The heartless legal system wants to thwart efforts by throngs of our Progressive brethren to impose their righteous rage upon our legal system for its callous refusal to vindicate such righteous outrage and its insistence on cold-hearted (they would say cool-headed) application of reason and law to the facts.

For centuries, apologists for our legal system (and especially unprogressive lawyers) have peddled the so-called "wisdom" of the law-school adage that "deciding cases involving widows or orphans [or the elderly or the infirm] often makes bad law." They want to keep empathetic emotions and righteous outrage out of the legal-system's decision-making process, but we know that such process is obviously inferior to what our progressive throngs intuitively "know." Why are the apologists for our legal system so hostile to the righteous indignation of throngs of enlightened progressives?

Take, for example, the New York grand jury's refusal to indict the New York police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, for the death of Eric Garner in the wake of Pantaleo's apparent use of a choke-hold to subdue Garner in response to Garner resisting arrest.

Anyone who's watched the video knows that Garner REPEATEDLY said, "I can't breathe." Only a heartless racist could possibly believe that someone repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" must necessarily be disproving the statement by repeatedly breathing in and out in order to repeatedly speak. If the officer were not to have been racist, he would have assumed the sound of Garner speaking was merely an illusion created by Garner telepathically communicating directly to the officer's brain the words "I can't breathe" -- thus, the officer would have known that Garner was communicating with him telepathically because his being unable to breathe rendered him unable to speak.

Racist apologists for the idiotic police whose racial bigotry (including the anti-African-American bigotry of the African-American female NYPD sergeant overseeing the NYPD officers' attempt to arrest Garner) would offer meaningless, senseless analogies in an attempt to "justify" Pantaleo's failure -- nay, his racist refusal -- to believe Garner's repeated "I-can't-breathe" claims--

Here's an example of such senseless analogies: Suppose a game warden sees a hunter shoot-down seven endangered Eagles in rapid succession while saying "I can't see, I can't see, I can't see, I can't see, I can't see, I can't see, I can't see." They then ask, "Should that Game Warden believe such shooter's claim that he "can't see" and thus conclude he was incapable of seeing the eagles he was shooting? They then speciously contend that when our righteous throngs are proving they "can't think" by rejecting such reasoning applied to "breathing" rather than "seeing" because our righteous indignation enables us to "know" that Pantaleo "knew" Garner was being truthful when he said "I can't breathe, I can't breathe, I can't breathe, I can't breathe, I can't breathe, I can't breathe, I can't breathe." Thus, they are directly attacking our critical thinking saying that for one to reject their argument (that repeated talking is repeated breathing) is, in effect, for one to say "I can't think."

It's just progressive common sense.

--Fearless Leader.

The_I-Can't-See_Sharpshooter:




(150x147) (200x196) (362x354)

Seeing a hunting sharpshooter shooting-down a bunch of Eagles in rapid succession while saying "I can't see," the New York Environmental Conservation Officer (a.k.a. Game Warden) arrested him for shooting endangered bald eagles, but immediately thereafter, Fearless Leader charged the officer with bigotedly arresting the shooter on the basis of what the officer's eyes saw despite the shooter having repeatedly told the officer "I can't see," and this idiotic officer was so bigoted that he refused to believe the shooter's "I can't see" assertions, which prove that as a blind person unable to see, he could not have known he had shot an eagle. Thus, the "I-Can't-See" sharpshooter suffered bigoted treatment by the officer relying on what his sense of sight showed him rather than the sharpshooter's assertion of the opposite of what the officer's eyes saw.

Just as pro-bigotry critics of Fearless Leader's arrest of the Game Warden for arresting the "I-Can't-See Sharpshooter" would mock the Progressive "I-Can't-See" meme for attacking the Game Warden for surmising the skillful shooting-down of numerous eagles in rapid succession constituted virtually conclusive evidence that the "I-Can't-See Shooter" had eagle-eye vision, the pro-bigotry critics of the Progressive "I-Can't-Hear" meme mock Progressives for characterizing Officer Pantaleo as a bigot undeterred by "knowledge" that Garner "[couldn't] breathe" rather than as an officer using common sense to surmise that someone able to repeatedly say "I Can't Breathe" is self-evidently repeatedly breathing in the process of repeatedly making false "I Can't Breathe" assertions in an effort to dupe the officer into releasing his grip before other officers had secured the arrest-resister's hands.

Such bigoted critics foolishly seek to equate Progressives' Pantaleo-is-a-bigot meme with characterizing a mime's silence as being "too loud."

Perhaps Garner should have repeatedly said, "I Can't Breathe-- Who you gonna believe -- me or your lying ears?"

--KOOK

I never thought of it, that way. As a matter of fact, I never thought of it, at all. To be perfectly honest, I never thought. Thought is dangerous and confusing. I let The Party™ do all my thinking for me. A mind is a terrible thing.

Mr. Garner's exclamation, "I can't breathe," may not have been accurate at the time, but most certainly was an insightful premonition.

That's a very good point, comrade Craptek. Reason enough to eliminate such brazen prophecy. We can't have The People™ being too well informed. It's complicated.

Captain Craptek wrote:Mr. Garner's exclamation, [highlight=#ffff00]"I can't breathe[/highlight]," may not have been accurate at the time, but most certainly was an insightful premonition.

The fluidity of sloganeering is contagious...

Me too! Me too! (or "moi aussi" if you're Australian)

I'm Australian and I don't recognize that language.

Kapitan Kangaroo Kourt wrote:I'm Australian and I don't recognize that language.

Claiming ignorance and whining your shoddy education deprived you of instruction curbside at Ghetto U is no excuse. An organ of The Party™ is available to illuminate the ignant. The vernacular of the street has a host of meanings for a given word and the uninformed end up looking the fool. A polished speechifyer exercises brevity to make a point.

And the thoughtless bastards didn't even blindfold Mr. Garner or let him have one last cigarette!

Silly squirrel, cigarettes (less their tax revenues) are bad for 300 lb humans.

Those public servants did him a favor denying a smoke, thus preventing a burden on the healthcare system as well. BONUS!

In the spirit of our Progressive Pantaleo-is-a-bigoted-killer meme, I emphatically and repeatedly state that "I did not editorially add information and links at the bottom of the beginning post creating this thread."

--Fearless Leader