Buppert: In Defense Of Badged Barbarism

Screen shot 2014-02-10 at 10.58.16 AM
There’s always folks willing to shill for the Regime.

This kind of thing is routine today in FUSA.

Know them for their deeds.

Call them by their proper names.

Remember their choices.

Sic semper tyrannis.

19 responses to “Buppert: In Defense Of Badged Barbarism

  1. Proper name?

  2. Reblogged this on The Lynler Report.

  3. Daniel K Day

    Buppert loses me when he indulges in cliches like “putting a person in jail for life for shoplifting”.

  4. Well then, if it’s illegal for me to *resist* whether I do or not, then I may as well go ahead and knife your ass in the face and be done with it.

    Nothing worse than being found guilty of something you didn’t do.

  5. Daniel,

    All documented:

    Among the most obscure offenses – mostly from Louisiana and Mississippi – documented in the report as the impetus for life sentences:

    Possessing stolen wrenches
    Siphoning gasoline from a truck
    Shoplifting a computer from WalMart
    Shoplifting three belts from a department store
    Shoplifting digital cameras from WalMart
    Shoplifting two jerseys from an athletics store
    Breaking into a parked car and stealing a bag containing a woman’s lunch
    Stealing a 16-year-old car’s radio
    Drunkenly threatening a police officer while handcuffed in a patrol car

    See: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/13/3278-americans-are-serving-life-sentences-for-nonviolent-crimes-report-finds

    SARLOWER SURRY: Everything he did was to hurt himself, not others. And it went from—from one-year sentence to two-year sentence to natural life.

    CASHAWNA TILMAN: My dad will never get out for something so little? Natural life.

    LORETTA LUMAR: For stealing a $150 jacket. And that $150 jacket got him life in prison.

    SARLOWER SURRY: Here in Louisiana, they use that habitual offender law: Three strikes, you automatically get natural life.

    See: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/15/jailed_for_life_for_stealing_a

    I wish it were hyperbole and too absurd for reality but the tyranny is right in front of us.

    Bill Buppert

    • Daniel K Day

      I found a pdf by the Louisiana ACLU and skimmed through it.
      On principle, I support 3-strikes laws, though I’m willing to negotiate on the length of the sentence and to leave the judge leeway in sentencing. They’re a message to a habitual offender that it’s time to stop victimizing people. I have no sympathy for someone who has been warned to keep his nose clean, or else, and then gets busted for shoplifting or burglary. It’s a misstatement to say “life sentence for shoplifting”. It’s a life sentence for continuing to be a thieving asshole.
      That said, most of the prior offenses these prisoners have committed are drug-related, which makes them invalid IMO.
      I’d also support using far different forms of incarceration than simply caging people, but that’s a whole another discussion.

      • Confusing, Daniel. You “support in principle” but say the instances are “invalid.” Not sure what that means.

        I’m wondering why you support sending messages to habitual offenders. Offhand, that sounds like trying to persuade a looting politician to go straight…a huge waste of time. Cage ’em or don’t—in both cases!

        The underlying question for all of us is this…so if this is what you believe, then why don’t you do it yourself? What could possibly be wrong if done by you, but right if done by your agent?

        • Daniel K Day

          The “them” in the second paragraph means “the prior offenses”. I’m against the drug war.
          I won’t waste time trying to convince you to accept the concept of government or playing word games.

          • As for me, I’m with Ted Nugent. “I don’t believe in repeat offenders. I believe in dead offenders.” Political offenses? That’s one thing. Criminal offenses? Kill ’em all.

          • Mr. Day….any attempt to reason with the antagonist known as “Jim Klein” is a waste of bandwidth and time. He seldom makes sense, writing in metaphors and rhetoric. He never puts anything in writing that is specific. Thus, he is non-committal. In the meantime he always challenges others to commit by his incessant questioning of one’s remarks. Klein could give a damn less what one thinks. He is only interested in boasting about what HE believes and how correct and proper HE believes HE is. He’s right. You’re wrong. Just ask Jim Klein. Notice how he ended his comments against you with a question ? It’s a technique of ridicule outlined in Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules For Radicals”. Klein uses it regularly. He knows his “Alinsky” well. Myself, I believe Klein is no less a provocateur and an agent of the left. A narcissistic globalist whose commentary never adds up to anything of substance.

            Your comments Mr. Day, are well-written, sensible and easily understood by those who want to understand. Whether one agrees with you or not. Thanks for your thoughts.

            • Dan: Jim can handle himself. So can you. Tend to your own garden, please.

            • “Myself, I believe Klein is no less a provocateur and an agent of the left.”

              Wow…well, at least you’re finally explicit. That’s some progress. Keep going and you can join the world of the grown-ups. Hey, “Honesty above all else.”

              Where’d you get that style anyway…Alinsky’s professor?

              • Klein…”Explicit” ? That word is in YOUR vocabulary ? The king of rhetoric and metaphorical commentary, Jim Klein, wants to make claim that I’ve finally been explicit. How sophomoric of you Jimbo.

                Rule #5, correct ?

                Your response to my remarks only validates my analysis of you.

            • Daniel K Day

              Your first sentence expresses just about exactly my point of view. His ridiculous passive-aggressive question below ‘I’m taking your answer to imply that you believe “the concept of government” relieves you of the responsibility for doing *any* [emphasis added] of it yourself.’ is a perfect case in point. Thanks much for your comment.

              • When you’re done stroking a guy who has posted blatant lies, Daniel, could you just address the issue? I already said I’m not looking to argue.

                You were saying that you believe X should be done to guys who do Y, and I’m asking why it’s moral for someone else to do Y to X, but not for you to do it. I find that confusing in view of the fact that it’s you who holds the opinion of what ought to be done.

                That’s all; I’m curious about your thinking on the matter, assuming you have some. It might become relevant when free Americans finally do away with the Tyranny. Is that something that you believe someone else should do too?

                You’ve offered “the concept of government.” Got anything else?

          • No word games. I’m taking your answer to imply that you believe “the concept of government” relieves you of the responsibility for doing any of it yourself. I’m not looking to argue, so you can just tell me if I’ve got that wrong. If I do, just state it correctly and that’ll be that.

            BTW in case it was ambiguous, by “all of us,” I meant “each of us,” not the readers here. I try never to speak for others, which is why I’m asking for clarification.

  6. That most of my fellow citizens are closet nazis.