Posted on 08/18/2014 4:45:30 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
One of the fascinating layers of the Ferguson riot story is how this tragedy has exposed what is a rapidly changing attitudinal climate towards law enforcement officers (LEOs). What was for years a stable predicate -- conservatives being reflexively ‘law and order’ and inherently giving cops the benefit of the doubt -- while liberals with the built in ACLU type disdain for cops tending to always assume the worst of those in power – is now a vortex of confusion, cross currents,and contradictions.
It’s not a total flip-flop of the convention, but it’s moving in that direction. After all, we’ve seen Rand Paul and Eric Holder agree on this in the past week. Did I mention confusing and contradictory?
Consider: many young liberals have of course discovered a love for big government, and take to Twitter and Facebook to support cops harassing Tea Party types and Nevada ranchers just as they cheer the IRS and Lois Lerner persecuting conservative business people and political groups. Meanwhile, liberal voters in Boston cheered their ‘Boston Strong’ reaction to the Marathon bombers, which to me looked a lot like an entire city cowering from a wounded young teen -- while LEOs with Seal Team Six fantasies trampled on every liberty they could for 48 hours -- brandishing Kevlar, automatic weapons, neo-Nazi style helmets and riding around neighborhoods in hummers and kicking down doors.
The media, long willing to challenge the cops and take the victim's point of view, have been silent, or even dismissive, of recent fears by the right of militarized police departments and massive ammo buys by the Feds. Worship of Obama and support for public sector unions has trumped their former concerns apparently.
The old model of “neighborhood cops” -- who walk a beat in their blues ....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I was so baffled by your instant and continuous hostility, that I tried to find out what your beef with me might be.
It seems that you are big on soft peddling libertarianism and promoting gay issues, and that explains your instant and mysterious rage directed at a conservative.
Posts like my 101, are evidently enough to unhinge you.
To: old3030
Gay marriage and abortion are also federal issues, for instance in the military and government hospitals.
Abortion was practiced at the federal level before Roe v Wade, and the President just instructed the military to recognize gay marriage from the states.
Never support a libertarian for any office, at any level of government, from city hall, to the Presidency.
101 posted on 8/18/2014 8:59:49 AM by ansel12
Those are damnable lies, and you are a contemptuous little b-st-rd for saying it, because you know they are lies. The rage is not mysterious. Many people get enraged at two legged vermin who peddle lies for the express purpose of distorting an argument. And there is not one single syllable of mine you can ever find to back up your preposterous taradiddle. Not one.
As for the points you made in the above post: I never have and probably never will support a libertarian for office. Maybe in an oddball protest vote situation, but not really support. You have a point on the gay marriage, which is why I did not respond. I told old3030 what I thought the proper libertarian response should be on that, but that many libertarians did not take that stance. As for the Roe V Wade point you made…not sure how that has anything to do with anything, and not sure it's true, but I have no problem with it. Your damnable lies are what irritate and aggrevate.
Your attempts to soft peddle libertarianism is what set you off on me, on this very thread.
As far as your social liberalism and the homosexual agenda, you have been dressed down for that before, by FR management.
There is no reason for you to have hijacked your own thread as you have with these incredible nasty personal attacks, social conservatism and conservatism is what this site is about, you can’t attack all of us constantly.
” It’s gracious of you to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, it’s difficult to credit your assertion when you have exactly one data point to work from... and that one is at variance with your conclusion.”
—
Damn,I wish had I found myself in more trouble-—I’d have a better argument.:-)
.
Sometimes two things at once are both true. Police officers, and citizens as well, are under no obligation to box it out on the street with someone trying to assault them. This is a huge surprise to black folks and CNN apparently.
On the other hand, if you are in law enforcement of any kind and you are wearing a helmet, you are either on a motorcycle or a Nazi.
This ordinary citizen was trained in no uncertain terms that use of deadly force, in absence of a credible threat to my life or a victim's life, is illegal and subject to prosecution. This was taught in the context of my concealed-carry training course.
So yeah, I may not have to duke it out with my attacker, but unless my life is in danger, pulling a weapon and shooting his @ss is not a legal option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.