Monroe wrote:
Let's see how this plays out; the dead man had a gun and kept firing his gun, apparently, at the off duty cop until it jammed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/poli ... an-in-st-louis/ar-BB8fYZs

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
There's a war coming.

http://land-of-propaganda.tumblr.com/ ... ng-in-ferguson-10-03-2014

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
...

But according to the link your buddy/alter ego posted, the facts will show the Grand Jury that Big Brown was in the wrong. Likely his fingerprints were found on Officer Wilson's gun. You can't arrest and try someone for a crime he did not commit.
...

Can't see how Wilson won't get charged. If the state doesn't, the feds will.

And as far as alter-egos go, you still eating out those other circle-jerks? Never told us which JCMan you ate.

It's been reported lately that the Feds aren't going to charge Zimmerman in Florida, so don't be so sure about Officer Wilson being charged.

I have stayed out of this thread (for all the obvious reasons) but felt compelled to address this one topic: if the local grand jury fails to file charges, I doubt the feds will bring any charges. George Zimmerman is a perfect example of this. The feds got involved in the case because of political and societal pressure, but the facts alone (the facts that could be supported by evidence and eyewitness accounts) couldn't support the filing of charges. From the last article I read on the topic, the investigators in charge essentially admitted that the investigation was started (and kept alive) to calm things down until it would blow over. You can argue if this right or wrong, but it did serve some purposes.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
...

But according to the link your buddy/alter ego posted, the facts will show the Grand Jury that Big Brown was in the wrong. Likely his fingerprints were found on Officer Wilson's gun. You can't arrest and try someone for a crime he did not commit.
...

Can't see how Wilson won't get charged. If the state doesn't, the feds will.

And as far as alter-egos go, you still eating out those other circle-jerks? Never told us which JCMan you ate.

It's been reported lately that the Feds aren't going to charge Zimmerman in Florida, so don't be so sure about Officer Wilson being charged.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
...

But according to the link your buddy/alter ego posted, the facts will show the Grand Jury that Big Brown was in the wrong. Likely his fingerprints were found on Officer Wilson's gun. You can't arrest and try someone for a crime he did not commit.
...

Can't see how Wilson won't get charged. If the state doesn't, the feds will.

And as far as alter-egos go, you still eating out those other circle-jerks? Never told us which JCMan you ate.

JCMan8 wrote:
...

But according to the link your buddy/alter ego posted, the facts will show the Grand Jury that Big Brown was in the wrong. Likely his fingerprints were found on Officer Wilson's gun. You can't arrest and try someone for a crime he did not commit.
...

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
There's a war coming.

http://land-of-propaganda.tumblr.com/ ... ng-in-ferguson-10-03-2014

Considering the Ferguson protestors have essentially operated as a gigantic lynch mob this entire time, intelligent people expect them to go buckwild if they don't get the lynching of Officer Wilson that they desire.

What's surprising about this?

What's surprising? Perhaps they're simply asking for justice? Not a lynching. But that doesn't fit. Right?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
There's a war coming.

http://land-of-propaganda.tumblr.com/ ... ng-in-ferguson-10-03-2014

Considering the Ferguson protestors have essentially operated as a gigantic lynch mob this entire time, intelligent people expect them to go buckwild if they don't get the lynching of Officer Wilson that they desire.

What's surprising about this?

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
There's a war coming.

http://land-of-propaganda.tumblr.com/ ... ng-in-ferguson-10-03-2014

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Quote:

By the way, as corporate management myself ...

DA is assistant produce manager at BJs.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
So you didn't read the article and made up your own story instead, like a child pretending to read a book.

By the way, as corporate management myself ...

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
I've lost count of the times I've caught you domkops posting and discussing articles you clearly haven't read.
The article is clear about why that store is shutting down, mentions it several times and that it is just one of a number of underperforming Kmarts that are closing.

JCMan8 wrote:
Ferguson's Kmart is shutting down. One of 70+ businesses that were looted by the Ferguson mob.

Watch the rest of the reputable businesses follow suit. Surprise! It doesn't pay to set up shop in a slum infested by looters, lowlifes, and a community with absolutely no sense of personal responsibility.

You think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the like will put their money with their mouth is and pay to set up businesses to serve the Ferguson community?

http://www.stltoday.com/business/loca ... d1-8c1f-58025e984d8e.html

Monroe wrote:
Another example of police video refuting the vile lies and racist allegations of a dirtbag.

http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-woman-tries-race-card/

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
The logical conclusion to state violence, oppression and denial of justice is that people will start to fight back.
We can expect more violence and possibly cops will die.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:

We can expect more violence and possibly cops will die.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
And the idea that the UK banned slavery because they feared a revolution highlights your total lack of British history. I suggest you stop shunning "White Anglo Saxon Protestant history books" when discussing European and American history.
...

Your WASP revisionist history is one-sided at best. Britain's fear was a primary driver, leading it to abolish slavery ahead of the US. I bet members of the West India lobby shared your "ethnocentrist" and "elitist" view - and were asking why their slaves "couldn't protest peacefully?".

1801 - Irish Act of Union - Britain's fear-inspired response to rebellions in Ireland, inspired in turn by US and French revolutions
1807 - Britain abolishes slave trade - with help of 100 pro-abolitionist Irish MPs
1831-2 - Jamaican slave rebellions - inspired by 1790-1801 Haiti slave revolution - "many terrified plantation owners were now ready to accept abolition, rather than risk a widespread war. Just one week after Sharpe's death, Parliament appointed a committee to consider ways of ending slavery"
1832 - Great Reform Act - British fear-inspired response to European revolutions in the 1830's to "produce enough reform to turn the threat of revolution" - "two-thirds of those who supported slavery were swept from power. The once powerful West India Lobby had lost its political strength"
1833 - Britain abolishes slavery

Sources:
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_113.html
http://abolition.e2bn.org/resistance_54.html
http://www.worldhistory.knowledge4afr ... /modern/revolution-01.jsp
http://www.irish-society.org/home/hed ... y-events/the-act-of-union

LOL, you're off the deep end. The British had absolutely minimal fear of any external group save the French during that era. They were an absolute superpower and Britain vs France was the more archaic equivalent of the US vs USSR. The notion that they were terrified of slaves and therefore banned it rather than that the abolitionist POV simply won out democratically is ridiculous. And LOL @ my "WASP revisionism." Good one.

FYI - with regards to the Great Reform Act, I guess I can give you that one. Though of course it wasn't fear of the slaves, it was fear of their own citizens, which was a much more serious issue. That led to reform and that led to even more representation of the dominant views, which were again, more progressive in the UK than the US. The US, of course, had democracy the entire time but banning slavery took considerably longer anyway and sparked a massive civil war. Which, if you recall relates to my original point. The US did not kick the British out because we were so progressive and the British were evil slave owning elitist jerks. We were elitist slave owning jerks as well and everyone who came to power was in the domestic elite.

I never said Britain as a nation feared slaves, but that it's fear of revolution and rebellion drove it to abolition faster than in the US . British abolition wasn't about a bunch of white Wilberforces sitting around a campfire singing "Amazing Grace" and gaining enlightenment.

Simply put, Thomas Jefferson was the main architect of abolition in both the US and UK (and France for that matter) - and the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution set the abolitionist dominoes falling.

In case you had forgotten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S ... claration_of_Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yeah, those signing it didn't mean black men. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

And Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner himself, who, while harboring some abolitionist sentiments had a decidedly mixed record on slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

In any event, you really cannot credit either Jefferson or the US Constitution (as originally drafted) as holding the roots to abolition. That is why abolishing slavery required a constitutional amendment (which, by definition means that the original constitution didn't serve the purpose).

Your first paragraph on fear of rebellion is true only indirectly. Fear of insurrection from the local (non-slave) population led to greater democracy, and the population was generally abolitionist.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
And the idea that the UK banned slavery because they feared a revolution highlights your total lack of British history. I suggest you stop shunning "White Anglo Saxon Protestant history books" when discussing European and American history.
...

Your WASP revisionist history is one-sided at best. Britain's fear was a primary driver, leading it to abolish slavery ahead of the US. I bet members of the West India lobby shared your "ethnocentrist" and "elitist" view - and were asking why their slaves "couldn't protest peacefully?".

1801 - Irish Act of Union - Britain's fear-inspired response to rebellions in Ireland, inspired in turn by US and French revolutions
1807 - Britain abolishes slave trade - with help of 100 pro-abolitionist Irish MPs
1831-2 - Jamaican slave rebellions - inspired by 1790-1801 Haiti slave revolution - "many terrified plantation owners were now ready to accept abolition, rather than risk a widespread war. Just one week after Sharpe's death, Parliament appointed a committee to consider ways of ending slavery"
1832 - Great Reform Act - British fear-inspired response to European revolutions in the 1830's to "produce enough reform to turn the threat of revolution" - "two-thirds of those who supported slavery were swept from power. The once powerful West India Lobby had lost its political strength"
1833 - Britain abolishes slavery

Sources:
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_113.html
http://abolition.e2bn.org/resistance_54.html
http://www.worldhistory.knowledge4afr ... /modern/revolution-01.jsp
http://www.irish-society.org/home/hed ... y-events/the-act-of-union

LOL, you're off the deep end. The British had absolutely minimal fear of any external group save the French during that era. They were an absolute superpower and Britain vs France was the more archaic equivalent of the US vs USSR. The notion that they were terrified of slaves and therefore banned it rather than that the abolitionist POV simply won out democratically is ridiculous. And LOL @ my "WASP revisionism." Good one.

FYI - with regards to the Great Reform Act, I guess I can give you that one. Though of course it wasn't fear of the slaves, it was fear of their own citizens, which was a much more serious issue. That led to reform and that led to even more representation of the dominant views, which were again, more progressive in the UK than the US. The US, of course, had democracy the entire time but banning slavery took considerably longer anyway and sparked a massive civil war. Which, if you recall relates to my original point. The US did not kick the British out because we were so progressive and the British were evil slave owning elitist jerks. We were elitist slave owning jerks as well and everyone who came to power was in the domestic elite.

I never said Britain as a nation feared slaves, but that it's fear of revolution and rebellion drove it to abolition faster than in the US . British abolition wasn't about a bunch of white Wilberforces sitting around a campfire singing "Amazing Grace" and gaining enlightenment.

Simply put, Thomas Jefferson was the main architect of abolition in both the US and UK (and France for that matter) - and the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution set the abolitionist dominoes falling.

In case you had forgotten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S ... claration_of_Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.