The Goat Pen

Poor widow Jim Acosta, who spends every day of his life doing hatchet jobs on Trump and Republicans. But when he gets a little pushback...

[youtube]H7J9d1R3nlE[/youtube]

...he gets all plaintive and self-pitying:

[youtube]Df9otRwkWMc[/youtube]

What a little crybaby.

Well, you would certainly know...

Re: Acosta.

I think ticks' recent domination of the Mewling Pussy of the Year award is in jeopardy.

Hey toe,

you Q?

The Portland Mayor has sided with political ideology over the safety of Portland Residents

This is how you get armed citizens roaming the streets when they beg the police to do their sworn duty and they refuse as the Mayors request.

-------------------

Along the trolley tracks behind the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, a biohazard cleanup crew works under police protection. It finds used needles and buckets of human waste simmering in nearly 100-degree heat. The smell of urine and feces fills the block. For more than five weeks, as many as 200 people had occupied the site to demand ICE’s immediate abolition. They’re gone now, but a community is left reeling. Thirty-eight days of government-sanctioned anarchy will do that.

A mob surrounded ICE’s office in Southwest Portland June 19. They barricaded the exits and blocked the driveway. They sent “guards” to patrol the doors, trapping workers inside. At night they laid on the street, stopping traffic at a critical junction near a hospital. Police stayed away. “At this time I am denying your request for additional resources,” the Portland Police Bureau’s deputy chief, Robert Day, wrote to federal officers pleading for help. Hours later, the remaining ICE workers were finally evacuated by a small federal police team. The facility shut down for more than a week.

Signs called ICE employees “Nazis” and “white supremacists.” Others accused them of running a “concentration camp,” and demanded open borders and prosecution of ICE agents. Along a wall, vandals wrote the names of ICE staff, encouraging others to publish their private information online.

Federal workers were defenseless. An ICE officer, who asked that his name not be published, told me one of his colleagues was trailed in a car and confronted when he went to pick up his daughter from summer camp. Later people showed up at his house. Another had his name and photo plastered on flyers outside his home accusing him of being part of the “Gestapo.”

Where were the police? Ordered away by Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, who doubles as police commissioner. “I do not want the @PortlandPolice to be engaged or sucked into a conflict, particularly from a federal agency that I believe is on the wrong track,” he tweeted. “If [ICE is] looking for a bailout from this mayor, they are looking in the wrong place.”

its gets worse in the rest of the article

https://www.wsj.com/articles/anarchy-br ... 1533331454

Just think how many lives would've been saved if German citizens had stood up to the nazis like that in 1930's...

ICE people need concealed carry.

If 1930’s Germany had a second amendment, and therefore a well armed citizenry, can you imagine how different things would have turned out?

If those idiotic Nazi bedwetters had felt themselves badass enough to go out to do a kristalnacht, and got wave upon wave of Jewish kosher buckshot, history might have turned out a little different.i

"America's biggest companies are reporting some of the strongest earnings growth since the recession, boosted by lower tax rates and a robust US economy that is fueling demand across industries.

Profits at S&P 500 Companies jumped an estimated 23.5% in the three months through June, according to data from Thomas Reutters, more than 2 1/1 times revenue growth in the same period."

Obama wishes his economy was as good as Trump’s.

Professor Tiger wrote:ICE people need concealed carry.

If 1930’s Germany had a second amendment, and therefore a well armed citizenry, can you imagine how different things would have turned out?

Actually Germany had gun ownership all through the 30's. Even Jews could own guns right up until '38 (yep, the only gun restriction the Nazis ever imposed).

Hitler became Chancellor in '33, and won the special election making him Fuhrer of the Reich in '34..with 83% of the vote. Germans dug his brand of white nationalism, period. Ben Carson made the same bogus "well armed citizenry" claim you made and got ridiculed for it. About the same time as his "Egyptian-pyramids-were-grain-silos" nonsense.

Where is that crazy Carson these days?

"Actually Germany had gun ownership all through the 30's. Even Jews could own guns right up until '38 (yep, the only gun restriction the Nazis ever imposed)."

Why did you lie, Prof?

It was the Allies and the Weimar Republic that restricted German citizens from owning guns and demanded the surrender of all guns after WW1, but its lunacy to argue that it had an impact on WW2 or that guns would have saved the jews. The laws were relaxed somewhat just prior to the 30's (and Hitler)

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:ICE people need concealed carry.

If 1930’s Germany had a second amendment, and therefore a well armed citizenry, can you imagine how different things would have turned out?

Actually Germany had gun ownership all through the 30's. Even Jews could own guns right up until '38 (yep, the only gun restriction the Nazis ever imposed).

Factually incorrect. The Nazis never allowed the Jews to have guns. According to a source you often quote, politifact:

When they came to power, the Nazis used whatever gun records they had to seize weapons from their enemies, but Ellerbock told us the files included very few of the firearms in circulation.

The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

The regulations to implement this law, rather than the law itself, did impose new limits on one group: Jews.

On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."

In short, Nazi-era Germany imposed greater gun restrictions for Jews (and other perceived enemies) at the same time it loosened gun restrictions for other groups.

In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... nazi-guns/

Why do you lie, Tick and hedge?

I didn't lie, "Professor". You just reiterated everything I said - not that I needed your help. Germany had gun ownership all through the '30s - Fact. Nazis never made any gun laws until '38 - Fact. Jews OFFICIALY lost the right to own a gun with those newly imposed laws of'38 - Fact. That some Nazis used restriction records to round up a "very few" amount of guns from Jews, gypsies, and communists prior to '38 is immaterial to your original dumbass point, as well as my rebuttal.

Blacks “officially” had the right to vote in the South ever since 1865 too, but we all know the worthlessness of that “officially” part.

The Left’s war on free speech continues; Facebook, Apple and YouTube are banning Alex Jones and Infowars to varying degrees.

I’ve never visited Infowars, and don’t plan to, since I don’t want their cookies and bots on my computer. If they advocate violence, then I am all in favor of pulling them. But it sounds like Facebook, Apple and YouTube are banning them simply because they don’t like what they say. That is nothing new; the Leftist instinct to silence opposition has been going on for decades, especially at liberal college campuses.

Facebook, Apple and YouTube are all private companies, so they can ban whoever they want. This isn’t a 1A issue. But since most liberals today define “hate speech” as “anything we disagree with,” it makes you wonder what Facebook, Apple and YouTube will ban next. Websites that are Pro-life? Pro-2A? Fox News? Talk Radio hosts? AGW doubters?

what started out as a lark to just keep himself entertained turned into an industry for Jones.

I might be more upset if he actually believed the stuff he promotes but I don't think for a second he does

But before Alex Jones there was Art Bell on the radio and the National Enquirer in print.

Taking down Alex Jones is more about the hyper sensitive world we live in more than it is about the damage they do to an unsuspecting public.

They can't get rid of Trump so they just lash out at anyone that they associate with him.

what many of us suspected confirmed by data collected during the height of the BLM movement

The debate over possible bias in the use of deadly force has recently been exacerbated by highly publicized killings of African American males around the country. While much research has been conducted examining police behavior, little has been done to investigate the impact of race on police behavior. This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers.

Analysis of use of deadly force by police officers across the United States indicates that the killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem, and the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare.

-----------------------------

there very well may be a legitimate harassment complaint based on profiling from the police for African Americans, but the idea that police are killing unarmed African Americans indiscriminately is a false narrative. Yes, unarmed black men have been killed by police, but not at an extent that it is a statistical anomaly, and African Americans have been led to believe via BLM , mainstream and social media that its becoming a regular occurrence. Cities have burned and good policemen have been killed over this narrative.

I heard on the radio this morning , an understandably distraught African American father, lashing out at the police because his son, who was running away from police after committing an armed robbery, gun in hand, was shot in the back. His quote was "doesn't matter if he had a hand grenade in his hand at that point, he was running away, he wasn't going to harm the policeman"

Based on other comments from the African American community in addressing police interaction, that comment seems to represent the mentality of much of the urban African American community - which I believe is completely disconnected from middle America.

If you were to switch that scenario with say, the white all star high school Quarterback, yes, there would a number of people that would say "did they have to shoot him in the back?" but by and large people objectively looking at the information would basically say "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Their mentality would be once you put that gun in your hand , whatever happens to you from the police (or private armed citizen for that matter) while that gun is still in your hand - or even in your vicinity - is fair game.

Color of skin has nothing to do with it.

Have you noticed how questionable police shootings of black males was being reported on the news frequently right up until the election, but after the election it has almost disappeared? It appears that media campaign was largely a get-out-the-vote drive for black (i.e. Democrat) voters.

In 2020, it will start all over again.