Thread: $100.000 offered...

Not "racist", Phil, just misinformed...

That guy is the "Black Student Union" of the Tea Parties... He's not being racist against african americans, he's being supportive of caucasian americans..

Or, at least, that's the loophole Mr. 100k could use.

I'm with ya. I'd expect him to say something like or that it has to be someone involved with the leadership or official organization (Tea Party Express) but the thing is supposed to be grass roots.

It once was grass roots but was co-opted by the republicans. This thing will fade once republicans are in charge again and continue with the same policies that Obama has which are the same policies Bush had which are the same policies Clinton had etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by AnarchoPhil

I'm with ya. I'd expect him to say something like or that it has to be someone involved with the leadership or official organization (Tea Party Express) but the thing is supposed to be grass roots.

It once was grass roots but was co-opted by the republicans. This thing will fade once republicans are in charge again and continue with the same policies that Obama has which are the same policies Bush had which are the same policies Clinton had etc etc etc.

I don't think this movement will fade once all the dems possible are swept out of office this november or even once Barrack is confirmed as a One termer in 2012. I think what we are seeing in the tea party movement is the same emotional swell that got Obama elected in the first place. The feeling that thics country is slipping away from the people and that they must change things to take it back. Obama has now proven that he isn't going to change things to the way they should be so there is a huge groundswell against him but I don't see it as a "Republican" movement, the Republicans are just benefiting because they are the only thing that currently can be used as a weapon against the tyany of this administration. Sooner or later the whole system is going to have to be broken down and re-built from that groundswell up.

Originally Posted by HNSB

I don't really care about most of the discussion, but I have a HUGE problem with this statement. It's pretty damn scary to me if the bulk of America is at this point... Evidence is used to prove guilt. No evidence is needed to prove innocence.

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty, remember?

Sorry, the cops need evidence. Presumably they have it.
Just because JMS did not get briefed by the DA with all the details of the case oes not mean that the hutaree guys are innocent.

Unless you are prepared out of principle to believe that law enforcement, DA and the various officials are all lying or conspiring, it is not unreasonable to give the officials the benefit of the doubt until the court case and the formal public presentation of the evidence.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Sorry, the cops need evidence. Presumably they have it.

Precisely. I am not disputing that.
Evidence is used to prove guilt, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Just because JMS did not get briefed by the DA with all the details of the case oes not mean that the hutaree guys are innocent.

I never pronounced them guilty or not guilty. I don't know the details of the case. All I said was that evidence should not have to be produced to "prove someone innocent". Even in our court system, no one is ever declared innocent. They are only declared not guilty. This simply means that there is not enough evidence to declare them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that someone was arrested does not constitute evidence of guilt.
I am quite certain that there was some evidence to warrant an arrest in this case. Whether it's enough to declare those folks guilty is for a court to decide.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Unless you are prepared out of principle to believe that law enforcement, DA and the various officials are all lying or conspiring, it is not unreasonable to give the officials the benefit of the doubt until the court case and the formal public presentation of the evidence.

This is what I was trying to state, only the other way around... It is also not reasonable to declare them guilty of anything until the court case and presentation of evidence. Until such time as they are declared guilty they have only been charged with a crime.

*I was never intending to argue particulars in this case... I really don't know anything about it, and don't really care enough to educate myself about it. The point I'm making is simply that asking for evidence of innocence is a very slippery slope to go down. I sincerely hope that our court system never looks at justice that way...

Originally Posted by HNSB

*I was never intending to argue particulars in this case... I really don't know anything about it, and don't really care enough to educate myself about it. The point I'm making is simply that asking for evidence of innocence is a very slippery slope to go down. I sincerely hope that our court system never looks at justice that way...

Well we've seen legally assumed guilt recently with the Gitmo detention camp and Bush issuing a suspension of habeas corpus.

I admit that asking for proof of innocence was a poor choice of words on my part; however, I think that if people are indicted for those types of crimes and we're discussing the subject outside of a court, there needs to at least be an opposing case for me to rethink my position.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I admit that asking for proof of innocence was a poor choice of words on my part; however, I think that if people are indicted for those types of crimes and we're discussing the subject outside of a court, there needs to at least be an opposing case for me to rethink my position.

Fair enough. Sorry to interrupt the discussion at hand with my little rant. That particular phrase just struck a nerve with me. I do agree that for the sake of discussion, certain assumptions have to be made. Part of the reason I don't discuss these things is because there is generally a lack of reliable information. So... For those that enjoy those types of discussions, sorry I interrupted, and carry on.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Sorry, the cops need evidence. Presumably they have it.
Just because JMS did not get briefed by the DA with all the details of the case oes not mean that the hutaree guys are innocent.

Unless you are prepared out of principle to believe that law enforcement, DA and the various officials are all lying or conspiring, it is not unreasonable to give the officials the benefit of the doubt until the court case and the formal public presentation of the evidence.

You have too much trust in the government. If someone who worked for the government told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go out and check for myself.

Originally Posted by Miner123

You have too much trust in the government. If someone who worked for the government told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go out and check for myself.

quoted for truth

Originally Posted by Miner123

You have too much trust in the government. If someone who worked for the government told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go out and check for myself.

This is something I'll never understand.
YOU are the ones electing the government. You get what you ask for (generally speaking from the pov of the majority). And the people making up the government are just people like you and me.