I give you this. There is only one sentence that is the correct response to that: WHAT THE FUCK IN THE FUCKING FUCK?
It's another crazy militia thing. When Republicans get elected, the other side's crazies talk of moving to more liberal countries. When Democrats get elected, the other side's crazies talk about how they need to bunker up with weapons to prevent the jack booted thugs from turning this into a dictactorship or whatever they're terrified of. Militia groups, woo! edit: Just to be clear, I compared the two sides entirely on the basis that "let's leave the country" is FAR saner than "FORTIFY THE HOUSE WE NEED MORE GUNS TO SHOOT THE COPS!"
From their screed: So the three percenters are actually .96% of the population if that's accurate (spoiler alert: it is not). Also, if you scroll down to last month's updates, there's a post about how cool The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is. These guys are geniuses!
Can someone give a quick sum-up for those of us who don't want to put themselves on an FBI watchlist can't log in to Facebook from here?
It is no coincidence that the allied forces had a weather control device in Red Alert 2. What color are the allies in that game? Blue!
It would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that crazy, terrified, or psychotic whites were out on the streets and patrolling some neighborhoods and bridges during Katrina, actually shooting at black folks they saw trying to cross through their 'zone', people they suspected of looting, or people whose skin they just didn't like. Several people were shot dead while trying to cross a bridge to get out of town - one man was killed in his own neighborhood, on the assumption that his skin color meant he must not belong there. So far as I know, no one has been arrested for these murders. (Though I'd love to be corrected - I finally got heart sick enough that I had to stop following the stories as more and more atrocious facts rolled in over the months) So that puts something of a damper on the 'hah hah' instinct to laugh at crazy racists with guns, you know?
Those cops murdered people in cold blood. I'm glad that they're paying some price - any price - but if you expect me to take solace in those verdicts, let me direct your attention to what they were actually convicted of. These are police officers who not only opened fire on unarmed civilians, but also pursued those fleeing the scene to shoot one of them in the back - premeditated, cold blooded murder. And then, as if that wasn't obscene enough, they tried to screw the survivor with a charge of attempted murder and a story that he opened fire on the cops. They then fabricated evidence and conspired to conceal what happened - and they were protected by other officers, including Arthur Kaufman, the detective in charge of the investigation, in an attempt to bury the whole thing, and protect these murderous psychopaths, just because they were on the same side of the thin blue line. Kenneth Bowen: 6 counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, 2 counts of using a weapon during commission of a crime of violence, 1 count of conspiracy, 2 counts of obstruction of justice, and 1 count of civil rights conspiracy.[4] Robert Faulcon, Jr.: 6 counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, 3 counts of using a weapon during commission of a crime of violence, 1 count of conspiracy, 2 counts of obstruction of justice, and 1 count of civil rights conspiracy.[4] Robert Gisevius, Jr.: 5 counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, 2 counts of using a weapon during commission of a crime of violence, 1 count of conspiracy, 1 count of obstruction of justice, and 2 counts of civil rights conspiracy.[4] Anthony Villavaso II: 5 counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, 2 counts of using a weapon during commission of a crime of violence, 1 count of conspiracy, 1 count of obstruction of justice, and 1 count of civil rights conspiracy.[4] Arthur Kaufman: 4 counts of falsifying official records in a federal investigation, 3 counts of false statements, 2 counts of civil rights conspiracy for false persecution, and 1 count of conspiracy.[4] Now look at what they were convicted of - do you see a single charge of murder there? Of manslaughter? Negligent homicide? No. They were charged with the coverup, and that's what they were convicted for - and only after a massive number of plea bargains were dealt out to people involved, to get their testimony. They did not, and never will, pay for the murders they committed. Does that really feel like justice to you? To me, it feels pretty damned bad, and flat out terrifying in terms of what it implies about the ability of cops to literally get away with murder.
I dunno. "Using a weapon during commission of a crime of violence" sounds like being convicted of a crime of, well, violence. Also, 38 years in prison is 38 years in prison. We asked them to keep the peace, they did a horrible job of it, and are now paying the price. If you don't want cops to shoot people, you shouldn't give cops guns. Otherwise, they're going to fuck up now and again, and we have to put them in jail when they do.
Considering they're cops and how deferential we are there you should be glad they even indicted them. That they got serious convictions is an amazing turn of events.
I don't want cops to gun down unarmed civilians, no. I also don't want cops to jump in an unmarked car, chase down the fleeing victims, and shotgun a fleeing developmentally disabled man in the back in an attempt to murder the remaining witnesses. I think that's a pretty damned low bar to set for our police forces.
I'd say that move is to continue to ignore them publically and monitor them quietly. Which is... not actually a move. Want to change the status quo? Your move, Mr. Nutjob. Hopefully their move is more posturing and not more Oklahoma Cities.
I want to see... er... was it Shift.. or... Elyscape.. who did the Bible retelling? I want to see that for the US War of Independence. I don't know it well. And I want to hear more about these revolting wankers.
That was me. I don't know enough about the US Revolutionary War to be able to do that, but I will be expanding my retelling of the Bible sometime vaguely soon.
I've always thought the American revolution somewhat over-rated. Did Canada/ NZ/ Bahamas turn out so bad for going the evolutionary, not revolutionary route? (I draw a veil over Australia, let's just forget about that one OK?) Plus slavery would have been abolished in the US a generation earlier. True, that might have triggered a rebellion in some colonies, but it went relatively smoothly in the Caribbean colonies, which were just, if not more, reliant on slavery.
I mean, I'm an American who'd rather be a Canadian (I'm not trying to flee conservatives, I just like Canada) but the good ol' USA has quite a bit more sway than Can/Aus/Bah. I mean for crissakes the Bahamanian currency is the Bahamanian dollar, which equals 1 US dollar but the exchange is one way. ie I buy something in the Bahamas with US cash -- the change comes back in Bahamas cash that can only be used in the Bahamas. Ok, good on them for making the most of rich/stupid/GOODLOOKING Americans, but having power over spring break money for rich Americans is a power I'd do without.
I think it would have had the greatest effect in making the western expansion more conservative, perhaps changing the Louisiana Purchase and Manifest Destiny never really becoming a thing, and then they would never have come to rescue Europe during WW1 and we'd all be living under the iron fist of Hitler III!!! Also no Quebec.
Quebec was 1759... Dunno,the UK would have taken Louisiana in the Nap wars, and the West Coast. Good chance though that Mexico keeps much of the South West. Canada seemed to expand West just fine...
My bad, and indeed I fucked up the way the Acadians moved (I thought a significant population moved from down in Louisiana to Quebec, rather than the other way around. I wouldn't be that surprised if our counter-factual would have ended up with a Republic of Texas, an expanded Mexico and/or a Republic of California.
If the US was still a dominion / member of the commonwealth circa 1914 they would have been there on day one of WWI, same as Canada, Australia, South Africa et al. Are you trying to imply that the British Empire would have been inefficient in the shooting, pillaging and conquering of brown people circa mid 1800's?? Because well, NUH UH see also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India Victorian era British would have jumped at the chance to get in a war with the Mexicans, due to being absolute stone cold killers.
