Tags
Anfifa, BLM, Covid hysteria, D/S/Cs, Darren Wilson, evil, FBI, Friedrich Hayek, George Zimmerman, insurance, Kyle Rittenhouse, marxists, Michael Brown, racism, second amendment, self-defense, slavery, state lines, Trayvon Martin, Vigilante
Vigilante (noun): a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate).
As regular readers know, in covering the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the media have reached new, nearly unimaginable, lows, previously unplumbed depths of depravity. Their coverage, in most cases, flew past “wrong” at warp speed directly into maliciously false—they lied. When a given reporter and/or pundit could, as easily as did I, the author of this scruffy little blog, discover the truth with a few clicks, what’s their excuse for the myriad lies they told, and continue to tell to this day? When they lie in the service of a narrative that not only would delight in seeing an innocent boy locked up for life without possibility of parole, but directly encourages and fuels riot, arson, looting and the destruction of the social tolerance necessary for civil society to survive, what can we call such commentary, such people, but evil?
Among the lies that will forevermore be told about Kyle Rittenhouse is he was a vigilante. Democrats/Socialists/Communists–D/S/Cs–know words matter, which is why they always try to coopt them to define the terms of every debate, or most recently, to use them—RACIST! WHITE SUPREMACIST!!—to forestall debate before it occurs: shut up! they explain. As rational people must agree, the definition of “vigilante” is specific. In order to qualify, one must “punish crime summarily,” to act as judge, jury and executioner.
That’s not at all what Kyle Rittenhouse and the other armed citizens did.
Also implied is the rule of law remains in force; actual vigilantes ignore it and do as they please.
That wasn’t the case for three nights in August, 2020 in Kenosha, WI.
America has far less of a history of actual vigilantism than conventional wisdom—which is all too often neither–imagines. With few exceptions, such instances of lynching and similar crimes were committed not by Normal Americans, but by Democrats in defense of slavery, segregation and actual racism. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery and racism. Circa 2021, the demand for racism and white supremacy greatly exceeds the supply, so D/S/Cs have merely changed tactics and are projecting their intolerance and racism on others.
It is the spiritual, political, descendants of racist, segregationist Democrats that have clamored for the blood of George Zimmerman—archive here—Darren Wilson—archive here—and Kyle Rittenhouse. It is they, not normal Americans, who have demanded verdict and sentence first, trial later. It is they who seek to be vigilantes, to act summarily. Fortunately, in each case, actual reality—facts, evidence and the law—prevailed over social justice, over what D/S/Cs believe ought to be.
I’ll not reiterate in any great detail the facts of the Rittenhouse case—the SMM Rittenhouse archive is here—I’ve done that and am far from done. Suffice it to say anyone who does not know the facts—the truth—is purposefully ignorant and deceptive. The purpose of this article is to explore the realities of law and life when government abdicates its primary responsibility: public safety, the maintenance of law and order. It’s a topic I most recently approached in You’re On Your Own, 2021, and earlier in Self-Defense In A Reimagined World, in October of 2020.
We have laws that acknowledge and recognize the nature of evil. Fortunately, few are truly evil, but many, given the opportunity, will do evil things. Opportunity occurs when the law isn’t enforced or prosecuted. Opportunity occurs when agitators are paid to travel about the country stirring up trouble. Most such vermin are D/S/Cs and/or anarchists. Some are federal agents, notably the FBI and their informants and contract thugs. These are evil. Normally peaceful people will do things in mobs they’d never do otherwise, particularly when being masked is required rather than seen as criminal intent. Covid hysteria has been a windfall for criminal agitators, and their sponsors are loath to do anything to hamper such politically useful criminals, or to relinquish the slightest control over people’s lives.
Let us then, gentle readers, explore the issues arising from the Rittenhouse case.
Rittenhouse, and the other men with guns should not have been there. No one has the right to take the law into their own hands.
In our representative republic, all governmental power comes from the willing consent of the people. We elect politicians to handle administrative duties, and to hire police officers to do what we could do if we wished. The police, members of the executive branch of government, exercise power on loan from us on condition of good behavior. It is our power; we merely loan it to the police to act on our behalf, to do what we could do, but choose not to do.
What happens when politicians refuse to do their primary duty of public safety? What happens when they become willing accessories to felonies, encouraging and allowing criminals to loot, rob, assault, murder, burn down significant portions of their communities, destroy lives and decades of labor and love? What happens when they prevent the police from doing their jobs, when they abandon the people to a racist, D/S/C, Marxist, anarchist mob?
It is no coincidence every thug that tried to kill Kyle Rittenhouse had a lengthy felony record.
Are we truly willing to simply surrender our communities, our neighbors or families to the mercy of those without mercy? Have we, Americans, the people who bled to abolish slavery, who have at least three times saved the civilized world, become so weak, so fearful? When the politicians we elect betray us, are we willing to simply abandon our power? Do we say: “the politicians have become criminals; there’s nothing we can do to protect our property, our community, our lives?”
When the police choose not to enforce the law because they’re reasonably afraid of being fired and/or prosecuted, it’s no different. When Soros prosecutors refuse to enforce the law, it’s no different. Law-abiding Americans are abandoned, betrayed, left to fend for themselves.
In so doing, they should obey the law, the law betrayed by their elected and hired employees, but it is their law, their power, and if they abandon it, they cede by default all power to people who have demonstrated they are not worthy of wielding it. They become complicit in their own subjugation.
Such betrayers of liberty seek to disarm the law-abiding and call any who stand up for their rights, for the power they rightfully possess, domestic terrorists. Who are the terrorists? The people who exercise their lawful powers when their employees betray them, who demand government acknowledge and uphold their rights, which politicians and police officers swear to do? Or do we speak the truth and acknowledge politicians and police who betray the people, who refuse to do their sworn duties are enemies of all Americans? Do we hold them accountable?
Rittenhouse crossed state lines!
Yes he did. Americans—free women and men–get to do that and tens of millions do it, even while carrying guns, every day. There are three likely reasons for this lunatic narrative:
1) It sounds somehow bad, at least to D/S/Cs. Anyone crossing state lines with an “assault weapon,” must somehow be evil, and already convicted of whatever. Rittenhouse did not carry any gun across state lines, though if he did it would have been entirely legal, and there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”
2) It’s an attempt to use federal law to prosecute Rittenhouse and to enact further gun control measures. The crossing of state lines is often a trigger for federal involvement. Because Rittenhouse was not acting “under color of law,” there seems no applicable federal statute, but that won’t stop the most weaponized, racist Department of Justice in American history from trying.
3) It has become part of the eternal and false social justice narrative, just as Trayvon Martin was a scholar and pilot who was obviously innocent because he was wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles, and Michael Brown said “hands up; don’t shoot.” In the parlance of professional journalists, it’s “fake but accurate.”
But destruction of property isn’t violence. It’s just reparations for whatever offense rioters and their abettors and apologists claim has afflicted them. Besides, they have insurance.
Destruction of property, as in damaging or in any way destroying the property of others, is a crime and an offense against civilization. The protection of private property is another of the primary duties of government, for if we do not have the right to private property and the means to protect it, we live in a state of nature, a Marxist utopia. This right, is part of the foundation of any free society. When government betrays that right, all other liberties are shattered.
Destruction of property is always violence. It does violence to the labor, hopes, dedication and dreams of its owners. It is an assault on their ability to make a living, to maintain a standard of living. It is an assault on the public peace, the ability of Americans to live unmolested by crime and hatred. If we abandon the right to private property, America ends.
The very idea of reparations is a fraud. It is people who have never suffered deprivation or slavery destroying or stealing the hard-won property of people who have never deprived or enslaved anyone. There is no justice in that, merely destruction and denial of the contributions of those who have built America and continue to build and maintain it. It is exalting parasites, takers, people who build and contribute nothing, over those that do. No society can long survive that. And of course, it is against the law D/S/Cs pretend to support, but only so long as it is politically convenient.
It was Friedrich Hayek who said:
If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.
A great many small businesses, the businesses D/S/Cs encourage thugs to loot, destroy and burn to the ground, do not have insurance. Most of those that do are underinsured. Virtually no one has full replacement insurance. It’s just too costly, and rampaging inflation—let’s go Brandon!—renders even that irrelevant. Every insurance payout for a criminally destroyed business increases insurance premiums for every American. Every piece of merchandise stolen or destroyed increases retail prices for every American. This is what Hayek meant. This is real reality.
Insurance is only possible, it only works, when the right to property is unfailingly protected by government. This D/S/C argument, like so many others, may only be made when the rule of law is in effect, yet they make it as they do all they can to destroy the rule of law.
Anyone carrying a gun openly in public is trying to provoke violence. They abandon their right to self-defense.
This is not only logical and legal nonsense but moral nonsense. The Second Amendment does not establish anything. It merely recognizes the fundamental, unalienable right to self-defense, which is a right inherent in all human beings. If there is no right to self-defense, if our lives are forfeit to the most violent and evil among us—including corrupt agents of government—what other right matters? Self-defense is the basis, the beginning, of all rights.
If we have the right to self-defense—D/S/Cs very much want to deny the existence of that right—we also have the right to the means to act upon it, for not everyone is a big, strong, young male. Even strong and martially experienced men may be overcome by force of numbers. D/S/C mobs know this; they count on it.
Openly carrying weapons is not only legal, it is an affirmation of our power, our sovereignty, of the reality that every ounce of governmental power comes from the people, who may, when necessary, exercise it themselves or take it back. If we may keep, but not bear, arms, there is no right to self-defense, and D/S/Cs know it, which is why they never cease to try to limit where arms may be carried and to disarm the law-abiding.
The corrupt Rittenhouse prosecutors lied to the jury. They claimed anyone openly carrying arms provokes violence and forfeits their right to self-defense. This is not only legally false, it’s a moral abomination, an affront to the Constitution and to the natural law. It denies individual sovereignty, the most important, fundamental, unalienable right, and in so doing, exalts evil.
One may argue about the efficacy of concealed versus open carry of arms, but that’s an argument that applies only when the rule of law is in force. For three days in August of 202, the rule of law was suspended in Kenosha, WI, its citizens betrayed by those entrusted to maintain it.
The few brave souls that went openly armed upheld the rule of law. Despite being unquestionably provoked, they protected businesses and lives. They did not break any law, and what they protected was not stolen, damaged or burned. They exercised the power they always had, the power politicians and police abandoned. They deterred, they did not commit, crimes, just as the police do with the power loaned them, and so should we all.
Anyone who interferes with a mostly peaceful protest is a racist.
A peaceful protest is one in accord with the First Amendment. In such protests, crimes are not committed, and when some commit crimes, the police immediately arrest and remove them. Riots are what we’re discussing, riots inspired and supported for racist, political, destructive goals. Black Lives Matter is a racist, Marxist organization with one primary goal: the destruction of American society. D/S/Cs call this “fundamental transformation.” These are actual domestic terrorists, and a great many common criminals and sociopaths take advantage of their “mostly peaceful protests.”
In Kenosha, most of those committing violent felonies were white. Where’s the racism, the white supremacy in preventing them from committing those crimes? With a single exception, every one of the thugs that tried to kill Kyle Rittenhouse were white? Was the black thug, a felon with a long criminal record whose identity the Prosecution hid, a white supremacist, or was Rittenhouse a white supremacist for defending his life?
Is arguing black Americans are incapable of supporting themselves, of civilized behavior, so they must be allowed to steal, assault, loot, burn and murder somehow noble, somehow a manifestation of truth and justice, or is it racist? Who are the racists, those that argue black Americans are immoral thieves, robbers, burglars, arsonists and murderers, or those who believe them moral, intelligent beings, capable of society-building good behavior? Those who expect nothing of them, or those who hold them to account for their actions? Are well-off whites who take advantage of riots, supposedly to support such evil goals noble and anti-racist, or rather anti-American, anti-civilization? If we exempt any group of Americans from the law, from civilized behavior, from morality, if we expect only evil from them and excuse, even praise it, how long can America last?
Final Thoughts:
Kyle Rittenhouse and every other armed citizen had every right to be there that night. They had every right, legal and moral, to be armed. They had every right to protect property and to deter the mob. We all do.
The thugs they deterred had no right to be there. They had no right to commit crimes, to riot. They took advantage of the stupidity, the betrayal, the evil of the politicians of Kenosha, WI and of Wisconsin’s feckless D/S/C Governor. People like Kyle Rittenhouse held the line between the rule of law and a state of anarchy.
The Founders believed some things, such as the loss of liberty, are worse than death. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to that cause, to that principle. We owe them more than we can repay.
There are powerful forces arrayed against liberty. They would disarm us, substitute social justice for the rule of law, the whims of Marxists for the Constitution and natural law. They would divide us by calling racism “equity,” by calling evil good, by encouraging us to hate each other, encouraging us to deny our common humanity, by substituting racist preferences for merit and accomplishment. They would destroy our economy, our sovereignty and our standard of living.
They are evil, and evil has one source.
We are now engaged in a battle to discover if we have the mettle, the wisdom to embrace what the Founders knew, what they risked everything to achieve. Kenosha, WI was merely one battlefield, the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse one small victory, a temporary vindication of the rule of law, of self-defense, the foundation upon which all human rights stands. The enemies of civilization, of equality under the law, of human rights will never rest. They must be fought every day, in every community, in every courtroom, and they must be defeated. Evil thrives best when people shrink from calling it what it is.
Who are we, and for what do we stand?
Stately McDaniel Manor 
“Who are we, and for what do we stand?”
Sounds like you stand for the “right” to brandish your gun wherever you want, the “right” to pull the trigger, and the “right” to get away with the responsibility for pulling it.
I’ll rate this a one-star troll attempt. Seriously, Doug, we expect more from you.
“We” do? This a Kumbaya moment?
Dear Doug:
Uh, you did read the part where I said people should do the job of police, which is in their power, when the police refuse to do it, and even then, should obey the law?
Brandishing is a crime and has nothing to do with lawfully and openly bearing arms in public, but other than that semantic straw man, you’re correct.
We do have the right to bear arms in public.
We do have the right to pull the trigger in self defense when we have a reasonable belief that we are in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
We do have the right to be acquitted of any charges by a court of law when the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the criteria for lawful self defense was met.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. What’s so complicated about it to you?
“We do have the right to bear arms in public.”
Actually.. in some states and under certain conditions, you have the “right” to make a personal choice as to whether to bear arms in public or not.
“We do have the right to pull the trigger in self defense when we have a reasonable belief that we are in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.”
You have the “right” to determine a personal self-defense situation and the “right” to judge for yourself the amount of force to neutralize the situation, and from that the “right” to decide to use the gun you are carrying as a tool to neutralize the threat, and the “right” to determine if pulling the trigger is the only way to neutralize the threat.
…that being said…
“We do have the right to be acquitted of any charges by a court of law when the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the criteria for lawful self defense was met.”
No.. you have the right to a trial by a jury of your peers to determine if evidence supports a proper application of self-defense according to the law, which then determines if an acquittal is appropriate. This “right” of a self-proclaimed self-defense is NOT any guarantee of legal immunity.
Seems like a lot of this is a matter of personal judgement. That should be no problem because EVERYONE who owns a gun is “law-abiding”, and EVERYONE who is “law-abiding” ALWAYS displays exemplary common sense, appropriate situational awareness, and complete knowledge of the legal extent of their intentions.
I sure feel safe.
Well said.
And remember well that the bill of rights are restrictions on government, not the people. The right to free speech doesn’t come from the 1st amendment, nor the right to bear arms from the 2nd amendment. They are natural rights, granted to all free men by our creator, not by politicians, judges, or the constitution.
Dear The other Phil:
Indeed.
So, Phil, now we are disregarding the laws of man simply because “God told us doing what we want is ok?”
Let me guess, you open carry long guns because God said you could?
Did Binger really tell the jury that sometimes they just have to take a beating?
Man does that guy have three dicks because you seriously couldn’t get that stupid just pulling one or two. In my army days we called people like him triplecocks. Actually we had a monthly award which was a dildo mounted on a plaque and we called it the dumb prick of the month award.
Also Doug is a rather sad troll as he tried to troll me once and got shut down by another commentator as I just decided to ignore him as you cannot make stupid smart.
Three?? I didn’t see that video. But hey.. if that’s your thing, more power to you. I’m still having fantasies about the Martian chick in Total Recall with the three boobs.
Who decides, Mike? Who decides when the police need help to the point where citizens feel the need to intervene on a duly represented institution of law and order, established by the people, and for the people? Who decides when government is not effective to the point where law and order is not up to the standards some in the public expect? You suggesting God decides? The Bible? Was it not the elements of the Bible that the Founders used to create this republic under the Constitution we live in that you want to defy under some construct of it being a divine right to own a gun and to use it? Where does the Constitution… the ONLY document of man that rules this country… mention anything about God or God-given anything? You’re trying to justify the potential lawlessness of deciding for yourselves when and how your guns will be used based on the idea that all gun owners are “law abiding”.
You people.. yes.. “you people” are just itching for a reason to kill someone with your guns. The only importance Rickenhouse had was to send the alarm that open carry will create deadly situations. Anything more and you are fooling yourselves.
But, hey.. I’m only one troll in a sea of……………..
Doug,
You operate on the “if you through enough
on the wall some of it might stick” principle. It’s
entertaining, and you are pretty obvious. But,hey,
it’s your only pony, so ride it.
Jughead
Glad I am so obvious; that’s the whole point. You seldom post a reply to anything in here… yet you have the impetus to rise up to the challenge to reply this time simply to assign some turpitude to my opinion. One might think you fear something. But then again, when one is busy tossing things against a wall to see if anything sticks, sometimes the stuff that ends up sticking was something on the wall already.
Doug–I did not realize how much you miss me!
Sorry, but I work and can’t only give you attention
when I don’t have something important to do.
However, just in passing. If you have not noticed,
in many areas police have been either shut down
finanacially (defund the police) or have been told
to stand down–and if ya don’t, see what can happen
to ya, buddy, says the local DA. I think that even you
will like totally agree with me that good men have to
self identify and fill the gap. Kind of like the partizans
in France stepped in when the Petain government
stood the army down–or, what would you say? I hope
you will correct me–toss something on the wall and see
if it sticks.
Back to work, baby wants bread. Hope this satisfied your
need (do you have a hobby?)
Jughead
If I understand Doug correctly, if a woman comes up to you and says a man is stalking her, the correct response is to tell her to call the police and leave you alone.
I’m sorry.. does this fellow she is requesting help from have a long gun slung over his shoulder, which is the reason she went to him rather than the unarmed meter-maid writing a parking ticket?
My point is NOT denying individual self-defense. My point is entirely about open carrying a long gun trolling for bad guys. :/
Doug
You are in luck here. I can give you the complete answer to your question regarding who decides things when the normal civilized has broken down… It will be the thugs, Doug and you will have no choice but to go along.
Well, wait a second… I thought all gun owners were law abiding. How would ‘thugs” have guns? Certainly not every thug stole a firearm given it’s easy enough in most places to buy one legitimately. We have that many thugs roaming around the countryside that we need to carry long guns?
Dear Doug:
Actually, yes we do, particularly in blue cities and states. Ask Chicago.
Doug
In peace-able times you can get a loose idea about how many people in your area might have, by one means or the other, come to own a firearm. In un-peace-able times It is much harder to know how many of those will turn out to be armed thugs out to dominate and steal vs goods guys who you can work together with. (Hint, get to know your neighbors while you can.)
That’s a helpful hint for sure. Thanks for the tip.
I would think maybe Day 5 into the collapse-of-the-nation apocalypse would bring out a few hidden guns as well.
Quite a Troll party.
Reminder that the Leftists/Democrats/Progressives think that you only have the “rights” that they allow and that will never been when their Storm Troopers are engaging in “righteuous” looting and burning. I have seen the results and the long recovery required from head trauma, and, “Thank you, No”. I am too old to even consider going one-on-one in a brawl. I think that Rittenhouse was very appropriate in his respone to being attacked. I hope I can behave as well if the time comes.
Vigilantes (The Committee of Vigilance) act when the police can not, or will not, enforce the law and protect innocent civilians. On their own initiative. The Kenosha police stood down and did nothing during the Leftist riots, so a young man stepped up to limit the damage to “his” town. The Democratic City authorities then acted to punish Kyle with a persecution in a “Show Trial”, in spite of the video and personal evidence showing “self defense”. Fortunately, the Jury could see the truth and were courageous enough to vote, “Not Guilty”, in spite of the harassment that they endured. In the real world, [paraphrase] “Hazard invites rescue” and no one needs the permission of Doug, or his kind, to act in self defense, or in the aid of others. Individual actions can be chaotic, so the involvement of the authorities is generally preferred, but if they can’t, or won’t, act……. The Lefties had better stick to the Democratic cities where the residents are un-involved. You know, like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Seattle.
Um…Yes?
Mike, thanks for this.
I’ve been battling the canard that “Kyle should have never been there” even with right wing commentators pretty much since this happened.
Kyle was 17. The same age I was when I joined the military centuries ago. He saw what was happening in a community that he had deep ties to and wanted to help, so he stood up.
The conditioned sheep among us (Doug?) would have us believe that our role in society is just to sit back and watch when bad things are happening. Let the government handle it. That attitude is how you end up with stories like the one I linked above. I’m betting Doug would have been one of the people watching an innocent woman be violently raped and thinking “where’s a cop when you need one?” while filming the attack on his phone. Can’t be a vigilante, right? Someone might get hurt.
Kyle Rittenhouse knew he was going into a dangerous situation and he did it anyway because he felt it was the right thing to do. He was more of a man on that night than 90% of the males in this country would be and I have nothing but respect for him.
The fact that most refuse to stand up when times demand it. When most cower in their homes and hope that someone else will handle it, or that the evil will pass them by, is why these thugs and criminals feel empowered to destroy the livelihoods of honest, hardworking citizens and beat down or kill anyone who resists them in the first place.
Mr. Jughead…
” I think that even you will like totally agree with me that good men have to
self identify and fill the gap.”
Yeah, well, the problem with that is not everyone (and all it takes is one) are not necessarily “good” men or men of sound judgement, if for nothing else but lacking in any sort of training. Somehow relying on the the “School of Patriotism” and a degree in “AR-15” doesn’t fit the bill as training in anything.
Given that, even in communities where police have taken to the hills or have been shunned by their citizenry to some measure, protection of the population is up to the citizens to make sure government protects them. This is a basic responsibility of government at all levels. If government fails to respond then one goes up to the next level, that being the state.
It’s one thing to grab a gun to stand watch to protect house and home… but a totally another thing to roam (not patrol) the streets carrying a long gun seeking to be a vigilante under the guise of some legal authority.
Until such time that there is an on-going breakdown of law & order, we (used to be) a civilized nation bound by laws and due process.
Your taunting to demean the contrary opinions of others seems to be a fulfilling hobby for you, We should all be so lucky.
Doug,
Just got home with bread for baby. I admit I broke company
rules and read your reply on my cell–and it made me doubt that I had,
like every other human being, except if they have a certificate of
authentic warrant, to discern if I am a good man (what if Satan speaks
at my shoulder?) at all? And if the situation even warrants my impudent
interference. Well, so there I was passing an alley and there was
a woman being raped–at least it looked that way. But what if she was
just overreacting? Or if she doth protest too much? Of it it were a
sado-maso kind of thingy? I did have my assault pistol under my arm,
but I did not see Romeo with one. That would be over-reacting, says I,
to introduce an assault pistol–what would Doug say? I says to myself,
should I just ask her, but then I says to myself, what if she says bugger off;
or he, forsooth!, says “that’s not fair to bring an assault pistol to a rape
when I don’t have one!” After a while she stopped moving so I thought
to myself it’s ok now and I didn’t have to make an error of judgment.
Thank you Doug!
By the way, I need to help you get the facts straight in your story cause
someone might take exception to your case. The roaming that Rittenhouse
did was when he was running away from the armed felons who only, in
the words of prosecutor Kraus, wanted to beat him up–“Sometimes you
just got to take the beating!” says Kraus. Truly wise words.
So, the naive boy was asked by the car lot owner to watch his lot so
his cars would not be burned.
Now, that’s waving a red flag before a bull, a cliche I know, so the
offended mostly peaceful demonstrators decided that they needed to
only beat him up, when they got their hands on him, (honest, we’re
only going to beat you up–and we’ll honestly not hurt you in any
permanent way, much less cause your death!) because he was
protecting cars.
Got to feed baby.
Jughead
Mike you were so on point in this one sir. Perhaps your best most recent writing. Bravo!
Doug I will defend your right to have and express your opinions. Does not mean I have to agree with them or that you have to agree with mine. But you owe others the same right and respect we give you sir.
Whoa.. when have I denied anyone their expression of their opinion in here? In fact, where have I not given anyone a level of respect? Please read all the replies submitted to me.. and tell me where I lacked any respect.. in spite of the dismissive references to me being a troll.
I’m thinking you’re confusing my lack of agreement with a lack of respect.
Dear Keith Plymale:
Thanks!
Mike, excellent article. As for Doug or other trolls, just ignore them. They distract from useful interaction. They cannot be convinced or reasoned with. Whether Doug is a pathetic old man, a high school kids who should be doing something useful or a college professor who will eventually burn in hell is irrelevant. We have serious things to discuss.
Ah.. I’m holding up serious discussion. Other than what Mike posts, I don’t see a lot of serious discussion resulting from that here. Perhaps I’ll kick back and check out some of this serious discussion about to unfold.
Oh.. btw… I would lean more toward the “pathetic old man” who wishes he were still a “high school kid that should be doing something useful”. Yeah.. that’s the ticket.
Dear Phil:
Thanks, and what you said.
Sorry, Jughead… it’s serious discussion time for you here. No time to reply.
Doug,
I know, I stooped to a hypothetical, but that is your fairyland!
You should feel at home, and, as Samuel said, you do play
the fool, but, you don’t like having the fool returned to you, and
when your game is called, hide your bladder sticks and play
Polonius.
It’s ok. Just as we see through the evening news we see
through you, and it’s fun, in an exasperating way, to see you
contort this way and that. You remind intelligent people what
we are up against.
Farewell. You are too serious for me. Seriously.
Jughead
Apparently you don’t read other replies. My “serious” reply to you was in reference to Phil who decided I was a pathetic old man to be dismissed so that folks here could get down to serious discussion. I wasn’t suggesting you or anyone else were not being serious.
Polonius is a fair mention…
“Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t”
Hi, I’m Doug. I want all of you to know just what a complete and utter sh?t I’ve been. I tend to forget to take my meds and make a complete fool of myself. Please forgive me for wasting all of your time.
Reblogged this on It's Karl and commented:
Vigilantism is what we get when the police aren’t allowed to function. The police exist as much to protect criminals (suspected or otherwise) from the people as the other way around.
Defund or disempower the police, and you may not like what pops up in their place.