DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cuckoo Republicans, what they have become pt.8

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson......

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding...

{Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823}”

I'm a believer in God and Jesus Christ. So maybe I'm not the best person to be relaying this message. The difference between myself and many others is that I don't feel I have some special right to inflict my religious beliefs upon others. It is often stated that our forefathers founded this nation on Christian beliefs and Christian principals. Yet there is not a single reference to God or Jesus nor Christianity in the constitution. If anything freedom of religion places all religions on an equal footing giving no religion any more power or rights than any other religion. And as we can see by Jefferson's excerpt from that letter it seems he deems the teachings of Christianity as nothing more than a fable.

Jefferson seems to be ranting about Calvinism specifically, he was not talking about Christianity as a whole.

The full letter: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3446

While I would not say that the entire letter was concentrated on Christianity alone, this portion of his letter identified the foundation of Christianity specifically.

"the truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."

I think Jefferson was talking about Calvinism and other over complicating ideas on Christianity. I don't believe he was calling Christianity a fable, I am not sure he was overly keen on the organization of religion. He did opine earlier in the letter about his thoughts:

"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it’s parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it’s composition. the movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it’s distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is , in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. we see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it’s course and order. stars"

And I actually agree with Jefferson in that regard. I do not however think that believing there is a superintending power and believing that Christianity is true are synonymous. My belief on the matter is that those are two very different things.

He doesn't like that dance.

What would YOU know about civilized people? Pffft.

This one will be interesting.

A skunk can't change its stipe.

That video on the hypocrisy of the GOP on law and order is interesting. I would love to get the take of some of our more GOP oriented posters.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he will pardon an Army sergeant who was convicted for shooting a Black Lives Matter protester ‘as soon as it hits my desk’
Kenneth Niemeyer Apr 9, 2023, 10:55 AM


Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Saturday he would pardon a man who killed a Black Lived Matter protestor.

Daniel Perry's defense team argued that he shot Garrett Foster in self defense in July 2020.

A jury unanimously convicted Perry on murder charges on Friday.



Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday said he will work "swiftly" to pardon an Army sergeant who was recently convicted of shooting and killing a Black Lives Matter protester.

Abbott said in a tweet that Texas has one of the strongest "Stand Your Ground" self-defense laws that "cannot be nullified by a jury or progressive district attorney."

A jury on Friday convicted Sgt. Daniel Perry for the shooting death of Garrett Foster, 28, at a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Austin, Texas. Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after shooting three men — two fatally — during a 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, urged the governor to pardon Perry, according to the Austin-American Statesman.

Perry was working as an Uber driver on July 25, 2020, when he shot and killed Foster, according to the outlet. Foster approached Perry's vehicle with an AK-47 rifle after Perry ran a red light and drove into a group of protesters, according to the outlet. Perry then shot Foster five times with a revolver before driving away, the American-Statesman reported.

Prosecutors alleged that Perry instigated the attack, pointing out that he made a series of Facebook posts where he said he might "kill a few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex," the newspaper reported.

A commenter asked Perry at the time if he "could legally do so," to which he responded, "If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes," the outlet reported.

—Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 8, 2023
Abbott said he requested that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles hold a review to determine if Perry should receive a pardon and he ordered the board to expedite its review.

"I look forward to approving the board's pardon recommendation as soon as it hits my desk," Abbott said in Saturday's tweet. "Additionally, I have prioritized reining in rogue District Attorneys, and the Texas Legislature is working on laws to achieve that goal."

And people wonder why there is a thread titled "Open season".

Good for Abbott. Many more of those rioters should have been shot.

So when did the sentencing guideline for vandalism or anything else those involved in the riots were charged with become death penalty anywhere in our nation? It sounds like you are advocating vigilante justice while claiming to be someone that believed in law and order. What you are promoting is criminal. Though I'm not surprised. The extremists on both sides do this quite frequently. They provide in their own words just how nutty they are and how they promote violence and even death to those who they disagree with.

BTW- do you feel the same way about those who attacked the Capital on Jan. 6th or is that an exception for you?

The Bible states that it takes not pleasure in the death of the wicked. I do not either. Those riots were terrible, and they looted, vandalized, and murdered many people unjustly. The act of self defense was needed because the media and the Democrats supported all that went on and the police were afraid to act. Good for Abbott to stand up to the mob and pardon this hero.

So in your opinion, rioting and looting are things that should include the death penalty while no such sentence or court in America, even the most conservative of states anywhere in America considers that a proper punishment for those crimes?

And you also feel that the justice system should be ignored? You see this case was tried in court in front of a jury. Eye witnesses testified and all of the evidence was heard. The jury found he did not act in self defense and was guilty of murder. The media wasn't the jury. Nor were 12 democratic politicians.

It seems as if you disagree with the outcome of a criminal trial, even when you weren't there and heard none of the evidence, you would side with what your political beliefs are instead of the actual evidence and the determination of a jury. And sadly I don't think you see anything wrong with that.

Yes, I do. Just like you disagreed with the Grand Juries in the Watson case. Those riots killed people. Quite a few people. People needed and in my opinion had the right to act in self-defense.

So you don't even know what actually happened but you think this case was self defense. You do understand there's a difference between disagreeing with the outcome of a case and advocating someone being murdered, right? Can you explain what evidence you have witnessed that convinces you the jury got it wrong in this case? Do you think any time someone claims they acted in self defense they should simply not be convicted based on their claim?

I saw the riots on TV and have no reason to believe or sympathy for those rioters. It was disgusting what they did.

You seem to be veering away on your conclusion on this case. A case in which you were not a witness to. A case in which you saw none of the evidence nor the incident. Instead you wish to dismiss the verdict of a jury that did see all of the evidence and determined it was not self defense.

And as for a reply to your latest post, if everything I viewed as disgusting deserved the death penalty there would be a lot more grave stones. That is such a low bar it's disgusting in and of itself.

Says the guy who calls another human being not charged with a crime. Never found guilty of a crime a Predator.

You see, in the grand jury they only heard from one victim witness. Why I have no idea. An actual judge who heard even more evidence and testimony by more victims reached a decision based on quite a bit more information. So I value more evidence over less evidence. You value no evidence over all of the evidence.

It was an actual judge who heard all of the evidence and concluded he is a predator, not me. It was her that determined he committed sexual assault, not me. It was her that determined he acted egregiously, not me. I just happen to agree with her.

So I see you have dodged my questions and the discussion by putting the focus on me. I sort of anticipated something like that at this juncture.

And did you notice I never called for the death penalty?

I agree with a Governor who has the right to pardon a wrong being done to one of his citizens. That is a check and balance in our system. The man or hero that defended himself vs a rioter that had no legal right to be rioting and committing other criminal behavior.

What an incredibly "Christian" thing to say.
Just like Jesus would say, right?

[/purple]

It would have prevented innocents from being killed and injured. That is a Christian thing to say. Rioters are not innocents.

According to a jury he wasn't committing a crime or any criminal behavior when he was murdered. But of course you have everyone who showed up to these protests as "rioters" to excuse saying they deserved to be murdered. The governor can only grant such a pardon if the it is requested by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The jury fond that "one of his citizens" as you call him is a a murderer. Yet according to you, who has seen not seen nor heard any of the evidence in the case proudly claims he deserved to be murdered.

That's why many of us see a difference in an actual Republican and right wing extremists. You are not all the same. Thank God or the problem would be much worse than it already is.

Please explain how this defendant/convicted criminal was wronged in any way.
He was charged with a crime, after being apprehended and processed by police.
He was given a trial in a court of law. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Just like the law dictates.

The justice system worked exactly as it was designed to work. Now, the Governor plans to ignore the will of the people once more, and rule by fiat.

If anyone was wronged here, it was the 12 jurors who showed up in court to do their civic duty. With the stroke of a pen, Abbott not only negates their authority in this matter, he also sticks his fingers in the already blind eyes of Lady Justice.
Bet she never saw it coming.

Yet there are those in the GOP who think the officer who shot Ashley Babbit (at the Capitol riot/insurrection) should have been prosecuted.

Consistency in not always common sense.

Ashley Babbitt had no right to be rioting. Protesting has it's limits. When it crosses over and invades someone else's rights it is no longer a protest. If that line crossing makes someone feel unsafe then what happens they have a right to defend themselves.

You must follow a different God than most of the rest of us.

Let me put this in a manner maybe you can understand and hopefully you'll address this but for some reason I doubt it...

January 6th there were over 140 officers injured. Many were assaulted and attacked. Over 1000 arrests were made. Lawmakers had to flee the area in fear, Republican lawmakers as well.

There was a huge rally that day where part of the people in attendance marched to the Capital building. Of those who marched we know many of them attacked and fought the police to storm the Capital. As you can see I didn't accuse anyone who came to the rally as committing criminal behavior. I didn't even accuse those who marched to the capital of criminal behavior. I separated those acting with criminal behavior to only the people who stormed the Capital. Everything else that people did that day, whether you believe in their politics or not is a perfectly legal form of peaceful protest.

Now first let me ask you, those who stormed the Capital that day who were assaulting the Capital police, do you propose they should have been killed too? Or are you choosing which side deserves to be murdered and which side does not when conducting themselves in a similar manner?

And secondly, would you describe those engaging themselves in a peaceful march as rioters? Because since you have none of the evidence in front of you and the murder victim was not accused of committing a crime, you have no idea if we was included in a riot or not. Yet with no evidence to base it on you have described him as a rioter conducting criminal acts deserving of being mnurdered and not a peaceful protestor. Now why would that be?

Ah, so all you have to do is "feel unsafe" and not show you had a legitimate fear for your life. I think I've discovered the problem here.

Ok. Your trying to put words in my mouth. Ashley Babbitt was actively rioting. Did she deserve to be shot? That is a different question. Was she shot and was the shooter justified. I would say yes because her actions put her in a position where someone felt threatened. If she was not there she would be alive today. If that rioter was not there he would be alive today. Criminals put themselves in that position and law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves. People have a right to defend themselves. Just like this hero in Texas. Did he set out to kill someone, no. Did he? Yes, why because rioters put him in position to feel threatened. There is a difference from protest and rioting. What happened in 2020 was not mostly peaceful protest it might have started out as that. It was rioting. It was on the news every night with people being killed, businesses burned, etc... It should have been stopped. What happened in Washington DC outside the White House on a Friday night when the secret service took Trump to a shelter was insurrection every bit as much as what happened Jan. 6th. Did anyone say anything about that? No!

Yep…the “Karen syndrome” with a gun. And how BadTB can relate a deadly attack on the Capital vs a protest near the WH that trump sent out his mafia SS police to violently break up, is hilarious.

Sounds as if Perry initiated the altercation. And you use the "fear for my life" defense when you are the one who initiated it.
It is my understanding that this point was argued at length in court and the jury concluded that he indeed was the instigator

I am still awaiting a conversation with you about this particular aspect of public discourse, Day of the Dawg.
I truly look forward to that talk- trust me.


1. Please explain to us how The Accused deserves a pardon by the state's Governor... when he was arrested, tried, and convicted by a jury of his peers in the USA, according to the laws of US due process.
2. Please explain to us what role Gov. Abbott has in the execution of said due process that actually sentenced this man to a guilty verdict (by a jury of his peers).
3. Please explain to us why this person, a man who:

*drove his car into a crowd of protesting American citizens exercising the 1A rights afforded to us all...
*fired 5 deadly shots into the body of a fellow American who is now dead...
*and then fled the scene of lethal bloodshed by his own hand...

...should be pardoned by a state overlord who:

1. didn't sit on that jury
2. didn't listen to an entire trial's worth of sworn testimony, and
3. was never actually in the (sequestered) room where the decision happened.

_________________________________


If you can't explain/excuse each and every one of America's 'due process' questions I've presented to this open forum, I present this premise:

You are the kind of poster that none of us should ever seriously consider to be a credible player on this game board. Not now, not ever.

The entirety of your relevance in this forum rests upon the quality of your response to my challenge/query.

The ball is now in your court.

I await that moment when I see your 'return of service.'

.02

Those rioters were terrorists and not citizens. They were performing criminal acts and when someone stood up against them, they should be defended by our Governmental Leaders like Abbott.

Lowest. Common. Denominator. Poster.

I guess it would have been better to honk, then run people down?

Sorry, someone in a tense situation at the least, starts walking towards my car with a gun in a threatening manner, I don't wait to find out his intent. I'd bet you wouldn't either.