Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

Yeah, sure. I still think that denying a gun permit based on race is bad.

I still don't agree with Justice Taney and won't denounce black people just because they want to own guns. I'm willing to listen to ones like Mosteller, who actually think he should be able to do things a white guy can do. I introduced you to him because I think you should listen respectfully to what he has to say. I know, I know, it's a cheeky idea to say that a white man should listen to a black or that whites don't know what's best for blacks.

Maybe Cheeky Tom will be my next name.

Quote

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, sure. I still think that denying a gun permit based on race is bad.

I still don't agree with Justice Taney and won't denounce black people just because they want to own guns. I'm willing to listen to ones like Mosteller, who actually think he should be able to do things a white guy can do. I introduced you to him because I think you should listen respectfully to what he has to say. I know, I know, it's a cheeky idea to say that a white man should listen to a black or that whites don't know what's best for blacks.

Maybe Cheeky Tom will be my next name.

 

Welcome back to your racebaiter thread, Tom. 

I think I see TR's Greatest Hits of Racebaiting all lined up in a row in your post. My thoughts are deeper, non-petty reflections at the moment. Thanks but no thanks Tom. Yer an idiot to challenge any ghetto street worker with trailer park spew etc.. But I digress.

THE RACE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT GUNS. REPEAT NOT.  Your Bannonspin  move on MLK's church is not about guns, either. What was all that about? Why would you presume to impose your views on MLK's church? Are you religious or spiritual yourself? Are you not peddling gun values and gun behavior here, actual activity... not "rights".?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you degenerate decent conversation to such silly matters. Seriously Tom, you have very nuanced, articulate understandings in other areas. What's up with this trailer park intellectual slop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the denial of MLK's permit absolutely was about race and guns, whether you will admit it or not. It was a gun permit denied because of his race (and probably his politics too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did our fine, post-Charleston awareness get dragged to the gun subject? And why?

The question was MOSTELLER: why did you drag  MLK's peaceful church through Larry Pratt's violent mud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

How did our fine, post-Charleston awareness get dragged to the gun subject? And why? The question was MOSTELLER: why did you drag  MLK's peaceful church through Larry Pratt's violent mud?

When I caused Mr. Mosteller to say the things he did, I was just in a bad mood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were peddling gun mayhem, as usual. And throwing racial innuendo all about, as usual. Using MLK as a stage prop, mate.

Did you read your link, maybe see the damn photo? How did you come to announce the entire church was trending to LaPierre, when Mostelleer attended his own publicized sacking?

 

Are you a FL redneck? Were you huffing the swamp gas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still asking. Hmmm, I asked the Mosteller question to Tom on the deleted Charleston thread. 

1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, sure. I still think that denying a gun permit based on race is bad.

I still don't agree with Justice Taney and won't denounce black people just because they want to own guns. I'm willing to listen to ones like Mosteller, who actually think he should be able to do things a white guy can do. I introduced you to him because I think you should listen respectfully to what he has to say. I know, I know, it's a cheeky idea to say that a white man should listen to a black or that whites don't know what's best for blacks.

Maybe Cheeky Tom will be my next name.

 

Pooplius, why didn't you post such racebaiter content  ^^^ the day after Charleston? Why did you take a break for eleven days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Why did you take a break for eleven days?

You might want to ask that question in a thread in which I did not post during that period of time. That's not this one. Post 631 and following.

FYI, It's not this one or this one or this one either. You're going to have to find a thread in which I did not post to claim I was not posting. But If you do, I'm likely to link to those posts showing you're just lying about me again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You might want to ask that question in a thread in which I did not post during that period of time. That's not this one. Post 631 and following.

FYI, It's not this one or this one or this one either. You're going to have to find a thread in which I did not post to claim I was not posting. But If you do, I'm likely to link to those posts showing you're just lying about me again.

This thread contains pages of extended race-baiting. You were being a dick. Man-to-man, I had to ask you to knock it off 28 days before Dylann.

Quote

Jocal 505 Posted May 17, 2015  Post 473 This Non-Violent Stuff

Let's see if this works:

Tom, from one gentleman to another, I would like to ask you to stop race-baiting me. And others.

 

Do your links, above contain racebaiting after Dylann Rooff's actions? For ten days after Dylann Rooff's actions, your links do not. contain race-baiting  But by June 25th you were back at it on other threads. You were back with it here within thirty days, post 662, with lowbrow race-baiter content.. 

Quote

 

  On 7/14/2015 at 8:21 AM, Tom Ray said: NOTE; THIRTY DAYS AFTER DYLANN AND GLOCK

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

Guess I heard wrong. I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

So what's the deal with this Tom?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You might want to ask that question in a thread in which I did not post during that period of time. That's not this one. Post 631 and following.

FYI, It's not this one or this one or this one either. You're going to have to find a thread in which I did not post to claim I was not posting. But If you do, I'm likely to link to those posts showing you're just lying about me again.

This thread contains pages of extended race-baiting. You were being a dick. Man-to-man, I had to ask you to knock it off 30 days before Dylann.

Quote

Jocal 505 Posted May 17, 2015  Post 473 This Non-Violent Stuff

Let's see if this works:

Tom, from one gentleman to another, I would like to ask you to stop race-baiting me. And others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was mistaken about eleven days free of TR race-baiting, so I apologize here and now. It was only a few days. How about a little timeline Tom.

Quote

FOLLOW THE LIBERTARIAN UNICORN AFTER DYLANN ROOF LEAVES THE ROOM fifty cents

Note: Guns are the straw man here.This focus itself, the TR gun platform, is bogus.  Inherently, race relations are not a gun conflict Whatever part guns may play (or not play) is a footnote. Any gunplay is an effect, not a cause of misunderstanding, or a solution for misunderstanding.

 

BACKGROUND In May of 2015, racial innuendo had been introduced by Tom through several pages of Tom's Bloomberg thread. Tom rallied non-racists to denounce Bloomey. Non-denouncers like me became racists... except I had denouncded Bloomey for stop-and-frisk, and Tom had even quoted me doing so. Due process by innuendo, based on a lie. This thread also featured mindless and repetitious racebaiting.

Quote

THE HUBRIS OF TR; I'm suggesting they drop their support if they are not racists. I'm suggesting that to you.

This Non-Violent Stuff thread:

Post 602  June 11,  six days before Dylann  Roof's actions: Tom's Judge Taney Code Words

June 17 Dylan Roof's Armed attack on Charleston Church members

Post 631 June 18 Tom pulls Joe's frustrated and roaming post-Mosteller questions to this thread. These questions had been asked twice here, on Tom's racebaiter thread, as he tossed racial zingers all about.

Post 632 Joe cites and re-posts one of his two Mosteller requests on Tom's thread

Post 637, Joe asks about Mosteller again, 3 days AFTER Charleston.

Post 638, Six days after Dylann, Tom gets cheeky with MLK AND Bloomberg again. No increased understanding after Dylann. No learning curve on certain subjects.

641 Next, a link from Tom, to a WA Times article on a pro-gun black minister. Think Sun Myung Moon here.

642 June 23 After six days. Tom still can't converse on the Charleston issue as a non-gun issue. He's just talking guns.

Tom Ray Posted 23 June 2015 - 09:10 AM

Yes, armed black people have always been alarming to racists and fear of those people by racists has been at the root of many of our gun control laws.

 

That doesn't mean I think the racists are right to fear allowing black people to exercise their second amendment rights, nor does it mean that I think historic racist gun control laws were right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When can we get back to discussing Rev. Mosteller and your allegations about MLK's Church?  It was poor timing the day after the Charleston shooting, eh? Why couldn't you deal with your Mosteller bit on the CHarleston thread?

Quote

Tom Ray Posted June 18, 2015 (The day following Dylann cum Glock)

If you have questions about my posts in this thread (Sol's deleted Charleston thread, that is), find the posts, hit the "reply" button, and ask them here. (meaning the second of two racebaiter threads, see the Bloomberg thread activity)

On 6/19/2015 at 8:43 PM, jocal505 said:

You sound upset. Are you feeling a need to segregate your dumbassery thread-by-thread this week?

 I did ask the "Why Rev. Mosteller?" question here. See post 198.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

 

When can we get back to discussing Rev. Mosteller and your allegations about MLK's Church?  ...

 

I'm not sure which allegations you're talking about.

I'd say we can do it if you can go 24 hours without repeating your lies about me "race baiting" (since that's what you call opposition to govt racial discrimination) and fleeing the forum for six... or a few... or one day.

We're currently up to 11 hours since you repeated your lies. 13 to go. I doubt you'll make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 5:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You might want to ask that question in a thread in which I did not post during that period of time. That's not this one. Post 631 and following.

FYI, It's not this one or this one or this one either. You're going to have to find a thread in which I did not post to claim I was not posting. But If you do, I'm likely to link to those posts showing you're just lying about me again.

Okay, I stand corrected. Thanks for showing us childish race-baiting, using Bloomberg and MLK, right after the stupidity of Dylann and his Glock. You had used the same content on your Bloomberg thread AND your racebaiter thread in May, the month before Dylann and his Glock.

So...your links show pages of extended race-baiting. You were being a dick.  Man-to-man, I had to ask you to knock it off 28 days before Dylann. You were being cheeky and shallow with Judge Taney June 11, the week before Dylann. You need to advance your dialogue about race relations around here mate.

Quote

Jocal 505 Posted May 17, 2015  Post 473 This Non-Violent Stuff

Let's see if this works:

Tom, from one gentleman to another, I would like to ask you to stop race-baiting me. And others.

 

Quote

LET'S CHASE DYLAN ROOF ON OUR LIBERTARIAN UNICORN

Note: inherently, race relations are not a gun conflict

 

Tom Ray six days before Dylann  Roof's actions: The Judge Taney Gag

Post 631 June 18 Tom says post Mosteller questions here. These questions had been asked twice on Tom's racebaiter thread.

Post 632 Joe cites and re-posts one of his two Mosteller requests on Tom's thread

Post 637, Joe asks about Mosteller 3 days AFTER Charleston

Post 638, six days after Dylann, Tom trots out MLK and Bloomberg again

641Next, a link to a WA Times article on a pro-gun black minister

642 June 23 Tom goes full race-baiter, arm the Black Panthers

Tom Ray Posted 23 June 2015 - 09:10 AM

Yes, armed black people have always been alarming to racists and fear of those people by racists has been at the root of many of our gun control laws.

I am here to dissect any "lies." And you have been lured into a discussion of the nature of race-baiting. You have a track record mate.

The point is that you wouldn't discuss Mosteller the day after Dylann. And that you won't now. 

You name-dropped Mosteller for your own purposes, not his. You made noises that MLK's church had gone to guns. You besmirched MLK's noble mission for purposes of lowbrow entertainment. After Charleston, you had to contain your race-baiting, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeated accusations are not a discussion.

A discussion would start if you answered this:

Explain to me why opposing government racial discrimination is "race baiting" to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Repeated accusations are not a discussion.

A discussion would start if you answered this:

Explain to me why opposing government racial discrimination is "race baiting" to you.

No bite-ee on your talking point. The discussion is years in the making: the trashing of Mosteller and the definition  of race-baiting mate. Not guns.

This is the lead-up to Dylann Roof, eh?  The profound Judge Taney content was repeated in Post 602, June 11, days before the shooting.

Quote

Tom Ray, on 25 Mar 2015 - 1:44 PM, said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

Quote

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 “Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

Quote

The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

This doesn't quite fit with what jocal is trying to explain to me.

Interesting that jocal is more connected to MLK's legacy than the head of the GA chaper of King's SCLC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't want any hurt feelings or needless shame here. So here's the way I see it.

Post 632 was not race-baiting, IMO. It was an avoidance of Mosteller on two threads. 

Post 638, on June 23, repeats the tired, childish MLK and Bloomberg bits, here we employ race-baiting IMO.

IMO to say the race-baiting had a six-day reprieve is not a lie. I can live with that statement at this point. Let me know your insights, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2017 at 3:32 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Repeated accusations are not a discussion.

A discussion would start if you answered this:

Explain to me why opposing government racial discrimination is "race baiting" to you.

Hello, Tom? Are you out there? Or out with a whimper?

Your grandchildren will find a few years of race-baiting on the Tom Ray thread. A quant feature of your presence on Political Anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After years of tawdry race-baiting, visible to your progeny, you frame this question dishonestly for the second time.

YOU ARE NOT OPPOSING "GOVERNMENT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION" as you propose "shall issue"  by using MLK. Actually, you are promoting personal discrimination  when you fail to discuss Rev. Mosteller and MLK's Church after maligning them.

You are promoting personal discrimination when you make cheap, shameful claims using  MLK as a code word. This condition must be swamp gas residue built up in your cellular makeup or something.

You are thick, mate. No personal growth here, on PA, which is a sea of fine minds and rare life experiences. Two years ago on this very thread you got called out for a flat racial dimension in Posts 45, 78, and here...

Quote

Mark K Posted March 26, 2015

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening.

 

If I don't support shall issue, I am supporting racist policy. If I admire Bloomberg, I am admiring a racist. If I don't want Ms. Mason to pack two guns while being romanced, by proclamation of  innuendo, I support a "rapist ", who didn't rape her. Yer a piece of work, Pooplius.

McCarthy, racial policy.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, we had to take it here from elsewhere. From Sol's Charleston thread. Something made that place special and unforgettable.

We're not gonna get a room, mate? Geez, you called me a liar and I corrected my position to my best understanding, right away as usual. Let's not get locked in bitter disagreement here, I am flexible and moderate in nature.

To review, your position while seeking correction (my cite ever-available of course), you say you didn't let up on race-baiting after Dylan, that I lied saying around ten or eleven days were free of race-baiting. We took a look  your clever clue was to look-see at TR posts  after Post 631. Brilliant. We corrected the facts to six days free of race-baiting, but we need your response and confirmation of this figure. I'm not much of a liar; so I grovel now for your opinion on this. Which is race-baiting? Which isn"t?  

You transfered my request for Mosteller conversation from Sol's thread, out of respect for the Charleston victims. Nice touch, but  that transfer is not race-baiting, unless you recognize that Mosteller was radioactive because of Dylann. If TR even touches Mosteller to transfer it, is that race-baiting?

Introducing Mosteller was cheeky, PROBABLY would qualify as race-baiting,. Combining it with the Black Panthers? Deep doo doo, grounds for shame. Adding Judge Taney in the same post? This is mindless or worse, it's race-baiting on PA.

Dylann Roof, Rush Limbaugh, and NGS would be validated by these antics.

Please get back to us on your definition of race-baiting, and on when it's appropriate, and when  it's not. Your definition will drive whether I'm a liar or not, so let's proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Explain to me why opposing government racial discrimination is "race baiting" to you.

The straw man here is that I oppose "government racial discrimination," or that it even exists.  Am I within the bounds of honesty to pick a six-day race-baiter hiatus for Tom Ray after the Charleston shootings? Can I honestly suggest that Dylann would have liked your blogging? Your Libertarian bit is perfect for his elk, innit?

After two months of unprompted race-baiting on two threads, why did you give it up for the six days after Dylann? Then, why did you continue this offensive bit? Do you presently feel that Bloomberg supporters are racists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The straw man here is that I oppose "government racial discrimination," or that it even exists.  Am I within the bounds of honesty to pick a six-day race-baiter hiatus for Tom Ray after the Charleston shootings? Can I honestly suggest that Dylann would have liked your blogging? Your Libertarian bit is perfect for his elk, innit?

After two months of unprompted race-baiting on two threads, why did you give it up for the six days after Dylann? Then, why did you continue this offensive bit? Do you presently feel that Bloomberg supporters are racists?

What's the Black Lives Matter movement about, Joe?

Government racial discrimination doesn't need "scare quotes" because it did exist when MLK's permit was denied and does exist today.

I seriously doubt Dylann would like my stance that Otis McDonald was part of "the people" and had a right to own a gun. (Just FYI, he was a black man who was NOT Jack Miller).

I think he would like your comment about how blacks are immature and volatile a lot more, as I said.

I have never said Bloomberg supporters were racist. I think stop and frisk is and supporters of that gun/drug control tactic are supporting a policy with racist effects, whether or not that's their intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

What's the Black Lives Matter movement about, Joe? BLM seeks to bring introspection to the Tom Ray types 

Government racial discrimination doesn't need "scare quotes" because it did exist when MLK's permit was denied and does exist today. Your sweeping term needs a few cites.

I seriously doubt Dylann would like my stance that Otis McDonald was part of "the people" and had a right to own a gun. (Just FYI, he was a black man who was NOT Jack Miller).

I think he would like your comment about how blacks are immature and volatile a lot more, as I said.

I have never said Bloomberg supporters were racist. WELCOME TO MCCARTHYVILLE, INNUENDO CITY, "The fact that you support racist policy is for you to explain."  I think stop and frisk is and supporters of that gun/drug control tactic are supporting a policy with racist effects, whether or not that's their intent

 

You've toned it down somewhat, thanks. We both support an entire country which sports "racist effects." The idea is to reach equality somehow,  regardless.

 I spoke against Bloomberg's stop and frisk, but your broad brush painted me whatever way you chose anyway. Ergo, you generate race-baiting in our community and can't discuss a solution here. You quoted my specific criticism of Bloomie's frisking in this quote, below, then you bashed me for not speaking out. You have no honor, you just bash about, like a wounded noisy predator...

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These homicide activity totals need an intelligent look. You have quoted me quoting them, below. Let's discuss this. If you post another flip denunciation of white gun ownership conclusions, that becomes more flat, rubber-stamp race-baiting, not intelligent TR discourse.

Some combination of factors has amplified the negative outcomes of gun activity among blacks, eh? Gunplay is not mature, whether the shooters are green or purple.

Quote

I don't have the answer here, of course. (I just resent any flat baseline of race-baiting directed at myself or others in our cool community. Can you do better, Tom?)

Quote
...

(Joe here:) The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

Are you saying that guns are a race equalizer? That "shall carry" is an anti-racism mechanism or champion?

State your distortion, whatever it is, clearly for us.

 

But the fact is that guns have devastated the black communities. Guns aren't working out there. Got it?

Enough already. STFU about how guns will protect the non-violent, MLK, or blacks.

  Quote

 

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

 

P11

Trends by race

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991 (figure 17).

After 1991, the victimization rate for blacks fell until 1999, when it stabilized near 20 homicides per 100,000.

In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 off enders per 100,000) (figure 18).

The offending rate for blacks showed a similar pattern to the victimization rate, peaking in the early 1990s at a high of 51.1 offenders per 100,000 in 1991.

After 1991, the offending rate for blacks declined until it reached 24 per 100,000 in 2004. The rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 offenders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 offenders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

 

Your intentions may be noble in a naughty, uninformed, unicornish way...but adding guns to the mix shown above (^^^) is a poor idea in the real world. I look forward to the response of a fine family patriarch. Your grand-kids and Dylann Roof will examine, and may follow, your thought process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

What's the Black Lives Matter movement about, Joe?

Government racial discrimination doesn't need "scare quotes" because it did exist when MLK's permit was denied and does exist today.

I seriously doubt Dylann would like my stance that Otis McDonald was part of "the people" and had a right to own a gun. (Just FYI, he was a black man who was NOT Jack Miller).

I think he would like your comment about how blacks are immature and volatile a lot more, as I said.

I have never said Bloomberg supporters were racist. I think stop and frisk is and supporters of that gun/drug control tactic are supporting a policy with racist effects, whether or not that's their intent.

First and foremost, Mr. Dylann Roof was about poorly developed racial insight. He reinforced his shaky, but willful misunderstanding quite willfully, using a Glock tool.

You tricky bastard, you offer double cherry picking here. You present the wonderfulI pro-KKK and pro-MacDonald stances of ALEC, and incidentally of the ACLU, to suggest Dylann would reject you. You present my statement summarizing the actual black gun bloodbath to suggest that Dylann would love my bit. Neither position is very honest.  Neither considers the whole cloth of Tom, Dylann, or Joe. Let's continue, let's track us a rat bastard through the Florida swamp gas...

The whole cloth of Tom Ray is about Don't Tread on Me, and Dylann flew that very flag. Picking up a gun to enforce one's personal values and politics is your bit, Tom, not mine, and Dylann emulated that. Intentionally not understanding the black situation is your bit and Dylann's bit, not mine. Yo, I went to the inner cities (unarmed) to see for myself what was up, and I found fine folks there, all over the place. Some carried several bullet holes and were truckin' on with obvious internal fortitude. 

Sorry. Your forum activity makes you a worm compared to them. Your move, mate. Will you offer us poorly developed racial insight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, where is our daily dose of poorly developed racial insight? By YOUR tally, how many days did you set aside the racebaiting after Dylann  Roof's racist behavior? We want to get this right for future reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2017 at 2:24 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I seriously doubt Dylann would like my stance that Otis McDonald was part of "the people" and had a right to own a gun. (Just FYI, he was a black man who was NOT Jack Miller).

 

My inadvertent mistake was corrected.  You can't let it go, and you are challenged for forum content, so you repeat it a dozen times. By not moving forward, you openly broadcast what a petty little man you are.

How about some corrections on a series of outright lies which were intentional?

fingersinearsgunresearchbandoesntexist_zps3a10018b.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2015 at 3:48 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Uh oh.

Second amendment solutions.

This Week on the New Black Panther Party’s “Black Power Radio,” national chairman Hashim Nzinga said since America has “declared war on us,” evidenced by “military police in the black neighborhood” protecting the rich, the New Black Panthers should be looked upon as Founding Fathers who declare war and are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.”

 

This was part of TR's racial content the month before Dylann Roof appeared, with his Glock. This race-baiting gem came from Brietbart. Tom says that any race-baiting before Dylann is inconsequential, but this discussion is incomplete.

We need to decide how many days were free of TR race-baiting after Dylann, and why they happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom got snarky one day, three years ago, and started this thread. Events have transpired, such as Trayvon Martin, BLM, Dylann  Roof, and Trump et al. and he's not man enough to discuss the OP's situation with me. on his own thread. 

Why did the SNCC staff need guns in the sixties? Why did MLK feel a need to keep them then? Why would a GLock desecrate the basement of Rev. Pickney's church? Why would Rev. Mosteller (of MLK's church) mention the Second Amendment n a Tuesday sermon in Georgia?

Because of the guys in the cheap seats, the guys Tom seeks to validate with his combo of quasi-gun legalese and race-baiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legion, you are a clever guy, obviously. How many days of race-baiting on our forums were averted by Dylann Roof, and his Glock?

Baby steps are what we have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Your link is the Libertarian publication Reason.com. Nice. We are out there fighting racist roadblocks, and protecting blacks from the Koch Brother$.

Yes, I know the link I used. You should click it. You won't find much there to support your narrative but there's some chance you'll learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learn what I can, and benefit from your elk, to a point. Others need protection from the shortcomings of your elk.

Quote

Why did the SNCC staff need guns in the sixties? Why did MLK feel a need to keep them then? Why would a Glock desecrate the basement of Rev. Pickney's church? Why would Rev. Mosteller (of MLK's church) mention the Second Amendment n a Tuesday sermon in Georgia?

Because of the guys in the cheap seats, the guys Tom seeks to validate with his combo of quasi-gun legalese and race-baiting.

Larry Pratt is a speaker at white supremacist rallies, eh?. He is the validation behind many militias, too. Do you think he's a race-baiter like yourself? Would Dylann Roof appreciate Larry Pratt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd Amendment vs Jim Crow Racists
 

Quote

 

"I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms," declared John R. Salter Jr., the civil rights leader who helped to organize the famous sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. "Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine," Salter recalled. "The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay."

Salter knew perfectly well many state and local officials were either indifferent to his well-being or were themselves affiliated with the domestic terror groups that wanted to harm him. By exercising his Second Amendment rights, Salter was able to safeguard his life and liberty in face of government malfeasance and criminality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good. Another wafer-thin racial discussion from Tom.  Tom and his friends have risen above Judge Taney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

There are about six key lawyers who write lawyered-up history for CATO. Two of them (Don Kates and Stephen Halbrook) write frequently, but curiously in a flat monotone, about the guns used by black civil rights workers.  Similar associations with gun uses have been manipulated into the presentation of the fourteenth amendment in MacDonald.  On its face, these facts mean little, since guns have worked against blacks in the past, and are contributing to their fratricide presently. 

But these guys sure like to work the angle...

Quote

2015, Stephen Halbrook's Peruta brief:  a thin, incomplete, and vacuous racial understanding

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2015/05/05/10-56971 4-30 Amicus Congress.pdf

II. The Fourteenth Amendment Was Passed To Protect Fundamental Rights, Including the Rights of Freedmen To Keep And Bear Arms..8

A. The Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment Is Replete With Concerns Raised About the Denial of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms of the Freedmen……………………………………………………….8

B. A New View of the Constitution: Federal Protection from State Infringements of Fundamental Rights………………………………11

III. California’s Gun Control History Evidences Attempts to Disarm Minorities………………………………………………………………….15

A. California Gun Control Aimed at Persons of Mexican Heritage……..15

B. California Gun Control Aimed at Asian-Americans…………………20

C. California Gun Control Aimed at African-Americans……………….24

D. Current Gun Control Efforts Are a Legacy of Racism………………25

E. The Concealed Carry Statute Violates Equal Protection……………..28

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2015 at 10:45 AM, jocal505 said:

Because I fear arming good black people, and I fear arming destructive black people.

I have concerns about arming decent white people, and evil white people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 10:24 AM, jocal505 said:
  On 6/23/2015 at 1:45 PM, jocal505 said:

Because I fear arming good black people, and I fear arming destructive black people.

I have concerns about arming decent white people, and evil white people.

And yet you own at least one firearm. You seem to be unable to actually follow your convictions. Why is that?

Looking forward to your next exercise in handwaving, Joe. And wondering why you would bother quoting yourself from over 2 years ago.

Well, other then the racial angle. You "fear" one, but only have "concerns" about the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Hi Tom. Is this the thread to discuss and collect all the current TR race-baiting? Or should I start a new thread? Or both?

I assume by "race baiting" you continue to mean objecting to government racial discrimination?

If so, that's not what normal people mean by race-baiting but this is the thread for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I assume by "race baiting" you continue to mean objecting to government racial discrimination?

If so, that's not what normal people mean by race-baiting but this is the thread for it.

(NOTE TO ANARCHISTS; Tom's deceit had transferred this comment from the Tom Ray Thread, where the internet will collect and document his repeated race-baiting)

You've made racial insinuations about one of my quotes twenty times, over two full years. Yet you know I was a social worker in inner cities and that I was a very happy property owner in Jimi's mixed hood for 33 years. You use this racebaiter playlist tactic pretty regularly to display a racial understanding one click better than Dredd Scott's boy, Judge Taney.

 

Here's your most developed policy logic on race: certain policies (stop and frisk, "may issue") have been used racially, therefore they are inherently unsound and without benefit. This is a logical fail.

But let's play it anyway,  like this...

  • Guns  and gun policy have been used to subjugate minorities.  In fact, the white racist Second Amendment was the very tool for the  militia to subjugate the slaves.
  • The NRA itself is a hateful, Old Fat White Guy, racist snake pit, a fine haven for Nugent's antics.

Therefore they are inherently unsound, regardless of other benefits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 3:44 PM, bpm57 said:

And wondering why you would bother quoting yourself from over 2 years ago.

Because Tom tossed in the first part of this quote, and edited out the second. Race baiting on some other thread.

Quote
 On 6/23/2015 at 10:45 AM, jocal505 said:

Because I fear arming good black people, and I fear arming destructive black people.

I have concerns about arming decent white people, and evil white people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2017 at 12:06 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Explain to me why opposing government racial discrimination is "race baiting" to you.

It isn't. Your crusade for stop and frisk and against may issue is a cheap, dimestore gag. The "opposition" is unworthy of you Tom.

What you are doing is levering race into guns, and guns into racial strife, without dealing with the causes of the problem.

Your thing about "opposing government racial discrimination" is smoke. You might instead develop some personal racial understanding, and allow the conversation to advance someday. 

How does it feel to leave a trail of documented race baiting behind? It must feel pretty satisfying to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't share your personal understanding.

On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't share your personal understanding.

Just not good enough, mate. You are a better man than this. I want your mother proud forever. Gain some balls and read MLK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

What you are doing is levering race into guns, and guns into racial strife, without dealing with the causes of the problem.

 

OMFG!  If this is not THE most ironic thing you’ve ever said here, I don’t know what is. 

YOU of all people bitching about ignoring root causes in favor of focusing on symptoms. 

This is precisely what LenP, AGITC, myself and others continually hammer you about. Gunz are not the causal problem and you are ignoring almost completely the actual root causes of why people murder other people with toolz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

OMFG!  If this is not THE most ironic thing you’ve ever said here, I don’t know what is. 

YOU of all people bitching about ignoring root causes in favor of focusing on symptoms. 

This is precisely what LenP, AGITC, myself and others continually hammer you about. Gunz are not the causal problem and you are ignoring almost completely the actual root causes of why people murder other people with toolz. 

Welcome to the discussion, Jeff. We are discussing not guns, but how MLK's church got besmirched by violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know exactly what the discussion is about and my comment stands.  You are a hypocrite extraordinaire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your concern for hypocrisy is noted. I'll let you know when that becomes significant to myself.

See upthread. The actual discussion here is about Rev. Mosteller. He lived by non-violent ideals and blinked once by mentioning the 2nd A in a Tuesday sermon. He was sacked, publicly...and Pooplius jumped on that shit. Pooplius declared Mosteller new fucking wave of MLK's church:

Quote

Interesting that jocal is more connected to MLK's legacy than the head of the GA chapter of King's SCLC.

 Why does Pooplius want to cast aspersions and moar gunz on MLK's non-violent church?

And why the pattern of both race-baiting AND, again, dragging guns into race relations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2015 at 4:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

Quote
The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

This is an example of violence?

Maybe a GoFundMe to get Joe a dictionary would be in order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

This is an example of violence?

Maybe a GoFundMe to get Joe a dictionary would be in order?

Did you not select the Judge Taney part out of this? This quote is the triple crown of racebaiting, even for you. Give it up, no trailer park discourse, please.

Quote

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

Quote

The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

Did you not clip the Judge Taney part out of this? This quote is the triple crown of racebaiting, even for you:

 

I thought you wanted to talk about MLK's church?

Yes, part of my post was about the Black Panthers. They have a bit of a different history on this matter. Now you want to discuss them instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I thought you wanted to talk about MLK's church?

Yes, part of my post was about the Black Panthers. They have a bit of a different history on this matter. Now you want to discuss them instead?

Let's stay with Mosteller.

Seriously, why would you ever want to shit on MLK? You hit MLK (with racebaiting in the background) from more than just one angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Seriously, why would you ever want to shit on MLK?

I don't think denouncing the racist application of rules to him is shitting on him. I understand why a person like yourself, who thinks that "The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites" would think that denying cops the ability to discriminate against him based on his race would be a bad idea. As I said, I don't share your view of how immature and volatile black people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't think denouncing the racist application of rules to him is shitting on him. I understand why a person like yourself, who thinks that "The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites" would think that denying cops the ability to discriminate against him based on his race would be a bad idea. As I said, I don't share your view of how immature and volatile black people are.

You haven't answered the question. You once proclaimed that Mosteller's isolated mention of the second amendment was the new identity of the SCLC. Does this indicate your best understanding? Or are you imagining? Are you not using Rev. Mosteller and the SCLC for propaganda (with a backdrop of race-baiting)? Show some class, why go there? 

And a follow up. Is this bit not for moar gunz? Because you claimed you don't promote moar guns.

trailer-trash.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing where Tom claimed it was SCLC's new identity, or represented a policy change for the organization.

(while we're at it, I'm also not seeing where Tom confused "Southern Christian Leadership Conference" for "Ebenezer Baptist Church".)

And just for the record  -  having been a social worker & a landlord doesn't prove anything.  Nobody suggested you're an conscious, overt, "hater" type racist.  The suggestion is that you might be an unconscious / implicit,  "patronizing" / "condescending" type racist. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

And just for the record  -  having been a social worker & a landlord doesn't prove anything.  Nobody suggested you're an conscious, overt, "hater" type racist.  The suggestion is that you might be an unconscious / implicit,  "patronizing" / "condescending" type racist. 

Ding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Because I fear arming good black people, and I fear arming destructive black people.

I have concerns about arming decent white people, and evil white people.

I ask again, Joe, why do you "fear" "good black people" but only have "concerns" about "decent white people"?

Not real subtle on the racism, Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I ask again, Joe, why do you "fear" "good black people" but only have "concerns" about "decent white people"?

Not real subtle on the racism, Joe.

Interesting. Tell us more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frenchie said:

I'm not seeing where Tom claimed it was SCLC's new identity, or represented a policy change for the organization.

See Post 855, taken from  http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=2#entry4897339

Quote

And just for the record  -  having been a social worker & a landlord doesn't prove anything. 

I patrolled ghetto streets for five years at night, and fed street people by day. Never got beat up, and never had to run. Which racist can do that?

Not a landlord. A happy resident of the community with a job, raising a daughter and hanging with a wife. I felt no racial angst then or now, buddy. It was choice living in Madrona and doing whatever in the Central District of Seattle. 

Quote

Nobody suggested you're an conscious, overt, "hater" type racist.  The suggestion is that you might be an unconscious / implicit,  "patronizing" / "condescending" type racist. 

Are you Tom Ray's spokesman? Really? Frenchie, we are each that ^^^, and worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

That's a post by you, not him. 

You mean the quote inside that post?  How the fuck does that qualify as "proclaim"ing "that Mosteller's isolated mention of the second amendment was the new identity of the SCLC"?  All he said was he'd take Mosteller's word over yours.  You claiming to be the old identity of the SCLC, or something?

 

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Which racist can do that?

 

Quote

we are each that ^^^, and worse.

You seem to be contradicting yourself... just sayin.

 

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Are you Tom Ray's spokesman

LOL, hell, no.  Not in a million years. 

Like that guy needs a fuckin spokesman...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

All he said was he'd take Mosteller's word over yours.

My,  mr. frenchie.  I've done my best to relate that I feel we are all racists. I quote Wofsey, too, that racism is a garden weed that will need constant maintenance if one wants a decent garden.

Look, let's subtract myself from the equation, by noting Tom's Triple Crown of Racebaiting. I was not around. It wasn't about me when Tom offered this homer:

JOY IN MUDVILLE

  • First Base: the Black Panthers' are coming with their gunz
  • Second Base: MLK's Church is now about second amendment choices, source: Brietbart.
  • Third Base (so skanky it was deleted by Tom yesterday in his own reference to his post): Judge Taney is coming.  A search shows Tom  dangles Taney for us 21 other times.
  • A Racebaiter Home Run: Bloomberg throws blacks, disproportionately, against a wall, with stop and frisk policies.

Let's conclude. I am a racist, to some degree, but get to sit at the head table at local R&B shindigs when not lurking around the stage with the Brown Brothers, Coleman, Frankie, Herman, and Cousin Ron, Jimi's former classmates. I took fucking pictures last time you assholes.

And let's conclude that Tom likes to racebait for some reason, when I am nowhere around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG!  HE TOOK PICTURES!!!!  Well hell, boy - why didn't you say so in the first place? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

OMG!  HE TOOK PICTURES!!!!  Well hell, boy - why didn't you say so in the first place? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!

We can compare the pics to the Friends of the NRA gathering. You can take notes. Baby steps in our evolving racial discourse on PA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Interesting. Tell us more.

What else is there to say, Joe? Your comment speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Constitution Was 'At War With Itself,' Frederick Douglass Fought on the Side of Freedom
 

Quote

 

This month marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of the greatest figures in American history. Frederick Douglass was born into slavery in Talbot County, Maryland, sometime in February 1818. At the age of 20, he made his escape from bondage, traveling north to Philadelphia, New York City, and finally to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where he would earn his "first free dollar" on the dockyards loading ships. "I was now my own master," he proclaimed, "a tremendous fact." In 1839, Douglass spoke up for the first time at an abolitionist meeting. Six years later, he was an internationally acclaimed orator and the author of a celebrated autobiography. In less than a decade, he had established himself as one of the most singular and influential voices in the most pressing debate of his time: the debate over slavery.

Arguing about slavery was a combat sport in those days, both figuratively and literally, and the field was crowded with skilled combatants. Among them was John C. Calhoun, the legendary South Carolina statesman who proclaimed slavery to be a positive good, fully sanctioned by the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. There was also the militant Boston abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who burned his copy of the Constitution, damning it as a pro-slavery "covenant with death and an agreement with hell."

Douglass would face them both down. "Garrison sees in the Constitution precisely what John C. Calhoun sees there," Douglass observed. He saw something different: "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.

At a time when the principles of the Declaration of Independence were under assault, Douglass waved the banner of classical liberalism, championing inalienable rights for all, regardless of race or sex. At a time when socialism was on the rise, Douglass preached the virtues of free labor and self-ownership in a market-based economy. At a time when state governments were violating the rights of the recently emancipated, Douglass professed the central importance of "the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box" in the fight against Jim Crow.

...

The Declaration's claim that "all men are created equal" was "the most dangerous of all political error," Calhoun announced. "For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits." This false notion of equality, he continued, "had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson…which caused him to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South; and to hold, in consequence, that the former, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the latter."

Frederick Douglass had reached a similar view—minus the racism and white supremacy. What is more, Douglass would do precisely what Calhoun feared: weaponize the principles of the Declaration of Independence and unleash them against slavery. "Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body?" Douglass demanded. "There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him."

...

The same principles also made Douglass a lifelong advocate of women's rights, or as he liked to call himself, a "radical women suffrage man." "The great fact underlying the claim for universal suffrage is that every man is himself and belongs to himself, and represents his own individuality," Douglass declared. "The same is true of woman…. Her selfhood is as perfect and as absolute as is the selfhood of man."

Although he is not normally credited as such, Douglass undoubtedly deserves to be ranked as one of the 19th century's most effective proponents of Lockean classical liberalism.

 

What a wonderfully subversive man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Not compared to Douglass. Have you read his letter to his former master?

My Bondage and My Freedom

 

I'll look at it. But can you advance Douglass? or even Taney?  Can you get ahead of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't I just try to explain to you that your time is better spent reading his words than mine?

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I'll look at it.

I doubt it. You'd rather bicker with me than read something worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Didn't I just try to explain to you that your time is better spent reading his words than mine?

I doubt it. You'd rather bicker with me than read something worthwhile.

Tom, that thing is twenty pages...and it's excellent. It may even be gun-free. Tell me it's your creed. Tell me you grasp it. If you do, you can articulate and contribute far beyond Judge Taney.

You have dangled 21 Judge Taney Posts, and 12 Dred Scott Posts in the gun threads, some duplicated, while racebaiting a lot.

Tell me you grasp your epic Frederick Douglass content. Tell me you can discuss it without racebaiting.

And thanks for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

So why would you drop turds on MLK two different ways? 

OK, I know that saying he should not have been the victim of racial discrimination by government officials was one of the "turds" that irks you but what was the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, I know that saying he should not have been the victim of racial discrimination by government officials was one of the "turds" that irks you but what was the other?

ANSWER: The story of Rev. Mosteller.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4902143

 

See Post 141 of this thread. You laid this turd in both your Triple Crown of Racebaiting AND your Grand Slam of Racebaiting.

 

Though a senior pastor in MLK's church in GA, Mosteller made one public comment, after a tragedy, suggesting the Second Amendmentoffered remedy (against non-introspective elk not unlike Pooplius types and Jeffie types). Mosteller got sacked, immediately. Lost his job, his support for his family Tom. He must have understood the context, since he showed up for his bishop's disgraceful photo op... in a suit.  Brietbart provided the photo shot.

http://www.mediacircus.com/2015/04/shame-on-them-teen-thug-heart-transplant-patient-abandoned-by-iconic-civil-rights-group/

When asked to explain, you said vaguely "because what he did was right." How cryptic, since Mosteller was of two minds, on one day.  MLK's church made no excursions on any violent path, yet you gleefully painted the picture of the entire GA faction of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as armed. Slime slime slime. 

You want the cachet of MLK, eh?  We all do. Yes, he can (and will) lift you up, Tom. But ironically, Pooplius tried the impossible, to drag him down.

 

 

You projected violence onto MLK's church two different ways. Look, you slippery character, you claim you don't produce moar guns, yet here you are projecting guns where they are not welcome,  where non-violence was proven to work better than guns. 

You need to leave well enough alone. You are compromised, Tom, if you touch this superior human, MLK. To be continued.

 

Mosteller.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2015 at 1:59 PM, jocal505 said:

Tom Ray Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4364712

As we anarchists discuss the foul of claiming that another person accepts rape, we find another bottom feeder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Yes, MLK was denied a gun permit. It was an inconsequential event in the grand scheme of the life and import of MLK.


Not to me. To me, it was and remains an illustration of how allowing government officials the discretion to deny such a permit for racist reasons is a bad idea.

A better idea would be a list of objective criteria to issue or deny such a permit. But that would tie the hands of racist gungrabberz so it's bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 5:21 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/2/2018 at 5:19 PM, jocal505 said:

Yes, MLK was denied a gun permit. It was an inconsequential event in the grand scheme of the life and import of MLK.


Not to me. To me, it was and remains an illustration of how allowing government officials the discretion to deny such a permit for racist reasons is a bad idea.

A better idea would be a list of objective criteria to issue or deny such a permit. But that would tie the hands of racist gungrabberz so it's bad.

BA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites