the homeless and the mentally ill.

Do you think no one can decode “reallocating funds and tasks away from the police” to mean something other than the police will cease to exist?

No, but other statues that have been taken down in the course of the protests are of traitors and villains. Robert E. Lee was a traitor. It’s incredible to me that he is venerated. Christopher Columbus was a villain. He was a consequential villain in our country’s history, but he was a horrible, horrible person.

Now you show your immaturity and ignorance of history. Columbus wasn’t “woke” and was no more a villain than anyone else of his time. Also take into account the people he encountered believed in human sacrifice. No, Columbus did nothing than discover a continent and those who HATE the United States part of the continent have deemed the guy that stumbled upon it a villain.

Likewise with Robert E. Lee. He was torn by the rebellion and hated it but could not abandon his STATE, which was far more personal and close to citizens of that day. Odd how those who deem the Confederate soldier a “traitor” while they venerate the Seattle insurrectionist or the looters as “patriots”.

@Jay: It seems the Democrat leadership directive is if you support defunding, don’t say so and if you don’t support it, don’t say so because the anti-American insurrectionist radicals might not vote for us.

@Deplorable Me:

Actually, YOU insulted HER, showing how you didn’t care about her mother’s safety.

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you type, and that’s really saying something. How, precisely, did I show that?

Defund means defund.

Well, as I suggested elsewhere in this thread, either the word will take on a new meaning to accommodate a new usage (as often happens in the English language), or a different phrase will come into use to describe the process of restructuring that is likely to take place. If you bothered to do any reading on the topic, you’d have seen that many people in power who want to change policing in America would rather that “defund the police” had not become the rallying cry, since it doesn’t describe what most of them would like to do. They know that it is confusing for fools.

Do you think no one can decode “reallocating funds and tasks away from the police” to mean something other than the police will cease to exist?

I think that a person who’s not determined to be angry about the topic would understand that “reallocating funds and tasks” does not equal—or even imply—reallocating all funds and all tasks. If you bothered to read any of the quotes I cited last night, you would have seen the one from the Dallas cop who was complaining that the police are being called on to perform societal functions that they are not necessarily trained to perform. Those could be transferred to another organization.

Columbus wasn’t “woke” and was no more a villain than anyone else of his time.

I would posit that he was less of a villain than all the folks of the time who didn’t kidnap and enslave people.

He was torn by the rebellion and hated it but could not abandon his STATE, which was far more personal and close to citizens of that day.

That’s pure rationalization. There were plenty of folks during and after the war who called for Lee, Davis, and others to be hanged as traitors, and they all lived at the same time he did. The rest of the entire Union knew, in fact, that what the rebels was doing was wrong, and they were living at the same time, too. Why are you so determined to defend traitors? Why do you support people who took up arms against your own country?

@Michael:

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you type, and that’s really saying something. How, precisely, did I show that?

Geeze orphan can you read the entire statement? You just have zero comprehension how much of a brainwashed pussy you really are.
That’s pure rationalization, yes its rational and sane. You can hold those from different time eras to todays standards of thought, with out rational or sane thought.
It isnt that we dont get the point you are trying to get across its that your point is dumb and we reject it.

@kitt:

Geeze orphan can you read the entire statement? You just have zero comprehension how much of a brainwashed pussy you really are.

Then go ahead and explain to me how I don’t care about your mother’s safety and well-being. If it’s so clear, this should be easy for you.

That’s pure rationalization, yes its rational and sane.

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word “rationalization.”

You can hold those from different time eras to todays standards of thought, with out rational or sane thought.

If we’re going to celebrate them in today’s world, then that’s reasonable. If your approach is better, please explain to me why the Model T Ford is not voted “Car of the Year” every year. It was the best car in existence at its time.

It isnt that we dont get the point you are trying to get across its that your point is dumb and we reject it.

I would respectfully suggest that you don’t get it at all.

@Michael:

If we’re going to celebrate them in today’s world, then that’s reasonable. If your approach is better, please explain to me why the Model T Ford is not voted “Car of the Year” every year. It was the best car in existence at its time.

You see only select people get to vote on these things.
Like tearing down statues seems only select people get to decide Lenins statue stays and Jeffersons gets torn down.
Seems the left became super pussies only in the last 3 years or so, unable to accept any freedom of speech, differing opinions that there are those that like certain statues and they were there for many years if you dont like them ignore them. You cant accept a proper definition of a word. If that isnt what they mean let them correct their language, not misuse a word.
Those attacking the police know exactly what that definition is, they wont compromise on it dumb politicians will try to tell them what they really mean, last I heard that isnt going very well for them.
What you define as rationalization others say is simple truth, you dont like that truth well, F*ck off. We will celebrate whom ever we please, dont need your permission to do so.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/wbxgy5x/

@kitt:

We will celebrate whom ever we please, dont need your permission to do so.

Right back atcha, I guess.

If that isnt what they mean let them correct their language, not misuse a word.

I pointed out more than once in this thread that that is the thing that would likely happen.

I’m still hoping you can tell me what I said or did that showed I have no concern for your mother’s safety and health. You suggested that it was obvious, but I’m not seeing it. Perhaps you could help me.

@Michael:

I’m still hoping you can tell me what I said or did that showed I have no concern for your mother’s safety and health. You suggested that it was obvious, but I’m not seeing it. Perhaps you could help me.

Not inclined to do so I dont feel like catering to an someone that is emotionally retarded. Go see your shrink.

@kitt:

Not inclined to do so

Yeah, that’s kind of what I figured. There’s never an actual answer when anybody tries to pin you guys down. There are insults a-plenty, of course, and namecalling, and deflections, and non sequiturs, but never an actual answer.

@Michael:

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you type, and that’s really saying something. How, precisely, did I show that?

She mentioned your mother (anyone’s mother) needing 911. You replied your mother was deceased. It could be taken to mean since YOUR mother didn’t need 911, you didn’t care about 911. Kitt replied her mother was still alive and, being well, worth protecting, something you disagree with. She didn’t insult you, you insulted her.

Well, as I suggested elsewhere in this thread, either the word will take on a new meaning to accommodate a new usage (as often happens in the English language), or a different phrase will come into use to describe the process of restructuring that is likely to take place.

If someone means “reorganize” or ” discuss” or “analyze” or any of the other excuses you are trying to make take hold, they should use THOSE words, not “defund”. Defund means defund.

I think that a person who’s not determined to be angry about the topic would understand that “reallocating funds and tasks” does not equal—or even imply—reallocating all funds and all tasks.

Well, that’s what “defund” means. If they don’t mean defund, they should and COULD be using a different word.

That’s pure rationalization. There were plenty of folks during and after the war who called for Lee, Davis, and others to be hanged as traitors, and they all lived at the same time he did.

There were also people, not long after the war, that named military bases for the best military leaders. Some people, even those actually affected, were able to get over it or, at least, not stir up hatred for political purposes.

@Deplorable Me: He didnt behave as if his mother was a fond memory at all, not deceased not with the Angels or passed away, the emotionally damaged asswipe …Well, my mom’s dead, but thanks for that.
Letting him know not all elderly are no longer with us just seemed to harm him, he wasnt empathetic to any elderly that may need the police in an emergency, just self absorbed self pity of some sort.
As I am not a shrink I am not inclined to counsel him.
He is broken, cant fix him.

@Deplorable Me:

It could be taken to mean since YOUR mother didn’t need 911, you didn’t care about 911.

Only by someone looking to get angry about something.

Kitt replied her mother was still alive and, being well, worth protecting, something you disagree with.

I never said I disagreed with protecting her mother.

She didn’t insult you, you insulted her.

You explained it, and it’s still not true. Ah, well.

If someone means “reorganize” or ” discuss” or “analyze” or any of the other excuses you are trying to make take hold, they should use THOSE words, not “defund”. Defund means defund.

Well, as I actually said in the paragraph you quoted and elswhere in this thread, that’s what seems likely to happen.

Well, that’s what “defund” means. If they don’t mean defund, they should and COULD be using a different word.

Yeah, but we were talking about the word “reallocate” at that point, weren’t we? Not “defund.”

There were also people, not long after the war, that named military bases for the best military leaders. Some people, even those actually affected, were able to get over it or, at least, not stir up hatred for political purposes.

Good for them, I guess…? Just because somebody made a decision 150 years ago doesn’t mean that we’re bound by that decision until the crack of Doom. It’s not Moses’ Covenant with Jehovah. They’re statues, and the names of military bases. Not even the military bases themselves, mind you–just the names of the bases. Most statues that are moved will likely be accessible to treason-worshipers in museums or in private collections.

It wouldn’t hurt for you to look at the actual reasons some of those statues were erected, especially those after the turn of the twentieth century. You might learn something.

@kitt:

He didnt behave as if his mother was a fond memory at all

As I pointed out at the time, I was busy trying to process your assholery to–what? What performative gesture could I have done that would have made you happy? When I did express unhappiness about how you were treating the memory of my mother, you made fun of me. Remember?

How did I hurt lil Mikeys fweelings?

Yeah, that. That’s not the comment of a person who hopes to see someone display deep feelings.

not deceased not with the Angels or passed away

“With the Angels”? What is this, Sunday school? There are no angels. That’s a made-up thing. Do I need to pretend to believe stuff when I’m discussing my dead mother in order to make you happy? What are you, some kind of narcissist?

Why on Earth would I need to say “deceased” or “passed away” instead of “dead”? That doesn’t make any sense, especially coming from someone as foul-mouthed and offensive as you are.

the emotionally damaged asswipe

See? That’s what I’m talking about, right there. You’re in no position to lecture anyone at all on the niceties of polite language.

Letting him know not all elderly are no longer with us just seemed to harm him

Wait. The only person in this discussion who is no longer with us is my mother. Now, either I don’t care that she’s dead, which you’ve said, or I only care about my own pain over her death, which you’ve also said. Which is it? You’re just spewing out attacks one after another, some of which contradict each other. Seems pretty desperate.

@Michael: Go to your shrink, I cant fix you, or even begin to explain to you it wasnt me looking to get angry, you lashed out pretending ability to have genuine emotion then as I suspect is part of your mental damage attempt to blame me. While you fling insults and then get your thong in a knot when they are returned, just F*ck off and try to get some help from a mental health professional.
And for goodness sakes quit whining it is sickening.

you made fun of me. Remember?

Democrats are dealing with something they cant control not even with all the media behind them.

@kitt:

It was incredibly entertaining watching you slowly lose your mind this evening. I can’t wait until next time!

Love and kisses,

Michael

Odd Contradiction – Chicago Officials Support ‘Defund Police’ Movement But Cancel Police Day’s Off and Require 12hr Extended Shifts…

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has previously down-played the violence, looting and riots in the city; while simultaneously telling city aldermen they were over-hyping the problems and issues within the city. Oddly enough Mayor Lightfoot said this while begging the looted merchants not to abandon the city… so that was always an odd juxtaposition.

Today, the contradiction gets even more weird as the entire Chicago police department; you know, those horrid people Lightfoot previously disparaged and said were unneeded; are now required to work their day’s-off and extend to 12 hour shifts.

CHICAGO – Chicago police officers on Sunday were once again ordered to work 12-hour shifts and have their days off canceled amid some protesting that has persisted in parts of the city following George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police nearly three weeks ago.

[…] Until further notice, Chicago officers who are on active duty and not on vacation will have to work the 12-hour shifts — a normal shift is about 8½ hours — and come in on their days off, the Chicago police spokesman, Luis Agostini, said Sunday morning. (read more)

Isn’t the purpose of ‘defunding‘ the police, essentially to have less policing? Apparently Chicago is doing the ‘defunding‘ thing backwards.

Odd that while they want to eradicate the police they also want them on work on their days off and put in overtime. If it is established thinking on the part of the radical left that there is no need for police, why this policy now?

@kitt:

Well, my mom’s dead, but thanks for that.

Well, it wasn’t meant to insult anyone’s mother, it was just the best he could muster up. He’s trying to defend “defund” not meaning to defund, and that ain’t easy. So, he did what he had to do. Calling you a “racist”, which is the usual tactic tried to end a losing conversation, simply doesn’t apply, so he threw his dear departed mother at you.

@Michael:

Well, as I actually said in the paragraph you quoted and elswhere in this thread, that’s what seems likely to happen.

Well, maybe in some places, but not “systemically”. But, defund means defund and those saying defund MEAN to defund the police and do away with them. Yes, it’s a stupid idea and, yes, the Democrat “establishment” (just to the right of ANTIFA) knows it, but they are too afraid to offend the radical morons to openly denounce it. THAT’S the problem with the Democrat party today; they can’t denounce stupid ideas because they fear pissing off the stupid supporters of their party.

Just because somebody made a decision 150 years ago doesn’t mean that we’re bound by that decision until the crack of Doom.

It some cases, it does. A lot about history is the context and ignoring that tends to lead to trying to rewrite and distort history. It apparently wouldn’t hurt for you to read a book about Robert E. Lee, for instance.

@July 4th American: Perhaps she plans on stiffing them for their paychecks. She can beg businesses and citizens not to see reality and leave, but NOTHING she or any other Democrat does demonstrates they have any earthly idea of how to manage a city, state or country.

My daughter told me that some people showed up to look at a house for sale across the street from them. They are from Portland, Oregon and they sold their home, bought an RV and just left; they couldn’t take it any more. They heard Texas was open and free and so, they came down here. Soon, those liberal areas will be left with nothing but the dregs of society.

@Deplorable Me: Take away effective highly trained policing you will soon have chaos. Major flight of taxpayers of all kinds and businesses, More Detroits and Baltimores.
There is a movement against investment and improvement of the urban areas or gentrification. Seattle is the 3rd most gentrifed city in America, go search for images of before and after. Crime rates dropping is just one of the horrible effects of gentrificaion. The Democrats tax black home owners out, but its all the fault of those nasty developers.

@kitt:

Take away effective highly trained policing you will soon have chaos.

Not every incident needs an armed response. There are a lot of things that the police do today that they’re not well trained for and they’d frankly rather not have to do. Why is an armed response necessary for wellness checks, interacting with the homeless and working with the mentally ill? It’s not. There are jobs that could be moved off of the plates of the police and onto the plates of people who are, in fact trained for the task. That way, the trained police could focus their attention on fighting crime and preventing the chaos you’re referring to.

“We’re just asking us to do too much,” said former Dallas police chief David Brown in a 2016 interview. “Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems” [emphasis mine].

That’s a Texas cop saying that, not a BLM activist or an ANTIFA provocateur or even a cop from Commiefornia. He was the police chief in Dallas.

@Michael: Oh he who thinks he knows it all El Paso, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley, democrat, from California and NY flight from taxes. They followed corporations, never learned that democrats are destructive to everything they touch.
I know when some guy buck naked high on drugs waving a machete is spotted you will call your shrink or will you need 911.

@kitt:

So what is your response to the cop’s concern about being asked to do things that aren’t, he feels, appropriate jobs for the police? If you were having a conversation with him and he said that quote to you, what would your response be?

@Michael: I would have to ask him how is this different from the beginning of policing. Police and peace officers have always dealt with every societal failure, what happens after the police have ended a situation is the failing not the police.

@kitt:

I would have to ask him how is this different from the beginning of policing. Police and peace officers have always dealt with every societal failure, what happens after the police have ended a situation is the failing not the police.

So you’re not interested in things that the police themselves believe would make them more effective?

“This is the way we’ve always done it” is not a good reason to stick with things that aren’t working optimally.

@Michael: Apparently you are considering someone carrying a weapon as an “armed response”. Maybe you should venture out of your own neighborhood every so often.

When my daughter was training as a nurse, she would have to visit poor communities. She was instructed NOT to wear her scrubs or any uniform as this would make her a target for being mugged for drugs. The places that need the wellness checks the most are also the areas where carrying a weapon is most necessary. It is also a sad fact that the THREAT of an “armed response” is what keeps the peace in many cases. The THREAT that laws will be enforced is what maintains law and order, not the constant drone that cops are racist brutes.

Also, are you aware that a “wellness check” might be a visit to a crime scene or a crime in progress?

@Deplorable Me:

Well said.

Depending on people to “police” themselves would be putting just so many foxes in charge of the chicken coop, and unfortunately for those chicken coops, they are rarely owned by the foxes.

Let people talk about getting rid of police if that’s what they want to talk about, but the police won’t disappear. Neither will their guns, and a time when guns may or may not accompany police into danger will never come.

So it’s time for a shout-out in support of our men in blue, who put their lives on the line so we can live in relative safety.

It’s ALSO time for a shout-out for our Supreme Court, given here because no Flopping Aces author will ever bother to thank Donald Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch for writing his majority decision on the Bostick case. Thanks, too, to John Roberts for his concurrence, and thanks as well to the three dissenters, who argued little more than that it SHOULD have been the do-nothing Congress’ job – not the judiciary’s – to fix this injustice. Honorable mention goes to Samuel Alito for acknowledging the irresistible arguments offered by the winning side, for which he said they should be proud.