Let's see, of all of the places that Turner could have hung out at the protest on Saturday, July 30th, he just happens to squarely position himself right next to "Baldy"? What a remarkable coincidence, isn't it? Maybe if he and Don Silva stopped flirting with all the National Vanguard members, neo-Nazi skinheads, and white supremacists that show up to their demos, the police wouldn't be asking such questions. This is not to say that I think its a good thing for the police to be questioning people about their political beliefs. I don't. But I suspect some law enforcement agencies are becoming curious as to why Turner's demos in particular are increasingly attracting these kinds of "white nationalists."


http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3876&st=40&#entry35296

Laguna Beach, the pictures (Pages 1 2 )

SaveOurState Posted on: Jul 31 2005, 11:39 AM

Replies: 75
Views: 860

Spillz,

You got there at the very end and while I dont care to make juvenile name calling and jokes about the officers, they did a piss poor job.

Officer Peck came up to me at one point during the middle of the rally and asked what my name was. I said, Joseph. He said, no on the messageboard. I said, "SaveOurState."

Then he said, "And what is your username on Stormfront?"

I told him, "I dont post on stormfront and I dont fucking appreciate your accusation." He then said that he wasnt accusing me, but asking a question. I told him that he was making a presumptive statement and told him very curtly that I took great offense at his suggestion/presumption.

There was already friction between our side and the cops, anyway.

There is a litany of other aspects I could discuss, but they are definitely biased against Save Our State and I do not level that charge nonchalantly. It is time to recognize the simple fact that in many instances, police departments are simply not going to fairly enforce the laws, selectively enforce the laws and treat us as an organization unfairly.

The sad truth is that since we are comprised of average law abiding Americans, cops feel more confident and capable of being firm and obstinate with us as opposed to the goons on the other side. We have seen this repeatedly.

Forum: California & Illegal Immigration · Post Preview: #35296

Robert Floyd (aka, "Baldy") and "Save Our State" founder Joe Turner jointly engage in an argument with a counterdemonstrator.

"Baldy" and Turner stand by one another as they continue to demonstrate.

Turner holds up a sign that says, "This land was Mexican once and will be American forever."

A counterdemonstrator points to "Baldy," identifying him as a "white nationalist", while he holds a sign with a Mexican flag that has been crossed out. Next to him, Turner continues to hold up a sign that says, "This land was Mexican once and will be American forever."

Turner turns around as things get a little more heated. "Baldy" moves around him.

"Baldy" and a couple of friends who would later turn up on the other side of the street, and begin hanging out with people who brought Nazi and Confederate flags.

Why do you have this obsession with Me ? I wish the misses had half of what you seem to have for me. Can you give her a ring for me ?

good job finding out about the now defunct coffee machine. Nothice that I am speaking to the owner, Eduardo SanP----, a former Mexican child chess prodigy....close friend of mine. Guess I hate all mex's ? I know its a requirement for being a white sep to not like being around them....get the picture?

The thing is this,...someone comes up to me on the street, I say hi, how are you? Daune and company then say this a link to being symps. You hang with folks that shout 'white trash go home' and somehow that doesn't mean a thing ?

Well, none of it matters much to me. I don't even think about it during the week much. I just thought it was interesting that you spent so much time looking into my oh so sordid past , which also includes 20 years of humanitarian Chirstian ministry. Hey, you missed that!

Also, Frank Jorge has been to count them , 1 save our state event. He is a leader ? You were spending too much time on me ! I know I am very sexy in my hats and all, but come on ! You can't get stuff like this wrong.

I will say you did do some good work overall tho. You are now writing in an 'almost' unbiased journalistic style.

Makes me want to come back here again...

Little Bo peep / Joe (don't know if your one in the same, don't care),

We have said before that you should stop going after these people. If you want to make changes, take your complaints to the people who make decisions. When you go after the little guy (like must disgraceful bullies do), people will react. I told you that know that we know about you, and we are watching you, our numbers will grow. I told you that you are going to be exposed for the racists you are. I told you that the opposition would continue to grow until you disband. You refuse to listen. Now SOS is about to go against the state, you are going to siege a public area and try to use violence to take an area hostage. You are about to cross a thresh point in which there will be no return. You are about to permanently label each of you a domestic terrorist status that will follow you to your dieing day. Every time one of your members gets pulled over, the cops will meet you with guns. Every application you fill out, you will have to inform employers, every court case you file, you will lose. More so, each time there is a protest and a counter protest, the police will come down on you harder. And now that you are exposed as nazi collaborators, the counter demonstrations are going to explode in size. Say what you want, but go back and read what I have said and you will see that only one of my predictions did not come to be (yet) (I had heard that BP was going to file a civil suit against SOS). But the other stuff has happened. I monitor your website (have been for a long time). Go back and read the posts from the Anarchist. Go back and see what everyone was saying. We have been doing this since you were in diapers. We knew where this was going, and where it is going. You try your tactics that you are saying, and it is over. The first time will be tickets or jail, and a permanent record. Once the word gets out that you are actually attacking Mexicans, people will come by the thousands to the next one. There will be no way that anyone will be able to stop things. It will be a situation clearly out of control. And since no one can really predict this, there will not be the protection to stop it. You are stupid, and I am not threatening you, I am warning you, you better just go to your little nazi in disguise parties, and whine with your fellow racists. You try to start a race war; it will be a pathetic group of thirty against thousands.

For one thing, the guys with the "nazi" flags didn't even show up until we were on the other side, and we were called Nazi's from the moment we got there until the moment we left so why is everyone so offended that we lived up to it?? You people talk about hate and all that but we were at that protest for over two hours listening to nothing but hate spew out of your mouths. We stood there and tried to peacefully protest something that is AGAINST THE LAW and the whole time we had people screaming and cussing in our ears, you want to talk about hate? Look in the mirror because you are all filled with it. And F.Y.I. S.O.S. didn't invite us there, we are there for ourselves, our country, our future.

"And F.Y.I. S.O.S. didn't invite us there, we are there for ourselves, our country, our future."

Give it up Joe, we know you are trying to do damage control now that your partners broke their agreement and admitted who they are. The only difference between them and you is that they have the balls to admit they are fascist racists, while you are still trying to live in the closet.

Notice that Joe can't even keep the "them / us" consistent.

First statement: For one thing, the guys with the "nazi" flags didn't even show up until we were on the other side...

Last Statement: And F.Y.I. S.O.S. didn't invite us there, we are there for ourselves, our country, our future.

it kind of makes it worse... It makes it look like SOS has enabled the nazis to come out of their caves and has given them the courage to show their true colors on the streets.

Before SOS came along they were just a bunch of cowards with low self-esteem and the only thing they could find to feel good about was something beyond their control (skin color).

From the nazi perspective SOS has made being racist in public acceptable.

hello. you can gladly point out all the neo-nazis out and post them and their info on here. i think it's great.

however, i am a member of SOS, and hispanic. i do NOT post on stormfront, although i've thought about posting there simply to debate racists and neo-nazis, but i knew that would be pointless. anyways, keep up the good work. we plan on creating a physical boundary for SOS members only, for all future SOS events, and white nationalists/neo-nazis will be explicitly denied entrance.

You don't have to be white to be a white supremacist. There are a lot of people who experience self-hate. That is because they look at the white race as the superior one, and strive to wash their heritage away and become more white. So you being Mexican means nothing. Further, if you had a clue you would know that you cannot legally use "physical borders" on public property without a permit to do so. You can stand there all you want, but try to stop me from entering, and you better get use to a tax payer paid facility. You guys have a lot to learn, you should invest in a lawyer now to explain the law to you before you have to hire one to represent you in court.

Hey, appreciate the heads up there Mr. Demi God of protest!

I guess Duane just posts, and does not comment. That is Okay, as long as I own this place for a bit, I am good! Sorry, in a funny mood tonight.

You know 1P, I think you might be passive/agressive. One moment , you seem concerned, the next very vindictive. Don't you think we have th ought of these things ? The things you bring up would be the first logical considerations, would they not? I know you can not see the bigger picture, but there is one. Believe me, no one is looking to get arrested...LOL !~

Uh, going after home depot all the time is 'the little gug' 1P ?

gotta mix it up a bit...going after those elitist that make slaves of Mexican's and others that are here illegally is a worthy cause, no ?

I do have a question here for you. How is it that Home Depot is exploiting Mexicans by simply allowing them to use their property to look for work? Are they making money off of them? I am serious here, how is Home Depot hurting the Mexicans? I am no fan of Home Depot, but in this case, I guess I just don't understand.

You come to HD , pick up drywall. Then , go outside and pick up laborers. This is what HD wants. Its one stop shop, and it is a big customer draw. You do not have to go to 2 places this way.

These illegals are being used as slaves. When their bodies stop working at about 45 from this back breaking labor, they get kicked to the curb with NOTHING to fall back on. They are human fodder to HD, and to our Gov. Sickening.

Real solutions are needed to stop this. They are needed at the border to stop the deaths, human slavery of little girls, and drug traffic. Its chaos now, and the only solution is to restore order via sealing the borders and using real points of entry.

Exploitation is when someone uses a person's labor to make a profit. I pay you one dollar to make a widget, then I sell that widget for ten dollars. I made a profit of nine dollars by exploiting you.

I guess exploitation could mean that by offering them a place to solicit work, they are bringing customers in. But this really trivializes exploitation, as you could just as easily say that day laborers are exploiting Home Depot since people that need to hire day laborers shop there. In reality, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement more than it is exploitation, and unless you worked at manpower as your career, I am at a loss why you care that the middleman has been eliminated. In California, when I pay day laborers to work (YES I DO HIRE THEM), I pay them about ten dollars an hour. Before I moved here, when I hired people through manpower, I paid manpower $17 an hour, and the people they sent me were paid $5.75 an hour. Now THAT is exploitation, and I DID have a problem with that. So now I pay less, they make double, and manpower can take their exploitation and go to hell!

So I guess I am still confused on why YOU have a problem with this. Is it that you want to protect fascist corporate thugs and keep protecting their ability to sit back and do nothing, as they get rich off everyone else’s work?

I do have a question for you. I just saw Hotel Rwanda. If you were in a border country with Rwanda, and the people were flooding out of there so they wouldn't get killed, would you have tried to secure the borders and stop them from entering. In a way, I think the situation is very similar, but that case is more immediate (when you starve to death it takes about nine days, when a machete is used, death is instant). The only reason I ask is because I know you people are ethnocentric, selfish, and to be honest, evil. I just want to know if there is any humanity in you at all, or if you are 100% void of human emotions.

"They are needed at the border to stop the deaths, human slavery of little girls, and drug traffic."

Well I won't deny the drug traffic, that is unstoppable, and it is our fault. Regan had the idea that if you increased persecution of drug dealers, it would increase the price of drugs, and people would stop using. He was stupid. Drugs have a vertical demand (supply and demand are usually an x formation). This means that demand does not drop when prices increase. But the more expensive drugs become, the more incentive there is to engage in the market. That means if you seal up the border, they will fly them in, boat them in, mail them in, and if need be, submarine them in or dig tunnels. You want to stop the drug thugs, you need to legalize them, and decriminalize them. This is basic micro economics stuff. As far as the little girl slave market, come on do YOU even believe that stuff? There COULD be an occasional incident, but not nearly as many as what are being brought in through the airport. They come from Vietnam, from Africa, and from Eastern Europe. Simply said, little girls would not survive the crossing of the desert, so if girls ARE being brought in, they are being brought through the REGULAR crossings. That is just a lame attempt to appeal to an emotion where there is no real appeal there.

---If you were in a border country with Rwanda, and the people were flooding out of there so they wouldn't get killed, would you have tried to secure the borders and stop them from entering.

If the MM and SOS were there I'm sure they would take up arms and "run patrols" along the border to keep people from crossing. I'm sure of that. After all, they only want "the laws enforced".

They believe that there is nothing more sacred in the world than the arbitrary lines, drawn up by rulers hundred of years ago for the purpose of keeping people, labor, workers and families apart.

Duane Robert is reaping big MONEY with the Corporations
helping they keep their cheap labor!

Right Duane, tell the truth as to why you attack Americans
with your lies DUANE ROBERTS!

Duane Roberts the Businessman

Does the above post make any of what Duane writes untrue? If not, then it is just another example of the right-wing believing that personalities are more important than principles.

One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically. Consider a few examples:

· A political candidate is gaining support by proposing a tax change. So her opponent argues that the candidate herself would be one of the chief beneficiaries of that tax change.
· Your doctor tells you to lose some weight. But why should you listen to a doctor who is himself overweight?
· A friend has recommended a new investment opportunity, but your significant other rejects the recommendation with the remark, "How could you possibly value the advice of that idiot?"

In each of these cases, there is an argument (concerning taxes, health, or investments); and in each, the argument is given less importance than something about the person making that argument. And that's what is wrong with ad hominem appeals. After all, if the tax proposal is an improvement, if the medical diagnosis is sound, if the investment opportunity is worthwhile--then what difference does it make who is presenting the argument--or even why?
Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember--it doesn't really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4.

Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on:



· personality, traits, or identity:
o "Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?"
o "Of course she's in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?"



· affiliation, profession, or situation:
o "What's the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They're always against any increase."
o "Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great--until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con."



· inconsistent actions, statements, or beliefs:
o "How can you follow a doctor's advice if she doesn't follow it herself?"
o "Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite."



· source or association for ideas or support:
o "Don't vote for that new initiative--it was written by the insurance lobby!"
o "You can't possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking--it was paid for by the tobacco industry."

The point is that each argument must be evaluated in its own right. Information or suspicions about vested interests, hidden agendas, predilections, or prejudices should, at most, make you more vigilant in your scrutiny of that argument--but they should not be allowed to influence its evaluation. Only in the case of opinions, expert and otherwise, where you must rely not on the argument or evidence being presented but on the judgment of someone else, may personal or background information be used to evaluate the ideas expressed. If, for example, a used car vendor tries to prove to you that the car in question is being offered at lower than the average or "blue book" price, you must ignore the fact that the vendor will profit from the sale, and evaluate the proof. If, on the other hand, that used car vendor says, "Trust me, this is a good deal," without further proofs or arguments, you are entitled to take into account the profit motive, the shady reputation of the profession, and anything else you deem to be relevant as a condition of "trust."