Yes, and he liked MRA jargon, too Gavin Long, the suspect in Sunday's killings of three police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was by all accounts a strange stew of black nationalism, self-help mantras, and anti-government jargon. He was also affiliated with a bizarre offshoot of the "Sovereign Citizen" movement, and last year
I would agree but the gutting of the Voter's Rights Act and the gerrymandering of Congressional districts has effectively eliminated the possible redress through elections. Governments brutally repressing minorities, eg. Assad's Syria, have spawned terrorist groups like ISIS, in part, because they have no recourse but a violent resistance.
If you have to ask, you are not kewl enough for that look. Just look at the NFL Draft for inspiration. This is one of my faves. The "suit men" come to the combine to hook the players up. Even Sports Illustrated has a fashion issue. This tailor was highlighted this year.http://jacksonville.com/bus...http://img2.timeinc.net/peo...
I have too, but I am hoping for change. I am not a member of BLM - I didn't pass my Bernie vetting with them and worked with other groups (another story) - but I follow them closely enough and consider myself a sympathizer. In Georgia, the real trouble is the sheriffs in the counties, not the police in the cities.
Am I allowed a little schadenfreude at the brilliant way the wingnuts' OMG GUN RITEZ shitheadedness has come back to bite them in the ass? I expected there would eventually be some kind of confrontation when a black person finally decided Open Carry was meant for him, too, and I don't see this kind of thing as stopping here. Looks like we're getting to the endgame of our whole Evrybody Getz A Gun!!! lunacy, maybe.
That's a good principle, but it's not a binary choice (redress is possible without violence vs. the only solution is violence), but a spectrum. For any given level of social injustice and repression, some folks will find a way to protest, to do what they can to improve it, while others (fed up) will opt to respond with violence to violence.
I don't think it's really possible to suggest who's right and who's wrong. It's true, though, that increases in social injustice and disfranchisement lead, just like economic or racial or ethnic injustice, to increasing incidence of violent response. In even the most just and fair society, there's likely to be somebody feeling oppressed enough to respond with violence. When significant numbers (and again, "significant numbers" is a varying metric) feel that they can get no justice without blood, things are bad.
Can't wait for the folks at the RNC to spin this into somehow being the fault of Obama and BLM.
Oh wait, yes I can.
I would agree but the gutting of the Voter's Rights Act and the gerrymandering of Congressional districts has effectively eliminated the possible redress through elections. Governments brutally repressing minorities, eg. Assad's Syria, have spawned terrorist groups like ISIS, in part, because they have no recourse but a violent resistance.
If you have to ask, you are not kewl enough for that look. Just look at the NFL Draft for inspiration. This is one of my faves. The "suit men" come to the combine to hook the players up. Even Sports Illustrated has a fashion issue. This tailor was highlighted this year.http://jacksonville.com/bus...http://img2.timeinc.net/peo...
I have too, but I am hoping for change. I am not a member of BLM - I didn't pass my Bernie vetting with them and worked with other groups (another story) - but I follow them closely enough and consider myself a sympathizer. In Georgia, the real trouble is the sheriffs in the counties, not the police in the cities.
That's like when all us white guys with bad hair had to apologize for Dylan Roof.
Am I allowed a little schadenfreude at the brilliant way the wingnuts' OMG GUN RITEZ shitheadedness has come back to bite them in the ass? I expected there would eventually be some kind of confrontation when a black person finally decided Open Carry was meant for him, too, and I don't see this kind of thing as stopping here. Looks like we're getting to the endgame of our whole Evrybody Getz A Gun!!! lunacy, maybe.
That's a good principle, but it's not a binary choice (redress is possible without violence vs. the only solution is violence), but a spectrum. For any given level of social injustice and repression, some folks will find a way to protest, to do what they can to improve it, while others (fed up) will opt to respond with violence to violence.
I don't think it's really possible to suggest who's right and who's wrong. It's true, though, that increases in social injustice and disfranchisement lead, just like economic or racial or ethnic injustice, to increasing incidence of violent response. In even the most just and fair society, there's likely to be somebody feeling oppressed enough to respond with violence. When significant numbers (and again, "significant numbers" is a varying metric) feel that they can get no justice without blood, things are bad.
In my opinion, things are bad.
Typo Marx was his brother.
"If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em."
So let's see. Whacko with a gun. Check. 2nd amendment rights? Check. Black? uh oh.....
woo woo! How speaketh him?
Social Darwinists. And why do they think they'd win the game, anyway?
I wonder how many times a Latin teacher was asked about semper ubi sububi or bibo ergo sum
Is she one of the Butt sisters?
It would be really satisfying were it not for the three dead cops. One of whom was a new dad.
And apparently a MRA dude, too.