Infidel Dog

1. I don't but it does give me a chuckle when you posture like you are. 2. And yet you quoted the entire post including the video, then postulated on some out the butt nonsense that you'd rather talk about. If you want to reveal your belief in the unsupported by reality just do it. Don't pretend to be responding to something that has nothing to do with it. 3. But you weren't even responding to the correct title, Bud. How's the air in your world?

And yet there were no riots when whites such as Tony Timpa, Daniel Shaver and Justine Diamond were "murdered" by police and twice as many whites are killed by police as blacks. Why is that there were no riots? Is it this appetite thing of which you speak? What justifies that then? Where did that come from? Actually I think I know but I'd like to hear your explanation.

That's OK, you didn't offend me. I just can't help noticing the obvious. For example that wasn't the term in the title. The title described the new, new normal. It was a surprising puzzle that you responded with an air of superiority to a video by assuming without watching it that you knew what it was in it, then talked about something else and that something else didn't even exist. I mean I've heard of 'strawman arguments' but let's try to keep it in this reality.

It's 10 minutes for a response team to arrive in New York city. Do you have some reason to believe it's slower than that where you are? Are you out in the country maybe? If not and you heard somebody jimmying your window lock are you saying you wouldn't call the police because it might be as long as 10 minutes? There's a long history of people who did well by not taking your advice. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418627/Brave-12-year-old-girl-calls-911-hides-closet-little-sister-home-break-in.html

So you were just knowledgeably replying to something you knew nothing about then? Sure that makes sense.

You'll see Laura's point played out most clear and relevant to the topic here when at 5:35 of the video CNN is interviewing, what I think is, the Minneapolis councilwoman organizing the move to dismantle the police. CNN asks her if she understands how some people might be "uncomfortable" if say a home invader broke into their house and there was no one to call. The white Congressman answers that anybody daring to worry about such trivia needs to reassess their white privilege. The new, new normal is where you're not allowed to question the new orthodoxy and if you do you have a problem that needs fixing and there are people out there willing to fix it for you. OK, I added that last bit, but it needed to be in there, I think.

Having absolutely nothing to do with the video you didn't watch but would like us to believe you did, but OK then. Laura started by reminding her viewers that at the beginning of the lockdown she told them how she thought the Democrats would keep the economy shut down as long as possible then foist a new normal on them. She showed how that appeared to be happening then she goes on to say that's now out the window. Now there's a new, new normal. She considers the riots and says "so much for social distancing." Under this new, new normal you have no right to an opinion that conflicts with or calls into question any aspect of the Progressive campaign to destabilize America through bullying and violence. Here ya go Mike. Try watching it this time. Might help with the whole not knowing what it's actually about problem.

But Tucker says it even better. Democrat seeming support for the "defund the police" movement isn't really about defunding the police it's about replacing the current model with a more Democrat controlled model. It's a power grab. That's what's really coming. He's comparing it with how they took control of the military during the Obama years. See, this kind of truth-telling is why the left hates Fox News.

Pressure to defund or dismantle the police is just a symptom of the disease. It's part of what Laura Ingraham was calling "the new, new normal" last night.

Sounds like Minneapolis is going to jump aboard with your "Baltimore Syndrome." How far will it spread after that? Who knows. The "Progressive" road to utopia is all about incremental small victories though. It's like South Park's Underpants Gnome strategy except it's "First, degrade and destroy Western society, then...UTOPIA."

I can explain it to you but you won't listen so I'm not sure why I should bother. You seem to just assume you have a superior understanding of what you believe others believe so you just ignore them and zip off in your mind to Rueville for further instructions. I'll give you an example. Somebody mentioned Cultural Marxism. I posted an old video of an ex-KGB agent explaining Soviet style societal degradation techniques that are in the wild of western society even now. You got on your soap box and rather than try to understand concepts you obviously don't, you lectured us about how we were simply talking "Marxist indoctrination." If you had understood you would know cultural Marxism is not real Marxism it's almost a rejection of it. But you're not interested in learning something you don't know. You're only interested in conforming with what I'll call "the Progressive Agenda" and "brain training" others into conforming along with you. The problem is you don't know what I'm talking about. However if you follow your usual MO you're going to assume you are the expert because you yourself are "brain trained" to believe you have the superior understanding of what I believe. You don't though so I don't know how I can talk to you. Tell you what though. If you're ever interested in learning what I and others are actually talking about I'll post you a video that explains it: (Watch for the term "Passive Regressive." It refers to something you, in particular, should know about.)

He simplistically stereotyped... I'm noticing anybody who disagrees with you is simplistically something. Allows you to strut about bloviating with your nose in the air pretending you didn't hear the points. Whatever, I guess.

In brain-training from a pseudo-intellectual? Yeah, no thanks. But you like all these psych terms so much I imagine you're familiar with that one, 'projection.' Now there's another one of the sort of I was talking about. If you look for it you can find exceptions where it would apply here or there to somebody on the right, but as a guy who talks to a lot of Progressives I have to tell you, they don't seem to be able to go a paragraph without blowing out a good example of projection. They pretty much own it. You, for example, need a mirror. Figuratively speaking, of course.

OK, I'm going to try one more time to post a new topic on a news story. Let's see what happens. The BBC is saying this, and I think it's worth knowing about as its own issue. It has offshoots of interest.: More at BBC article

Do you have a nifty little neologism for the progressive left's tendency to come up with a new label or redefine an old one when some phenomena becomes inconvenient to them? There's a difference between an infraction and a policy. When the left counters somebody who dares notice a broad tendency of hypocrisy or outright stupidity and they point at some similar anomalous infraction of the rules of common sense from the other side what they're really saying is pay no attention to what's obvious to your lying eyes. WestCan Man is correct. The tendency of the left to mob up and attack is immediately apparent. And it's increasing. Yes you can most likely find some case where the right does it too, but it's not the same thing. With this new phenomena of cancel culture, for example, sure you can point at examples of an anti-abortionist group or traditional values organization writing nasty letters objecting to something somebody or some group has done but the broad tendency to dox, and attack individuals en mass who dare to counter progressive orthodoxy is a leftist phenomena. And that's just something people notice. They'll continue to notice it for as long as it continues to exist and no new or redefined term will stop that.

They did the same thing at another board I used to post at but with that one the guy had something set up where you could post to news stories. Somehow, Google took charge of that end of the postings and you couldn't post there unless you allowed Google's scripts. He might have fixed that though.

Speaking of going off-topic though, I just discovered something that may or may not be on-topic. Did you know you can't post here using a browser like Tor? Google doesn't like it. If they can't monitor what you're posting they'll block it. They have that power. Google is run by leftists.

I had to backtrack on this thread to find out what it was actually about. Near as I can figure the one above was the last on-topic post. I think he has a point. In fact if you look around it's almost like the progressive left is hijacking religion. There are all kinds of treatises online about how Global Warmists are like religious Zealots. I think novelist/Doctor, Michael Crichton had some good ones about that. The Pope is a total Progressive. Religion in general is rejecting traditional values to shift more to social justice warring and less about God and spirituality. Marx said religion was the "opiate of the masses." The progressive/neo/cultural Marxists of today seem to be about foisting a new drug on the masses. And if you don't agree you're a heretic. You need to be attacked until you're submitting on your knee.

Ever seen tbhis one?

I'd never seen the video of Daniel Shaver being assassinated by police. I saw the link in the article above though, so I clicked it. Remember how they were claiming Michael Brown was begging for his life with his hands up in St. Louis, "Please don't shoot!" Remember that? Then it turned out that was a lie. He was actually rushing the cop hoping to get his gun. But would you like to see a case where that isn't a lie? Daniel Shaver actually was on his knees with his hands above his head begging police not to shoot him. Then they did shoot him. Except Daniel was white, so no race riots like there was in Ferguson for Big Mike the "person of color." Here's the link to the Daniel Shaver gets shot by police video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/judge-releases-video-of-police-shooting-of-daniel-shaver-after-officer-acquitted/2017/12/08/3e715e7a-dc3e-11e7-a241-0848315642d0_video.html

So Justin was out there at a protest ignoring social distancing guidelines, because apparently it was more important to get in a photo op. Somebody in the crowd shouted out to him "Go Home Blackface! Go home!"

The Black and White of Systematic Racism Less controversial... A cute euphemism for “not politically expedient.’ As for the underlying claim of disparate treatment of minorities by law enforcement, a study from Michigan State published last year reports that the mythology of racist cops does not match the reality. It doesn’t even come close. If anything, black citizens are more likely to be shot by cops who are black, and if there is a causal link, it’s the volume of violent crime that occurs in any jurisdiction. Simply put, more crime usually equals more shootings. And yet, the talking point of ‘systemic racism’ has taken hold like a prairie fire that refuses to be doused by any volume of contrary facts or evidence. At the same time, a combination of self-flagellation and self-congratulations is emanating from white leftists eager to atone, or give the appearance of atoning, for their lack of melanin while also getting their woke on, as if there is a contest to see who can preen the loudest. It’s what a friend of mine terms “pathological altruism,” the paternalistic conceit of the left that is built on the belief that black people can only advance and succeed when guided by the benevolent hand of progressive America. This mindset not only ignores the blacks who do just fine without these would-be masters, it parades the helped group as mascots to be forever reminded that their lives are only possible due to the tireless effort of their white benefactors. It is an overlay of weapons-grade condescension atop the stench of rank bigotry. Because what else can it be but bigotry when the pathological altruist essentially says “you’re nothing without me” to the minority individual while claiming “they’re as good as anyone else” to the rest of us. For an ever-so-brief moment, there was something on which we all agreed: the cops in Minneapolis were in the wrong. Unity, of course, is offensive to many in the political and pundit class, so the cohesion had to be ripped asunder and few things create division as effectively as race. Was that even a factor here? Maybe, but given the number of complaints against this officer, it is plausible that color doesn’t even register with him, that he is a sociopath with a badge and gun, and woe unto the person who falls within his crosshairs. Which speaks to an actual problem, that of far too many law enforcement agencies protecting officers who do not deserve it... Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/06/the_black_and_white_of_systemic_racism.html#ixzz6ObJZj8I3 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook More at link.

I think if you heard my point you'd have better luck coming up with a relevant reply to it. Here, I'll make it simple.

Cute little blank verse poem Rue. Personally though, I prefer this one: