Jump to content

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Quote Joe's own words, get whined at for it.

Maybe you could come up with a better defense of your own words?

Pay attention. We are building a race-baiter support group. And you can be a player. :huh:

McCarthy, racial policy.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 978
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thus, you lay out a myopic and cherry-picked angle of a key American individual, an icon of non-violence. Your little lesson is valid enough, but is mis-placed if repeated, due to its limited understa

No guessing about where Gavin Newsome stands.    

He gets that a lot.

Posted Images

On 4/2/2015 at 1:26 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you lonely, Joe? Need for me to quote you again? OK.

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.

 

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

Are you lonely, Joe? Need for me to quote you again? OK.

Well, I am quite lonely, for the company of race-baiters. At my worst, I will tolerate them. But at my best I can get in a motel room with one of them and we will double down.

Let's rock. ^_^ Let's celebrate the layers of race-baiting in the environment. After eighty days of concerted race-baiting, this is Tom Ray's brain, the day after Dylann Roof.

Quote

Introducing THE DYLANN ROOF OLYMPICS four years of Dylann games, with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray  

  Quote

 

linky Posted June 19, 2015

(Tom here June 18) Motives matter, bgytr. A state Senator was killed, which could be a political assassination. He was also a pastor, which could be a religious assassination. Or it could be something else. I hope they catch him.

 

(Joe here) Tom, what was up with your fascination with Rev. Mosteller, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference? 

My sixth inquiry.

 

(Tom': a mere thread transfer, to This Non Violent Stuff thread. Tom would retire from race-baiting...for six days. To be continued.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

let's go there: FULL RACE-BAITER for EIGHTY DAYS  

                                  with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray. 

 

A Tom journey, from MLK on March 25th, to Dylan Roof June 17, 2015

         

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOR YOUR APPRECIATION   We've had  five years of fun. The race baiter fans among us (and you know who you are if you just accept this crap every day) need to factor in the date 0f the Grand Slam of Racebaiting.*

 

*Art contribution by Tom Ray (...as another form of racebaitng, see WHEEL OF RACEBAITING #9)

 

dred, Tom's  racebaiter grand slam.JPG

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

Police officers have supervisors, including Tom's example, above. And the jerk who denied MLK's gun permit had a supervisor as well.

Tom has big complaints about these officials (years of race-baiting via MLK,  when you weren't around) and Tom wants them held accountable, and rightfully so.

Let's just factor in that in our world today, once these situations are revealed, local news reporters will follow the social media of the individuals involved. If the phony affidavit guy, or the MLK permit denial guy, had race-baiting all over their blogging (@15 Dreds/yr) the Supervisor and the chain of command is now drawn into the discipline and further training elements. See how that works, real time?


You seem to have no idea how powerful a sheriff is in our system. No, they don't have supervisors.

So your grand plan is to give them the discretion to apply racist views to permit denials and then count on social media posts to rectify the situation after the fact?

It's a stupid plan. And we've seen how it works, real time. Well, maybe you haven't, but readers have.

A much better, simpler plan would be: give a reason if you deny a permit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

So your grand plan is to give them the discretion to apply racist views...

My grand plan is for the Sheriff to take internet race-baiting as a warning sign, if he wants to be re-elected. Don't hire the Tom Ray types, just screen out and triage the open, glaring racial issues.

Quote

to apply racist views...

RACEBAITER ALERT^^^

Set race side for a moment, if you can. The Sheriff might not like your haircut. His secretary may not like the Roger Stone tatoo. The deputy might not like your MAGA hat. The janitor may think your pickup truck is a beater. Maybe Libby peed on the wrong hub cap.

5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

A much better, simpler plan would be: give a reason if you deny a permit.

This assumes the right to a gun, outdoors, etc., but let's play.

Quote

Dear Scott Peruta, plaintiff (and speed bump on the road of life)

The reason for your permit denial is that you don't "need" a gun, based on personal, unresigned fear. 

A. if you have no occupational need

B. and if you have no (temporary) situational need

C. please review the 500 years of success of the Statute of Northampton, aka duty to retreat

 

5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

And we've seen how it works, real time.

Yes. From 1289 to 1789, it was a misdemeanor to carry arms at will, and it became a felony to carry arms in a concealed manner.

5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Well, maybe you haven't, but readers have.

I readered upon YOUR authors, and I did it all over Political Anarchy in 2017 and 2018. Those scholars are primarily Malcolm, Holbrook, Kates, Cramer, and another.

We discovered you are flakey: you are fully ambiguous about the Libertarian fabrication known as The Standard Model of the Second Amendment.

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

So your grand plan is to give them the discretion to apply racist views to permit denials

This is fun. Give me number two for fifty dollars, Alex.

Quote

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:
23 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Nothing remotely Republican about Amash, huh?

A few serious questions. Does Justin Amash race-bait? Can he discuss racial issues as being (essentially) non-gun issues?

I like that guy. How about a serious answer.


I'm one of his Twitter followers and have never seen him quote you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
On 3/1/2020 at 5:11 AM, jocal505 said:

A few serious questions. Does Justin Amash race-bait? Can Amash discuss racial issues as being (essentially) non-gun issues? (skilz)

I like that guy. How about a serious answer.


I'm one of his Twitter followers and have never seen him quote you. DO YOU RACE-BAIT ON TWITTER?

Will Justin Amash become a bartender after the system is through with him?

 

First off, why the thread transfer? We need to discuss the built-in race-baiting on ALL our threads, since it appears on all of them.

But answer the question, dogballs, it is bolded now. Justin is the man, IMO: What do we have here?

  • a profile in courage, and it sits on sweet libertarianism;
  • this is the most courageous figure in Senategate;
  • the most exemplary to act, and the most candid in word;
  • JA displayed five-star legal eloquence on a series of tweets;
  • Amash became the most dynamic real-time player in the elected body of the Congress;
  • Ahem. As a wild guess, I suppose he avoids de-humanizing any persons of color, in public.

He is a fine, solitary historic player in a foul chapter of American history. You do well, sir, to follow and heed this man.

But to conclude my point, like Eugene Vollokh, Justin Amash avoids exploitating the racial situation. I am proud to present TWO upgraded, non-redneck Libertarians you could follow.

Let's play some more dogballs.

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

dogballs:No, I have never quoted you on Twitter.

No Problem, dogballs, since (aside from personal race-baiting) you have twelve other forms of race-baiting which you use....plus Dylann Roof.

 

But let's play "motives matter." You have a body of work on PA, you own it. Was the race-baiter pattern accidental? Did you just kinda slip into it, just because?

Or is this a brilliant plan, cut from the very cloth of Don Kates? He was a freedom fighter, of the elk who never got "We shall overcome."

Motives matter, dogballs, so what was your motivation for a dozen types of general race-baiting? 

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

First off, why the thread transfer? We need to discuss the built-in race-baiting on ALL our threads, since it appears on all of them.

I didn't know there was anything "race baiting" about this post:

On 3/1/2020 at 5:26 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Nothing remotely Republican about Amash, huh?


So why don't you explain it?

Because it seems to me your response was your typical creepy and persistent stalking, a violation of forum rules. I would never report such behavior in PA because MMA style debating is the way things are done here, but, well, you're a creepy stalker.

(MMA is short for Mindless Messenger Attack, not Mixed Martial Arts.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

Because it seems to me your response was your typical creepy and persistent stalking, a violation of forum rules.

One man's stalking is another man's fact checking

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

One man's stalking is another man's fact checking

Is that what you call it when Joe goes around to all the SA forums claiming that Tom is "race baiting"?

The real highlight is when Joe quotes himself while doing his stalker routine.

Then again, why should anyone ever expect you to call out an echo chamber member for their behavior...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

One man's stalking is another man's fact checking

Is that what you call it when Joe goes around to all the SA forums claiming that Tom is "race baiting"?

bpm, which of the twelve on the Wheel of Race-baiting is not a form of race-baiting? 

They give context to one another. The benefit of the doubt is not a player, not any more,

 

And I don't need a moderator if Tom will double down on this, like Pavlov's doggie. MLK weaponized decency.

 

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

<_<I didn't know there was anything "race baiting" about this post:

(about Justin Amash)
So why don't you explain it?

Okay. It was a learning moment. You had presented a decent fellow, whose Tweets you were following. Do you want to search for Amash's grasp of racial issues before or after I do? Because your own grasp of racial issues features guns, every damn time. Whew.

Quote

Because it seems to me your response was your typical creepy and persistent stalking, a violation of forum rules

EVERY TIME YOU POSTED THE RED INK GAG, IT WAS RACE-BAITER STALKING. We need it to be over, dogballs.

Quote

I would never report such behavior in PA because MMA style debating is the way things are done here, but, well, you're a creepy stalker.

(MMA is short for Mindless Messenger Attack, not Mixed Martial Arts.)

 

You are hitting below the belt (after losing the gun debates) with no ref. I am Joe, a person who dedicated a key portion of his life to the inner city street work, to the armpits of the USA. I bought property in Jimi's mixed neighborhood to avoid the ivory tower mindset, if possible. You race-baited the wrong social worker, like I said, then you got cheeky and sustained the smear for five years. I love this place because you are here, in this condition.

See you around, you're the one with the facial swelling, with a few welts and cuts over the eyebrows.

 

nate diaz tko problem.png

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

bpm, which of the twelve on the Wheel of Race-baiting is not a form of race-baiting? 

They give context to one another. The benefit of the doubt is not a player, not any more,

 

And I don't need a moderator if Tom will double down on this, like Pavlov's doggie. MLK weaponized decency.

 

Yeah, the trail cam thread was actually interesting until your stalker routine fucked it up. Imagine.

As far as "race-baiting" goes Joe, you seem to have it defined as "any time race is mentioned, unless it is the echo chamber - then it will be ignored".

It seems to be "race-baiting" if you are being asked to explain your disgustingly racist post. Well, I guess anything goes when you have to explain that post. It is even "race-baiting" by Tom when you quote your own post. Not sure how that works, care to explain?

But good thing you have like-minded friends in management - it lets you get away with your stalker nonsense 99% of the time.

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

Yeah, the trail cam thread was actually interesting until your stalker routine fucked it up. Imagine.

I wear one warning point, with my head in the air, and with apologies to the management. I tried to use the decency of GA,  to put pressure on the basics in a land of no referees.

24 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

what racebaiting? I don't see no race-baiting. 

24 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

It seems to be "race-baiting" if you are being asked to explain your disgustingly racist post. Well, I guess anything goes when you have to explain that post. It is even "race-baiting" by Tom when you quote your own post. Not sure how that works, care to explain?

No, not to you. Been there, did that.

24 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

"any time race is mentioned,

Motives matter, bpm. And for your info, playing the race card frequently, while cheeky, is race-baiting.

24 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

But good thing you have like-minded friends in management

You weren't here when we had wall-to-wall underwear girls with gunz. You were never schooled by gaytor. You never saw the shotgun blast that was Boothy, all day long. I got squished like a bug by thirty guys whom I could not identify. Disinformation was the standard...and it came from Tom Ray, Larry Pratt, Clayton Craymer, and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Any respectability I may hold came by odyssey. 

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

I wear one warning point, with my head in the air, and with apologies to the management. I tried to use the decency of GA,  to put pressure on the basics in a land of no referees.

Actually, you did the same thing you just did with my question about Justin Amash in another thread:

stalked me around because you're angry that I quote you. Well, guess what? When you say shit like this:

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.


Someone needs to call it out as the most racist thing anyone has posted on this forum. You're in a TeamD/gungrabby safe space here, so most of the people who might ordinarily say so will remain mute or do as CLEAN is doing and support you. That means you're the main spokesman for the grabby side, not that you're admirable to non-grabbers in any way, you nitwit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Actually, you did the same thing you just did with my question about Justin Amash in another thread:

stalked me around because you're angry that I quote you. Well, guess what? When you say shit like this:


Someone needs to call it out as the most racist thing anyone has posted on this forum. You're in a TeamD/gungrabby safe space here, so most of the people who might ordinarily say so will remain mute or do as CLEAN is doing and support you. That means you're the main spokesman for the grabby side, not that you're admirable to non-grabbers in any way, you nitwit.

I got put in the hot seat over those words, but what you need to grasp is I have many tougher things to say. I dare not say them, because you are a brat, still standing, with wobbly legs and cuts and abrasions in sensitive and apparent places. 

You have successfully stalled this conversation. We are speaking at the level of a trailer park gun swap.

**********

Big regatta. the starting gun goes off.

The lowest common denominator on the boat drops the anchor right on the start/finish line. For conversation, the dude paints MLK as a gun slinger, over and over and over, and all the lame hands just take it in stride. Then MLK's church becomes fair game. Then Rev. Pickney et al are wiped out, and wistfully this becomes religious or political assasination. Maybe Joe is relentlessly painted as a racist.

See how that works? The race ends, and we are winning, by inane conversation while parking on the starting line, with no race committee in play.

**********

My red words got their own thread (which was a form of Jeffie race-baiting) and were soon presented to Mark K, and he said something interesting. He commented that maybe the person who wrote those words had experience for saying the words. This bit still blows my mind.

Is dumbed-down, to a redneck level, good enough for us?

MR.TOM RAY, YOU ARE A WONDER TO BEHOLD. 

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

That means you're the main spokesman for the grabby side, not that you're admirable to non-grabbers in any way, you nitwit.

hmmm, grabbers and non grabbers      dogballs left alone, he make a dupoly.

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

No, not to you. Been there, did that.

Of course not. Playing the "someone else said it" defense only works for grade school kids, not adults.

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I got put in the hot seat over those words, but what you need to grasp is I have many tougher things to say.

You do? Your only words are cut-n-pastes of others, when you start going off on your own  personal research it involves butchering US history.

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You weren't here when we had wall-to-wall underwear girls with gunz.

Oh my, offended by things like that in a forum that writes "show us some tits" to newcomers. I guess your ignore filter was broken?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

 

You do? Your only words are cut-n-pastes of others, when you start going off on your own  personal research it involves butchering US history.

If I was challenged successfully, the readers would recall it was by yourself. (Tom went in door militia he folded.)

I am a hacker at history, and I destroyed the Standard Model on Political Anarchy, using the alarmed academics within McDonald.. (Want to see it again, only better?)

A "nitwit" got ahead of the men who hang out here. 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

"saOh my, offended by things like that in a forum that writes "show us some tits" to newcomers. I guess your ignore filter was broken?

 

I didn't say I was offended by women in underwear. But I noted a massive swing in behavior.

 

On 3/2/2020 at 2:21 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

but, well, you're a creepy stalker.

Clean is right, that you have needed fact-checking on the dangerous gun issue, and that I followed you and provided the vetted facts. It was not too cool, and I bet it hurt, too. But you took it to dirty, and to racial, and to personal.

You have stalked me with (five years of) red racebaiting, while painting me as a racist, which is far creepier than educating a gun bully or two. So now we're gonna celebrate the race-baiting until Dylann Roof Day on June 17. You are a dumbass, with red race-baiting as a primary weapon, so let's see how you do. Tom, your behavior got you here.

          Does anyone know why the "stupid drug war" was being used to dehumanize the disenfranchised?

          I know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before I reveal it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you two add up all the precious hours and emotional energy you've used up in this stupid never-ending  thread, you might get sensible and decide to just ignore each other and have a calmer more balanced life.

I urge you to give it a try. We all have a finite few years, days, hours left in life. Best to use them in pleasurable and positive ways.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Happy said:

If you two add up all the precious hours and emotional energy you've used up in this stupid never-ending  thread, you might get sensible and decide to just ignore each other and have a calmer more balanced life.

I urge you to give it a try. We all have a finite few years, days, hours left in life. Best to use them in pleasurable and positive ways.

 

Thanks. I've been race-baited relentlessly for five years, because I spoke well for gun violence prevention. I see at this point that the offensive behavior doesn't go away. Time to air out the laundry I guess.

I have other plans for after the Dylann Roof Day celebrations.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real world, whatever you and Dogballs think and post is completely irrelevant. You both get riled up for nothing. Nobody but you gives a shit. 

It's a beautiful world out there. Enjoy it and contribute some smiles and kindness. You'll soon feel a lot better.

Leave the obsessives to their little worlds and don't get sucked in. Good luck.

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

In the real world, whatever you and Dogballs think and post is completely irrelevant. You both get riled up for nothing. Nobody but you gives a shit. 

It's a beautiful world out there. Enjoy it and contribute some smiles and kindness. You'll soon feel a lot better.

Leave the obsessives to their little worlds and don't get sucked in. Good luck.

No time for a full reply right now, as I have to get my skiff ready and go play safety boat at the Community Sailing Center all day.

But when I get back I still won't think confiscating museum collections makes any sense.

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

You both get riled up for nothing.

Thanks again for your kindness, and for your input.

The USA has a gun problem. Overall, this problem is fed and sustained by mis-information. And that's how I got in this situation, Happy.

  • This ruckus is unpleasant, and it has developed a contrast, but the gun disagreements are not over nothing.
  • Bashing MLK, in pubic, compulsively and repeatedly, is also significant IMO.

And so I spoke up. Interesting behavior around here, with legs.

Hmmm. Eighty days of non-stop race-baiting directly preceded Dylann Roof. Then the race-baiting spooled up for five years.

Quote

 

Tom's journey, from MLK on March 25th, to Dylan Roof on June 17, 2015 

         

  • Autumn, 2014  Tom will entertain guesses why MLK's gun permit was denied
  • March 25th, 2015 MLK's church is bashed. By now, Joe's tongue is sore from biting on it for three years. Joe reprimands Tom (for working MLK and even his church, for gunz).
  • Same day: Tom doubles down on the generic race-baiting.
  • On 4/2/2015  Post 904 Tom jukes the fratricidal numbers of African- American gun homicides (aka WHEEL OF RACEBAITING spoke #11)
  • 5/2/2015, The Grand Slam of Race-baiting, including MLK's church
  • 5 /2/2015  29 days before Dylann, Joe outlines thirty days of race-baiting.
  • Post 295 5-4-2015  Tom offers the fratricidal data of the BJS
  • Post 298 (Same day)  Joe's red ink words
  • June 17."religious assassinations" in Charleston, and political ones too

 

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

No time for a full reply right now, as I have to get my skiff ready and go play safety boat at the Community Sailing Center all day.

Do we race-bait around down at the Community Sailing Center? If not, why not? ^_^

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

while painting me as a racist,

Your own words paint you as a racist, Joe, not anything someone else posted in PA.

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I am a hacker at history, and I destroyed the Standard Model on Political Anarchy, using the alarmed academics within McDonald.

How did that case go again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Your own words paint you as a racist, Joe, not anything someone else posted in PA.

How did that case go again?

The McDonald case didn't go like Kolbe. It didn't go like the NY SAFE Act. It didn't go like Peruta II. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:
23 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

No time for a full reply right now, as I have to get my skiff ready and go play safety boat at the Community Sailing Center all day.

Do we race-bait around down at the Community Sailing Center? If not, why not? 

Quoting you over there would make no sense. No one there knows or cares who you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Quoting you over there would make no sense. No one there knows or cares who you are.

No problem. You have twelve other forms of race-baiting in play, plus Dylann Roof at your disposal. Did you use the other race-baiter gags, or is that in poor form at your club. You could spew away, then call your pontoon boat dick-tater.

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

I don't share your urge to encourage racist mass murderers by making them more famous.

It's one of your more sick behaviors.

 

YO DOGBALLS, HE WORK DYLANN ROOF LIKE A RENTED MULE

 

Quote

Coming soon  THE DYLANN ROOF OLYMPICS

        four years of Dylann games, with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray

You sucked the oxygen from the air and sent it to narcissism-ville. You couldn't help it, you were in "full race-baiter" mode.

Your Dylann bits had five acts. Each will be presented as part of the five year celebration of your personal race-baiting. 

This is fun. Either hang on to your hat, or seek decency, Tom. You can't talk your way out of something you behaved your way into.

 

dred, Dylann burning flag.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome to THE RACEBAITER TIME MACHINE  

                    five years of interesting behavior by our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray @Plenipotentiary Tom

 

Quote

On 3/35/2015 at 3:37 AM dogballs ponders the eternal question: (hmmm, the same day that dogballs got called out as phlegm by Joe (Calhoun):

(to Mark K) True, but doesn't address the question. Any idea why his application for a CWP was denied? Even a wildass guess?

 

Tom was dragging stuff up from June of the previous year, see Posts 77 and 83 of this thread)

 

On 3/26/2015 at 9:39 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Any idea why MLK's application for a CWP was denied?

 

All that shit is about the fact that you won't answer that question.

 

On 3/26/2015 at 10:57 PM, Mark K said:

(quoting Tom Ray to Mark K) Any idea why MLK's application for a CWP was denied?

 

All that shit is about the fact that you won't answer that question.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a VERY loud dog whistle, and Pavlov's dog did not respond (in red) today. 

This is big fun now dogballs, cuz Dylann was a Pearl Harbor moment, which evidently went over your red neck.

 

Jeez Louise,Tom Ray, how did you generate 66 NAACP's/year in 2019?

Quote

welcome to THE RACEBAITER TIME MACHINE   five years of interesting behavior by our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

item 36: The Official Political Anarchy RACEBAITER REPORT, for 2019*  

  • Six MLK's/yr.
  • Five Justice Taneys/yr.
  • Fourteen Dreds/yr.
  • Twenty six "Immature and volatiles" per yr.
  • Sixty-six NAACP's/yr.
  • (Unfortunately, Tom's very popular red ink spew is uncountable; quotes do not search)  

(*year one of six years. Read POLITICAL ANARCHY for smarmy Libertarian race-baiter spew.)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

where is Tom Ray, the civil rights whiz? @Plenipotentiary Tom

Quote

welcome to THE RACEBAITER TIME MACHINE   five years of interesting behavior by our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

item 36: The Official Political Anarchy RACEBAITER REPORT, 2019  

  • Six Mlk'S/yr.
  • Five Taney's/yr.
  • Fourteen Dreds/yr.
  • Twenty six "Immature and volatiles" per year
  • Sixty six NAACP'S/yr
  • (Unfortunately, Tom's very popular red ink spew is uncountable; quotes do not search)

 

dogballs, he take the day off, from his race-baiter thread

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dogballs, he evaporate

Quote

let's play DRED SCOTT'S REVENGE on our race-baiting dynamo, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

Total Score: 35 Dreds

Average Score: 7 Dreds/yr.

2018 Score: 13 Dreds/yr

 

Search>Dred>Tom Ray 

  1. This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...And that's one reason he would not considerDred Scott a person. Naturally, no one ever mentioned whetherDred Scott belonged to any militia because that was and remains irrelevant. May 7, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...much like Otis McDonald and Dick Heller andDred Scott. You're a sketchy guy for never documenting the militia enrollment of any of them.November 3, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...What militia wasDred Scott enrolled in? And how about Otis McDonald, who readers of cases know was not actually Jack Miller?October 20, 2018

 

  1. Is this a racist comment?
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...People likeDred Scott. I don't know though, in light of the thread topic. Does he look volatile to you?October 11, 2018

 

  1. Sanctuary Cities - a new twist
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Which is why the Supreme Court thought the amendment applied to people likeDred Scott and Jack Miller. And the idea that Paul Revere rode along in the night yelling "Get to the British Armory to get some guns to fight the British" is every bit as ridiculous and ahistorical as the Brady Bun...May 24, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...the Supreme Court would not have thought that non-militiamanDred Scot could keep and carry arms wherever he went if his rights were recognized. But they did say that. Even noted liberal constitutional law expert Lawrence Tribe rejected this idea before the Supreme Court did in the Heller case...May 22, 2018

 

  1. Sanctuary Cities - a new twist
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...if applied toDred Scott, would mean that he could "keep and carry arms wherever he went." They didn't think these things because Scott or Miller were part of any organized militia. They were not. They were part of The People. I guess so. For someone who complains constantly that the NRA om...May 21, 2018

 

  1. This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    You mean exposed for thinkingDred Scott should not be treated as one of "the people" because then he could "keep and carry arms wherever he went" right?May 6, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    Dred Scot, Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald, who, by the way, was not Jack Miller, all have one thing in common. Can you tell me what it is or should I tell you? April 1, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...And it excludedDred Scott, much to our national shame. And if it had included him instead of excluding him, Taney said, he would be able to "keep and carry arms wherever he went." Where do you think that phrase came from? March 31, 2018

 

  1. Second Amendment : Past it's Use by Date
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Mid's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...the Supreme Court had this to say aboutDred Scott: It was really sloppy of the NRA to leave such clear evidence that they possess and use a time machine. Or something. Where else might the bolded part have come from? March 30, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...I thinkDred Scott was a person and should have been allowed to keep and carry arms wherever he went, just as Judge Taney feared. That fear wasn't based on his militia membership. It was based on his humanity. Part of The People.March 30, 2018

 

  1. Heller v. DC being heard today
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to SC-Texas's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...in theDred Scott decision, the Supreme Court said that one reason blacks couldn't be considered citizens was because they could then "keep and carry arms wherever they went." Kind of implies that any legislation saying they could not would be... drumroll please... contrary to the second amend...March 29, 2018

 

 

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

dogballs, he vacate from political anarchy for a few days

 

Why do you persist in the easily-disproven lies about me? And why not at least take them to Tom Ray Anarchy?

Saturday's posts from me did not occur "a few days" ago. Yes, I was busy yesterday and did not react to your persistent stalking.

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

Why do you persist in the easily-disproven lies about me? And why not at least take them to Tom Ray Anarchy?

Saturday's posts from me did not occur "a few days" ago. Yes, I was busy yesterday and did not react to your persistent stalking.

No substance, eh?

 

Let's jump to the OP. Several new writings on MLK have emerged.

THE MAN WHO SAT ON THE GUN (SINGULAR) IN MLK'S CHAIR. 

His name was Glenn Smiley, and he and King would talk all night long that night.

Smiley was an expert on non-violent social force. King and his wife had been accidently swept into a leadership position in the national publicity over student lunch counter sit-ins. It was 1956 and King had moved to Montgomery, and was accepted for leadership (since an outsider was preferred by the whites). King got intimidating calls, and his house was bombed in February

  • According to Adam Winkler, King hired armed guards for a period.
  • King specifically acknowledged hiring unarmed guards.
  • For two days, Martin and Corretta discussed guns for home defense, and rejected guns. Source: MLK.
  • Friends said that at least some guns were present which King would be unaware of.
  • Glenn Smiley is quoted as saying that Kings's house was 'an "arsenal," but the time period may have been short. My source:MLK.

Smiley reported that MLK was both clueless about and gifted with the forces of non-violence. Smiley worked with King for years, and trained his org with the discipline for non-violent resistance. Through Smiley, King was invited to India in 1959, which had a deep effect on MLK.

More yuge than the incidental gun pemrit denial of 1956.

Quote

KING's words:

After the bombings, many of the officers of my church and other trusted friends urged me to hire a bodyguard and armed watchmen for my house.

 

When my father came to town, he concurred with both of these suggestions. I tried to tell them that I had no fears now and consequently needed no weapons for protection. This they would not hear. They insisted that I protect the house and family, even if I didn't want to protect myself. In order to satisfy the wishes of these close friends and associates, I decided to consider the question of an armed guard. I went down to the sheriff's office and applied for a license to carry a gun in the car; but this was refused.

 

Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone. 

 

From <https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/what-gun-advocates-get-wrong-about-dr-martin-luther-king-jr

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2020 at 4:00 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

And why not at least take them (the disproven "lies") to Tom Ray Anarchy?

where did you take your red race-baiter spam? all over the place, for five years, dogballs

did you isolate the twelve other types of race-baiting to some particular thread? nope

seriously, what was the motivation for all these layers of race-baiting, every fucking where, from so many angles?

hello?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
10 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

How you been? I heard Florida had riots.

Such exploitation of red. The red and bold came from you, Tom. And you were bastardizing MLK, off of Mark K, at the time. Honestly, I just thought it was over the top, several different ways. 

Quote

 On 3/23/2015 at 1:33 PM, Mark K said:

What question is that?...

 

On 3/24/2015 at 2:05 AM, Tom Ray said:

The one I asked twice. I'll bold and highlight in red this time.

 

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

 

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

 


Is there some reason you don't wish to talk about this in the thread where it occurred?

Mark and I both figured out the answer to that question. What's your problem with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

This Republican Senator Calls Three Black Men Peacefully Carrying Long Guns 'Mob Rule'

I guess they looked immature and volatile to her.
 

Quote

 

...

Fox interviewed Loeffler amid a montage of young, armed black people protesting police abuse in Atlanta, where a cop recently shot and killed Rayshard Brooks. Another Fox host, Sean Hannity, reported on Tuesday that there were "at least three men brandishing long guns" near the Wendy's where the incident happened.

Hannity, Fox, and Loeffler all represented this as evidence of the dangers of defunding police. Indeed, one young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn't believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be "allowed" in this space. Asked what he'd do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms: "And at no point will I allow my right to be disturbed." Good for him!

Carrying long guns in public is legal in Georgia, by the way (with exceptions for a few places like courts and schools). Fox does not actually accuse any of these men of breaking any laws. But they clearly intend viewers to see these men as a threat—and not just because they have put up barricades and hope to shut out the police, but because they're bearing arms. By contrast, when a predominantly white group of protesters showed up at Michigan's capitol in April to protest the state's COVID-19 rules, Fox's coverage was reasonably neutral and factual, giving voice to critics but pointing out that guns were legally allowed in the state Capitol building.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Should Congress Take Down Its Statue of Racist Chief Justice Roger Taney?

There are several good reasons to answer yes. I found this response interesting.

Quote

...Interestingly, one person who does not want to see the Taney statue removed from the capitol is Dred Scott's great-great-granddaughter, Lynne M. Jackson, the president and founder of the Dred Scott Heritage Society. As WUSA9 reports, Jackson would rather see a bust of Scott placed alongside the bust of Taney. The current statue resides in the "place where the Dred Scott case was decided," Jackson told the Associated Press. Having Taney "there by himself is lopsided."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Should Congress Take Down Its Statue of Racist Chief Justice Roger Taney?

There are several good reasons to answer yes. I found this response interesting.

 

welcome to THE DOGBALLS/TANEY TIME MACHINE  twenty seven entries   

  • 2019 Five Taneys/yr. (plus sixteen Dreds/yr.)
  • 2018 Eight Taneys/yr (plus fourteen Dreds/yr)
  • 2017 Three Taneys/yr.
  • 2016, Zero Taneys
  • 2015 Ten Taneys/yr
  • 2014 one Taney/year
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 4:19 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I have mentioned both of them. So does that mean Congress should have a statue of one, both, or neither?

Hi dogballs. You want the Tom Ray issues on this thread, right?

We've had sixty days of widespread BLM protests. Basically, the issue is the incomplete, collective, racial (mis)understanding in the air.

Let's re-group. Let's advance the conversation beyond the issues (and limited understanding) of reconstruction, okay? Is it not the time?

Please explain the Tom Ray fascination with the issue, one you have demonstrated streamed year after year. 

Quote

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating, and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8. Judge Taney is coming, twenty-seven times, the NAACP;
  9. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  10. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  11. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  12. Did I mention the NAACP… for166 mentions?

 

On Political Anarchy (consistent with the CATO gun rights lay-brief writers Kates and Halbrook), you have created a cul de sac for racial discussion...with the bar set firmly upon gun violence.

I am anticipating growth, and increased understanding, within Tom Ray, so have a good year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
45 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

So keen you are. Framing MLK as a gun permit applicant diminishes what he actually was. Are you with me so far? Are we past that at this point?

And framing  the racial situation with the position ofJudge Taney diminishes who YOU are.

I didn't frame him. He's the one who applied for a permit and was denied because of his race, or because of the discretion given to local sheriffs, which is another way of saying the same thing.

I disagree with Justice Taney that it is a horrible problem to allow black people to keep and carry arms. People who agree with him are the types who think that

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.


I hope one day America can get past the fear of allowing black people to have guns that you and Taney share.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
4 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

You want to discuss MLK or something? Cuz you have just presented the talking point (generated by the vehicle reason.com) that MLK supported riots, and violence.

No comment? No discussion? Did you read this article? 

 

Hello? :huh:

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

It is well known that violent protests backfire (yes, I read the article); 

and that is why the various forces of the Reich (white nationalists, fascists, corrupt cops, etc.) 

infiltrate and make damn sure they are violent. 

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

You want to discuss MLK or something? Cuz you have just presented the talking point (generated by the vehicle reason.com) that MLK supported riots, and violence.

No comment? No discussion? Did you read this article? 

 

Hello? :huh:

Are you talking about this part?
 

Quote

 

In reality, King was unwavering in his commitment to nonviolence.

"My hope is that we are going to have a protest like this every summer," said in a 1966 interview with 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace, referencing protests in Chicago that turned violent. "My hope would be that they are nonviolent, because riots are self-defeating and socially destructive."

He tried to make his position crystal clear in that same that interview, saying, "I will never change in my idea that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom and justice."  

And less than a year before his death, King delivered a lecture addressing skeptics of nonviolence following the 1967 riots.

"Many people feel that nonviolence as a strategy for social change was cremated in the flames of the urban riots of the last two years," said King, before re-iterating his call for massive, sustained, nonviolent civil disobedience.

"In this world, nonviolence is no longer an option for intellectual analysis; it is an imperative for action."

Violent protests were self-defeating, King argued, because, "every time a riot develops" it makes "a right-wing takeover more likely," helping segregationists like George Wallace gain political power and influence.

 

Did you read this article? Hah! Just kidding, I know you're a non-reader.

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

Are you talking about this part?
 

Did you read this article? Hah! Just kidding, I know you're a non-reader.

No. I was talking about the racebaiter straw man, the talking point you presented, as found on reason.com. 

It went like this, "Since MLK didn't speak against the riots, he must have been for them."

 

Dogballs, I notice that you Libertarians like to exploit the racial situation, constantly, without merit.

Care to explain?

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

I notice that you Libertarians like to exploit the racial situation

What other "libertarians" did you consult with? Did you have a poll?

Is it always "race baiting" when someone quotes your own words back at you?

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

It went like this, "Since MLK didn't speak against the riots, he must have been for them."

Ah, not surprising that you couldn't make it past four paragraphs. I'm actually impressed you made it that far.

You're talking about the stuff the rest of the article was written to refute, not support. as any reader would know.
 

Quote

 

The writer and activist Vicky Osterweil is the latest and most strident defender of the violence and destruction that have accompanied some of the protests following the death of George Floyd.

Osterweil argues in her new book, In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action, that in the last years of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life, as his focus moved beyond desegregation and voting rights and toward promoting socialism, he had a change of heart about looting and destruction as a tool for social change.

"Though he wasn't calling for violent revolution," she writes, "neither was he chastising or rejecting rioters anymore."

Others have pointed to the famous King line, "A riot is the language of the unheard," as a moral justification for the riots of the 1960s.

In reality, King was unwavering in his commitment to nonviolence.

 

 

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

Ah, not surprising that you couldn't make it past four paragraphs. I'm actually impressed you made it that far.

You're talking about the stuff the rest of the article was written to refute, not support. as any reader would know.
 

 

Your writer presented the preposterous, then debated it. Under examination, you went to a straw man: the dictation of who is a reader, and who is not.

 

Anyway, the subject you presented, from reason.com, was racial unrest. Over the past five years you go to that subject frequently...and as I said, without merit or insight. You can't seem to explain, or modify, the behavior. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
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.

31 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Your journey took you from fine scholarship, to stubborn and chronic race-baiting? WTF happened to you?


Nothing happened. I would have called sentiments like yours racist back then and still do today.

The real question is WTF happened to make you think that melanin in the skin makes people immature and volatile?

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

Dog whistle time, for  @Quotidian Tom, I guess.

Quote

Let's play DRED SCOTT'S REVENGE

        35 results for Tom "dogballs" Ray

  • 2019 Sixteen Dreds/yr.
  • 2018  Thirteen Dreds/yr.
  • 2017 Three Dreds/yr.
  • 2016 none
  • 2015 none
  • 2012 THE ORIGINAL One Dred

Corporations Are People

You missed 2014 on page one of this thread and 2015 on page 5, among others.

On 10/27/2014 at 6:13 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

 

Quote

 

Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.

 

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.”

Still execrable, and still a frightening thought to those who think that

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.

 

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

You missed 2014 on page one of this thread and 2015 on page 5, among others.

Still execrable, and still a frightening thought to those who think that

 

Today, Trump lost in Nevada, and he slipped behind in Pennsylvania. But Trump is still a player, after all his behavior.

Hi Dogballs, do you think MLK would have voted for Trump? Do you think MLK would support the Libertarian Party? 

 

And Alec, I'll take numbers eight and nine for fifty each,.

Quote

let's whirl the WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating, and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, twenty-seven times, the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott thirty five times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for166 mentions?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
On 6/8/2014 at 5:47 AM, Excoded Tom said:

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

 

Quote

...A noted journalist and professor at Brown University, Cobb recently published, “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed,” a look at firearms inside the Civil Rights movement, which includes a firsthand account of his experiences.

 

Cobb maintained in a recent interview with NPR that he witnessed the untold story of guns inside the civil rights movement. He gained that experience as a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967.

The SNCC was one of the most important organizations of the American Civil Rights Movement.

 

“I worked in the South. I lived with families in the South,” explained Cobb to NPR. “There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe. And all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings, and they’re going to respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.”

 

Cobb went on in the interview to describe an encounter that a journalist had with Dr. Martin Luther King while visiting the civil rights leader at his Montgomery home, where King had frequently received death threats.

 

An associate of King’s cautioned the journalist before he sat down in an armchair that there was not just one, but “a couple of guns” hidden in that particular piece of furniture.

.

  

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Yeah,  at one point, I reacted to years of disinformation on PA. This disinformation had presented MLK, constantly and frequently, as living in a house full of guns.  WTF?@Excoded Tom)

I guess you're reacting to the quoted topic post?

You know, hijacking threads and making them about guns is sometimes considered bad around here.

Oh, wait, that's right. You're TeamD/grabby, thus can do no wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 5/6/2021 at 12:25 PM, jocal505 said:

Hillary is impressive, in how she presents this. I fear the consequences of disinformation, in general. Without dis-allowing the first amendment, I feel that some form of accountability is imperative. 

Yeah,  at one point, I reacted to years of disinformation on PA. This disinformation had presented MLK, constantly and frequently, as living in a house full of guns.  WTF?@Excoded Tom)

 

 

Expand  Expand  

Please reply, about your disinformation, in the appropriate thread.


I did.

As you well know, you can get away with trying to hijack the Hillary thread and make it about guns. As you also know, the gungrabby chorus who ignore what you do will have a cow if I do the same thing.

Besides, this is the thread you were referencing (without a link for context) and it's the one where the information about guns in MLK's house was posted.

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

  


I did.

As you well know, you can get away with trying to hijack the Hillary thread and make it about guns. As you also know, the gungrabby chorus who ignore what you do will have a cow if I do the same thing.

Besides, this is the thread you were referencing (without a link for context) and it's the one where the information about guns in MLK's house was posted.

Your information was wrong, and then it was weaponized, a lot. It was disinformation. You are Tom Ray, and you own the disinfo. You should correct your errors, pal.

 

In the house of MLK, a recently rented house which had been bombed, there was only ever one gun, for a week or so, then there was a family/spiritual discussion.

Coretta and Martin nixed the gun after the discussion. And Glen Smiley packed MLK off to India, to better understand the power of non-violence.  The notion of the latter escapes American culture.

 

And dude, a link was provided. The story and source can be found on this page.

Quote

 

THE MAN WHO SAT ON THE GUN (SINGULAR) IN MLK'S CHAIR.

His name was Glenn Smiley, and he and King would talk all night long that night.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 12:29 PM, jocal505 said:

In the house of MLK, a recently rented house which had been bombed, there was only ever one gun, for a week or so

 

On 3/16/2020 at 8:29 AM, jocal505 said:
  • Friends said that at least some guns were present which King would be unaware of.
  • Glenn Smiley is quoted as saying that Kings's house was 'an "arsenal," but the time period may have been short. My source:MLK.

Too stupid to keep your story straight.

On 5/8/2021 at 12:29 PM, jocal505 said:

And dude, a link was provided.

And too stupid to realize that I was referring to your link-free attempt to make the Hillary thread, like everything else in your life, about me and about guns.

By the way, it was William Worthy, not Smiley, who almost sat on a gun.

Whatever. Too stupid for basic facts. I still think the racist denial of King's permit application was wrong, but can see why someone who "thinks" this way would disagree:

  

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.

 

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

 

Too stupid to keep your story straight.

And too stupid to realize that I was referring to your link-free attempt to make the Hillary thread, like everything else in your life, about me and about guns.

By the way, it was William Worthy, not Smiley, who almost sat on a gun.

Whatever. Too stupid for basic facts. I still think the racist denial of King's permit application was wrong, but can see why someone who "thinks" this way would disagree:

  

 

 

Too many weasel words. This discussion is about disinformation, not Hillary.

 

The gun, singular, was stashed in the armchair for about a week, after a house bombing. Then Martin and Coretta rejected guns in their home. My post includes the account of MLK. (He abandoned the idea of a gun permit. He abandoned the family gun, too.)

If you are presenting some other idea, that is disinformation. You seem to carry a pattern of counterfactual propaganda.

 

Interesting article, by Adam Winkler, thanks. Your article 

  • supports gun control,
  • reports the gun confiscation of the FF, and
  • lays the foundation for commercial regulation of gunz.
Quote

The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

 

Quote

The lower courts consistently point to one paragraph in particular from the Heller decision. Nothing in the opinion, Scalia wrote, should

be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This paragraph from the pen of Justice Scalia, the foremost proponent of constitutional originalism, was astounding. True, the Founders imposed gun control, but they had no laws resembling Scalia’s list of Second Amendment exceptions. They had no laws banning guns in sensitive places, or laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing guns, or laws requiring commercial gun dealers to be licensed. Such restrictions are products of the 20th century. Justice Scalia, in other words, embraced a living Constitution. In this, Heller is a fine reflection of the ironies and contradictions—and the selective use of the past—that run throughout America’s long history with guns.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2021 at 1:55 PM, jocal505 said:

the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

Looks like you are not the only one unaware that there was a war going on back then, Joe.

BTW, why are you worshiping Winkler's 10 year old article now? It isn't peer reviewed, and he is a lawyer, not a historian.

Or is this more of your ever changing standards in action? Or have you simply forgotten what your standards were?