Kind of reminds me of this exchange from “Mad Love”:
Maybe we should haul cops up before a Grand Jury and have some indictments every time they fail to kill someone. Dereliction of duty or something. I think Mr. Smapti would find that to be satisfactory.
The Smapti standard is that all police encounters should end with a death. Or a blowjob.
Pittings like this present me with a quandary. I agree with Smapti’s side on the OP: The fact that the CIA was secretly exploiting vaccination programs to combat terrorism does not detract from the value of those programs, and they could have continued to serve two purposes until the whistle-blower committed treason. Blame can be shared of course, but it seems twisted not to find major fault with the whistle blower who took it upon himself both to cause thousands of children to go unvaccinated and advanced the terrorist cause.
But to support Smapti on one issue, doesn’t mean I support all of his positions: :eek:
It’s stupid to focus on whether or not Pantaleo violated a specific regulation or not. He used stupidly excessive force in a stupid arrest. He killed a hard-working father whose crime was that America’s system made it difficult for him to feed his family.
And to blame the victim, Eric Garner, for his own death goes beyond stupidity to some sort of insanity. It’s vicious comments like this one that make rational good-spirited Americans want to vomit whenever a right-winger opens its mouth.
I’ll note that Smapti thinks those who are protesting the Garner case (and other cases) are “terrorists” – using criteria that would deem many of the Civil Rights protesters of the 60s as terrorists as well.
Until you grow up from “I’m sorry I got caught” to “I’m sorry I did it”, many things in this world will baffle you.
No, actually about 90 seconds. Glad to slay that particular nugget of ignorance.
Uh, sure it does. You could look the word up. It means precisely what you seem to think it does not mean.
Hmmm. I can’t figure out if your problem is one of limited intelligence or being emotional about the issue. Either way, my criticizing YOU for a specific action does not in any way equate to defending anyone. But I guess, in your world, not joining in on the pile on puts one on the opposing side. Hey, if I get a kick in on Smapti, does that make me okay with you then? Hey, Smapti, you’re ugly! Better? Can I carry a pitchfork too, now?
Tuning fork, maybe. Salad fork, a bit risky…
Those who are marching or demonstrating peacefully and non-disruptively? Not terrorists.
Those who are blocking roads and freeways, starting fires, jumping on cars, throwing things at police, and sending lists of “demands” to the media? Terrorists.
nm
So the vast majority are not terrorists. By the way, some Civil Rights protests disrupted traffic and listed demands. Were they terrorists?
Yes.
Everyone who inconveniences me on my commute should be shot in sight.
Got it – according to Smapti, Hosea Williams, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Martin Luther King Jr. were terrorists.
When traffic is disrupted, aren’t you terrorized?
Then you deserve to live your life in terror, little man.
I’m not sure why you’re so confused. I posted that on November 8th, which is about a month ago. In the future, if you look above the name of the person you’re quoting it shows the date they made the post. Glad to slay that particular nugget of ignorance.
As for the rest, I’m not particularly interested in arguing with you about it and hijacking the thread over what defines a good metaphor. You’re going to have to find someone else to play pedantic word games with.
Hard-working fathers don’t get arrested more than 30 times, nor do they commit major crimes like assault and grand larceny.
Someone can commit a crime and still turn around their life and be a “hard-working father”. Committing a crime doesn’t mean one is forever a bad person.
I haven’t read this thread, nor do I care to read much anything further either by Smapti or about Smapti…
…I just wanted to say once, though, that from what I’ve seen of him, I would not be surprised if–if a cop suddenly pulled his gun out and fired it directly into the head of an eight day old baby six times–Smapti would be one of the first ones saying “Well, maybe the baby was resisting arrest. Seriously, the baby MUST HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING WRONG for the cop to do that. Cops don’t just do that unless you break the law. I’m sure the baby didn’t listen when the cop said to “stop crying” or gave another order. The cop doesn’t know if the baby is going for a gun or not, he was within his limits to protect himself.”
Don’t bother saying that’s not true, Smapti. For one, I’m not going to see it because I’m not going to be opening this thread again after this post. For two, you can say it’s a huge, gross, extreme exaggeration or hyperbole all you want…it doesn’t change the fact that you have reached further for tiny, insignificant reasons and grasped at smaller straws in your effort to stick up for the police in real situations that have actually happened.