It is one thing to shoot at an anonymous human silhouette target. It is another thing altogether to personalize that target in some way that makes it represent an actual human being, particularly as in this case where it would be an unarmed human being.
It is at the very least bad taste to treat shooting a sitting President as humorous, given the number of assassinations and assassination attempts in our history. It is insensitive to the man in office, it is vile to do to his wife and children and colleagues, who legitimately fear those who are political extremists that threaten his life. What it is NOT is a reasonable expression of free speech; there is no expounding of ideas here, no wit, no political position, only hatred and violence.
"I don’t think that the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal,” Sgt. Pat Shearer, who took the photo, told ABC 15.
I don't think one of these police officers would find it nearly so acceptable if this was done to one of his uniforms, or to a silhouette with a photo of one of their colleagues on it, or to a sports uniform of one of these kids. I don't think their families would either. No supervisor would tolerate this as a simple expression of dissatisfaction with a work relationship, for example.
No one would find it funny, or just kidding around. Guns are not for kidding around about shooting other people. This IS the state where a year ago Gabby Giffords was shot, where other members of Congress had their offices shot up or otherwise violently vandalized in conjunction with verbal threats made to office staff.
This is another instance of the kind of dubious judgment that calls into question the expertise and intelligence and decision making when done by people in authority and with the power of force entrusted to them. The reality of what they did should be explained to them, if they are too stupid to understand it on their own. I don't really believe they have failed to understand it. Rather they simply believe that such hatefulness is acceptable even admirable. The taking of this photo, and the way it is posed, is a kind of boasting, a macho swaggering attitude towards guns and what guns empower them to do.
And that is NOT acceptable from law enforcement officers, or their buddies. It is especially NOT the correct example to be setting for teenaged males who fall into the worst possible demographic for gun violence.
So where is the racist part?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's much of a leap to say that all Obama-hatred is racist.
DeleteDo you really think that the reason these kids shot the image of Obama was because they disagree with his economic or healthcare policies?
DeleteIf this were a group of entirely black men shooting at an image of a white man, would it raise a question for you about the basis for their hatred?
ReplyDeleteIf this were a group of angry Latinos shooting at clothing and an image associated with either Governor Jan Brewer, would you think it was simply having fun, nothing political, and that it had no ethnic component?
Or do you really believe that the Arizona immigration law was about Canadians and other non-hispanic immigrants? Because half the illegal immigrants in this country are here because their paperwork expired and for one reason or another was not renewed, many of them non-hispanic or non-latino. Or do you not recognize racial and ethnic targeting when you see it?
This is Arizona, a state which has a long history of being reactionary and bigoted in any number of ways, so it is in that context a legitimate question that would be fairly raised if you make substitutions. There is no scenario substitutions for this that doesn't come out hateful and with serious bias questions raised.
Why do you dwell on a man's skin color? Don't you think that our President is capable of political thoughts, positions and policies that others may like or take issue with? Do you think his only feature worth judging is his ancestry or his skin color? Who's the racist?
DeleteYou remind me of an episode of All In The Family, where Lionel was upset with Meathead because when they were together he always went out of his way to point out some black issue or situation rather than just taking their friendship on face value and discussing common interests. Everything had to be about racism and Mike tried so hard at not being racist that he was acting like one.
Yes, I think Obama's skin color insignificant.
DeleteHowever it has been made abundantly clear that others do not think that way, and that the greater resistance to getting past the color barrier has been on the right. The Tea Party is significantly racist. There has been significantly racist activity in Arizona.
This is a group of people who are doing something that reflects violent action of the emotion of hatred, and that has traditionally been the hallmark of racist intimidation and racist expression.
So while this might be something else, there is a long history of EXACTLY this kind of thing relating directly to racial prejudice that takes raising the question out of the whole Lionel / Meathead Archie Bunker episode.
You cannot undo decades upon decades of specific history to AZ by wishing it away. It pertains,specifically to this incident. This would be different if you did not see, from the kind of conservatives who think it makes sense to do things like this shooting the opinions expressed by Nut Gingrich about blacks not knowing about how paychecks work, or the inflammatory racist comments made by a Prescott city councilman / Fox radio host relating to a school mural.
I wrote about it here:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/06/hang-it-on-wall-for-all-to-see_09.html
relating to this school wall, for which a number of actual students posed:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/04/20100604arizona-mural-sparks-racial-debate.html
You don't get more skin color specific in racism than this, in Arizona,among conservatives.
So, NO, I'm not seeing an issue where none exists. There has been ample evidence of it being a very real Arizona phenomena.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Tea Party is a racist organization. There is even less evidence, as in NO EVIDENCE, that the men in the photo are at all connected with the Tea Party.
DeleteAgain, you are inventing racism based upon your own prejudice that any white person from Arizona is a racist. If I am wrong, please show us where in the news accounts that this story is about racism. Oh wait, you can't because you made it up.
The fact that you are a grown man that watches cartoons and uses them as references
Deleteis cause enough for no one to take your opinions on anything seriously.
You better get back to your cartoons now.
There is a LOT of evidence to suggest the tea party has a large element of racist individuals in it.
DeleteI don't know if the men in the photo are members of the tea party or not, however they do seem to be behaving in a manner consistent with the extreme views of the conservatives associated with the tea party and / or the republican party.
It sure is fun to watch you work yourself up to an orgasmic frenzy over nothing. Btw, Obama is a mulatto, not a black man.
ReplyDeletethe mere fact you would use such a racially tinged, exceedingly throwback term speaks volumes about your views. Grow up and get a grip will ya?
DeleteI take it you are two different anonymous commenters.
DeleteIf only U.S. did not have a history of racism-as far as the POTUS being mulatto-there are so many in the Black race that are too- & not by choice. Pres. Obama's mother chose to marry & have him by his African father. I think this is what most racists hate-they do not even consider all of the raping that their ancestors did to the Black race. This photo represents some guys that are ignorant & wouldn't do anything w/o a group.
DeleteAfter all the violence inciting manipulations of W's portrait went by perfectly accepted by and even lauded by the majority of the Left, no legs to stand on here. Obama is a fascist just like W is, people should be able to do whatever they want to his image.
ReplyDeleteJake has a good point, except that nobody around here was propagating the defaming of Bush's images. I remember the monkey one, which if applied to Obama would be racist, but when applied to Bush it was about his supposed low intelligence.
ReplyDeleteI don't go for any of it.
But it is quite all right to paint a verbal image of others as members of the KKK or as Nazis? Sorry, I fail to see a difference, Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, speaking for myself, I don't do that either.
DeleteRight, but your co-bloggers do. And the title of the blog has your name on it. Hasn't Ron Paul been accused of being a racist for the exact same lack of editorial oversight? I guess by left-logic that makes you culpable.
DeleteIt's not editorial oversight. It's treating them like adults who have the right and permission to write on the blog like they want to.
DeleteI have a different style of arguing than they do, that's what makes our blog great.
W engaged in torture. That made the comparison to Hitler valid.
DeleteHe and Cheney bragged about it, still do.
Obama does not, and therefore the depiction of him as a Nazi or Hitler is completely inaccurate and inappropriate.
The justification for Ron Paul being a racist is that he was raising money from the racism in his newsletter. I don't personally find his explanations of failing to exercise editorial oversight believable.
There is far too much deliberate courting of racist money on the right, from Ron Paul, from the Birchers, and from any number of other organizations with political views like them.
That puts Paul in bed with the racists, anonymous. If he were not, he'd return the money he receives from them and do much more to repudiate the support of groups like stormfront.
I think the support he has among those who are clearly and openly racist has to prompt some questions about Paul's positions, at least some of them. Ron Paul doesn't seem to reject that support, at least not very actively, and so far as I can see, only when it becomes extremely embarrassing because of the notice of the media.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/
dog gone- Sorry to argue with you but President Obama has not forsworn torture, eavesdropping, and/or indefinite detention. Gitmo remains open for business, the Patriot Act keeps roll-roll-rolling along, and the Espionage Act is used to crucify whistle blowers.
DeleteNot arguing with your main point but President Obama does not have a particularly good record on civil liberties. Not bragging about torture, sure, but certainly not prosecuting it, either.
I'm afraid you're right, Brian. I've made a tremendous swing from hopeful Obama supporter to political cynic.
DeleteWith all his faults though, no GOP candidate can touch him in 2012.
It is never appropriate to advocate - or appear to advocate - violence against someone who is elected to office, or hired to serve in office for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI condemn any such images of Bush, including those from the tea party conservatives, who like to wave their guns around when griping about politics.
That said, I have no problems with the many images of Bush as a chimp, because he behaved in ways which suggested that observation, both with his poor language skills and his aggressive policies. We would have been lucky if he was limited to throwing his own feces.
You condemn them now. Got a link to you condemning them while they were actually happening?
DeleteDo you have any links to similar violent pictures aimed at Bush? I don't remember any. Lots of insults, but no threats.
DeleteAnonymous, I wasn't blogging while Bush was in office.
Delete"That said, I have no problems with the many images of Bush as a chimp, because he behaved in ways which suggested that observation, both with his poor language skills and his aggressive policies."
ReplyDeleteYet if the exact same thing were done depicting the current President you would deem as racist. Because?
a. Bush is White?
b. Obama is half black?
c. Obama is half white?
d. Arizona is evil?
Whatever the reason you would consider it racist, you would be doing so basically on the color of someone's skin.
I'm part Sicilian.
Delete@FatWhiteMan:
DeletePlease go away. Go see a "shrink". You are an intellectually dishonest, low self-esteem, cowardly racist. I wonder why dog gone is even wasting time with you abysmally stupid, answerable, dishonest comments. Go away.
FWM writes:
ReplyDeleteYet if the exact same thing were done depicting the current President you would deem as racist. Because?
There is far less reason to believe that race is an issue when it is a white person making fun of the deficiencies of another white person.
There has been a longer history of white people asserting that blacks were less evolved, less human, than white people which puts this in a very different context. I can't find any instances where black people make this image of Obama or other blacks, for example, that are equivalent.
Or do you deny the difference in context? You might want to check out this first.
http://scienceblog.com/15428/americans-still-linking-blacks-to-apes/
Americans still linking blacks to apes
Crude historical depictions of African Americans as ape-like may have disappeared from mainstream U.S. culture, but research presented in a new paper by psychologists at Stanford, Pennsylvania State University and the University of California-Berkeley reveals that many Americans subconsciously associate blacks with apes.
In addition, the findings show that society is more likely to condone violence against black criminal suspects as a result of its broader inability to accept African Americans as fully human, according to the researchers.
The research took place over six years at Stanford and Penn State under Eberhardt’s supervision. It involved mostly white male undergraduates. In a series of studies that subliminally flashed black or white male faces on a screen for a fraction of a second to “prime” the students, researchers found subjects could identify blurry ape drawings much faster after they were primed with black faces than with white faces. The researchers consistently discovered a black-ape association even if the young adults said they knew nothing about its historical connotations. The connection was made only with African American faces; the paper’s third study failed to find an ape association with other non-white groups, such as Asians. Despite such race-specific findings, the researchers stressed that dehumanization and animal imagery have been used for centuries to justify violence against many oppressed groups.
So, while violence equates across these distinctions as a bad thing, the use of an ape caricature as humor is not consistent or equal, but rather very different depending on the race of the individual involved, which in turn has different implications and consequences.
i don't think there is any basis to believe that Bush would be regarded as less human or as less a member of an advantaged group as a result of such an image. Whereas it appears that a man like Obama, whether black or biracial, IS less likely to be regarded as equal, or fully human on some level, as a result of such an image, or as the message of such an image.
It's studies like this one that make me doubt psychologists in general. I saw the racial attitudes test a few years ago that was a badly designed test that in no way supported the conclusions that the researchers claimed, and this one looks just as dubious.
DeleteWith regard to Bush in particular, though, he was regarded with contempt by many on the left. Obama is seen in the same light by many on the right. Claiming racism is often adding more than is actually there.
Are you a racism denier,FWM?
ReplyDeleteOr are you only trying to deny racism in Arizona?
I don't think you have a good argument for either position in view of evidence to the contrary, particularly from conservatives.
DG, so are you suggesting Darwin was a racists? Do you have a rock garden where you find all of these quacks.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall Darwin asserting that one race or another was superior to another. But white supremacists and racists do assert that in different guises.
ReplyDeleteThese are not quacks, nor is this the only research of its kind. It appears to stand up reasonably well to academic criticism.
The racist nuts are among the conservatives promoting pseudo-science.
Like this one:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/06/racism-pseudo-science-and-conservative.html
Apparently you are ill informed.
We're not ill informed. We just don't buy everything that a psychologist claims about a psychological study. I commit the sin of doubting aspects of the field, so of course, I'm mentally ill and a racist, or whatever term of disparagement is popular with that crowd these days.
DeleteThe truth is that psychology is more a species of philosophy than of science.
Bullshit.
DeleteI find you to be incompetent at critical thinking, and your thought processes demonstrate both some delusional thinking, and some serious cognitive biases.
But you need to be providing some valid critical arguments before simply dismissing a psychological study. You have not pointed out any flaws in the methodology, you haven't offered any of the kinds of critical challenges that other academics in the field would provide --- and so far the study I've provided has stood up well under critical review, while racist conservative conclusions have not. THAT demonstrates that the process of academic review does work.
You don't like the conclusions, but you haven't offered any valid basis for rejecting the conclusions other than you don't like them because they don't confirm the world as you wish it to be.
THAT is far from discrediting the study, nor is it a legitimate objection to it.
You don't HAVE a valid objection, and I'm not going to pretend a preference has the same quality or validity as an objective criticism.
They are not the same.
@Dog gone:
DeleteYou are wasting your time. These functionally illiterate guys here lack critical thinking skills and comprehension.....of EVERYTHING. Their sort even lack the cognitive ability to determine where their own self interests lie....hence consistently voting against their own interests for past 42 years. Although they deny the existence or manifestation of racism, they are very susceptible to it......especially when it comes in the form of "dog whistles".
Darwin asserted that we all evolved from apes so it would be pretty damn stupid to associate apes with just black peoples, now wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd it would be pretty damn stupid to think that black racists make the same assertions that whites do. You do know there are black racists, too, right? Do you put them in collectives, too, or just whites?
No, what's ill-informed is suggesting an entire state, such as Arizona, or groups of people like conservatives or Tea Party members are racists.
You might wanna try being more like MLK and judge people by their character instead of some idiotic collective.
Very nice. I'll do that.
DeleteNO NO NO! No where does Darwin assert that humans evolved from apes in his "The Origin of Species". What you are claiming makes as much sense as stating that humans evolved from hippos.
DeleteThe second anonymous is correct. Darwin did NOT posit that humans evolved from apes. He asserted that there was taxonomic evidence that species adapt, evolve and change in discreet populations.
DeleteLater evidence showed a pattern of development from simple to more complex species, which lead to taxonomic classifications. Primates, which include humans do have common ancestors.
A very crude and uneducated misunderstanding of the science of evolutionary biology - fascinating field - are the people who believe that some races are more primitive or less human than others, including the premise about a relationship to apes.
We do share a closer relationship to chipanzees than any other primate, in terms of shared DNA, but that is not closer or less close a similarity by race.
That however does not change the fact that there is a clear history of racial prejudice and misunderstanding that has been directed differently and more prejudicially towards people of color than towards other groups. It is too well documented too simply dismiss.
It doesn't reflect well on racists, but that's too bad for them that they have unjustified and ignorant and bigoted ideas of the world, and are not well connected to objective reality.
"i don't think there is any basis to believe that Bush would be regarded as less human or as less a member of an advantaged group as a result of such an image. Whereas it appears that a man like Obama, whether black or biracial, IS less likely to be regarded as equal, or fully human on some level, as a result of such an image, or as the message of such an image."
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that the President is not capable of doing something that people do not like, and that the only reason anyone would oppose him is that he is black?
Don't look now but your racism is showing.
FWM wroteSo you are saying that the President is not capable of doing something that people do not like, and that the only reason anyone would oppose him is that he is black?
DeleteDon't look now but your racism is showing.
I can appreciate that someone might oppose Obama for reasons other than race. But this isn't someone writing a letter or making a placard about opposing something he did or a position he promoted.
Rather it is consistent with the kinds of intimidation and violence that are historically associated with racist violence.
And this is not a mixed group of people, it appears to be an entirely white group of people. You would apparently deny that anti-black racism exists in Arizona, where it historically has been a problem in the state - among conservatives.
So, we have violence that is typical, even classic racist violence.
We have it directed to an image of the first black president, by what appears to be an all white group of people.
And it is in a place which has a history of this kind of racism among conservatives.
That is a combination of factors which suggests racism.
So FWM - are you into denying racism, especially by the right?
Or are you going to admit there is a factual basis for raising this question?
"Or are you going to admit there is a factual basis for raising this question?"
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely nothing in this story as presented that would point to racism and ABC said nothing to suggest it. Your only way to claim it is to say that these men did this only because the President is 1/2 black while ignoring that he is also 1/2 white.
I do not deny racism exists. However, you jump up and cry wolf about it so much that people are skeptical.
I remember that you called me a racist once because I made a very factual statement about Muslim bombings. Of course my facts were ludicrous but your rantings about Glenn Beck unleashing his minions was not.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/01/islamophobia-fire-bombing.html
So far your comment have pretty much been:
If you are not liberal you are RACIST.
If you are white and you oppose a black candidate you are RACIST.
If you are white and you support a black candidate, you are RACIST pretending not to be a racist.
If you attack Christianity, you are enlightened but if you say anything negative about Islam, you are RACIST.
If you are Christian you are probably RACIST.
Now we'll add if you are from Arizona, you are RACIST.
Not at all. I question if this is racist because all the people in the photo are white, AND because shooting at someone identified as black - as the President is - is consistent with past patterns of racist intimidation.
DeleteOr do you deny all the objections to Kenya in his background is a regular theme on the right in a way that it is not on the left?
I have never said that ALL conservatives are racist; they are not. But there IS a segment of conservatives that IS racist.
I have no problem with criticizing - fairly - any religion. The criticism of Islam has, all too frequently, NOT been accurate, notably the claim for example that Mohammed was a pedophile. When there is a chronic problem with a negative mischaracterization of a group of people like that, it is bigotry. If you think religion is a basis to be afraid of an entire group of people, not just the extremists, you are a bigot.
I think extremist Christians are every bit as frightening as any other extremist religious followers, and that includes the fundie wing nuts who shoot doctors or blow up clinics or wantto ban contraception.
Mohammed was no more a pedophile than the Kings of England who engaged in child marriages for purposes of alliances and property transactions, but where there were no sex acts with a child. Pedophilia is about sexual attraction to and arousal by children. That is very different from alliances for political or property alliances.
If you are from Arizona, and you don't see anything wrong with shooting up something that represents the President, you are probably an extreme conservative, and yes, there ARE a number of racist conservatives in Arizona and some of the other red states.
That would be supported by the statistics that show there are still a whole lot of birthers among conservatives.
Or don't you think there is a certain racist aspect to many birthers?
FWM said, "Your only way to claim it is to say that these men did this only because the President is 1/2 black while ignoring that he is also 1/2 white".
DeleteYou completely lost me with that argument. Nobody and I mean nobody looks at President Obama and thinks, look at that (1/2)white guy. If you think people see a (1/2)white dude instead of a black man then you are just trying too hard to score debate points.
Most conservatives in Az. are not racists however, it's pretty obvious that most racists in Az. are in fact conservatives.
"Or do you deny all the objections to Kenya in his background is a regular theme on the right in a way that it is not on the left?
ReplyDeleteThe only objections I have heard of about Obama in relation to Kenya is not the fact he is of Kenyan decent but that they question his citizenship status because his father was not a U.S. citizen. This is hardly something new.
Mitt Romney's father, George Romney's citizenship was called into question as well when he ran for President in the 1968 race. I suppose that was racist? After all it was conservatives that questioned his legitimacy after all and we know from your comments that all conservatives are racist. President Arthur's citizenship was called into question as well since his father was Canadian. Damned racists raising false flags! Andrew Jackson had to literally fight a pioneer that called his citizenship into question. But hey, the accuser was a Virginian that had been adopted by Shawnee Indians--racist for sure.
I don't know what Mohammed being a pedophile has to do with this--I hadn't heard that one before. If it is solely because he had child brides then of course calling him a pedophile for that is wrong. It is arrogant and unfair for us to judge people from history by applying today's norms and standards.
Of course I made no such claim. When you presented an attack on Muslims as probably the work of right wing extremists, all I said was that if a group of Muslims are attacked in a violent and visible manner, statistically it is more than likely other Muslims doing so than right wing conservatives. You still haven't shown many any evidence to the contrary but you did call me a bigot over a very fair and accurate statement. Don't be so quick to yell "racist"! It just cheapens the condemnation of real racism that does indeed exist.
Oh yeah: "I question if this is racist because all the people in the photo are white..." That sounds pretty racist.
So if I take a photo of the local Republican party in my village and none of them happen to be black, are they then all racist? If I expand that to include both the Republican and Democrat Parties and none are black, does that make them all racists or just the Republicans?
All Republicans aren't racist. But if your a racist your probably a Republican.
DeleteTo deny the Republican party does not use racism as a tool is to deny reality.
Which most Republicans have to do to be a Republican.
So if I take a photo of the local Republican party in my village and none of them happen to be black, are they then all racist? If I expand that to include both the Republican and Democrat Parties and none are black, does that make them all racists or just the Republicans?
DeleteOnly if they are doing something hateful and violent to a person of another race in a manner which is consistent with racist behavior, and your village happens to have a history of racism as a larger context. In that case, it is pretty much a case of something walking, quacking, swimming and looking like a duck being called a duck.
If you have ever laughed at a racist joke, you are a racist. Pretty simple definition. If these are all police officers, then they should all be fired.
ReplyDeleteHow can a citizen expect them to be impartial when they've demonstated prejudice by these actions. I couldn't be a black American and expect any kind of justice from these officers. As an old, white, Vietnam Veteran, I am appalled at this behavior by officers of the law. It is no wonder why minorities hate them. If they treated white people like that, I would hate them just as much as minorities do.
an amazing thread of comments, the rather bizarre tapdancing about mulatto, degrees of blackness or pontificating about Lionel from a 30 year old All In The Family episodes. Let's face it, Lionel and the comments in All In The Family were relevant 30 years ago then and now, because try as you might to claim that racism wasn't a factor then and it isn't now is to deny reality.
ReplyDeleteAll I have to do, and I do doit often is to visit a conservative blog and start scrolling the comments on almost any given article and the ghosts of racists past and present and the future are there in your face.
The subtext of Gingrich in South Carolina or any souther state is to exploit and incite the racist undercurrent. Let's be real, that was the entire Nixonian "southern strategy". The tactics used by Lee Atwater. I see the same thing here in France with the exploitation of the anti black and islamic phobia by the supposedly mainstream UMP Party every day.
The bigger issue of course is the deliberate manipulation of the natural tendency of the humans to be ethnophobic and tribal. The bigger fear is how this is being used to destroy democracy, demonize the left and install permanent conservative corporacracy majorities. A very good fast forward real time example is Hungary today.
We have to accept that racism is a natural primitive part of mass consciousness. It doesn't have to be that way. We are inherently noble enough to rise above it, and we have done that in a sociological way as we progress as humans, but the reality of xenophobic tribal paranoia is always close to the surface and those who want to control us, know how to incite it for their own purposes.
Bravo, Microdot, well said.
DeleteHeh Mike, nice to see you are getting some feed-in traffic from crooks and liars.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the pressure
senilebiker.
Hey, senilebiker, good to hear you. I tried to find you once. You know they kicked me off Daily Kos shortly after they did you.
DeleteWould you shoot me an e-mail, I want to ask you something?
mikeb302000@hotmail.co.uk
I think the shooters will find that the Secret Service is not amused.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating how Dog Gone and so many others moan and complain about language that dehumanizes any group other than conservatives and gun owners. Keep patting yourselves on the back. Stretching is supposed to be good for your health.
ReplyDeleteBullshit, Greg. We fault both words and actions that show a direct link to objectionable behavior.
DeleteI do not dehumanize people, but I do freely criticize them. I don't advocate killing people either, unlike you.
You want to call it stretching; I've shown there is a very clear and direct connection to the concerns I've raised.
There IS no legitimizing what these people did. You have NO defense for their conduct, their use of weapons. This should not be tolerated, and the judgment and even the intentions of people who conduct themselves like this with lethal weapons should limit their access to firearms until at the very least they have some further education, and then only under more responsible and mature adult supervision.
I hope the law enforcement officer finds himself suspended at the very least, or given desk duty without a firearm for the forseeable future.
I find this whole incident to be silly. To many people post pictures on social media that should never see the light of day. I'm not defending these officers, although I do think that more is being made of this than should be done. My point was that you and Laci and Democommie repeatedly use dehumanizing language toward those who disagree with you. Getting you to admit that would take a lifetime, though.
DeleteLet's pretend for just a moment that the six young men in the photo were *not* motivated by racism.
ReplyDeleteSo effing what?!? It is still highly offensive and threatening to use a picture of the President for target practice, and then post the results on facebook. Period.
This is more evidence that people are fucking stupid. Especially cops. I'm a 42 year old, college educated professional, registered independent and I find this supports my own observation about cops.
ReplyDeleteSome are good people, most are assholes. They get their badge and their gun and they become Judge Dredd...judge, jury and executioner all in one. They are proud of shooting a t-shirt?! Wow...golf claps all around.
If it was black people shooting a mock cop, they would be whining and crying....public servants, blah-blah-blah. None of the jerks has the balls to try the real thing. Not a single one of them...odds are they are just cowards.
These people represent going backwards as a species. The GOP handed Obama a pile of dog-shit: collapsed economy, collapsed housing market, collapsed real estate market, two bloody and expensive wars, bin laden on the loose, etc,etc.. That's what 8 years of the Frat Boy Prez and 6 years of a GOP Congress get you.
Now they want to hang their pile of dog-shit on the guy holding the dustpan and broom. Fuck these assholes. Obama will be re-elected and they have to deal with PRESIDENTE MULATTO until 2016!!!!
The best way to punish these pricks is to go vote for Obama. I don't love the guy but he's a country mile better than McSame/Snowbilly Grifter Caribou Barbie would have been and he's a far better man than Gingrich or that scumbag Mitt.
Losing the election again will result in more nonsense (birth certificate,etc.) since they can't win on ideas.
Anonymous,
DeleteSince elections are won or lost on the state of the economy often, things aren't looking good for Obama. But who is or should be elected isn't relevant to this. A couple of idiots do something silly, and that will determine your vote? Were you going to vote Republican before this event?
Polls still show that a pretty hefty majority of people blame the current economic problems on the Bush administration.
DeleteAnd in Congress, Republicans have a lower approval rating than Democrats.
The DISAPPROVAL ratings of all the current GOP candidates is huge, far larger than their approval rating, even among Republican voters.
The Nut Gingrich made a lot of speeches about how the Iowa vote in January showed a huge number of Republicans didn't want Romney.
Of course he was less talkative about how many of these votes are showing even more of them don't want the Nut either, pretty emphatically.