Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 25, 2016, 12:33:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97395 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10

 31 
 on: September 23, 2016, 02:04:24 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by objectivist1
Protest Thugs and the Real Evil in Charlotte

Nothing says “family man” like assaulting women and children.

September 23, 2016

Daniel Greenfield - Frontpagemag.com


Keith Lamont Scott was scum.

He had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in two different states and convicted of assault in three states. He had been hit with “assault with intent to kill” charges in the 90s. His record of virtue included “assault on a child under 12” and “assault on a female.”

The media spin; “Family and neighbors call Scott a quiet ‘family man.’”

Nothing says “quiet” like “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill” and nothing says “family man” like assaulting women and children.

Keith Lamont Scott, the latest martyr of Black Lives Matter and its media propaganda corps, was shot while waving a gun around. He had spent 7 years in jail for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”

This vicious monster’s career of crime ended when he was shot by Brentley Vinson, an African-American police officer, protecting himself from the latest rampage by this “quiet family man.”

Brentley Vinson is everything that Scott isn’t. The son of a police officer, Brentley dreamed of following in his father’s footsteps. He used to organize his football team’s bible studies and mentored younger players. Former teammates describe him as a “great guy” with “good morals.” His former coach calls him a “natural leader” and says that, “We need more Brent Vinsons… in our communities.”

Except that Obama, Black Lives Matter, the media, the NAACP and everyone else going after this bright and decent African-American officer has decided that what we really need are more Keith Lamont Scotts. And the streets of Charlotte are full of “Scotts” throwing rocks at police, assaulting reporters and wrecking everything in sight in marches that are as “peaceful” as Scott was a “quiet family man.”

That’s what Hillary Clinton wanted when she tweeted that, “We have two names to add to a long list of African-Americans killed by police officers. It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable.”

What exactly should be intolerable? An African-American police officer defending his life against a violent criminal who happened to be black? Should black criminals enjoy a special immunity? The greatest victims of black criminals are black communities.

Whom does Hillary Clinton imagine she’s helping here? Instead of standing with heroic African-American police officers like Vinson, she’s championing criminal scum like Scott.

Tim Kaine, Hillary’s No. 2, wants us to think about Scott’s family. We should do that. Scott’s brother announced on camera that all “white people” are “devils.” Timmy should check to see if he can get an exemption from white devildom.  But if there are any white devils, it’s men like Kaine and women like Hillary who enable the worst behavior in a troubled community while punishing those who try to help.

Every time the lie about “peaceful” protests is repeated, another black community becomes unlivable.

Twenty police officers have been injured and National Guard troops have arrived to deal with all those “peaceful” protests. Protesters chanted, “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” before throwing things at police and then peacefully shooting each other. Stores had their windows broken and decorated with Black Lives Matter graffiti. A Walmart was peacefully looted and trucks were torched.

A police officer was peacefully hit by a car. Another was peacefully hit in the face with a rock. Mobs besieged and attempted to break into hotels. Reporters were attacked and a photographer was nearly thrown into a fire. White people were targeted by the racist Black Lives Matter mob and assaulted.

But all these peaceful rioters are probably just quiet family men too.

The peaceful protests are as big a lie as the “bookish” Keith Lamont Scott reading a book in his car. Police had no trouble finding a gun. They couldn’t have found Scott anywhere near a book. The only thing he could have done with a book is try to beat someone to death with it. Maybe a child.

Scott wasn’t a quiet family man; he was a violent criminal with a horrifying vicious streak. He and the rest of the Black Lives Matter rioters remind us of the monsters that we need dedicated police officers to protect us from.

The spin on what happened between a deranged black criminal and a courageous black police officer fell apart as fast as the Freddie Gray case, where black police officers were targeted and a city terrorized over conspiracy theories relating to the accidental death of a drug dealer.

The claims of racism are absurd. Not only was Scott shot by an African-American police officer, but Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, who has taken the lead in defending him, is also African-American.

Are we supposed to believe that an African-American police officer and an African-American police chief are racists or that these two black men took the lead in a genocidal conspiracy to kill black men?

That’s the laughable premise of the racist Black Lives Matter hatefest that alternates between “Stop killing us” street theater and violent assaults on police officers, reporters and anyone in the area.

But the truth doesn’t matter. Black Lives Matter rioters are still chanting, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” long after the Michael Brown lie fell apart. They’re holding up signs reading, “It Was a Book.”  The lie is backed by some of the biggest media corporations in the country, by $130 million from George Soros and the Ford Foundation, by Barack Hussein Obama and by Hillary Clinton.

These are the malign forces destroying Charlotte, as they trashed Baltimore. On the ground there are the vulture community organizers of Black Lives Matter, funded by the left, who parachute in to organize race riots, behind them are the reporters who sell the spin live on the air and the photographers who capture glamor shots of the racist rioters, and after them come the lawyers of the DOJ out to ruin, terrorize and intimidate whatever law enforcement survived the riots.

They did it in Ferguson and a dozen other places. Now they want to do it in Charlotte.

They want to do it because they hate white people and black people. They hate peace and decency. They hate the idea of people getting up in the morning and working for a living. They hate the idea of good officers, white and black men and women, like Brentley Vinson, who genuinely believe in doing the right thing. They want unearned power. They demand unearned wealth. And they thrive on destruction.

This is the real evil in Charlotte. And we need to stand up to it. From the ghetto to the manors of the liberal elite from burning cars to pricey restaurants in exclusive neighborhoods, it plots against us.

It is a lie repeated a million times. Sometimes the lie is simple. Other times it’s sophisticated. But the way to fight it is to begin with the truth.

The truth is that Keith Lamont Scott was a violent criminal who came to a bad end because of his own actions. Just like Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and too many other Black Lives Matter martyrs to count.

The truth is that everything Black Lives Matter does reminds us of why we need police officers.

The truth is that this is not about race, but about those who want to build and those who want to destroy. It’s about the difference between Brentley Vinson and Keith Lamont Scott.

It’s about what kind of country we want to be. Is it a country that celebrates a young black football player who chose to follow in his father’s footsteps, who organized bible study and helped others, who risked his life to keep other people safe. Or is it one that celebrates Keith Lamont Scott, who assaulted a woman, a child and anyone else he could get at, who terrorized three states and died as he lived.

Obama and the left want a nation of Keith Lamont Scotts. But now it’s our turn to choose.

 32 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:42:22 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DDF
"Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs."

 smiley

I'll be the first to admit, the hypocrisy stings. Americans flags I have seen while here (other than at the American embassy)? Zero. They'll through you out with out so much as a court date, for the offense.

 33 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:33:57 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
 shocked shocked shocked

Please post here as well.

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1148.100

This forum's interest in this issue is longstanding.

 34 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:27:26 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
A thoughtful analysis DDF.

 35 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:25:53 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
I had "Inside NFL Football this Week" (something like that) as a weekly recorded program, but have deleted it.  I'm bummed but there it is.

 36 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:22:04 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
"Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs."

 smiley

 37 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:20:55 AM 
Started by Martel - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Of the Ten Commandments, only one is against a thought-- "Thou shall not covet , , , "

Maybe God was trying to tell us something.

 38 
 on: September 23, 2016, 11:18:18 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Washington at Its Worst: Senate Passes Non-Existent Bill
Commentary By Rachel Bovard, Daily Signal,  9/21/16

A 10-year veteran of congressional policy battles, Rachel Bovard is The Heritage Foundation’s director of policy services.

On Tuesday night the Senate voted to proceed to the Continuing Resolution (CR), a bill that will allegedly fund the government until Dec. 9.

The only problem is that there isn’t actually a bill yet.

There is no text. There is no agreement between Democrats and Republicans on what the bill will fund — Planned Parenthood, the Export-Import Bank, control of the Internet — all of it remains a mystery.

Yet the Senate voted 89 – 7 to proceed to this non-existent bill..

The Senate operates under complex parliamentary rules that require a series of votes in order to “proceed to” or “get onto” a bill. The vote Tuesday night was the first in what will be a series of votes on the continuing resolution or spending bill.

Despite Senate leadership’s protests to the contrary, a vote to proceed to a bill that’s not yet written is, in fact, a substantive act — particularly when there is so much at stake.

And Senate leadership tried to pitch this as simply a process vote. Sen. Mitch McConnell’s, R-Ky., communications director tweeted that this vote was “just procedural” and “not a vote on the CR” or on Zika funding. Various reporters tweeted that this was just a vote on a “shell bill,” and that the text of the continuing resolution would be crafted at a later date.

But the fact still remains: on Tuesday, the Senate voted to proceed to a bill that does not yet exist.

Forget not being able to read it, or not having time to digest the policy at hand. The bill does not exist.

Despite Senate leadership’s protests to the contrary, a vote to proceed to a bill that’s not yet written is, in fact, a substantive act — particularly when there is so much at stake. The continuing resolution will be the battleground for major policies, like whether or not Planned Parenthood will receive Zika funding, if the Export-Import Bank can send taxpayer dollars to fund Boeing deals with Iran, or if the U.S. will lose control of the Internet.

All of these deals have yet to be struck (although press reports suggest that Republicans have already caved to Democrats on Planned Parenthood funding). What the Senate did Tuesday was to give the go-ahead to Senate leadership to strike those deals on their behalf. Each of the 89 senators who voted to proceed to text that they’ve never seen yielded their authority to have input on the deal, to influence the outcome of a major funding bill.

This is not just a procedural vote, and it is wrong to describe it as such. Voting to proceed to a bill is as much a substantive act as voting on the bill — different, but still substantive. In this case, the Senate voted to proceed to whatever backroom deal their leadership happens to strike.

As Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., explained his “no” vote to Congressional Quarterly, “We don’t have that text yet. It’s important that we do have that and we do know the direction that it’s going when we get to that spot.”

Lankford is right about why senators must have text before beginning any vote series, procedural or otherwise — you can’t approve the start of a process without knowing first where it’s going to end.

The McConnell-Reid era has witnessed a Senate that is less transparent, where individual members are less aware of their rights, and where there is a growing centralization of power in the Leader’s office. Tuesday’s vote was another step in that direction.

Individual senators are all equal in authority — with the same rights and the same access to the Senate rules. Senators would do well to keep that in mind next time their leadership says, “Trust us,” and tells them to approve moving forward on a bill they have yet to see.

 39 
 on: September 23, 2016, 10:25:45 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DDF
I don't really know what thread to post this under but this seems as good as any:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/21/school-allows-boy-run-homecoming-queen-first-rejecting-request/

Prompted no doubt, by a threatened lawsuit from the ACLU (also preventing students from being suspended for kneeling during anthems):

"ACLU Director Marjorie Esman said the organization had received two complaints in 24 hours."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a0d5d0e3b5454e66af7bdfa694cded7b/aclu-students-have-right-sit-during-pledge-allegiance

There is not a day that goes by, in which I do not feel as though my country isn't under attack from within.

 40 
 on: September 23, 2016, 09:54:03 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DDF
Trump passed on the invitation of the president of the Ukraine to meet today.

If I have it right, Hillary accepted?



Interesting point. It was obviously a huge potential to build relevance and experience on an international level. OTOH, there are many that think Empress Dowaga would lead the US into a war with Russia. One of Trump's strengths is the so called "bromance" that he enjoys with Putin.

I was debating the Crimea with the Catholic Bishop here one day, who is a wise man of roughly 65 years old. Crimea has a long and storied history where it has changed hands several times, and if anything, is Cimmerian territory, being neither Russian nor Ukrainian. The Crimea, two and a half centuries ago, became part of Russia, having been relased from the Ottoman empire, it because a region with autonomous rule and joined with Russia in 1783. The territory itself wasn't handed over to Ukraine until 1954 by Krushev.

Trump was correct in avoiding this due to what can be gained by a useful relationship with Trump, especially when Ukraine relies on Russia for a number of things, especially natural gas. Trump had too much to lose and not enough to win, being that the subject certainly would have presented itself.

Hillary OTOH, has nothing to lose given the far flung and unsubstantiated rumors of a Russian hacker leaking the Democratic party's misdeeds. Being in the situation she is in, can only benefit from a relationship with Ukraine.

Trump could have went, played a subdued hand of remaining neutral, but that would have been perceived as weakness, especially by the Leftist media and even by his own supporters (Trump is popular because he is seen as unflinching and strong - if he loses that, he loses the election). This was something that he couldn't have won without convincing Putin himself, to give the Crimea back to Ukraine, but from a Russian perspective, that won't happen. Even when Kruschev gave it to Ukraine, the Ukraine was itself a portion of the Soviet Union, so Kruschev was in effect, losing nothing. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is not until then, that any of this was even a question of who owned the Crimea. Trump was best to avoid the subject altogether.

Edit: And just now, reading this http://uatoday.tv/politics/ukrainian-president-petro-poroshenko-meets-us-presidential-candidate-hillary-clinton-750168.html , (three days ago)
they did in fact discuss exactly that:

"Petro Poroshenko informed Hillary Clinton about the situation in Donbas. The Ukrainian Head of State emphasized that Ukraine today fights for freedom and democratic values, which unite the whole democratic world. The interlocutors agreed that consolidated Transatlantic unity and solidarity with Ukraine is important in resisting the Russian aggression. It was also noted the effectiveness of sanction policy against Russia. Petro Poroshenko thanked Hillary Clinton for continuous and firm supportive stance on Ukraine."

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!