MaxFly...Ohhhh the hypocrisy!

[Cozmo D]

Note to everyone on the forum:

I will call you out and put you on blast when you post foolishness of inaccurate information. Do your research before you post if you want to remain credible, cause I have no problem correcting you if you are wrong...

Thanks.

Hmmm... but you seem to have a problem CORRECTING YOURSELF WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!

And don't ever tell me to get my facts striaght. My facts are stright. They are on point. You still think that Bill O'Reilly raped someone, somewhere... You sound ridiculous...

Your facts are straight huh? Most of the straight facts in this instance were the ones that YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE! Who sounds ridiculous now?

Ted, don't assume that you know anything about me just because you know what school I go to. There's a reason I don't go around parading my information. I don't know what gave you the right to do it for me, but slow your role, and slow it quickly. You really don't know anything about me. You don't know where I've been in the world nor do you know what I've experienced. I don't pretend to know everything, but I will speak on what I know, and I will call things the way I see it. I will also call into question the inaccurate information people purport to be fact, and there has been a lot of that in this thread. If you're not sure of something, don't post it. If you've heard something, but don't have any evidence for it when it is called into question, don't post it.

Damm, what a bully! I see that I'm not the only person that you've threatened. What about all of the inaccurate information THAT YOU purported to be fact? What about all the garbage that YOU heard but didn't have any evidence of? When I called it into question you ridiculed me, even when I presented evidence AGAINST IT!!!

It's one thing to make a mistake, but to stand by something that has been shown to be inaccurate or ambiguous... We need to be more responsible in the things we post.

OH MY LAWDY JEEZUS WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!

So, how long are YOU going to stand by what "has been shown to be inaccurate or ambiguous"? Time to take your medicine son, Daddy ain't goin nowhere!

:bufordpusser:

[Hero1]

haha those comments have come back to haunt max on this 1 :lolsign: dont get too excited tho coz :lol:

[MaxFly]

Haha, it's laughable that you even have the gall to post about hypocrisy, but today's a holiday and I have a some free time so I'll indulge you a little.

Were reports of crime overstated at the superdome and convention center? Yes, and I am happy that this was the case as opposed to these horrible stories actually being true. My premise all the while has been that troops were needed, and they were given the proper orders to carry out their mission. They went in and reestablished order in New Orleans without grossly abusing their power. They provided relief for the depleted police force in the city. Was it wrong that they were given shoot to kill orders? No one has demonstrated why. If you recall, Nagin and Compass themselves said that these things were taking place and didn't provide additional statements until long after the shoot to kill orders were given.

As for hypocrisy, I've pointed out enough statements you've made and refused to clarify or address to last for some time. I'm especially waiting for a "no first person statements" clarification.

[bigted]

Note to everyone on the forum:

I will call you out and put you on blast when you post foolishness of inaccurate information. Do your research before you post if you want to remain credible, cause I have no problem correcting you if you are wrong...

Thanks.

Hmmm... but you seem to have a problem CORRECTING YOURSELF WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!

And don't ever tell me to get my facts striaght. My facts are stright. They are on point. You still think that Bill O'Reilly raped someone, somewhere... You sound ridiculous...

Your facts are straight huh? Most of the straight facts in this instance were the ones that YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE! Who sounds ridiculous now?

Ted, don't assume that you know anything about me just because you know what school I go to. There's a reason I don't go around parading my information. I don't know what gave you the right to do it for me, but slow your role, and slow it quickly. You really don't know anything about me. You don't know where I've been in the world nor do you know what I've experienced. I don't pretend to know everything, but I will speak on what I know, and I will call things the way I see it. I will also call into question the inaccurate information people purport to be fact, and there has been a lot of that in this thread. If you're not sure of something, don't post it. If you've heard something, but don't have any evidence for it when it is called into question, don't post it.

Damm, what a bully! I see that I'm not the only person that you've threatened. What about all of the inaccurate information THAT YOU purported to be fact? What about all the garbage that YOU heard but didn't have any evidence of? When I called it into question you ridiculed me, even when I presented evidence AGAINST IT!!!

It's one thing to make a mistake, but to stand by something that has been shown to be inaccurate or ambiguous... We need to be more responsible in the things we post.

OH MY LAWDY JEEZUS WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!

So, how long are YOU going to stand by what "has been shown to be inaccurate or ambiguous"? Time to take your medicine son, Daddy ain't goin nowhere!

:bufordpusser:

:lolsign: The truth hurts! :stickpoke:

[Cozmo D]

Haha, it's laughable that you even have the gall to post about hypocrisy, but today's a holiday and I have a some free time so I'll indulge you a little.

Were reports of crime overstated at the superdome and convention center? Yes, and I am happy that this was the case as opposed to these horrible stories actually being true. My premise all the while has been that troops were needed, and they were given the proper orders to carry out their mission. They went in and reestablished order in New Orleans without grossly abusing their power. They provided relief for the depleted police force in the city. Was it wrong that they were given shoot to kill orders? No one has demonstrated why. If you recall, Nagin and Compass themselves said that these things were taking place and didn't provide additional statements until long after the shoot to kill orders were given.

As for hypocrisy, I've pointed out enough statements you've made and refused to clarify or address to last for some time. I'm especially waiting for a "no first person statements" clarification.

Here is my "not one person" post in it's entirety:

QUOTE(MaxFly @ Sep 17 2005, 09:34 PM)

I've posted how I think the media has handled this, but this really drew my attention...

the absolute avalanche of UNSUBSTANTIATED rumors of wide-spread violence and atrocities

Atrocities may be a strong word... but...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katrina.impact/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katr...iper/index.html

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900S...CZ?OpenDocument

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?...3466&n=10063508

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02092005/325/troo...t-violence.html

Exactly. Check every one of those stories. Not ONE is substantiated, not ONE is first person, not ONE points to any evidence. If ALL of them were true it would not be nearly enough reason to leave those people in desperate need of aid to suffer. In fact, if those people had been WHITE Americans, history tells us that any ONE of those things, even as rumors, would be reason for a desperate, all-out national effort to IMMEDIATELY RESCUE those people from their ordeal.

BUT, these people were overwhelmingly black. So, it is easy to believe all of these horrible rumors about what was going on, despite the fact that even though there were plenty of cameras and recorders and reporters there throughout...NOT ONE STORY has been substantiated. Even the story about the killing of the "5 or 6" snipers who were firing on engineers on a bridge was downgraded to one man killed, and to my knowledge the fact that this man was a sniper has yet to be evidenced.

Again...the immediate perception that the objective mind springs to is one of racism, and the viable evidence (or absence thereof) within the situation supports that perception.

As EVERYBODY HERE CAN SEE so you can't twist my words anymore, I was specifically talking about the stories that YOU posted here. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT STILL! The only statement that PURPORTS to be first person is the one from the doctor. I tried to show you how it is common that people who are a part of a team or group will refer to what happens to that group as "we", even if they didn't personally take part, and of course you ridiculed me. Now we find that a portion of his "first person" statement NEVER HAPPENED, so we have to assume that either the good doctor was A) lying, B) grossly exaggerating, or C) was relaying what was told him by his colleagues and was misinformed or misunderstood. I will give the doctor the benefit of the doubt and choose C).

YOU insisted that these horrors took place even in the face of surmounting evidence to the contrary. When I asked you why, you had no answer, but stuck to it just the same. When I made the point that this was evidence of a racist taint to your perceptions, you got offended but insisted on ignoring all of the evidence anyway. Now you claim that, even though all of these horrors were completely unsubstantiated by anybody, sending in troops with "shoot to kill" orders was the right thing to do. You say that "they went in and reestablished order" when it is now obvious that disorder was extremely over-exaggerated. You say that it hasn't been demonstrated that the "shoot to kill" orders were wrong, when it has now been proven that those orders were given based solely on RUMORS!

Your words betray your mindset.

You have been proven to be WRONG. You have been proven to be a HYPOCRITE. You have been proven to be a BULLY. You have been proven to be GULLIBLE. You have been proven to be OBSTINATE. You have been proven to be ABSENT OF ANY HUMILITY. And WORST OF ALL, you have been proven to be willing to believe THE ABSOLUTELY MOST HORRIBLE THINGS OF BLACK PEOPLE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE TO ABSOLVE THEM!!!

Kanye West said that they were sending troops down there to kill us. He was implying that the "shoot to kill orders" were unjustified. Turns out that he was right. You, on the other hand, still approve of sending troops with "shoot to kill" orders amongst the suffering innocent based solely on rumors, EVEN AFTER knowing this to be the case. Better hope that the police are never dispatched to your home under the same situation.

Tim, I noticed that the other topic was locked and that you seem to want me not to "get too excited". I'm sorry that I had to take your boy down a few pegs man, but he deserved it. It seems like he still hasn't learned, but if at least it got him to stop bullying his fellow forum members it would be a start. However, seeing that he is a Mod (God knows why :shrug: ) and I'm not really anything but a newbie I realize that I may be a disruptive presence. Anyway, just say the word and I'm ghost man.

[fan 4ever]

I got one word for you Cozmo D...WHY?

Why are you waisting your time on this man? :hmm:

[Cozmo D]

I got one word for you Cozmo D...WHY?

Why are you waisting your time on this man? :hmm:

Because I see something in him, or at least I thought I did. Because there was a time that I was very much like him, but I was lucky enough to have people around me who never hesitated to put me in check when I thought too highly of myself. Humility is truly a blessing!

You are right though, and I appreciate your question and concern. I have a trip to England to prepare for, so let me get about my business.

Thanx yo! :whew:

[sonic1988]

Kanye West said that they were sending troops down there to kill us. He was implying that the "shoot to kill orders" were unjustified. Turns out that he was right. You, on the other hand, still approve of sending troops with "shoot to kill" orders amongst the suffering innocent based solely on rumors, EVEN AFTER knowing this to be the case. Better hope that the police are never dispatched to your home under the same situation.

All I have to say is that Kanye is right. "Shoot to kill" orders are unjustified, the only good thing that is happening now is not coming from our government, and it is from the people. Jimmy Carters habitat for humanity organization is currently working to rebuild the gulf coast. The military isn’t doing anything; their orders are to kill AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!!! It is bad enough to kill someone but to kill your own people is even worse. The fact that Bush is using the military force as a police force is not only very dangerous, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!! (I refer you to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.)

This excerpt form an article (from www.democraticundeground.com) shows why the military should not be there:

the Department of Defense has traditionally held that the PCA prevents the military from having an active role in a search, seizure, arrest, or similar police activities. The Pentagon understands all too well that the goals of the armed services and those of law enforcement agencies are very different, as are their methods. Much has changed in America since 1878, but there are still compelling reasons as to why the military should not be used as a surrogate for law enforcement.

The role of the military, first and foremost, is to protect America's national security interests. Given our ongoing war against terrorism, the military must remain focused on fighting terrorism, both at home and abroad. Asking the armed services to serve as first responders to a natural disaster will divert military resources and distract our troops, perhaps to the peril of the country. Instead, the Bush administration needs to ensure that municipal and state governments have sufficient resources to be able to rely on their law enforcement personnel in times of natural disasters.

The training of soldiers is very different from that of police and other members of law enforcement. Soldiers are taught to neutralize a threat immediately, with any force necessary. Law enforcement personnel are trained to remedy a potentially volatile situation by initially taking the least aggressive method available. They are taught to draw their guns only when absolutely necessary. To require soldiers to serve as a police force, especially during the very tense periods that frequently follow natural disasters, would result in unnecessary conflicts. And fatalities would likely be commonplace.

Law enforcement personnel must also be mindful of many considerations that soldiers never contemplate. Police officers must be attentive to the legal rights of criminals and honor those rights, even in precarious situations. But as is evidenced by the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq's Abu Gharib prison, soldiers sometimes have difficulties conceiving of the accused as having any rights at all. And law enforcement must be concerned with the proper collection and preservation of evidence for purposes of prosecution. Soldiers simply are not knowledgeable on these issues.

Given the daunting task of using the military to function as police officers and other law enforcement personnel, it's not surprising that President Bush has already met with some resistance from within the Pentagon. Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, noted in a recent interview that, "what we ought not to do is convert D.O.D. into a department of first responders." The Department of Defense has been opposed to lessening the restrictions of the PCA for many years.

In 1979 the Departments of Defense and Justice reviewed the limitations imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act. They issued a report in which the Defense Department strongly reiterated its desire to continue to adhere to the PCA. The report noted, "The authors of the [PCA] ...knew...that military involvement in civilian affairs consumed resources needed for national defense and drew the Armed Forces into political and legal quarrels that could only harm their ability to defend the country."

The military should play an important role in the recovery efforts that follow a natural disaster. In fact, it frequently has since the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. But asking soldiers to serve as police officers is misguided. It puts our troops, the nation's security interests, as well as the legal rights and very lives of citizens at risk.

[MaxFly]

As EVERYBODY HERE CAN SEE so you can't twist my words anymore, I was specifically talking about the stories that YOU posted here. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT STILL! The only statement that PURPORTS to be first person is the one from the doctor. I tried to show you how it is common that people who are a part of a team or group will refer to what happens to that group as "we", even if they didn't personally take part, and of course you ridiculed me. Now we find that a portion of his "first person" statement NEVER HAPPENED, so we have to assume that either the good doctor was A) lying, B) grossly exaggerating, or C) was relaying what was told him by his colleagues and was misinformed or misunderstood. I will give the doctor the benefit of the doubt and choose C).

YOU insisted that these horrors took place even in the face of surmounting evidence to the contrary. When I asked you why, you had no answer, but stuck to it just the same. When I made the point that this was evidence of a racist taint to your perceptions, you got offended but insisted on ignoring all of the evidence anyway. Now you claim that, even though all of these horrors were completely unsubstantiated by anybody, sending in troops with "shoot to kill" orders was the right thing to do. You say that "they went in and reestablished order" when it is now obvious that disorder was extremely over-exaggerated. You say that it hasn't been demonstrated that the "shoot to kill" orders were wrong, when it has now been proven that those orders were given based solely on RUMORS!

Your words betray your mindset.

You have been proven to be WRONG. You have been proven to be a HYPOCRITE. You have been proven to be a BULLY. You have been proven to be GULLIBLE. You have been proven to be OBSTINATE. You have been proven to be ABSENT OF ANY HUMILITY. And WORST OF ALL, you have been proven to be willing to believe THE ABSOLUTELY MOST HORRIBLE THINGS OF BLACK PEOPLE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE TO ABSOLVE THEM!!!

Kanye West said that they were sending troops down there to kill us. He was implying that the "shoot to kill orders" were unjustified. Turns out that he was right. You, on the other hand, still approve of sending troops with "shoot to kill" orders amongst the suffering innocent based solely on rumors, EVEN AFTER knowing this to be the case. Better hope that the police are never dispatched to your home under the same situation.

I have repeatedly asked you to point out things I have said that have exposed me as having "racist perceptions," yet you've repeated it without proof and devoid or logical reasoning. My belief that many of these crimes took place had nothing to do with the fact that most of those accused are black, yet, in essece, this is what you are saying.

As for the shoot to kill orders, those involved dealt with the information they had, even from Compass and Nagin. Again, I will clarify, they were the proper orders to be given at the time, especially looking back at how things turned out with the involvement of troops.

Kanye' statement. First, Kanye said that troops were being sent to shoot black people. If he wanted to say that the orders were unjustified, that is what he should have said. This is the second time you have sought to interpret what he meant by his statement. Before, you said that what he was trying to get across was his concern that black people may be grouped together, innocent and guilty alike, and shot at or harassed. How are you interpreting his statement now?

edited to provide a space between comments...

Edited October 10, 2005 by MaxFly

[MaxFly]

The fact that Bush is using the military force as a police force is not only very dangerous, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!! (I refer you to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.)

Bush wasn't the one to give the shoot-to-kill orders. His power in this specific situation was somewhat limited since the national guard had not been federalized. Also, New Orleans was more or less operating under the rules of martial law although it wasn't officially declared. You're right though. This is definitely something that needs to be addressed because national guard troops should not carry out policing activities outside of martial law. The situation in New Orleans was unique, but the federal govenment should take steps to explore how such situations should be handled in the future if the police force of a given region is ever significantly depleted under a similar situation or one just as significant.

[PeaceAngel]

I honestly don't get what this is all about......

[Cozmo D]

As EVERYBODY HERE CAN SEE so you can't twist my words anymore, I was specifically talking about the stories that YOU posted here. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT STILL! The only statement that PURPORTS to be first person is the one from the doctor. I tried to show you how it is common that people who are a part of a team or group will refer to what happens to that group as "we", even if they didn't personally take part, and of course you ridiculed me. Now we find that a portion of his "first person" statement NEVER HAPPENED, so we have to assume that either the good doctor was A) lying, B) grossly exaggerating, or C) was relaying what was told him by his colleagues and was misinformed or misunderstood. I will give the doctor the benefit of the doubt and choose C).

YOU insisted that these horrors took place even in the face of surmounting evidence to the contrary. When I asked you why, you had no answer, but stuck to it just the same. When I made the point that this was evidence of a racist taint to your perceptions, you got offended but insisted on ignoring all of the evidence anyway. Now you claim that, even though all of these horrors were completely unsubstantiated by anybody, sending in troops with "shoot to kill" orders was the right thing to do. You say that "they went in and reestablished order" when it is now obvious that disorder was extremely over-exaggerated. You say that it hasn't been demonstrated that the "shoot to kill" orders were wrong, when it has now been proven that those orders were given based solely on RUMORS!

Your words betray your mindset.

You have been proven to be WRONG. You have been proven to be a HYPOCRITE. You have been proven to be a BULLY. You have been proven to be GULLIBLE. You have been proven to be OBSTINATE. You have been proven to be ABSENT OF ANY HUMILITY. And WORST OF ALL, you have been proven to be willing to believe THE ABSOLUTELY MOST HORRIBLE THINGS OF BLACK PEOPLE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE TO ABSOLVE THEM!!!

Kanye West said that they were sending troops down there to kill us. He was implying that the "shoot to kill orders" were unjustified. Turns out that he was right. You, on the other hand, still approve of sending troops with "shoot to kill" orders amongst the suffering innocent based solely on rumors, EVEN AFTER knowing this to be the case. Better hope that the police are never dispatched to your home under the same situation.

I have repeatedly asked you to point out things I have said that have exposed me as having "racist perceptions," yet you've repeated it without proof and devoid or logical reasoning. My belief that many of these crimes took place had nothing to do with the fact that most of those accused are black, yet, in essece, this is what you are saying.

As for the shoot to kill orders, those involved dealt with the information they had, even from Compass and Nagin. Again, I will clarify, they were the proper orders to be given at the time, especially looking back at how things turned out with the involvement of troops.

Kanye' statement. First, Kanye said that troops were being sent to shoot black people. If he wanted to say that the orders were unjustified, that is what he should have said. This is the second time you have sought to interpret what he meant by his statement. Before, you said that what he was trying to get across was his concern that black people may be grouped together, innocent and guilty alike, and shot at or harassed. How are you interpreting his statement now?

edited to provide a space between comments...

Your willingness to believe that black people en-masse committed the purported horrors and atrocities, even in the face of evidence to the CONTRARY is PROOF of your racist perceptions, I can't say it any plainer than that, and I have said it now many times. You may say that the fact that these people were black had no bearing on your perceptions, but I don't believe you and I highly doubt if anybody else here does either.

By assuming the guilt of the populace there, without any evidence or reasoning beyond that of rumor, you showed your inclination to believe the worst of that populace. By INSISTING on the guilt of that populace DESPITE HARD EVIDENCE that showed that populace to be INNOCENT, you showed your DEDICATION to believe the worst of that populace. You may very well claim that under the same circumstances you would believe the same of white people, but I don't believe you, and why should I.

The one thing that you have yet to answer is WHY DID YOU BELIEVE IT EVEN WHEN ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE POINTED AGAINST IT? To the point that you even ridiculed that evidence and me for presenting it? If it wasn't because these people were black then give us a reason for your totally illogical position. :shrug:

Oh, and as for your latest attempt to twist my words, I never said that at all. Here is the direct quote of what I said:

Yes, people shooting at rescue workers is unacceptable. People shooting at ANYBODY is unacceptable. Kanye was reacting to the "shoot to kill" orders that were issued, because he and every other black American knows that when it comes down to us it's "shoot first, ask questions later".

[bigted]

You 2 should send emails to each other if y'all wanna keep on debatin' 'cause I think a lot of us lost interest on this topic.

[Jazzy Julie]

im probably really stupid to jump in on this one, and just so Max knows i only scan read your posts so if anything is wrong please dont kill me haha.

But on this shoot to kill subject, i dont know if the news got to usa but after the attacks on London the police were looking for the people that did it and made security better. They were watching a house that had suspected terrorist activity. A man came out of the house and they told him to stop, but he didnt and he ran. The police shot and killed him and it turned out he was completely innocent. He shouldnt have ran and im not sure why he did but theres this huge thing now in the UK about police shooting to kill. They get it wrong and shoot before they ask questions.

[Cozmo D]

im probably really stupid to jump in on this one, and just so Max knows i only scan read your posts so if anything is wrong please dont kill me haha.

But on this shoot to kill subject, i dont know if the news got to usa but after the attacks on London the police were looking for the people that did it and made security better. They were watching a house that had suspected terrorist activity. A man came out of the house and they told him to stop, but he didnt and he ran. The police shot and killed him and it turned out he was completely innocent. He shouldnt have ran and im not sure why he did but theres this huge thing now in the UK about police shooting to kill. They get it wrong and shoot before they ask questions.

Yeah, that story reached here, and is a perfect example of why I am against "shoot to kill" orders when involving the general populace. As I said earlier, when you issue "shoot to kill" orders when dealing with American citizens (in our case) you usually end up with dead Americans. I will not be at all surprised if a similar truth turns out to be the case in the NO bridge shooting incident.