Against t Democracy

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, concha said:

[Unwise. Pushed by Dems. Results predictably awful]

There were no results since there was no serious defunding of police, anywhere, and no serious analysis could be done anyway in such a short time.

[concha]

5 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

concha resorts to these quote methods when he's battered and beaten.

 

🤣

You bet Andy.

 

I'm sure no one will notice your inability to address my responses.

🤡

 

PS: The virtual boot up your ass is a size 12. 😂

 

 

[Atticus Finch]

7 minutes ago, concha said:

[Andy dishonestly ascribing my accurate takes on a small number of high-profile cases and making a blanket lie]

That was your position, precisely.

[concha]

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

That was your position, precisely.

 

You are a liar.

Precisely.

And since you're no doubt driven to do it, posting a few examples of me addressing specific cases will only prove my point that you are a liar. 

👍

 

[Atticus Finch]

19 minutes ago, concha said:

[Andy obviously dodging the environments the Dems have failed to address little items such as the 1994 crime bill penned by none other than Brandon]

If the 1994 Crime Bill had come up in the last Congress, nearly every Republican would've voted for it.

This dance that concha is doing now is comical.

Rail against Democrats for wanting to reform policing and then also rail against them for wanting more police 25+ years ago.

[Atticus Finch]

14 minutes ago, concha said:

[What has the welfare state to the black family, Andy?  Has it promoted marriage and fathers staying home? 🤡 ]

So Republicans totally support more policing and more incarcerations.

Thanks for finally admitting that by avoidance.

concha once again asking questions for a statement that *he* made and therefore *he* has to support.

[Atticus Finch]

15 minutes ago, concha said:

[My "allies"? I kick your ass on my own, Andy]

😄

You defend them every chance you get even when you don't have the first clue about the topic.

[Atticus Finch]

16 minutes ago, concha said:

[Reduced dependency on the state, better schools, school vouchers, expansion of opportunity zones etc would go a long way., but Dems would rather keep people poorly educated and on the dole. Have you ever noticed how the welfare state just grows and grows, by the folks the Dems purport to want to help stay poor in in dangerous Dem-run communities?]

Once again, thanks for admitting by avoidance.

You are dishonestly attempting to play both sides of this issue.

A shock to nobody.

[Atticus Finch]

7 minutes ago, concha said:

You are a liar.

Precisely.

And since you're no doubt driven to do it, posting a few examples of me addressing specific cases will only prove my point that you are a liar. 

I assess concha's position accurately.

He lies.

Then he says that if I show examples of his position which prove me right then that indirectly proves *him* right.

😄

[golfaddict1]

My daughter arrived in Stockholm today for a short stay visit and I couldn’t help but think of the Stockholm Syndrome in glancing over today’s duel of Crossfire… appears to be 3 duels today.    

[concha]

16 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

If the 1994 Crime Bill had come up in the last Congress, nearly every Republican would've voted for it.

This dance that concha is doing now is comical.

Rail against Democrats for wanting to reform policing and then also rail against them for wanting more police 25+ years ago.

Would've.

Andy loves to live in fantasy worlds that magically support his views. 🤣 🤡

 

Reality:  Joe Biden penned the 1994 crime bill that has been a key driver for mass incarceration.

The "reform" Andy refers to includes besmirching cops writ large, defunding them etc.

Andy is a laughable buffoon.

 

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, concha said:

Would've.

Yes, just like every Democrat in 1860 would be a Republican today.

This is basic fundamental understanding of ideology and politics. 

[concha]

15 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I assess concha's position accurately.

He lies.

Then he says that if I show examples of his position which prove me right then that indirectly proves *him* right.

😄

 

Indeed.

Tell the class, Andy...

Where I have ever made a blanket statement about African-Americans that they "can't follow instructions"?

 

The class waits with bated breath for Andy's reply.

 

 

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, concha said:

Reality:  Joe Biden penned the 1994 crime bill that has been a key driver for mass incarceration.

Reality: Republicans opposed the crime bill because of "excessive spending" and the assault weapons ban. Not because of mass incarceration.

In fact, they wanted *more* money for prisons and actually thought the bill was *too* favorable to black and other minority inmates.

GOP'S BEEF WITH BELEAGUERED CRIME BILL SHIFTS TO 'PORK'

Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) staked out Republican positions for more money to build state prisons and against "racial justice" safeguards against bias in death sentencing. McCollum and Gingrich said that most Republicans opposed the bill because of racial "quotas" for convicted murderers.

[Atticus Finch]

12 minutes ago, concha said:

Indeed.

Tell the class, Andy...

Where I have ever made a blanket statement about African-Americans that they "can't follow instructions"?

The class waits with bated breath for Andy's reply.

Every unarmed black person shot by police.

I apologize for the broad brush.

Not that it will have a material effect on anything. The point was the same before and it still stands.

[concha]

4 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Reality: Republicans opposed the crime bill because of "excessive spending" and the assault weapons ban. Not because of mass incarceration.

In fact, they wanted *more* money for prisons and actually thought the bill was *too* favorable to black and other minority inmates.

GOP'S BEEF WITH BELEAGUERED CRIME BILL SHIFTS TO 'PORK'

Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) staked out Republican positions for more money to build state prisons and against "racial justice" safeguards against bias in death sentencing. McCollum and Gingrich said that most Republicans opposed the bill because of racial "quotas" for convicted murderers.

 

Even ACLU recognizes it.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/how-1994-crime-bill-fed-mass-incarceration-crisis

How the 1994 Crime Bill Fed the Mass Incarceration Crisis

[Atticus Finch]

Just now, concha said:

Even ACLU recognizes it.

I'd bet that even the majority of Democrats today agree.

The point has always been that you're attempting to play both sides.

Republicans agreed with all of the provisions that led to mass incarceration. They opposed it for other reasons (mostly political). 

And this all glosses over the fact that today, Republicans are the major purveyors of "tough on crime" rhetoric. 

[concha]

3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Every unarmed black person shot by police.

I apologize for the broad brush.

Not that it will have a material effect on anything. The point was the same before and it still stands.

 

Still wrong.

I addressed specific cases.

You can't help being dishonest about this.

Maybe it's not your fault. When their asses are getting kicked and they are bereft of anything remotely approaching a decent argument, looney leftists such as yourself can't help but blurt out racist accusations.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Just now, concha said:

I addressed specific cases.

All of unarmed black people.

All were justified according to you.

All were harangued for not doing more to comply.

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, concha said:

When their asses are getting kicked and they are bereft of anything remotely approaching a decent argument,

👇

58 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

concha on the increasing murder rate.

CONCHA: The murder rate skyrocketed in 2020! I wonder where this occurred?! Hmmm! 

ME: Donald Trump was President of the United States.

CONCHA: I mean locally! Where crime control occurs!

ME: OK, here's a map of the states. No discernible pattern.

CONCHA: Why are you afraid of cities!? Interesting!

ME: OK, here's data showing that the rate increase was greater in small towns than big cities.

CONCHA: OK, whatever!

😄

 

[concha]

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

I'd bet that even the majority of Democrats today agree.

The point has always been that you're attempting to play both sides.

Republicans agreed with all of the provisions that led to mass incarceration. They opposed it for other reasons (mostly political). 

And this all glosses over the fact that today, Republicans are the major purveyors of "tough on crime" rhetoric. 

 

You avoid the very circumstances that have helped destroy black families and caused crime to grow in the first place.

Before the so-called "Great Society", blacks were even more likely than whites to be married if they had children and some 70% of kids were born in wedlock.

Enter the Democrats in the 60s.

Now over 70% of black kids are born out-of-wedlock.  The welfare state for years provided financial incentives to not marry and keep the father out of the household. The abortion rate in black communities is 3x the national average.  The Democratic Party and their allies heading the teacher's unions have paid one anther off while kids in poor inner city areas have languished.  These days in places like Baltimore you struggle to find public schools where anywhere near even a large minority of students are anywhere near grade-level in math or English.

Swathes of our cities are in ruin, yet around Mordor-on-the-Potomac you will find anywhere from 4 to 6 of the richest (and bluest of blue) counties in the country.

 

 

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, concha said:

You avoid the very circumstances that have helped destroy black families and caused crime to grow in the first place.

You have yet to even touch your theory about the destruction of black families or, that if it is indeed the case, that it started in 1994.

It would be fascinating stuff.

But you can't/won't do it.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

Now over 70% of black kids are born out-of-wedlock.  The welfare state for years provided financial incentives to not marry and keep the father out of the household.

One of my favorite tropes is that deadbeat dads would've stayed in their kids' lives if not for welfare checks.

Somehow women, who always want to get married, wouldn't wed the fathers of their children because they were getting paid.

And men, who almost never want to get married, were willing to wed but were pushed away because of welfare.

Of course these fantastical ideas are completely unsupported and will remain so for the rest of history and certainly the life of his message board.

[Atticus Finch]

6 minutes ago, concha said:

Before the so-called "Great Society", blacks were even more likely than whites to be married if they had children and some 70% of kids were born in wedlock.

Enter the Democrats in the 60s.

Now over 70% of black kids are born out-of-wedlock.  The welfare state for years provided financial incentives to not marry and keep the father out of the household. The abortion rate in black communities is 3x the national average.  The Democratic Party and their allies heading the teacher's unions have paid one anther off while kids in poor inner city areas have languished.  These days in places like Baltimore you struggle to find public schools where anywhere near even a large minority of students are anywhere near grade-level in math or English.

What's funny about concha's completely unsupported right-wing tropes is that the poverty rate among blacks started to *decrease* after the 1960s.

[concha]

11 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

All of unarmed black people.

All were justified according to you.

All were harangued for not doing more to comply.

 

It is not my fault if the debates on here about police killings seem to all involve folks who did one or a combination of the following:

• Did not follow police commands
• Resisted arrest
• Reached for a weapon
• Assaulted an officer
• Tried to disarm an officer/steal the officer's weapon
• Were on on drugs in addition to the above

 

You might think all of the above is just fine and poses no dangers the police should defend themselves over. And the cases that were brought up tended be or were exclusively about blacks, even though many more unarmed whites are actually shot and killed by police (though not in relative terms).

If someone had brought a case where none of the above was inextricably tied to the death of the deceased, then I likely would have had different views on the case. Can you find such a case, Andy?