Political Vids/Images

[mbw]

I stopped reading at "In it, ardent libertarian and former MTV VJ Kennedy makes a solid analogy" so I could lol.

[runawayjimbo]

I stopped reading at "In it, ardent libertarian and former MTV VJ Kennedy makes a solid analogy" so I could lol.

That Photoshop tho.

[mbw]

I stopped reading at "In it, ardent libertarian and former MTV VJ Kennedy makes a solid analogy" so I could lol.

That Photoshop tho.

can't see it.  my brain just stopped working when you quoted Kennedy and called it 'solid.'

[VDB]

Those guys in Kennedy's solid analogy are more like Creed.

[runawayjimbo]

You guys understand that you don't have to agree with the subjects of the analogy for it still to be a valid analogy, right?

[VDB]

Yeah I get her point. So she must think libertarianism is in trouble if its standard bearers are getting lamer?

Good photoshop at any rate.

[mbw]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

[runawayjimbo]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

DRINK

[rowjimmy]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

DRINK

That's not a very funny retort.

Also, completely agree with mbw.

[runawayjimbo]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

DRINK

That's not a very funny retort.

Also, completely agree with mbw.

Well you don't go for my tl;dr comments, so I figured I'd stick to the snappy one liners like you guys.

Needless to say, I do not agree. But I get how it's totally easier to call someone with whom you don't agree a racist pos.

[mbw]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

DRINK

That's not a very funny retort.

Also, completely agree with mbw.

Well you don't go for my tl;dr comments, so I figured I'd stick to the snappy one liners like you guys.

Needless to say, I do not agree. But I get how it's totally easier to call someone with whom you don't agree a racist pos.

No, see, if I don't agree with his assertion that:

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began"

or

'Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

I can indeed call him a racist pos.

[rowjimmy]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

DRINK

That's not a very funny retort.

Also, completely agree with mbw.

Well you don't go for my tl;dr comments, so I figured I'd stick to the snappy one liners like you guys.

Needless to say, I do not agree. But I get how it's totally easier to call someone with whom you don't agree a racist pos.

I'd have to say the fact that he named his kid after that crusty cunt Ayn Rand is enough reason to dismiss him to the well of assholes but here you go:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Further to that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

Of course Ron Paul should be irrelevant at this point as his son is the forefront and a thousand time worse in many ways but here's another piece that breaks down this old crank's positions:

http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ron-pauls-racism-isnt-worst-thing

[runawayjimbo]

meh, fuck that racist pos.  kurt would be sickened by him, so fuck that picture too.

DRINK

That's not a very funny retort.

Also, completely agree with mbw.

Well you don't go for my tl;dr comments, so I figured I'd stick to the snappy one liners like you guys.

Needless to say, I do not agree. But I get how it's totally easier to call someone with whom you don't agree a racist pos.

No, see, if I don't agree with his assertion that:

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began"

or

'Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

I can indeed call him a racist pos.

Got links or are you just making that up?

I'd have to say the fact that he named his kid after that crusty cunt Ayn Rand is enough reason to dismiss him to the well of assholes but here you go:

LOL, Rand is short for Randall.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

ThinkProgress, that bastion of impartiality.

Further to that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

I agree with Kessler: Paul did not do enough to denounce the remarks that came in the newsletters with his name on it. He should have done more to stop it, but his position is that all speech, is good (THE HORROR). But no doubt he should have made it clear that those were not his words and he should have offered a sharp rebuke. And he did a disservice to his name by trying to cover that up. Of course, the newsletter issue was never about his positions, but that doesn't really fit the narrative that well, does it.

Of course Ron Paul should be irrelevant at this point as his son is the forefront and a thousand time worse in many ways but here's another piece that breaks down this old crank's positions:

http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ron-pauls-racism-isnt-worst-thing

I stopped reading when it said "Paul is very clearly aligned with the 1 percent." There isn't even a sliver of truth in that. Look at how the establishment (who is very much aligned with the 1%) came out in force against him (fuck, they even got behind Rick Sweater Vest Santorum) and the way they are attacking the Paul's and Justin Amash's of the world now.

But I agree with your point that Ron is the past and that Rand is the future of the movement (which was the whole point of Kennedy's still very solid analogy). And I definitely agree he is in no way the perfect representative (Amash, on the other hand, appears to be much closer to the real deal). But I gotta say, the way partisans on both sides are freaking out (see the near daily articles about those evil libertarians on Salon) has been pretty goddamned enjoyable for me.

[runawayjimbo]

Listen to this racist pos

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police
Anyone who thinks that race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. And the root of the problem is big government.

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn't have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:

Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. ... Police look inward. They're supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It's the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

The Cato Institute's Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:

Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? ("'This my property!' he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.") Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that "We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone"?

Olson added, "the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands."

How did this happen?

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with today's law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation's Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, "the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment."

Bernick continued, "federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery."

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, "today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included."

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown's family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.

[Superfreakie]

Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that "We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone"