Trouble in Fergietown!


Off-Topic Discussions

901 to 950 of 1,037 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

[Stands guard against further incursions of internet douchebaggery]


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, living in a hermetically sealed bubble and not watching much television, I don't know how far this shiznit gets disseminated into the general population, so

The Official Michael Brown Autopsy Report Doesn't Say What the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Says It Does

"As of this writing, the story is still up and uncorrected at St. Louis Today. It's headed by the screen cap posted above, from WPIX News in New York. This is despite the fact that Dr. Melinek has disputed their story, saying it was full of "inaccurate and misleading quotes," and gone on television to correct the record. Frankly, I don't expect them to make the corrections. not do I expect the Washington Post or the various other newspapers, websites and blogs to do the right thing. You're going to hear that the autopsy proves Michael Brown was going for Darren Wilson's gun and that he didn't have his hands up. But at least you'll know where the misinformation came from and where you can find the correction."

Which goes to show that you don't need to be lacking a masthead nor a byline in order to commit internet douchebaggery.


more fun
http://www.examiner.com/article/video-ferguson-protesters-attack-young-whit e-man-who-wants-to-go-home
How much longer before this really explodes?


How much longer?


Anyway,

Back up, back up
We want freedom, freedom
These racist-ass cops,
We don't need 'em, need 'em

I was pleasantly surprised to find that one of the other chants ended "We have nothing to lose but our chains!"

Vive le Galt!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:

Video: Ferguson protesters attack young white man who wants to go home

Well, first let me say that it is very bad for protesters to attack random passers-by, "white boy cocoa face"d or otherwise, and should be properly denounced.

Interestingly, though, if you watch the end (around 3:45) of the second video through the links, a videographer asks a white motorist what happened and he replies [paraphrase] "That guy got out of his car and told them to get the f%*~ out of the street and was looking for a fight."

The beginning of the altercation isn't on the video, alas, but that doesn't seem to jive very well with the Examiner's claims "Apparently nothing says 'justice for Michael Brown' quite like attacking a young white person who simply wants to be left alone to go home."

Of course, the last article I read on examiner.com claimed that Seattle renaming October 13th "Indigenous People's Day" was inciting race hatred against Italians, so I can't say I'm surprised.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
How much longer?

I am afraid it will end up a battlefield before this is over.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ferguson police prepare to violently surpress populace ahead of grand jury decision on prosecution of officer wilson


White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I see nothing wrong with Mr. West's hair.

[Hand on pommel]

You better not.

I like it so much I'm trying to grow hair just like it. Unfortunately the hair on top of my head doesn't cooperate, so I grew out the hair on my chin instead. There's not as much white in it yet, but it's started.


JurgenV wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
How much longer?
I am afraid it will end up a battlefield before this is over.

Oh, you're one of those.


Irontruth wrote:
White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I see nothing wrong with Mr. West's hair.

[Hand on pommel]

You better not.

I like it so much I'm trying to grow hair just like it. Unfortunately the hair on top of my head doesn't cooperate, so I grew out the hair on my chin instead. There's not as much white in it yet, but it's started.

I commend you on your superlative taste in hairstyle fashions.


Found this really interesting.
So, CNN interviews the lawyer of the store that the CNN claims was robbed. But as soon as the lawyer's recount of event (representing the alleged victims of the robbery) begins to differ from the version that CNN is pushing, they immediately just happen to "lose" the connection.

It's almost like if they were trying to prevent what the actual eye-witness and alleged victim saw, to make sure their continuous labeling of Mike Brown as a "thug" and "robber" isn't contradicted.

But that would be bad journalistics ethics and almost like propaganda, so nah, that can't be. CNN has a masthead and byline.


I've seen CNN use this technique before - just after 911. Connections were "lost" with any commentators who didn't spout the received wisdom.


The YouTube video ends, but apparently they restored the connection right after and continued.

There's nothing to see here.


Sorry I have nothing better to offer than Russia Today, comrades, but...

From Ferguson to France, It's Right to Resist!

Only Workers Revolution Will Avenge Remi Fraisse!

Vive le Galt!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Media target with flight ban


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ferguson Waits Uneasily for Grand Jury’s Decision

"...
And Mayor James Knowles III suggested that people steer clear of the area in the evening if protests break out. “By 8, 9 o’clock, nothing good is going to happen out on the streets,” Mr. Knowles said. “When the gremlins come out, you’re just going to get caught in the crossfire.”

Hear that folks? Shoot-a-niggar-gremlin starts at 8 o'clock! YEE HAW!

But that whole "good people stay off the streets, and anyone out there is asking for it" is tired old Miami Model crap.

If the system doesn't even allow a trial, the citizens should defend their rights by any means necessary!

No justice, no peace!

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:

Ferguson Waits Uneasily for Grand Jury’s Decision

"...
And Mayor James Knowles III suggested that people steer clear of the area in the evening if protests break out. “By 8, 9 o’clock, nothing good is going to happen out on the streets,” Mr. Knowles said. “When the gremlins come out, you’re just going to get caught in the crossfire.”

Hear that folks? Shoot-a-niggar-gremlin starts at 8 o'clock! YEE HAW!

But that whole "good people stay off the streets, and anyone out there is asking for it" is tired old Miami Model crap.

If the system doesn't even allow a trial, the citizens should defend their rights by any means necessary!

No justice, no peace!

Ya, because "any means necessary" totally won't end in a blood bath. Sadly, police are prepared for an any means necessary" uprising. Better to go over the mayor's head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No justice, no profit!

Black Friday Boycott -no 'business as usual'

"... The Justice for Michael Brown Leadership Coalition outlined details of the boycott effort, dubbed “No Justice, No Profit,” at a news conference Wednesday at St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Louis.

The boycott will start Thanksgiving Day and last through Sunday, Nov. 30, organizers said, and will take place whether or not a grand jury votes to indict [officer]Darren Wilson..."

As I said, by any means necessary!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Show Me 15

Organize the Unorganized! Finish the Civil War! For Black Liberation through Socialist Revolution!


Number of cigars stolen the day Michael Brown was shot: 0

If you claim any number greater than 0, you are making it up. The store in question has never filed a claim nor made a report of stolen cigars.

Now that you know this, if you repeat that claim, you are purposely lying.

In case you missed it, the attorney for the store issued a statement addressing this 3 months ago.


Irontruth wrote:

Number of cigars stolen the day Michael Brown was shot: 0

If you claim any number greater than 0, you are making it up. The store in question has never filed a claim nor made a report of stolen cigars.

Now that you know this, if you repeat that claim, you are purposely lying.

Actually, no, I don't "know" this. I saw the security tape video that seems to indicate otherwise.

But more importantly, I worked in a gas station that was robbed one night of a box of Swishers. (Why do those always seem to be the thing of choice to take? At least steal some candy bars.) The owner of the store chose to not make a claim or report them stolen. Does that mean it didn't happen?


Fergurg wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Number of cigars stolen the day Michael Brown was shot: 0

If you claim any number greater than 0, you are making it up. The store in question has never filed a claim nor made a report of stolen cigars.

Now that you know this, if you repeat that claim, you are purposely lying.

Actually, no, I don't "know" this. I saw the security tape video that seems to indicate otherwise.

But more importantly, I worked in a gas station that was robbed one night of a box of Swishers. (Why do those always seem to be the thing of choice to take? At least steal some candy bars.) The owner of the store chose to not make a claim or report them stolen. Does that mean it didn't happen?

What proof do you have that the attorney's statement is false?

The store owner claims the cigars were paid for by Michael Brown. Why are you are more credible source of information that the store owner?


Didn't really look through Fergurg's linked website, but I didn't like it. Googled about. Found myself at the same St. Louis Post-Dispatch that was dissed pretty heavily by The Daily Kos (do you italicize names of websites like you do names of newspapers?) above.

Found the following articles, which might be worth reading before we start envisioning race riots, black snipers and the Klan riding to the rescue, like in the precursor to that Hollaback! vid.

1) Organizers hold training for non-violent Ferguson protests, plan 'shutdown' of Clayton

2) St. Louis area police leaders try to separate rhetoric from reality in making preparations


Also found an article from the same rag about the incident Fergurg linked.

Ferguson protest figure says violent elements could derail peaceful message

All I can say for certain is that "Zulu Gaddafi" is an awesome name for the leader of a black nationalist terrorist cell.


Irontruth wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Number of cigars stolen the day Michael Brown was shot: 0

If you claim any number greater than 0, you are making it up. The store in question has never filed a claim nor made a report of stolen cigars.

Now that you know this, if you repeat that claim, you are purposely lying.

Actually, no, I don't "know" this. I saw the security tape video that seems to indicate otherwise.

But more importantly, I worked in a gas station that was robbed one night of a box of Swishers. (Why do those always seem to be the thing of choice to take? At least steal some candy bars.) The owner of the store chose to not make a claim or report them stolen. Does that mean it didn't happen?

What proof do you have that the attorney's statement is false?

The store owner claims the cigars were paid for by Michael Brown. Why are you are more credible source of information that the store owner?

Simply for the edification of those who want to know about video, I Brown's or paid for. All the attorney said was that the 911 call came from a customer and not an employee, they only gave the video to the police after a warrant was issued, and that the store owners did not want to be involved.


Never let the facts get in the way of some good ol' fashioned hate speech, amirite?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Never let the facts get in the way of some good ol' fashioned hate speech, amirite?

People tend to not let facts get in the way of preconceived notions or a loud headline. People who are convinced they are right will often believe or deny whatever is necessary in order to keep the belief.

Let's face facts about notions here: if Michael Brown's ghost was to come back and say that he attacked Officer Wilson because he was bored that day, people would be insisting that Whitey got to him. Likewise, if Wilson was to publicly admit he killed Brown because gunning down a Black man was on his bucket list, there would still be people claiming Wilson was defending himself.

But when the protesters, at least the loudest of them, is employing argumentum ad baculum to attempt to compel the grand jury into giving them the outcome they want ... well, frankly, I have a problem with that. I'm not going to change my mind just because a different violent group of people I don't like want to grandstand on the side that I was already on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

KKK Missouri Chapter Threatens Ferguson Protesters with ‘Lethal Force’

Includes a copy of the leaflet the Klan was distributing.


Paid trolls happen.


Where do I apply?


Ok, now hold on Irontruth.

That is brown in the convenience store video isn't it?

He asks for cigars, apparently either pays for some or just leans on the counter for a while, the clerk gets in his face, he shoves the clerk. I can see NO reason why the clerk would be getting angry at someone 3 times his size if he wasn't stealing them. That the store didn't report the theft does not mean that a theft didn't occur: stores don't report things all the time.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I read somewhere (can't remember so take it for what you will) that the owner wouldn't confirm it was Brown in the video

Oh come on. The owner doesn't want to get any flack from this. Thats his primary motivation. I can't find anything to substantiate the idea that it wasn't Brown or that it wasn't the same day. If you can link me in.

Quote:
I do like that Brown wasn't charged or convicted with stealing the cigars but it's fine to call him a thief: but, the police officer, who admits to shooting the kid, is given the benefit of the doubt.

Take a look up thread. I've hardly been supportive of the cop.

Its entirely possible that the theft makes this more of a muddy area than something as crystal clear as completely innocent person gunned down. I'm ok with that. But if you need to change the facts to fit your conclusions you're just making your own argument look bad.

Of course he wasn't charged with the theft. Kind of a moot point. Do we even have provisions for charging the dead with a crime? You're trying to substitute He wasn't charged with for he didn't do it, and thats not genuine.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Ok, now hold on Irontruth.

That is brown in the convenience store video isn't it?

He asks for cigars, apparently either pays for some or just leans on the counter for a while, the clerk gets in his face, he shoves the clerk. I can see NO reason why the clerk would be getting angry at someone 3 times his size if he wasn't stealing them. That the store didn't report the theft does not mean that a theft didn't occur: stores don't report things all the time.

Here's the series of events:

1) Michael Brown is in the store
2) There's some sort of altercation with a clerk
3) Michael Brown is shot by a police officer
4) Later on, the police show up and ask to see the footage from their CCTV
5) A couple days AFTER that, the police come back with a warrant and take possession of the hard drives that store the footage
6) The store hires an attorney to make a public statement that nothing was stolen

If the cigars were stolen, the store had ample time to both make that determination and opportunity to speak up that it happened. Just because SOMETIMES stores don't report minor thefts does not automatically mean that MICHAEL BROWN stole something.

Alternate theories for the shoving:

1) the clerk was mad that Mr. Brown had leaned over the counter and grabbed the cigars (which were paid for).
2) Mr. Brown said something mean about the clerk's mother
3) the clerk is a meth head who gets angry at people randomly
4) Mr. Brown challenged him to a shoving match

All of those theories are equally as defensible using ONLY the video tape.

Let's continue examining the possibility of theft.

You're a clerk. Someone steals something from the store. You get mad about it, but after a few minutes you forget about it. This kind of thing happens all the time.

A couple hours later though, a police officer comes in and specifically wants to view your surveillance video. He says "I want to see the tape between X:XX and X:XX".

Wouldn't that be an amazingly opportune moment, as you're showing the video to the officer to speak up and say "By the way, right here, that guy is stealing something."

No such report to the police was ever made by the store or any employee of the store.

Seriously, the police show up with a photo of a guy and say "have you seen this man?"

You think the clerk isn't going to go "Yeah, that's the a~$~*!@ who stole a box of cigars"?

Here's the real kicker though. The store didn't just not report the theft... they DENY that the theft took place. Do you have evidence that they are lying?


Irontruth wrote:


6) The store hires an attorney to make a public statement that nothing was stolen

You keep saying that, but the attorney didn't say that in the video you linked. Is there another video you meant to link?

901 to 950 of 1,037 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trouble in Fergietown! All Messageboards