|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: We all endured|
We all endured
Posted - 2/14/2013 9:01:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's a Leftist conspiracy donchaknow.
"Conservative radio host Glenn Beck explained to his audience on Tuesday that ex-Los Angeles police officer Christopher Dorner’s killing spree was part of a plan by “radical progressives” to create an “oppressive government.”
“It’s not tea parties, it’s the progressive people,” he asserted. “We know, as we have seen, they despise the police. We saw that at Occupy [Wall Street] and in leftist support for cop killers such as Mumia Abu-Jamal. A large part of Dorner’s manifesto is hatred for the police.”
“Radical progressives look for the disenfranchised and they stir them up to violence, and you can expect more,” Beck explained, adding that a recent convert to Islam had been arrested last week for plotting to blow up a bank in California.
“He had hoped the bombing would be blamed on anti-government activists — the tea party — and he would somehow or another spark a civil war after, get this, a severe government crackdown because the bottom was rising up and he knew the top would have to come down!” the conservative host ranted.
(Here's the even weirder part)
“There are a lot of crazy people out there on the left that want anarchy, they want the top to come down,” Beck insisted. “They desperately want to paint the right as violent, but the trend seems to suggest that the left wants violence.” (Raw Story)
Ok. How the hell can you you be paranoid about "progressives" wanting “oppressive government” and "anarchy"...all at the same time??? Or, just a wild guess here, you just enjoy the paranoia part?
Posted - 2/14/2013 9:08:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
dogson's attempts to change the subject aside
here's another instance of someone on the left calling Dorner a hero...no WAIT! It was SUPER-hero.
The culprit was Prof. Marc Lamont Hill on CNN last night.
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:12:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
anything glenn beck says shold be immediately disregarded..
that man is clinically insane..
i actually feel sorry for him..although not as sorry as i feel for the people who believe his crap..
he's gotten rich spouting drivel.. and those people are making him richer..
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:16:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
Anonymous public comments
posted by people on Facebook & Twitter now constitute all leftists and liberals?? Who knew?? Can we count all the Kardashian 'likes' too?? How about EBay users? What a moronic comment.
And I'm trying to change the subject?? And if that wasn't lame enough; cruise offers up more outstanding proof all we Libs think a cop killer piece of scum was a hero-- Prof. Marc Lamont Hill.
WHO?? I had to Google the guy. "instance of someone on the left"?? That's your standard now? That's your proof now?? I hd no clue who the guy was. Some lousy leftist liberal I am.
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:48:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
piss poor left winger
Good call brave cruiser, whoever that lefty lib pal is. Egregious.
The article you posted CLEARLY points out a fringe element on the internet that praise Dorner.
And while there is nothing evident to point to any credible evidence that they are liberals, you are right to say they are, as is hero con.
Heck, there is no evidence global cooling is real and you know it is!!
And who said you were con or someone else?! Libs have been doing that ever since you were noozvet
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:55:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
"stopbs, every story I have checked says the same thing:
Dorner believed to be dead, but the burned remains are yet unidentified."
Please post a link where authorities are on record stating that without a doubt that Dorner had ENTERED and WAS INSIDE the building, because I haven't seen one."
At the time you posted, you were correct, officials were not going on the record to state that the body was definitely Christopher Dorner's. You stated correctly that (police & sheriff's department) sources were saying they "believed" the body was Dorner's but that the remains had not been (forensically) identified. My point is that no one was lying! There is a difference between a "belief" and a "certainty" and that was the difference which authorities were conveying to reporters.
As far as burning down a cabin without knowing the person's identity, whether it was Dorner or Santa Claus, deputies were shooting at a suspect whom authorities had followed to the cabin, a man who had just shot at two deputies (one later died) and a man whom, by law enforcement accounts, was continuing to fire on them. (By that time, Fish & Game officers had also identified the man who fired on them as matching Dorner's description.) What did you expect deputies to do? Not shoot back?
As far a "burning down the cabin," the cabin apparently caught fire when deputies lobbed tear gas into it. Well, geez louise! If your house is on fire, what do you do??? You leave, if you want to live.
Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions here. Was Dorner able to leave? Had he been hit? Deputies say they heard a shot inside, but we don't yet know if Dorner shot himself. However, I think it's a real jump to conclude that deputies wanted to kill Dorner so they burned him down. How much "due process' does a man deserve when he's shooting at you?
I do agree with you on the innocent civilians shot by police. That's just outrageous. The L.A media should be all over that. LA takes hits sometimes as a lightweight market. But, there are some good reporters out there. I'm sure they'll stay on top of it.
Posted - 2/14/2013 11:21:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here you go. Posted this afternoon:
Posted - 2/15/2013 9:00:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
cruster? really? wanna talk about posting under different names? i can't document anyone on the left calling dormer a hero?
in the words of mp, gee your dumb.
Posted - 2/15/2013 11:30:42 AM | show profile | flag this post
Definition of DORMER
: a window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also : the roofed structure containing such a window
The criminal's name is not "dormer."
His name has been in the news since a week ago Wednesday, both written and pronounced. Just because cruiser got it wrong doesn't mean that you have to.
Posted - 2/15/2013 11:57:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
dogson sez: "WHO?? I had to Google the guy.
'instance of someone on the left'?? That's your standard now?"
You don't get out much, do you? Dr. Hill is regularly featured on the O'Reilly Factor as a spokesman for the left and for black people. He has also appeared on CNN and, perhaps, elsewhere.
Just because you claim to have never heard of him does not in any way diminish his bona fides. Your agenda is to discredit anyone who proclaimed Dorner a hero to trivialize his elevation by some on the left to a place of esteem.
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:33:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
Thanks for the reply stopbs.
.. My point is that no one was lying! There is a difference between a "belief" and a "certainty" and that was the difference which authorities were conveying to reporters.
I never said or implied anyone was lying. They didn't say anything except they "were not sure", so the truth, or any subsequent lie, is an unknown.
My point was that they did not conclusively identify who was in the building. Quite frankly, it would make me feel better if they knew he was in there and withheld/confused that info when speaking to the press. At least then they were targeting who they wanted to target.
I believe they were at a standoff of a few hours. Why was there the push to burn it down? BTW, from what I have read, by tossing in the canisters, they knew what the result would be. So while technically they did not "set fire" the result was expected.
I also agree 100% if police are shot at they have every right to defend themselves. Who shot first? I don't know.
Ultimately, this behavior puts ALL OF US at risk. If police can shoot people without identifying them first or burn houses without identifying who is inside, we, the average citizens are at risk. NOT the criminals.
It appears this incident is setting a terrifying precedent for law-abiding citizens.
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:43:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
a regular on bill o'reilly's show??
now THERE'S a reference to be proud of..
someone who's willing to take money to be a punching bag for bill o'reilly?..
no wonder i'd never heard of him..
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:52:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
There was no precedent set. This is not new. There was no mass conspiracy among Southern California law enforcement agencies. Police were following procedure that has been used since before all of us were babies.
Thanks for backpedaling. Now we will know that when you write in capital letters that media "LIED", it means something we should guess at.
I don't imagine that you listened to the archived scanner transmissions from the day Dorner was caught. It would take time to listen to them. Did you read the story in today's LA Times? It might put your mind at ease. On the other hand, you might only feed your hunger for conspiracy theories: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dorner-fire-20130215,0,5831477.story
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:59:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
no wonder i'd never heard of him.. ***
I'd never heard of him either. His bios online are incomplete. He appears to be a media whore. Definitely in the "who cares?" category.
Posted - 2/15/2013 12:59:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
Please explain what the conspiracy is.
What I have said is simple: It scares the shit out of me that innocent civilians have been SHOT and INJURED by cops who have not identified WHO THEY ARE SHOOTING AT. Because if they HAD identified who they were shooting at, well these ladies would not have gotten shot.
Meaning: I think any reasonable person could tell the difference between two Hispanic older ladies and a burly black man. Do you think they look similar? Would you make that mistake?
Please explain this "conspiracy" that you know so much about, because I have not heard of it .... I am simply using COMMON SENSE.
Holy crap on a cracker.
Posted - 2/15/2013 1:10:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
Been has a point...
I recall a case of a LA police takedown some years back:
- a dozen or so police surround a car, guns drawn, yelling for suspect to exit the vehicle, hands up, turn off the ignition .. all sorts of competing demands.
- car somewhere backfires.
- one cop freaks out, shoots, and all the other cops start unloading.
- the suspect, having been shot in the head, goes limp, and so the car, brake-less, starts rolling...
- so the vehicle with cops on either side is now moving. And cops are still firing, tracking said vehicle, and it moves between them
- needless to say, that means cops get hit by their own crossfire.
- Officer Down! and more gunfire.
Finally some one yells to stop.
dead suspect. multiple wounded cops.
Not exactly the smartest response.
Theres a you tube video of this somewhere. very much WTF?!
(perhaps these "heroes" got medals for being wounded in action )
Posted - 2/15/2013 2:18:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
Also to GD,
Yes, I said the media lied.
I stand by that statement as it applies to the Yahoo headline of that particular story published at that particular time because in the CONTENT of the story, it was clear the suspect was unidentified, unlike the headline which named a suspect.
My reply ABOVE was to stopbs who (I think) was saying that I had said the COPS lied. Which I did not.
Clear enough for you?
Posted - 2/15/2013 3:15:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Meaning: I think any reasonable person could tell the difference between two Hispanic older ladies and a burly black man. Do you think they look similar? Would you make that mistake? ***
There's an officer shot to death three hours earlier, there's an APB out, it's 60 miles away, it's before sunup, can't make out the truck's color in the dark, truck is driving slowly in a stop-start fashion on the street where an officer on Dorner's hit list and his family live.
You're right. The cops should have introduced themselves.
Posted - 2/15/2013 3:33:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** I stand by that statement as it applies to the Yahoo headline of that particular story published at that particular time because in the CONTENT of the story, it was clear the suspect was unidentified, unlike the headline which named a suspect. ***
Good grief! Headlines are not intended to be little articles. They have to be a predetermined length and capture the essence of the story. Tweets contain more characters and spaces than headlines do.
You or any of your friends should try rewriting the headline using the same number of characters and spaces as the original one contained. The headline must have a subject and an active verb, and it must summarize the most important thing in the article using a name and/or place to the extent possible. In this case, the headline has to have "Dorner" in it, so that the national/international audience reading it will recognize that this is a follow to the story they've been following for many days.
What do you come up with?
Posted - 2/15/2013 3:36:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Clear enough for you? **
Naw. I'm only the dummy who actually does this for a living.
Posted - 2/15/2013 5:27:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
I don't "make up little headlines" at work. The materials I work with MUST be 100% accurate. If I engaged in that crap that was on yahoo, I would've been fired.
I'm glad you're keeping up with all my posts. Nice to know someone is reading what I write., even if they don't understand them.
Posted - 2/15/2013 7:02:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
Just to clarify, beenthere
You never did say the cops were lying. I was referring to the AP headline you first addressed. The headline was not lying in referring to an "AP Source:......" At the time, that is what police sources were telling reporters. Police had a "belief" but not a "certainty." I don't have a problem with the headline (though it's good discussion.)
Posted - 2/15/2013 7:56:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
"gee your dumb"
High praise from a right wing hero, who spends his days filling this board with ridiculous claims!!
I join you in making the conservative argument so ludicrous, the sequester will seem like little more than legitimate fiscal rape.
And posting under different name?? I choose freedomfirst, or Mike May, or noozvet, or puzo!! Are they taken??
Posted - 2/15/2013 10:24:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
didn't need that
Mentioning "freedomfirst, or Mike May, or noozvet, or puzo" (Shudder shudder head shake)
That's like getting shingles just because you had chicken pox as a kid.
Posted - 2/15/2013 10:37:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** I don't "make up little headlines" at work. The materials I work with MUST be 100% accurate. If I engaged in that crap that was on yahoo, I would've been fired.
I'm glad you're keeping up with all my posts. Nice to know someone is reading what I write., even if they don't understand them. ***
Yep, I'm the dummy who keeps coming back to see whether you've written clearly yet. You write things and then expect other people figure them out. I hope to God your job isn't writing pharma instructions.
Where did you get the quote "make up little headlines"? I haven't seen it on this forum. To be completely accurate, you need to attribute quotes.
Not that it matters, because it gets really tiresome reading your posts. The conspiracy theories, the obtuseness over what we do and the lack of desire to learn, the calling news people stupid for being unable to decipher what you're trying to say, the backpedaling -- 100 percent tiresome. I wind up skipping most of your posts. I wish I didn't have to, but there's too much to do IRL and the days are too short. I just don't have time to read you accusing cops, accusing reporters, accusing headline writers, and so on. I don't need to defend any of it; but neither do you need to write it. You could learn. Why not try that? Why not ask a question instead of accusing? There's no weakness in asking about what you don't know. Or do you really want to continue coming off as a crackpot?