Lalo Alcaraz for December 30, 2014

The end is near(er).

Stupid toon; things like this cause the trouble.

I hope people noticed the black fool in New York murdered an Asian and a Hispanic in his revenge attack against white police.

Complete nonsense coming from a racist baiter.

For someone who claims she values civility in conversation, you sure are uncivil yourself, sue.

You miss the point. People aren’t asking for no policing. They’re asking for respectful and non-brutal policing. The same thing you probably expect in your own neighborhood and directed to your own person. Right?

Interesting how your bias on this topic apparently excuses animalistic behavior.

What animalistic behavior would that be? Specifics please. On the other hand, it’s interesting how your bias on this topic apparently excuses you for using terms like “animalistic.”

The simple fact is that a. there is prejudice and bigotry in America, from ALL sides and b. It remains the kid, REGARDLESS of color, is FAR MORE LIKELY to catch one in the head from a gang-banger than a cop, period get over it. Just try comparing the number of bad cops as a proportion of their peers to any gang’s “bad guys”. Hmm, some of those gangs are called “relgions” and agitate their extremists.

Interesting that humans today so fear “Nature”. Maybe it’s because they confuse her with human “nature”?

Lalo is no better than Al Sharpton!!!!!!

Let’s get more police officers murdered! Right Lalo?Dumb, childish toon, but for simpletons out there protesting, it’s just more wood to the fire.

‘the rioters still show up and let’s not forget, “What do we want? DEAD COPS!”.It’s possible that some protestors have said that." .I think they’re referring to a Faux affiliate that willfully altered a rally chant of “We can’t rest until killer cops are in cells” to“Kill a cop”. I saw it myself, and the station “apologized” for an “honest mistake.”

Ha, ha, ha, etc. Good one Lalo!!

NOW you have gotten a taste of ‘uncivility’ in conversation.

Oh, indeed, and I daresay you’ve shown your true colors here. Thanks for the demonstration!

Yes, it looks like some protesters chanted this. Which is sad and unacceptable. Now, since you’re very concerned with the effects of rhetoric when it comes to violence, shall we talk about Palin’s gun-sights targeting of Democratic candidates and the subsequent shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? Or the type of rhetoric that comes from the mouths and tweets of cops that reflects and reinforces an attitude that the folks they’re supposed to be serving are actually just asking to be shot—and the hundreds of people, especially people of color—who are subsequently shot and killed by cops? To me, all the examples listed (protesters, Palin, violent cops) are unacceptable. How about to you?

Ah, that’s what I thought. You declare out of one side of your mouth that discourse can have deadly consequences, but then deny it out the other side when it suits your purposes. Me, I’m calling for consistency and for all parties to tone down the rhetoric of violence. You, as is your neoconservative way, think that the rhetoric of violence is fine and dandy, as long as it’s your side doing the talking.

“Targeting” an area to get out the vote is not “violence”.

You can “target” without gunsight graphics. And without constantly using gun language. And she used those graphics in the context of her allies loudly talking about “Second Amendment remedies.” Just as a for-instance. (I also notice you haven’t bothered to address what I said about cops and their own language of violence.) So if you’re going to pin the rhetoric of a tiny percentage of protesters to the murder of two cops by a mentally unstable man who started off by threatening to shoot himself and then shooting his ex-girlfriend, you’re being intellectually dishonest if you then claim that right-wing gun rhetoric had nothing to do with the mass shooting perpetrated by a mentally unstable man who attempted to assassinate Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others in the process.

Now you’re just making stuff up. Loughner was registered to vote as an independent. Prior to his personality change, he had been seen as a liberal, but afterwards he had turned paranoid and distrustful of the government (this according to Anti Defamation League analysis of his writings). In fact, he’d become quite the fan of the gold standard, a favorite cause of the kooky right. In addition, he actually quite disliked Gabrielle Giffords.

As far as the NRA goes: If you’re claiming that rhetoric gets people killed, well then yes, you’d have to place some blame there, especially on Wayne “An Armed Paranoid Is a Good Paranoid” LaPierre. Of course, if you’d like to claim that all that gun rhetoric did not get Giffords almost killed (and six people around her actually killed), then you need to drop the same claim about people protesting police brutality. There is, you know, something to be said for intellectual consistency.

Your responses seem to be that you are justified in your opinion because you’ve never seen otherwise.You can’t have a weaker basis for debate, Agrestic.

You have just proven that you are unwilling to honestly consider the implications of evidence that undermines your point of view. A clear case of confirmation bias.

He “had been seen as a liberal” until he snapped.

Hey, I just report the facts of the case. His personality change transformed him into a conspiracy nut who supported all sorts of ideas of the kooky right.

I don’t know if Loughner was a Giffords supporter, but he attended an August 25, 2007 event of hers.

Well, you had claimed he was a supporter. And despite the evidence you yourself have placed in your post, you “don’t know”? Does attending an event automatically make you a supporter? Even though folks hostile to politicians show up to their events all the time for all sorts of reasons? Does homicidal obsession equal support? That’s what you seem to be implying.

Loughner’s anger would also “well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.” [wiki] Whew! That kooky right!

Yeah, that kooky right. The right (and not all righties are like this, therefore the “kooky” appellation) that might think GWB was a RINO, and that government is out to get them. You know, the right wing represented by Sharron Angle and Cliven Bundy and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Oh, and being for the Second Amendment of the Constitution is not the same as yelling “Kill Cops” at a demonstration

You are either being naive or purposely avoiding the meaning that folks had when talking about “Second Amendment remedies.” Let me spell it out for you: they meant that if they could not win at the ballot box, they should be willing to pull out a bullet box and shoot their way to change. So yeah, it’s a little more than simply “being for the Second Amendment.” And hey, we haven’t yet mentioned those Bundy supporters in Las Vegas who cold-bloodedly killed two cops eating lunch and draping them with a Gadsden Flag (“don’t tread on me”—a favorite of the hard right) before killing a dude at a Wal-Mart in Nevada. But there could have been no connection, right? Right?

This guy’s a moron.

What, are you Archie Bunker or something? Though that character actually had the presence of mind to learn something every now and again. Why debate if you’re not interested in getting to the truth? And if the truth turns out not to be what you at first believed, at least have the fortitude to admit it and go on from there. This is how knowledge gets built. But if you insist on keeping blinders on and not conceding that the world doesn’t always work the way you think it does, then you are stuck and will learn nothing more.

If you want to go protest against a non-existent problem and scream “Kill Cops”, by all means knock yourself out.… Their deaths wouldn’t bother you at all, and then you’d turn it around and blame in on Palin.

Um, dude, you must have missed the part where I said it was unacceptable that folks chanted about killing cops. And the killing of anyone bothers me. Just as it should you. But you conveniently ignore that fact so you can pigeonhole me—and by extension pretty much anyone who has a beef with police brutality—into being something that fits your preconceived notions.

As for Palin and her cohort, I’m saying they are as much to blame for the ambush killing of two cops in Las Vegas and the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords in Arizona as folks like you say those chants about killing cops are for the ambush killing of two cops in Brooklyn. Either you think the rhetoric of violence leads to people getting killed or you don’t. Which is it?

You also seem intent on shielding a certain set of killers from any sort of accountability by claiming a problem doesn’t exist. Someone who disagrees with you is the Boise, Idaho chief of police.

Oddly enough this subject was treated very fairly in an episode of family guy…