- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Some do, some don't.
This is where you can tell the true libertarians from the fake ones who are really just Republicans pretending to be liberterian conservatives.
Libertarian conservatives have that natural distrust of authority. Republican conservatives almost always side with authority against the people. It's in their nationalist tendencies.
Heard this on the radio on the way home today (since ya know, I live here) and the local radio take is that the kid was being an absolute ****, things got stupid and he started trying to bash the cop with his baton across the head. Was warned 4 times before the officer put him down.
Some mistakes in life carry high price tags.
The president is pretty much the ultimate in authority and yet I see many liberals defend and rationalize everything he does. To no surprise to anyone, you have no issue with that though.
The biased journalism, the confusing 'facts' and the conflicting 'witness reports' make me not want to form an opinion at all.
I knee-jerked the other day regarding the catholic hospital thing, I'm not going it again.
This was also in one of the articles...
documents published by the San Antonio Express News show that he worked for the Texas university for two and a half years after holding nine different jobs at eight separate law enforcement agencies.
Kind of sounds like people shifting crap around instead of fixing it.
To some, the only good cop is a dead cop.
Heard this on the radio on the way home today (since ya know, I live here) and the local radio take is that the kid was being an absolute ****, things got stupid and he started trying to bash the cop with his baton across the head. Was warned 4 times before the officer put him down.
Some mistakes in life carry high price tags.
Why must you always do this false equivalence bull****? I've seen you debate and you are smart enough not to drop to that low of a level . You've recently been trotting out this tactic and itself is only one sided so the hypocrisy in using that tactic is ludicrous.
You say that I don't have issues with that which you just being lazy and trying to put the burden of proof on me. I'm not lockstep with Obama by any means and I've called out liberals before for being ridiculous in their cut and paste crap.
So please, dispense with this crap.
This kind of thing always seems to split conservatives. This is where you see the authority loving conservatives split from the actual small government conservatives who have a natural distrust of authority.
What a complete load of **** thing to say. If someone doesn't agree with you and thinks cops overreacted when they kill someone then they are allllll the way to the other side wishing the cop was dead.
you are beyond off base and are apparently not reasonable in any way.
If the kid had run over the cop or cracked his skull open would that have bothered you?
After the Duke Lacrosse case there's no excuse for anyone leaping in early with sweeping generalizations or early conclusions.eace
Yes. Of course is it would've. It's not about hating or disliking cops. It's about understanding that authority needs to know it's limits. which you apparently don't agree with.
Cops have no right to be Judge Dredd.
Not so coincidentally, this kid being dead doesn't seem to bother you.
It's an online political forum. Speculation and discussion is precisely what it's about.
It's an online political forum. Speculation and discussion is precisely what it's about.
If someone is assaulting an officer with a weapon, I think it is well within reasonable limits that they defend themselves but yes, I gather we do disagree on this point.
In other words, when it comes to cops, I'll believe the worst no matter what the actual facts may turn out to be. :lol:
You are immediatly siding with the police statement that he was being assaulted. You are taking no evidence whatsoever and then saddling me with a false narrative of being opposed to him defending himself. I never said that and you saying I do is more than being dishonest on your part.
Who are you to talk being that you take the police word for it with no evidence whatsoever.
Witness testimony is evidence, including from cops (in fact, most of the people who testify are cops). I take it you think anything a cop says should just be discounted. Ok.
I take it that the opinions of those directly involved in an incident should be the first opinions to be discounted or at least take a back seat to those who witnesses who observe objectively.
Also, why do you phrase all your post as if you know what I'm thinking rather than simply asking my opinion? you are discrediting yourself with every post when you do this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?