Eric Garner

What We Saw at Tonight's Eric Garner Protest

Demonstrators pack the streets of Midtown Manhattan.

|

Protestors packed the streets of Midtown Manhattan tonight to protest today's announcement that a grand jury had declined to indict the NYPD officer who killed an unarmed man named Eric Garner last July by choking him with a nightstick after he resisted arrest.

The protest began at 4:30pm with a "die-in" staged at Grand Central Terminal, in which about 20 people lay down on the floor in the middle of the commuter hub. After about an hour had passed, the protestors rose to their feet changing, "I can't breathe," echoing the words of Eric Garner as he was asphyxiated. The demonstration moved to Times Square, and then towards Rockefeller Center. The protesters blocked traffic and attempted to disrupt the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony, but the NYPD kept them at bay by throwing up gates around the site.

Shot and edited by Jim Epstein.

Approximately 2 minutes.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Ask a Communist, Party Panelists Amy Holmes and Rick Ungar, and Judge Napolitano Returns! Open Thread!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The left-wing reaction to this is extremely hypocritical given that it’s their fault things like this happen.

    Want to stop people from dying during confrontations with the cops? Don’t make laws that guarantee a large number of people will have run ins with the police.

    It’s astounding how stupid these people are. They want a vastly more heavily regulated society, complete with high taxes designed to influence behavior, and then they’re confused when people get hurt when the cops show up to enforce those regulations.

    They seem to imagine that laws are self-enforced and that cops will inexplicably not be necessary for their enforcement. You can’t be as anti-cop as the left is while favoring such a bevy of unreasonable laws and regulations. It’s inconsistent and it means that you end up protesting deaths that are the fault of laws you proposed.

    1. “They seem to imagine that laws are self-enforced and that cops will inexplicably not be necessary for their enforcement.”

      Lay this on people: “Would you kill someone who resists the enforcement of this pet law of yours?”

      1. Did you see Salon today throw a hissy fit because conservatives and libertarians pointed out this resulted from the enforcement of ridiculous cigarette laws?

        They basically argued that it’s mean to mention this and that cigarette laws have nothing to do with it. If we just told cops not to be so rough when enforcing laws, the problem would be resolved!

        The best part is that the same people agitating in favor of all these laws and regulations complain about mass incarceration. I’m not sure what they plan to do with all the people who break their laws because they never get around to explaining it.

          1. Now what?

            http://www.salon.com/2014/12/0…..rette_tax/

            1. “With the news that a Staten Island grand jury decided not to indict NYPD cop Daniel Pantaleo for Garner’s death, Twitter erupted with the worst kind of politicizing and general disrespect for the loss of life.”

              Followed by what she obviously thought were horrible, horrible Twitter comments denouncing Garner’s death.

              1. “With the news that a Staten Island grand jury decided not to indict NYPD cop Daniel Pantaleo for Garner’s death, Twitter erupted with the worst kind of politicizing and general disrespect for the loss of life.”

                Progressive logic: “All violence is the fault of gun legislation, but when people are killed during the actual enforcement of laws we favor, it’s simply gauche to point that out.”

                1. I thought the short version of progressive logic was:

                  “If you’d just obey, this wouldn’t be a problem.”

                  1. Which is why their complaining is so easy to turn back on them. Garner would be alive if he just obeyed the authority figures.

                    Garner was obstinate, he wasn’t going to allow himself to be arrested again. But the cops are supposedly enforcing a good law. So… what’s the end game? At some point, the cops would have to restrain him. Yes yes, maybe they write him a ticket. But he doesn’t pay it or show up to court. At some point, if the law is good, it must be enforced against him. There’s ultimately no way to say that Garner was right to stand his ground and that the law is just.

            2. See, it’s evil to mention that this confrontation with the police only occurred because of laws that progressives favor.

              You should just ignore the consequences of left-wing stupidity.

              Salon is basically Pravda from the 1930’s. ‘These vile Kulaks are blaming Comrade Stalin for the starvation in the Ukraine, when in fact it is widely known that hoarders are to blame!’

              1. Their thinking runs on parallel tracks which never meet.

                On one track – “we need taxes on the evil tobacco!”

                On the other track: “Oh, no, police brutality against this poor black guy!”

                On one track: “We need to load up the statute books with laws regulating people for their own good. We presume that these laws will be enforced by armies of cute puppies who will go up to offenders and whimper until the offender agrees to comply with the law!”

                On another track: “Some cop just used extreme violence to enforce one of our laws against someone! What happened – did they run out of puppies?”

                1. Personally, I think complaints about ‘politicizing’ an issue in the wake of some tragedy are always idiotic.

                  For example, after the Newtown shooting, there were conservatives and libertarians complaining that progs were ‘politicizing’ the shooting. The problem is, if I felt that a certain policy had just killed twenty-something six-year olds, I would sure as hell be arguing that we should change that policy. The issue is that I think progressives are wrong about guns and their arguments about firearms are irrational. There’s nothing wrong with saying we should change a policy if you think that policy just killed a bunch of children though.

                  Similarly, there’s nothing wrong with libertarians politicizing the death of Eric Garner. If you think that unnecessary laws result in more police brutality, then it would almost be a dereliction of duty for you not to talk about that when one of those unnecessary laws kills someone.

                  1. Preach it!

                    1. Politicizing = “pointing out the fatal consequences of the policy I advocate”

                    2. “Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.

                      The Prohibitionists are involved in mass murder. The Reagan – Bush administration tried to suppress the finding that cannabis is effective against cancer. You can look it up. Of course the Democrats did nothing when they had a chance.

                      Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.

                      Pass it on.

                      http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto…..onal/page4

                  2. I agree. Imagine if this was a black guy selling untaxed sodas in Berkeley.

                    While that’s partly a joke, it partly isn’t. As an affluent soda-drinker, I wouldn’t be personally affected by such a tax; it’s the poor (who the liberals claim to support) who would suffer.

                    The unspoken agenda behind these sort of “progressive” nanny-state is that poor people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so we’ll use taxation to force them to live the way we (the enlightened progressives) would like them to.

                    To be fair, the racist conservatives who say things like “Garner was resisting, so he deserved to die!” are also idiots.

                    1. To be fair, the racist conservatives who say things like “Garner was resisting, so he deserved to die!” are also idiots.

                      I agree, but I haven’t heard much of this. It seems like the Garner situation is so egregious that conservatives are pro-Garner too.

                      Glenn Reynolds is certainly pro-Garner as is Charles C.W. Cooke. Admittedly, both of them lean more libertarian than the average conservative.

                      Do you have links to conservatives making this argument? I’m sure there are some, I just don’t know how common it is.

                    2. Irish, I saw a LOT of conservatives at PJ media not being pro-Garner.

                      http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014…..old-death/

                      A lot of, “Why didn’t this idiot just OBEY AUTHORITAY? BEING A COP IS HARD!”

                      Sure, some hate on cigarette laws, but a lot of finger wagging towards Garner

                    3. Yeah, I think the breakdown is about 50-50. You still get a lot of reflexive “The police are always right and no one should question our sacred boys in blue!”.

                      But, even in conservative circles, you’re seeing these arguments have to be laid out to just how silly and irrational they are. Ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, the bullshit would have been given a pass and wouldn’t have been challenged.

                    4. The Post has been vociferously anti-Garner. Check out these textbook cases of Cop-apologia:

                      Blame only the man who tragically decided to resist. STOP RESISTING! OBEY! TEH LAW IS TEH LAW!

                2. “We must have even more generous welfare!”

                  “Multiple generations of people living in poverty is the fault of capitalism!”

    2. Tom Tomorrow did a cartoon where he progsplains that cops are trigger-happy when it comes to black people but are extraordinarily deferential to white people:

      http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Tom Tomorrow/

      And he sneers at the idea of killing someone for selling untaxed cigarettes in New York – what will those murderous Tea Partiers think of next?

          1. The Internet is trying to tell me something 🙁

            1. Unfortunately, Tom Tomorrow started as an ‘alternative’ cartoonist in SF. ‘Alternative’, meaning what bores to tears anyone in SF with a brain; he’s a lefty.
              Bush = dumb! Ha, ha!
              Isn’t that amusing?! Isn’t he clever for coming up with such a creative point of view?!
              Fuck Tom Tomorrow with turd’s dick.

              1. Tom Tomorrow used to be one of our young “unknown artists” when I was a magazine editor in San Francisco in the early 90s. He’s gone much farther left than in those days, which unfortunately has made him less humorous and more whiny.

                1. I haven’t seen his stuff recently, but he used to be funny at times, when his sense of humor overcame his fanatic hatred and disdain for people who disagreed with him.

    3. Lenin hated the cops, until he came to power that is. I’m sure Castro wasn’t very fond of Batista’s thugs either…

      1. No power of ANY fucking cute stripe can exist with any broad intent without enforcement. And enforcement generally cannot exist without impunity when run by broad intent.

    4. yes because there was no problem with cops shooting black guys before the new deal

      1. ^ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Look at this fucking guy!

        “If cops before the New Deal hurt black people while enforcing unjust laws, then clearly cops after the New Deal can’t be hurting black people while enforcing unjust laws! The New Deal is like a magic break in American history! Nothing that occurred before the New Deal can still be happening today!”

        Also, dipshit, the progressive era started in the 1890’s and went until about 1920. As a result, the progressives’ greatest period of power was well before the New Deal. Furthermore, since the progressive movement in those years was irremediably racist and one of their greatest achievements was the violence-inducing act of Prohibition, progressive policies clearly killed a large number of people in those years.

        TL;DR: You don’t know what progressivism is, can’t fashion an argument, and have the IQ of a lobotomized squirrel.

        1. you act like you’ve done something impressive kicking the can down the road. ok, genius: because there was no problem with cops shooting black guys before the progressive era

          and, hilarious blaming prohibition on ‘progressives’ when the first five states ratifying the 18th were the progressive strongholds of:

          Mississippi (January 7, 1918)
          Virginia (January 11, 1918)
          Kentucky (January 14, 1918)
          North Dakota (January 25, 1918)
          South Carolina (January 29, 1918)

          1. You don’t know much about history. The earliest progressive strongholds were all in the South.

            See: Thomas Frank’s What’s The Matter With Kansas? in which he bemoans the fact that Kansas used to be a socialist stronghold and isn’t anymore. Here are the returns from arch-progressive Woodrow Wilson’s presidential victory in 1916.

            Huh…notice anything about the states he won? He won EVERY SINGLE STATE that you listed as ‘not being progressive.’

            Wow. Normally it’s not this easy to kick someone’s ass, but you didn’t bring much to this fight.

            1. As for your point about ‘kicking the can,’ if you don’t know when the progressive era happened, then you clearly don’t have the necessary understanding of history to argue about it.

              Secondly, you ignore my far more important point about the fact that black people being brutalized by unfair laws before the progressive era in no way changes the fact that they are now being brutalized by laws progressives support. Those two facts can be true at the same time, so you have made no actual argument for all your inane babbling on the subject.

              1. its you that have no argument, unless you want to try to show that police brutalization of blacks has somehow increased under progressive rule. good luck with that

                1. its you that have no argument, unless you want to try to show that police brutalization of blacks has somehow increased under progressive rule. good luck with that

                  I can actually show this relatively easily. Who runs the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, etc? Which police departments have the worst history of treating African Americans and some of the worst civil rights abuses?

                  Despite constant prog-rule, poor black parts of California are among the worst policed, the most brutal, and probably the most racist.

                  1. do you have any evidence that los angeles, chicago, etc are the worst police departments in treating african americans? or are you just saying you’ve heard of a lot of scandals from these big cities with major news outlets? cuz that my friend is retarded thinking

                    1. let’s test it, shall we? show me any evidence you have that police abuses are worse in democrat controlled cities than they are in gop controlled rural areas. and don’t give me news stories from major newspapers that are from the big cities, that’s the retarded thinking that confuses what’s reported with what’s true

                    2. I don’t think police abuses are worse in Democratic areas. You’re misrepresenting my point.

                      I think that police abuses are terrible in both Democrat and Republican areas. The difference, of course, is that Republicans don’t pretend to give a shit about poor black people when they pass anti-drug laws, to use just on example, which victimize them.

                      My point was that progressives are hypocrites. Republicans make no claim to care about low income blacks. Progressives do, and yet they consistently put forward laws which harm everyone but which particularly hurt poor African Americans.

                      You should really reread my actual post on this subject. I made no claim that Republicans were good on this issue, nor will I ever. They are just as bad as progressives. The issue is that progressives are certainly no better than Republicans, despite their claims to care about the civil liberties of the poor.

                      This is about prog hypocrisy. I have no love for the Republican Party and you won’t see me supporting their abuses anymore than I’ll support dipshit progressive abuses.

                    3. progressives have, at least, put forward supreme court justices that have favored the rights of the accused and minorities vis a vis the police

                    4. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:33AM|#
                      “progressives have, at least, put forward supreme court justices that have favored the rights of the accused and minorities vis a vis the police”

                      Yeah, fuckface, I presume the police don’t enforce eminent domain, right?
                      And those justices who opposed CU? Well, the police don’t enforce those laws, do they?
                      Just checking, since you seem somewhat confused.
                      Well, no. You’re just one more lefty ignoramus.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

            2. Dr. Doom is more easily beatable that I thought.

            3. kansas is in the south? lol

              your 1916 election results prove little other than that the south voted for the democrat. They went for the democrat every election before that. if you’d like to argue tilden was a progressive be my guest. hughes was, of course, a ‘progressive’ too.

              1. kansas is in the south? lol

                Your claim was specifically that five states weren’t progressive. I pointed out that, weirdly enough, all five voted for the most progressive president of his era.

                Not only that, but hyper-prog Woodrow was not merely ‘a Democrat’ he was a Democrat EDUCATED IN THE SOUTH. He was himself a southerner and was incredibly progressive. Therefore, the point about Wilson does disprove your ludicrous argument, because Wilson himself was the product of the progressive Southern culture of his era. That’s why uber-prog Wilson was also the worst racist president we’ve ever had – because he brought together the southern prog-tradition and the southern racist tradition into one loathsome package.

                1. first you think kansas is the south, now you think new jersey is (wilson graduated from princeton genius and then got his graduate education from john hopkins)

                  and, as noted below, while he was a progressive he was hardly the most progressive politician of his era. more importantly his racial views were hardly different from the other major politicians around him

                  1. Wilson was born in Virginia and spent his formative years in Augusta, Georgia.

                    and, as noted below, while he was a progressive he was hardly the most progressive politician of his era. more importantly his racial views were hardly different from the other major politicians around him

                    So because he wasn’t as radical as Eugene V. Debbs he wasn’t a real progressive? Derp.

                    The Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax were all things he signed into law.

                    1. the people i responded to said he was the ‘foremost’ progressive.

                      more importantly, who were the non-progressives in wilson’s time? what were their racial views like? enlighten us

                    2. more importantly, who were the non-progressives in wilson’s time? what were their racial views like? enlighten us

                      Read about conservative and libertarian icon Calvin Coolidge, asshole.

                    3. coolidge who wrote an article about his devotion to racial eugenics in good housekeeping and who signed the most eugenics oriented immigration law in our history? you are so misinformed its funny

                    4. coolidge who wrote an article about his devotion to racial eugenics in good housekeeping and who signed the most eugenics oriented immigration law in our history? you are so misinformed its funny

                      The same Coolidge who desegregated the Civil Service after it was segregated by Woodrow Wilson.

                      Coolidge also tried to pass an anti-lynching bill which was filibustered by the Democrats.


                    5. Here’s a link to the anti-Lynching bill.

                      Dyer was also concerned about the continued high rate of lynchings in the South and the failure of local and state authorities to prosecute them. The lynchings were Southern whites’ extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control and white supremacy, after gaining disfranchisement of most blacks through discriminatory voter registration and electoral rules, and imposing segregation, and Jim Crow laws on the black population in the late 19th and early 20th century.[1] Maintaining white supremacy in economic affairs played a part as well.[2]

                      Republican President Warren G. Harding announced his support for Dyer’s bill during a speaking engagement in Birmingham, Alabama. Although the bill was quickly passed by a large majority in the House of Representatives, it was prevented from coming to a vote in 1922, in 1923 and once more in 1924 in the Senate, due to filibusters by the white Southern Democratic block. The Democrats exerted one-party rule into the 1960s throughout most of the South.

                      The bill classified lynching as a federal felony, which would have allowed the United States to prosecute cases.

                    6. Also, Warren Harding deserves credit for being anti-racism.

                      “I want to see the time come when black men will regard themselves as full participants in the benefits and duties of American citizenship; when they will vote for Democratic candidates, if they prefer the Democratic policy on tariff or taxation, or foreign relations, or what-not; and when they will vote the Republican ticket for like reasons…

                      “I believe in absolute equality in the paths of knowledge and culture, equality opportunity for those who strive, equal admiration for those who achieve; in matters social and racial a separate path, each pursuing his own inherited traditions, preserving his own race purity and race pride; equality in things spiritual; agreed divergence in the physical and material.”

                      I can find a lot of people from that era who were, at the very least, opposed to the sorts of racism that went on in the 1920’s. Unfortunately for you, a grand total of 0 of them can be considered progressives.

                    7. Calvin Coolidge on black soldiers:

                      During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it. ?They took their places wherever assigned in defense of the nation of which they are just as truly citizens as are any others. Th?e suggestion of denying any measure of their full political rights to such a great group of our population as the colored people is one which, however it might be received in some other quarters, could not possibly be permitted by one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color, I have taken my oath to support that Constitution. It is the source of your rights and my rights. I propose to regard it, and administer it, as the source of the rights of all the people, whatever their belief or race. A colored man is precisely as much entitled to submit his candidacy in a party primary, as is any other citizen. ?The decision must be made by the constituents to whom he offers himself, and by nobody else. . . .

                      Man, what a terrible racist!

                    8. here are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

                      calvin coolidge

                    9. your talking about coolidge who ran against an actual progressive party candidate, right? what was the actual progressive party candidates position on civil rights?

                    10. Let us not forget that South Carolina voted over 90% for Bryan, Wilson and FDR. It was also the home of the Ben Tillman who was a supporter of the farmer as Senator based the first federal campaign-finance law, supported railroad Regulation and was a notorious racist who supported lynching, disenfranchised blacks and conducted terrorism against black Republicans.

                    11. how did it vote in 48 when an actual progressive party candidate ran?

                    12. You mean the same Henry Wallace who admitted his pro-Soviet stance was mistaken and supported Eisenhower and Nixon?

                    13. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:34AM|#
                      “how did it vote in 48 when an actual progressive party candidate ran?”

                      I don’t know, you ignorant piece of shit, how did it vote? And prove that the name “progressive’ meant anything.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    14. Wallace performed best in New York, particularly in NYC, you idiot.

                    15. That was directed at Doctor Doom. Also trying to bring up the ephemeral Progressive Parties of TR, Lafollette and Henry Wallace, really?

                    16. “enlighten us”

                      Is that a turd in your pocket?

          2. Yeah, how awkward for you that the Progressives were so intertwined with the Solid South, what with Woody Wilson being both the foremost Progressive in the country and a native Southerner who instituted Jim Crow in Washington.

            etc.

            etc.

            1. was he the ‘foremost progressive in the country?’ it’s almost like he won his first election against someone who might have been running under the progressive party banner lol

              1. Shorter Doom: I can’t refute you said about the link between progressivism and racism, so I’ll talk about Teddy Roosevelt.

                1. shorter notorious gkc: i didn’t know wilson was not the foremost progressive in the country, so i’ll try to keep talking about his racism!

                  1. No, sorry, he was the foremost progressive in the country, you’re still a retard, and my penis is bigger than yours.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNgWQfOd-1M

                    1. yes, he was the foremost progressive when he ran against someone else nominated as the candidate of something called the progressive party. your ignorance is noted, and my penis was plenty big for your mom last night

                    2. You originally wanted to do your own mother, but the line was too long and you didn’t have the money anyway.

                    3. frankly i was too busy giving it to your mom. her moans and sighs were nice, but your father in the corner furiously wanking it were a bit of a killjoy

                    4. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:00AM|#
                      “frankly i was too busy giving it to your mom”

                      No, you’re an easily confused piece of shit and the voices in your head said that chicken you caught was a human.
                      Hint: You’re STUPID!

                    5. your mom clucks when i give it to her, but she is no chicken sevo!

                    6. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:39AM|#
                      “your mom clucks when i give it to her, but she is no chicken sevo!”

                      My mom’s dead, you ignorant piece of shit. That was a chicken.

                    7. You are not the real Doctor Doom. Your incessant prattling, and your pathetic attempts to play mind games with the commenters here amount to nothing.
                      Stop embarrassing yourself.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suW0AOAAnic

                    8. yes, he was the foremost progressive when he ran against someone else nominated as the candidate of something called the progressive party. your ignorance is noted, and my penis was plenty big for your mom last night

                      Woodrow was far more of a Prog than Theodore Roosevelt, no matter what Roosevelt ran as.

                      Roosevelt ran as the standard bearer for the progressive wing of the Republican Party, but the Democrats were a far more progressive party at the time.

                      Hey, good Doctor, why don’t you go look up William Jennings Bryan? The fact that you’re claiming the South wasn’t progressive when they simply adored a hardcore prog like WJB is astonishing.

                      Bryan was a prohibitionist who argued in favor of loose monetary policy and wanted to fight trusts and big business. He was wildly popular in the South. I don’t know how on Earth anyone can claim Southerners opposed progressive policies in that era given their support of Bryan and Wilson.

                    9. You can also point out that ‘Bull’ Connor, Birmingham, Alabama’s infamous public safety commissioner was a New Deal Democrat like most of the other Jim Crow Democrats from the 1930s to the 1960s.

                      FDR sold out African-Americans to form his coalition to the point that he wouldn’t congratulate or even acknowledge Jesse Owens after his triumphs at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

                    10. bull connor who had his men arrest the progressive party vp candidate in 48? lord you’re ignorant

                    11. Bull Connor who served in the 1930s as a populist, pro-union Democrat in FDR’s New Deal Coalition.

                      Why would progressive like FDR tolerate such racists in their party? Why wouldn’t FDR even send Jesse Owens a telegram when he came home after beating Nazi athletes in a humiliating display of the stupidity of Nazi racial theory?

                    12. who do you think is more the forerunner of todays progressives, fdr or wallace (the guy whose vp candidate connor arrested)? kind of throws a kink into your glenn beck narrative

                    13. is bryan the father of progressives or religious conservatives?

                      your argument regarding wilson and tr is hilarious. tr ran as the progressive party candidate but wilson was the true progressive. yeah, right

                    14. So your defense of progressivism is a guy who saw whites as the ‘forward race to enlighten the backward races’, stated that nine out of ten Amerindians were better dead than alive, embraced and pushed American imperialism as much as he could?

                    15. no my point is that such racism permeated every political movement of significance

                    16. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:30AM|#
                      “no my point is that such racism permeated every political movement of significance”

                      MOVE those goal posts, asshole!
                      Think no one here has seen that act before?
                      Fuck off.

                    17. no my point is that such racism permeated every political movement of significance

                      Except that Wilson did not just keep racist policies in place, he made new racist policies. The civil service was desegregated pre-Wilson, was segregated by Wilson, and was desegregated a few years after he left.

                      So Wilson was an outlier in his own era whose beliefs about segregating the civil service were opposed by the presidents both before and after him.

                      Face it: Wilson was racist even by the standards of his time.

    5. I, for some reason, put on Chris Matthews today, and he was so close to getting your point.
      He was talking to someone about the cig taxes and enforcement of them, but he never got there, and instead made a crack about Republicans.

    6. It’s funny how the vast majority of these atrocities only occur in areas of the nation that are hardcore left-wing/Democratic Party strongholds.

  2. The socialists get pissed with dick cops but love to create laws that require them.

    I FUCKING HATE SOCIALISTS AND JESUS FUCKING FREAKS!

    1. I’d probably watch Jesus fucking freaks once, but after that, you’re right, I’d probably hate it.

      1. Not a good show. I wouldn’t recommend it.

        1. Desperation makes for poor eroticism. 🙂

          http://www.theonion.com/articl…..sus,34689/

          1. Meh. When The Onion publishes something comparable about Mohammed, I’ll be impressed.

  3. Prog logic: Cops are racist thugs but we need more taxes, laws and regulations and want law breakers to be punished by those same cops.

    1. But you see, cops *ought not* to be abusive, in the Happy Gummy Bear Land where the progs want to live, THEREFORE, it’s not their fault if non-Gummy-Bear cops act violently in carrying out progs’ laws.

      1. Well they are only supposed to be abusive towards the kulaks, wreckers and saboteurs who deserve it.

    2. I think progs believe that once they get laws passed, everyone will think they are such good ideas no one would ever consider not following them, so enforcement would never be necessary.

      “We can’t do that, dear, it’s against the law, you know.”
      “Oh, you’re right, Jim, what was I thinking?”

  4. From the annals of first world problems: Woman worries that raising her son in ‘geek culture’ will make him a sexist.

    In a phenomenon that has beleaguered many other subcultures as well?given the chance to open their culture to a larger, more diverse population, these geeky men have reacted with the exclusionary, abusive mind-set of those who once bullied them. As Jackson Katz, Ph.D., famed educator and founder of Mentors in Violence Prevention, explains, these men “are repeating the same abuses in their subculture against women. So they can be the victim and the perpetrator.”

    This victim mentality, then, has created a sense of entitlement among geek gatekeepers. Recently a friend of mine actually proclaimed, “But I used to be bullied and made fun of for liking video games.” He explained that he essentially earned the right to this culture and community, but now these other people want in because it’s suddenly cool, adding that “They didn’t have to go through the torment like me. It’s not fair.” Although I’ve heard variations of this from random people, this comment came from a friend I consider an ally, so needless to say I was surprised?but also sympathetic.

    Feminist claims that other people have an unearned victim complex. Not pictured: Self-awareness.

    1. Is the statement any less true for their lack of self-awareness?

    2. given the chance to open their culture to a larger, more diverse population

      Ach, what bull. Geek culture, like science fiction fandom and gamer culture, is very open to “diverse” people. Come on in and do your thing. What they are not open to is the censorious feminist/SJW attitude of “We are the new arbiters of what is allowed, and you all must change what you do and say because it offends us.”

      1. This, so much this.

  5. Also didn’t Gillespie think that Obama was going to end the odious racial discourse in America? He has great predictive abilities.

    1. Redneck America loves their race baiting ways too much.

      1. Especially redneck enclaves like New York City and Cleveland.

        1. nyc which from 94-13 has had gop mayors?

          1. Yeah that Michael Bloomberg, conservative hero!

            1. was he not a gop mayor? dude even addressed the gop convention

              1. GOP does not equal conservative or libertarian

                Democrat does not equal progressive or liberal

                But then again you knew that, didn’t you?

                1. yes, no one would think the gop are conservatives. your funny

                  1. yes, no one would think the gop are conservatives. your funny

                    The Republican Party establishment is not conservative. The Republican Party establishment is filled with milquetoast moderates.

                    John Boehner is certainly no conservative. They hate him.

                    You’re too stupid to realize this, but Democrat does not equal progressive and Republican does not equal conservative. For example, Hillary Clinton is not a progressive and Michael Bloomberg is not a conservative. This is not that difficult to grasp.

                  2. You’re ignorant.

                    1. You’re ignorant.

                      I was on the verge of pointing that out, but decided that when someone’s arguments are this stupid it’s pointless to mention that they’re also terrible at grammar.

                  3. Doctor Doom|12.3.14 @ 11:49PM|#
                    “your funny”

                    You’re stupid. Notice the difference between “your” and “you’re”, fuckface.

              2. Doctor Doom|12.3.14 @ 11:45PM|#
                “was he not a gop mayor? dude even addressed the gop convention”

                Uh, what?
                WIH do you think you’re dealing with here, asshole?

                1. i think im dealing with an absolute idiot

                  1. Are you going to refute my point that GOP does not equal conservative or just continue babbling? It’s a pretty well-founded fact that there are a lot of non-progressives in the Democratic Party and the conservative Republican base hates McConnell and Boehner.

                    Neither of them are conservative by the standards of the base. In the case of Bloomberg, he isn’t even a Republican anymore, so using him as your example is particularly ludicrous. Bloomberg is an outright prog on social issues.

                  2. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:35AM|#
                    “i think im dealing with an absolute idiot”

                    Well, one just showed up this evening.
                    Fuck off.

              3. He listed himself as independent.

                And who gives a shit if he claimed he was Republican? He wasn’t conservative in any sense that mattered.

              4. Sure, a guy who was a registered Democrat until he ran for mayor and switched parties because the Democratic field was too crowded. And left the Republican party during his first term in office.

                If you think New York City is anything but a liberal Democratic stronghold, you’re a complete buffoon.

          2. Well, turd has a bit of a problem with those things most people refer to as “facts”.
            He’s a slimy piece of shit and is due every bit of credibility as the average ‘object’ that falls into a septic tank.

            1. your fact based arguments are noted dumbass

              1. do you dispute the following facts
                giuliani, gop, won mayor 1993 left in 2001, succeeded by bloomberg, gop

                1. “succeeded by bloomberg, gop”
                  Ignoring the fact that a NY gop is far from conservative, even Bloomberg gave us the masquerade half way through his term.
                  So, fuckface, now you need to come up with more lipstick for your pig of an argument.
                  Oh, and fuck off.

                2. Jesus, I never should have let myself get drawn into an unnecessary secondary argument by this idiot.

                  Look, idiot, if you’re still here: The point is not that Republicans are better than Democrats. I don’t think either is ‘better’ on civil liberties – they’re both terrible. The point is that progressives actively agitate in favor of more government control, more government power, and more government manipulation of the lives of the public.

                  This necessitates a police force that will enforce the laws and regulations progressives favor. As such, progressive whinging about police violence and mass incarceration is inherently disingenuous. Prisons and police officers will be necessary to enforce the very laws progs agitate in favor of, and therefore it is the highest sort of hypocrisy for them to protest when someone is killed by the very police state their policies necessitate.

                  The Republicans are meaningless to this argument. Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge are meaningless to this argument. If you wish to disagree with my actual argument, explain if there is any flaw in my logic. If not, get the fuck out of here and stop trying to draw us into an argument which is irrelevant to my original point.

                  1. Irish|12.4.14 @ 1:00AM|#
                    “Jesus, I never should have let myself get drawn into an unnecessary secondary argument by this idiot.”

                    Obviously a sock; knows the regulars. More coherent than turd. Could be Tony, but he’s usually drunk by now as is craig. Not truly crazy enough to be Mary.
                    Might be commie-kid, but too much historical ‘knowledge’.
                    Dunno.

                    1. It’s probably Tulpa.

                    2. tarran|12.4.14 @ 1:33AM|#
                      “It’s probably Tulpa.”

                      Could be; tulpa has enough history background to lie about stuff like that and the assholery to argue about it knowing it’s bullshit.
                      For the same reasons, it could be Bo, but maybe not the historical knowledge.

                    3. Sevo. If you come back and read this. It’s AMSOC. When you look at his blog check out the “Hate Mail” section. Also there is something about his style that’s screams AMSOC.

                3. Oh, yeah, New York City – hotbed of conservative Republicanism:

                  http://council.nyc.gov/html/members/members.shtml

              2. Doctor Doom|12.3.14 @ 11:46PM|#
                “your fact based arguments are noted dumbass”

                I see that threaded comments are a bit much for ignorant assholes like you to comprehend, so to school you a bit, here is what I was responding to:
                “Especially redneck enclaves like New York City and Cleveland.”
                Now, are you claiming Giuliani is a “redneck”?

          3. nyc which from 94-13 has had gop mayors?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Council

            The New York City Council currently has 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans.

            You have a difficult time with basic facts, don’t you? Moreover, here is a list of mayors of New York between 1898 and 2013.

            The City had Democrats as mayor 74 years out of a possible 116. That’s overwhelmingly Democrat. Furthermore, Bloomberg spent the last 7 years of his reign as an ‘independent’ so your claim that the Republicans had the mayor position in New York until 2013 isn’t even true. They had it until 2007 when Bloomberg became an independent.

            Any more lies you’d like me to point out, or are you done getting obliterated?

            1. omg, you are running up the hill of yes nyc had a gop mayor from 93-07 but the noted gop mayor in 07 decided to leave the party (but not go to the democratic party)? run on young fool, run

              1. omg, you are running up the hill of yes nyc had a gop mayor from 93-07 but the noted gop mayor in 07 decided to leave the party (but not go to the democratic party)? run on young fool, run

                No, I’m accurately stating that even during their period of GOP victories at the mayoral level, the Democrats dominated city council.

                I’d also like to point out that Bloomberg is roundly despised by the Republican base because of his anti-gun activities and his nanny state policies. Bloomberg is actually farther left on social issues than most Democrats. Using him as an example of the average Republican is absurd. In any city other than New York he would have run as a Democrat and you know it.

                Bloomberg is actually a Republican progressive, which proves my point. You’re mistaking the fact that he’s a Republican for the idea that he’s not a progressive. But he is a progressive. His gun and nanny state arguments are textbook progressivism, so if you’re using Bloomberg as your example you’re proving my point.

                1. bloombergs key speaking spot at the gop convention was surely because he was so hated by the gop

                  1. bloombergs key speaking spot at the gop convention was surely because he was so hated by the gop

                    You’re so stupid it physically hurts me. The point here is that there is a disconnect between the Republican establishment (who invited Bloomberg to speak) and the Republican base, which is more conservative.

                    Incidentally, Zell Miller spoke at the Republican national Convention WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY A DEMOCRAT. That should tell you that party labels do not equate to political leanings.

                    Zell Miller is a conservative who is a Democrat. Bloomberg is a progressive who was a Republican but left the party.

                    You’re such a partisan nitwit that you can’t understand that conservative and Republican are different things. One is an ideology, one is a political party, and they do not always equate.

            2. NYC has voted for Dem Presidential candidates since Alf Smith.

              1. and they’ve voted gop candidates for mayor most of the past three decades

                1. Doctor Doom|12.4.14 @ 12:37AM|#
                  “and they’ve voted gop candidates for mayor most of the past three decades”

                  You’re just a piece of shit laugh riot:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L….._York_City

                2. and they’ve voted gop candidates for mayor most of the past three decades

                  By my count they’ve only had a Republican mayor 13 of the last 30 years – and one of those Republicans actually left the party during his tenure, indicating he wasn’t a big fan of the party.

                  And why do you cherry pick and only go with the last 3 decades? You could just as easily go back 50 years, in which case Democrats have controlled the mayor position for 80% of the time.

                  1. Also, I think it’s hilarious that your argument now hinges on the idea that a city with 48 out of 51 council seats held by Democrats is secretly a conservative city.

                    Even the most progressive prog in the country wouldn’t buy this argument. New York is very Democratic. Everyone knows this. Your bizarre argument that two Republican mayors contradicts this basic fact will not fly with anyone intelligent.

                    1. New York City Council has been almost completely Democratic for over a century.

                  2. “And why do you cherry pick and only go with the last 3 decades”
                    Even that bit a cherry picking leaves shitstain in a hole; see the wiki link.

          4. nyc which from 94-13 has had gop mayors?

            NYC got so bad under progressive policies that they elected a Republican and then a RINO, yes.

            But the premier race-baiters of today are all black: Obama, Holder, Sharpton.

      2. Thought I smelled fermenting feces. Should’ve known it was you.

  6. The NYPD makes another ill-advised Twitter campaign:

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeHearYou?src=hash

    1. Geniuses.

    2. “I can’t breathe”
      #WeHearYou

      Ouch.

  7. Thank you, Irish. More people need to realize that it’s the control freaks at the root of all this injustice. TOO MANY LAWS… TOO LITTLE LIBERTY.

    1. The more laws the less justice.

      –Cicero

      1. Cicero had it right.

    2. Everytime someone expresses their frustration over Congress not getting anything done I just want to pull my hair out. It would be different if they were working to remove useless and unfair laws and regulations from the books. But, that’s not the case. It’s an endless stream of rapidly growing new laws and regulations and shrinking liberty anytime they’re “getting things done.”

  8. So I receive a text from a friend asking if I know what all the protests are about.
    I respond back with a summary of the incident and the grand jury result.
    Half hour later I get a text saying “No indictment cause dude was resisting arrest”
    A line may have to be drawn by me on this one, as it’s this is a hard issue to brush off.

    1. Eh, any time you resist arrest, you run the risk of being killed, even just by accident.

      The real problem here is that he was arrested in the first place, for something that should not be a crime, or at most, be something you get a ticket for.

      1. That’s where my frustration lies. I say that the guy was choked to death while being arrested for selling loosies, and this good friend of mine’s takeaway is that, well, he was resisting arrest.
        People are the worst.

    2. This person is a friend? Seriously?

      At my age, I have very little patience with bootlicking idiots.

      -jcr

  9. I’ll surely get crap for saying this, but as far as I’m concerned Martin and Brown only got what they were asking for. However, this Garner is a whole different story. Talk about a perfect example of jackboot enforcement of a ridiculous law that should have never been put on the books nor enforced to begin with. In the end it caused an innocent capitalist his life. Too bad all the potential positive forward momentum that could be channeled towards turning things around will once again be squandered by making it into a racial issue. Damn we Americans are dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.

    1. caused *cost

    2. Not to mention this was caught on video with the guy saying he can’t breathe.
      So the guy died and it was ruled a homicide. Since he didn’t commit suicide, somebody has to be at least partly responsible for his death. I vote for the guy who choked him.

      1. Absolutely it was murder. I’m sure we all do something equal to selling “loosies” from time to time. Like not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign for example. Garner could have been any one of us choked to death. It’s despicable.

        1. Twisting the radio dial today, I even came across ultraconservative shock radio host Michael Savage against the cops on this one. When even Savage thinks cops are in the wrong there can’t be many supporters.

    3. I’ll surely get crap for saying this, but as far as I’m concerned Martin and Brown only got what they were asking for. However, this Garner is a whole different story.

      No, JG, I don’t think there’s anything crap-giving-worthy in noting the distinction between a couple of guys who got killed after initiating violence and a guy who got killed as a result of the police’s initiation of violence.

    1. PapayaSF|12.4.14 @ 1:19AM|#
      “OT, from today: First U.S. Gas Station Drops Below $2 a Gallon”

      But “PEAK OIL!”
      I’ve posted it before: The reason the Nazis had access to synfuels was stupidity on the part of IG Farbin. They thought the world was running out of oil reserves in the late ’20s and started work on synthetics.
      The synthetics were so expensive it triggered a global exploration, with the consequent discoveries and deflation of fuel costs, such that my first go-kart ran on $0.30/gal gas in the ’50s. Given inflation, I’d say $3/G is equivalent, so it’s cheaper even than that.
      Surprise!

  10. Without government, who would strangle innocent people for selling a legal product in smaller quantities than some bureaucrat thinks they should?

    -jcr

    1. The Mafia? That’s their business and they might not like people muscling in on their turf.

  11. Epstein, if you are going to write an article, at least get your facts straight. There was no nightstick involved.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.