Behold what the divisive, hate-filled rhetoric of our President, his Attorney General, and their race-hustling lickspittles Sharpton and Jackson has cost:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-2-nyc-cops-shot-car-critically-injured-212302732.html

And the lowest form of society will rally around the shooter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where are all the protests now for these senseless killings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tragic for those officers and their families. Didn't the guy kill his girlfriend first. Think he might have some issues?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tragic for those officers and their families. Didn't the guy kill his girlfriend first. Think he might have some issues?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, he had issues. Lots of people have issues. That's precisely why it's important that people with big platforms, don't incite violence, because there is a very small number of people out there who are incited by that.

How do you not see that, exactly?

Funny the most hate filled person here would start this post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny the most hate filled person here would start this post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad you find it humorous. And once again, when someone displaying common sense points out the obvious insanity of the liberal position (in this case, your fellow world travelers put a bulls-eye on the backs of every cop), instead of admitting I am right, which I am, I get accused of hate. Yawn...

Know what I truly hate? That AL Sharpton has been to the White House (I've read) 82 times. Instead of telling Sharpton to STFU because he's dangerous, our President takes a knee and kisses his hand, and the liberal elites give him a show on a cable "news" channel. How is Sharpton going to cover the fact that (not for the first time, the first time were riots in Crown Heights, or Seaside Heights, I believe) he has innocent blood on his hands?

Sharpton may quote Obama's spiritual advisor (the deranged lunatic Rev Wright)..."the NYPDs chickens....have come home...TO ROOST!!" That's the spiritual advisor of the President Of The United States.

The cops are the enemies, and Abu Mumia Jamal is a cause celebre'. That's what your side truly believes. If I was associated with that kind of lunacy, I'd sit down with a Sam Adams in one hand, a bible in the other, and re-think a few things.

May God be with the families of these two heroes. It had to be Christmas week, two families who will never enjoy this holiday again.

PaulS, you keep insulting me, and keep your head in the sand as to how wrong your side has been on this issue, and what their behavior almost certainly helped to bring about in this case.

Think he might have some issues?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably safe to say about anyone who executes two people.....

Behold what the divisive, hate-filled rhetoric of our President, his Attorney General, and their race-hustling lickspittles Sharpton and Jackson has cost:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-2-nyc-cops-shot-car-critically-injured-212302732.html

you forgot de Blasio

read this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-cops-turn-backs-de-blasio-hospital-article-1.2052215

Yes, he had issues. Lots of people have issues. That's precisely why it's important that people with big platforms, don't incite violence, because there is a very small number of people out there who are incited by that.

How do you not see that, exactly?
Who was inciting violence? Protests in NY and other cities have been peaceful for the most part aside from the Ferguson riots. I don't see an issue with a politician supporting First Amendment rights.

Who was inciting violence? Protests in NY and other cities have been peaceful for the most part aside from the Ferguson riots. I don't see an issue with a politician supporting First Amendment rights.

They have been hate filled towards the police . They have spit , yelled in the face of , challenged and pushed the police to the brink .
I'm amazed at the restraint these officers have shown .
I would make a lousy police officer.
This administration has fanned the flames. Respect is a two way street .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They have been hate filled towards the police . They have spit , yelled in the face of , challenged and pushed the police to the brink .
I'm amazed at the restraint these officers have shown .
I would make a lousy police officer.
This administration has fanned the flames. Respect is a two way street . Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And you have also have police infringing on the right of the people to peacefully protest. Cuts both ways but I think most cops behave well and most protests are peaceful.

Was listing to Mayor Nutter the other day and he said in Philly the police read the First Amendment as a group before they go out to monitor the protesters. Pretty interesting.

Ultimately it comes down to your belief that racial issues do exist. I don't think recognizing this is necessarily fanning the flames.

And you have also have police infringing on the right of the people to peacefully protest. Cuts both ways but I think most cops behave well and most protests are peaceful.

Was listing to Mayor Nutter the other day and he said in Philly the police read the First Amendment as a group before they go out to monitor the protesters. Pretty interesting.

Ultimately it comes down to your belief that racial issues do exist. I don't think recognizing this is necessarily fanning the flames.

I see "peaceful protest " infringing on everybody's rights lately . Give me one example of police infringing on a " peaceful protest " .
I see a one sided recognition of racial issues and a total lack of self respect . Recognize the problem and you will find the solution . The tension is from within .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who was inciting violence? Protests in NY and other cities have been peaceful for the most part aside from the Ferguson riots. I don't see an issue with a politician supporting First Amendment rights.

There were rallies in NYC where the peaceful protesters were chanting for dead cops. Hundreds of people.

Spence, I agree that the majority of people were peaceful. I never said there were zero peaceful protesters. What I'm saying is, the number of violent sociopaths out there is also greater than zero. What happened in Ferguson, afetr what happened with the Rodney King verdict, these things tell us with zero ambiguity, that some people can be incited to violence.

Sharpton doesn't have to ask for his followers to "go out and kill cops". It's enough, when he says that black lives don't matter to white cops, and that white cops are in the habit of executing innocent black children. We know, we know for a fact, that alone wil incite some to violence.

The evidence of the potential danger, is there. As usual, your side can't process the empirical evidence, because it doesn't support "the narrative".

May God be with the families of these two heroes. It had to be Christmas week, two families who will never enjoy this holiday again.

PaulS, you keep insulting me, and keep your head in the sand as to how wrong your side has been on this issue, and what their behavior almost certainly helped to bring about in this case.

Well with that first paragraph we finally agree on 1 thing.

You couldn't even wait until the 2 bodies were removed from the hospital bf you used them for your political purposes! How sad is that!

The majority of your posts are insulting. You can't post in this foum w/o insulting someone's beliefs. I don't think you are capable of it.

How was the "hate filled rhetoric" of the President responsible for some deranged POS' killing 2 police officers? And maybe you could contrast that to the teabaggers trying to take away his religion and country'? has there ever been a President who has been insulted more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

has there ever been a President who has been insulted more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, yeah, maybe even most other Presidents were insulted more. Politics was always an insulting free-for-all. Even more so in the 19th century. Americans were freer and more rambunctious in their characterizations of those they disagreed with.

Obama has actually brought into the dialogue, not a greater civility, but a greater fear of saying anything that might be perceived as an insult for fear of being called a racist.

Well with that first paragraph we finally agree on 1 thing.

You couldn't even wait until the 2 bodies were removed from the hospital bf you used them for your political purposes! How sad is that!

The majority of your posts are insulting. .... And maybe you could contrast that to the teabaggers trying to take away his religion and country'?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny stuff right there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There were rallies in NYC where the peaceful protesters were chanting for dead cops. Hundreds of people.

Spence, I agree that the majority of people were peaceful. I never said there were zero peaceful protesters. What I'm saying is, the number of violent sociopaths out there is also greater than zero. What happened in Ferguson, afetr what happened with the Rodney King verdict, these things tell us with zero ambiguity, that some people can be incited to violence.

Sharpton doesn't have to ask for his followers to "go out and kill cops". It's enough, when he says that black lives don't matter to white cops, and that white cops are in the habit of executing innocent black children. We know, we know for a fact, that alone wil incite some to violence.

The evidence of the potential danger, is there. As usual, your side can't process the empirical evidence, because it doesn't support "the narrative".
I saw a video with a few dozen chanting about killing cops, it certainly crosses the line and people inciting that kind of hate speech should be prosecuted if possible.

The more that comes out about the shooter though you see how the guy had serious issues, he was going to crack sooner or later.

Race is still a pretty contentious issue and there are plenty of people on all sides fanning the flames.

Cop killed in Florida as well now. Another guys gun Jammed in Brooklyn in another failed asasination attempt.

Politics are the problem in this country right and left are all wrong.

Unreal these cops have to keep their backs to the wall simply coming to work. It's a job/career just horrendous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree a very, very tough job.

Funny stuff right there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, Paul can use insulting terms, and it's OK. Must be nice...

I saw a video with a few dozen chanting about killing cops, it certainly crosses the line and people inciting that kind of hate speech should be prosecuted if possible.

The more that comes out about the shooter though you see how the guy had serious issues, he was going to crack sooner or later.

Race is still a pretty contentious issue and there are plenty of people on all sides fanning the flames.

and I saw a lot of high-level, respected politicians saying "black lives matter", a not-so-subtle insinuation that according to white cops, black lives don't matter. I didn't hear too many liberal stating the obvious truth, which is that the facts don't back up their claims that cops are a bunch of executioners.

"Race is still a pretty contentious issue and there are plenty of people on all sides fanning the flames"

Do you honestly believe that the left isn't more racially divisive than the right? First, the right supports policies that pay no attention whatsoever to the color of one's skin - how that's racist, is beyond me. Second, when the left talks about race, it's almost always in the context of blacks being victims of whitey. Obama recently said that Republicans "gotta stop just hating all the time". When was the last time that a President was that dismissive about everyone who didn't vote for him? How do you give him a pass on that statement? John McCain and Mitt Romney are hate-mongers?

Spence, all you do is spin, there's almost zero intellectual honesty...

See, Paul can use insulting terms, and it's OK. Must be nice...

As I said earlier, the majority of your posts are insulting.

You just insulted Spence. You can't help yourself.

"Can't we all just get along?" :wall::wall::wall:

The mayor of NYC was shown a video last week of 2 or 3 NYC officers being attacked and besieged by a mob. DiBlasio could only say, after seeing the video, that there was an "alleged" assault. He wouldn't go further than that. Yet when the Garner grand jury refused to indict, DiBlasio said it was "painful and shocking".

PaulS and Spence, why is that? Why do you suppose DiBlasio refused to say that the cops were assaulted (while seeing it on video), yet he was more than comfortable saying that the Garner cops should have been charged?

Words matter.

As I said earlier, the majority of your posts are insulting.

You just insulted Spence. You can't help yourself.

So are some of yours. I just wonder what the difference is...

Spence said that both sides fan the flames of racial animosity. True in the literal sense, but no honest person would dispute that the left fans those flames far more than the right (their current narrative is built, in part, on the notion that the plight of blacks isn't due to their own culture which encourages awful decision-making, but rather due to the one percent, whoever that is). To imply otherwise, is dishonest.

Maybe the "an eye for an eye" saying will hold true?

Nah, because in this competative world we live in, there is no such thing as "balance" or "equality" when dealing with anything even remotely related to racial issues. Somehow I see a competative streak amongst our nation's most racially "diverse" cities, and unfortunately the murders will continue to mount (as a means of making their point).

Sad how human nature can be so destructive and degrading?
We can be counted on to sink to our lowest when the opportunity is presented, and we will struggle to rise above it in the end.

Merry Christmas to all, and ....GOD BLESS US EVERY ONE!!!

So are some of yours. I just wonder what the difference is...

Spence said that both sides fan the flames of racial animosity. True in the literal sense, but no honest person would dispute that the left fans those flames far more than the right (their current narrative is built, in part, on the notion that the plight of blacks isn't due to their own culture which encourages awful decision-making, but rather due to the one percent, whoever that is). To imply otherwise, is dishonest.

The majority of my posts here are in response to your posts and usually return the venom you spew. I limit them to you rather than paint 1/2 the population with the broad brush you do.

Tell us more about the "plight of blacks" since you seem to know so much about them.

So even though the overwhelming majority of blacks murder victims are killed by other blacks, the liberal elites (Obama, Holder, the media, Sharpton, DiBlasio) are obsessed with the tragis, but statistically insignificant, instances where white cops are involved.

Why is that? If blacks are several times more likely (many many times more likely) to be killed by fellow blacks than by white cops, why are we wasting so much energy on the white cops? Why? Here's why, the left needs these situations to galvanize their base and to reinforce their disgusting, demonstrably false narrative.

In the meantime, they don't care that it works up public resentment against honest cops, and also does absolutely nothing to actually help poor blacks, who would clearly be best served by adopting the exact agenda put forth by a group PaulS demeaned as teabaggers. Kind of ironic when you think of it that way. It is Obama/Holder/Sharpton/DiBlassio who are doing incalculable damage to poor blacks by patting them on the back and saying "there, there" instead of doing what that teabagger Bill Clinton did, showing them that tough love is still love, and incentivizing them to put down the pipe, pull their pants up, cover the tattoos, and get to work.

The majority of my posts here are in response to your posts and usually return the venom you spew. I limit them to you rather than paint 1/2 the population with the broad brush you do.

Tell us more about the "plight of blacks" since you seem to know so much about them.

And the majority of my posts are a direct response to what I perceive as repugnant behavior from your side. So again, please explain the difference. I'm all ears...

The plight of blacks is poverty. Any honest person will admit that the best path to avoid poverty is to make decisions that are shown to avoid poverty - stay in school, study hard, get into a college, pick a majhor that will actually lead to a good-paying job, look presentable, work hard, don't have kids until you are at least 25. Studies show that people who follow this path, black or whote, almost always avoid poverty. Sounds a lot like what the Tea Party (those you called teabaggers) are suggesting.

Your side, Spence's side, takes the opposite approach, despite the fact that we have decades of empirical evidence to show that the liberal solution (here's a few dollars, it's not your fault, it's all whiteys fault, keep voting democrat if you want to keep this welfare) perpetuates poverty, it doesn't solve it.

My side is willing to say what's unpopular, because it;s obviously correct. Your side is willing to cripple an entire culture, in order to secure their votes by getting them addicted to welfare.

try making that wrong.

As I said earlier, the majority of your posts are insulting.

You just insulted Spence. You can't help yourself.



What wrong with insulting Spence ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What wrong with insulting Spence ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
When you do it I just assume it's flirting. With Jim it's just a tic.

What wrong with insulting Spence ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing, he usually deserves it.

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Tell us more about what ails blacks. Interesting reading.

Obama has actually brought into the dialogue, not a greater civility, but a greater fear of saying anything that might be perceived as an insult for fear of being called a racist.
Yes, it certainly put a halt to opponents using his black skin and funny name in a relentless smear campaign to undermine his identity as an American.

Nope, nobody willing to go there...

Who was inciting violence? Protests in NY and other cities have been peaceful for the most part aside from the Ferguson riots. I don't see an issue with a politician supporting First Amendment rights.

Really? San Francisco on Black Friday...Cops shouldn't have to put up with this BS...

http://vimeo.com/113145046

Really? San Francisco on Black Friday...Cops shouldn't have to put up with this BS...

http://vimeo.com/113145046

I read about that. Multiple police assaults, stabbing, gunshot wounds, bonfires in the streets...

Wait, that was after the Giants won the World Series!

I read about that. Multiple police assaults, stabbing, gunshot wounds, bonfires in the streets...

Wait, that was after the Giants won the World Series!

Cute but don't deflect Spence.....this video was on Black Friday....protests and violence agaist police.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? San Francisco on Black Friday...Cops shouldn't have to put up with this BS...

http://vimeo.com/113145046

You sure that wasn't Oakland....I would have though San Fran would look more like this :hee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCb4j0E2p4

You sure that wasn't Oakland....I would have though San Fran would look more like this :hee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCb4j0E2p4
Ha ha...good point...you are correct, thanks for the clarification!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cute but don't deflect Spence.....this video was on Black Friday....protests and violence agaist police.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
San Fran...

I believe this was mostly peaceful but had an element create some issues that in both cases spiraled. Both were nearly in the same area.

The violence isn't right certainly, but this is what often happens when you get a spontaneous crowd. Still, the vast majority of protesters nationwide appear to have been civil.

Yes, it certainly put a halt to opponents using his black skin and funny name in a relentless smear campaign to undermine his identity as an American.

Nope, nobody willing to go there...

So now, after you relentlessly smear those who are off-handedly called "extremists," you go to the "extreme" card. Where did I say "nobody" would go there? I was responding to Paul's assumption that Obama was the most insulted President ever.

Sure, there are those who will not be intimidated, no matter what the threat, against smearing. Just as there will be those who insist that something is a racist smear, even when rational discussions don't demonstrate such characterization. I suppose, one could use your phrase and say when it is demonstrably shown that something accused of being racist is really not, that would merely be an inability to lay a finger on the proof, and the real racism is there in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

My response to Paul was that Obama is not the most insulted President in history. Far from it. The reason I mentioned, among others that I didn't think so, was the fear by some of being accused of racism--the fear of the race card. Not that nobody would resort to racism. Your resort to the "extreme" card is inappropriate. I know you don't like inappropriate. Surprised you'ld go there. Not.

San Fran...

The violence isn't right certainly, but this is what often happens when you get a spontaneous crowd.

How on earth do "you get a spontaneous crowd"? "Spontaneous" suggests arising from its own motivation, not connected with preceding events or rhetoric. You seem to like this "spontaneous crowd" thing as an explanation to absolve those who could have prevented it, as in the Benghazi "spontaneous" eruption that killed our folks.

So even though the overwhelming majority of blacks murder victims are killed by other blacks, the liberal elites (Obama, Holder, the media, Sharpton, DiBlasio) are obsessed with the tragis, but statistically insignificant, instances where white cops are involved.

Why is that? If blacks are several times more likely (many many times more likely) to be killed by fellow blacks than by white cops, why are we wasting so much energy on the white cops? Why? Here's why, the left needs these situations to galvanize their base and to reinforce their disgusting, demonstrably false narrative.

In the meantime, they don't care that it works up public resentment against honest cops, and also does absolutely nothing to actually help poor blacks, who would clearly be best served by adopting the exact agenda put forth by a group PaulS demeaned as teabaggers. Kind of ironic when you think of it that way. It is Obama/Holder/Sharpton/DiBlassio who are doing incalculable damage to poor blacks by patting them on the back and saying "there, there" instead of doing what that teabagger Bill Clinton did, showing them that tough love is still love, and incentivizing them to put down the pipe, pull their pants up, cover the tattoos, and get to work.

Jim, I think you'll like this article a lot. Kind of encapsulates a wider span of this nonsense:

http://humanevents.com/2014/12/22/new-york-city-slides-toward-chaos-after-police-officers-assassinated/?utm_source=hedaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Who was inciting violence? Protests in NY and other cities have been peaceful for the most part aside from the Ferguson riots. I don't see an issue with a politician supporting First Amendment rights.




Peaceful ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U60iAiKYvY

[QUOTE=spence;1059932

The violence isn't right certainly, but this is what often happens when you get a spontaneous
crowd.
[/QUOTE]

If you're going to quote Susan Rice at least give her the credit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you're going to quote Susan Rice at least give her the credit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Good one! The prep school is paying off...

So now, after you relentlessly smear those who are off-handedly called "extremists," you go to the "extreme" card. Where did I say "nobody" would go there? I was responding to Paul's assumption that Obama was the most insulted President ever.

Sure, there are those who will not be intimidated, no matter what the threat, against smearing. Just as there will be those who insist that something is a racist smear, even when rational discussions don't demonstrate such characterization. I suppose, one could use your phrase and say when it is demonstrably shown that something accused of being racist is really not, that would merely be an inability to lay a finger on the proof, and the real racism is there in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

My response to Paul was that Obama is not the most insulted President in history. Far from it. The reason I mentioned, among others that I didn't think so, was the fear by some of being accused of racism--the fear of the race card. Not that nobody would resort to racism. Your resort to the "extreme" card is inappropriate. I know you don't like inappropriate. Surprised you'ld go there. Not.
Extreme card? Hell, the birther movement was GOP mainstream. Shall we count the politicians and Republican celebs who dabbled in Kenyan sensibilities? Should we go through the posts here where people couldn't help themselves but to stress the President's middle name?

It's a good thing the fear of political correctness kept these chaps at bay what with the POTUS bringing all that blackness to the office and all.

How on earth do "you get a spontaneous crowd"? "Spontaneous" suggests arising from its own motivation, not connected with preceding events or rhetoric. You seem to like this "spontaneous crowd" thing as an explanation to absolve those who could have prevented it, as in the Benghazi "spontaneous" eruption that killed our folks.
You have a planned peaceful event with unwanted elements showing up and turning a march into a disorganized crowd where violence erupts. Not rocket science.

But any opportunity to bring up Benghazi we should embrace.

Tell us more about what ails blacks. Interesting reading.

The biggest ailment,as any honest person knows, is that the current black culture has turned its back on the path to avoid poverty, and the current black culture embraces things that are almost guaranteed to lead to poverty. In the opinion of money, black culture has descended to this (75% of black babies born out of wedlock) as a direct result of liberal policies.

It's not hard to figure out the ailment, Paul. Don't ask me how to fix it, but the problem is obvious. Obvious.

On 9/11,NYPD was viewed as heroes. What a great cultural leap forward we have made, thanks to the left. There is so much dishonesty in the liberal agenda, for example, that there is a systemic culture of racism among NYPD? There are rare, isolated incidents (the last 2 seemingly had zero to do with race) which Sharpton and Omaba use as an opportunity to paint cops as today's version of the Klan. It's a big lie, and i think you and Spence both know that.

Blatant, obvious lies. But it gets them votes, and that's all that matters.

You have a planned peaceful event with unwanted elements showing up and turning a march into a disorganized crowd where violence erupts. Not rocket science.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean in general, but specifically the events in question? Did the unwanted elements just happen to show up? Or was there purpose in their presence. Were the majority of marchers saying "what do we want, dead cops" saying that by spontaneous accident or on purpose as planned. Who was the unwanted element in such a crowd? People who opposed what was being chanted? Yeah, I can imagine if a bunch of hard core racists were marching and singing racial epithets, spontaneously mind you, and some peaceful little guy got in the middle of it pleading for tolerance, the racists might spontaneously beat the crap out of him. But I think the racists would not consider the beating just some spontaneous event, but rather a justified retaliation against a deliberate provocation. However possible it could be that some one would accidentally insert himself into a major demonstration which is already filled with reactionary emotion, and then accidentally say or do something to further provoke the demonstrators, however possible that might be, I find it hard to believe in these events. My suspicion, however wrong it may be, is that whatever violence occurred was not spontaneous of the moment. But that it was done, not in the unconscious heat of the moment, but on purpose.

But any opportunity to bring up Benghazi we should embrace.

Yeah, let's just bring up racism and torture any opportunity that can make the other guys look bad.

Extreme card? Hell, the birther movement was GOP mainstream. Shall we count the politicians and Republican celebs who dabbled in Kenyan sensibilities? Should we go through the posts here where people couldn't help themselves but to stress the President's middle name?

Why are you changing the subject. I referred to YOUR playing the card, not all the other people in the world, liberal or conservative, communist, capitalist . . . or liberal celebs (Democrat--there aren't that many Republican celebs) who on a weekly basis poked fun at or bashed Bush, or Reagan, or Palin, or Cruz, or Tea partiers. I wasn't trying to drag the world into the discussion, just your taking my comment to an extreme. Sorry I ruffled your feathers.

It's a good thing the fear of political correctness kept these chaps at bay what with the POTUS bringing all that blackness to the office and all.

No, I wasn't talking about political correctness. I don't think that has ever stopped progressive/liberal Dems from trashing Republican Presidents. It certainly wasn't a barrier against bashing all previous Presidents of either party in the past. Especially before the advent of such "correctness," which is fairly recent in our history. Presidents, politicians in general, were freely insulted before Obama. It was that, Paul's assumption that Obama is the most insulted ever, to which I responded. And it is my opinion, as well as that of "many experts" that the race card prevents many of the insults, even those that don't pertain to race, from being made. That certainly doesn't mean that insults, even many, against Obama haven't happened. Just that not as much as might have if he weren't black. In any event, I don't think any actual stats have been compiled as to who was the most insulted President. Don't think it would be possible to do it. But, it does come with the territory. Take it in good grace and move on. That's what Bush did. I know you like to remind us often that "Bush did it too."

Spence / PaulS -

The assassin said very explicitly that this was a revenge murder - "two of yours for two of ours", something like that. He was clearly motivated by the racial aspect of the 2 cases. Problem is, in these 2 cases, there is precisely zero evidence that race was a factor. So where did this troubled young man get the idea that Brown and Garner were killed because of race? Hmm? Not from watching Sean Hannity (who is a clown, but you get my point).

Words matter. And the larger the pul[it one has, the more responsibility one has to be responsible with their words. All those signs "black lives matter", when there is no evidence to support the notion that there is a systemic pattern of racial assassinations among white police officers. James Woods nailed it, Sharpton is a "pig", and it's unfathomable that a sitting President would anoint him with such elevated status. Quite a circle of patriots Obama has surrounded himself with - Michelle (wasn't proud of my country despite being an Ivy League educated millionaire), Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Al Sharpton. Quite a crew.

Spence / PaulS -

The assassin said very explicitly that this was a revenge murder - "two of yours for two of ours", something like that. He was clearly motivated by the racial aspect of the 2 cases. Problem is, in these 2 cases, there is precisely zero evidence that race was a factor. So where did this troubled young man get the idea that Brown and Garner were killed because of race? Hmm? Not from watching Sean Hannity (who is a clown, but you get my point).
Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

The guy was also clearly crazy.

Words matter. And the larger the pul[it one has, the more responsibility one has to be responsible with their words. All those signs "black lives matter", when there is no evidence to support the notion that there is a systemic pattern of racial assassinations among white police officers. James Woods nailed it, Sharpton is a "pig", and it's unfathomable that a sitting President would anoint him with such elevated status. Quite a circle of patriots Obama has surrounded himself with - Michelle (wasn't proud of my country despite being an Ivy League educated millionaire), Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Al Sharpton. Quite a crew.
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

The guy was also clearly crazy.


As was the guy in PA a couple of weeks ago, or the couple that killed the cops in Nevada earlier this year.....

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean in general, but specifically the events in question? Did the unwanted elements just happen to show up? Or was there purpose in their presence. Were the majority of marchers saying "what do we want, dead cops" saying that by spontaneous accident or on purpose as planned. Who was the unwanted element in such a crowd? People who opposed what was being chanted? Yeah, I can imagine if a bunch of hard core racists were marching and singing racial epithets, spontaneously mind you, and some peaceful little guy got in the middle of it pleading for tolerance, the racists might spontaneously beat the crap out of him. But I think the racists would not consider the beating just some spontaneous event, but rather a justified retaliation against a deliberate provocation. However possible it could be that some one would accidentally insert himself into a major demonstration which is already filled with reactionary emotion, and then accidentally say or do something to further provoke the demonstrators, however possible that might be, I find it hard to believe in these events. My suspicion, however wrong it may be, is that whatever violence occurred was not spontaneous of the moment. But that it was done, not in the unconscious heat of the moment, but on purpose..
Weren't there over 25 thousand people marching in NYC? Your example while offensive is in the dozens. It's being spun by some media as if to claim there's a militant uprising welling against the police.

Isn't that every bit and perhaps more the incitement you're arguing against?

Why are you changing the subject. I referred to YOUR playing the card, not all the other people in the world, liberal or conservative, communist, capitalist . . . or liberal celebs (Democrat--there aren't that many Republican celebs) who on a weekly basis poked fun at or bashed Bush, or Reagan, or Palin, or Cruz, or Tea partiers. I wasn't trying to drag the world into the discussion, just your taking my comment to an extreme. Sorry I ruffled your feathers.

No, I wasn't talking about political correctness. I don't think that has ever stopped progressive/liberal Dems from trashing Republican Presidents. It certainly wasn't a barrier against bashing all previous Presidents of either party in the past. Especially before the advent of such "correctness," which is fairly recent in our history. Presidents, politicians in general, were freely insulted before Obama. It was that, Paul's assumption that Obama is the most insulted ever, to which I responded. And it is my opinion, as well as that of "many experts" that the race card prevents many of the insults, even those that don't pertain to race, from being made. That certainly doesn't mean that insults, even many, against Obama haven't happened. Just that not as much as might have if he weren't black. In any event, I don't think any actual stats have been compiled as to who was the most insulted President. Don't think it would be possible to do it. But, it does come with the territory. Take it in good grace and move on. That's what Bush did. I know you like to remind us often that "Bush did it too."
Not changing the subject, I just think it's pretty silly to claim political correctness had muted criticism of Obama when he's been subjected to the most racially motivated attacks I've ever seen.

As for the most insulted? I'm sure history has it's moments but certainly within my lifetime.

Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

The guy was also clearly crazy.


I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

"Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown"

100% agreed.

"It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. "

I also agree that the issue is the perceived bias toward black men. But I disagree that that bias exists in a systemic way - there are racists of course, but the fact that we have a 2-term black president ought to end the myth that institutional racism exists. It does not exist. But your side will not get off that soapbox, and it's done for political capital.], and at the expense of the people you claim you're trying to help.

"The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action"

Agreed 100%. But it is disgraceful that the media and the liberals tried to conect these 2 recent events to race, because there isn't a shred of evidence that race had anything to do with it. But people like Sharpton and Obama can't ever say that, because liberals, as a group, view everything through the lens of racism.

If we want to talk about police brutality as a result of these events, fine. But there's no need (other than for political capital) to use these events to fan the flames of racial animosity. I can't say it any more accurately that that.

"bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot."

Again, you are too blinded by ideology to see the truth here. Please tel me which part of "the system" sets black men up to me more likely to be killed by cops. I agree blacks are disproportionately killed by cops. But it's not because cops hold blacks to a different standard, it's because blacks are, because of their culture, more likely to find themselves in the socio-economic condition that leads to crime.

That's not the fault of the Koch brothers or Sarah Palin, it's not the fault of Bush or the Tea Party. If anything, black culture has been pushed there by the liberal agenda, which tells blacks that nothing that goes wrong is ever their fault, it's always that they're victimized by whitey. Liberals have also reduced incentive to excel by making many addicted to welfare.

Can you specify which part of the "system leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men". How is "our system" causing this, exactly? Do blacks who go to college and get degrees in engineering not succeed? With afirmative action and quotas, if anything, "the system" is tilted in favor of blacks who are willing to make god decisions and work hard.

"A big problem is a lack of good national data" Wrong. The national data has to be there, they just don't share it on MSNBC because it spits in thre face of their agenda. If anyone claims to care about black lives, why begin with white cops killing black kids, when the vast majority of black kids are killed by other black kids? Why make so much fuss over something so rare? Political theater.

Spence -

"How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?"

He's not an accessory or anything. But do you deny that his words fuel the outrage? There is absolutely no way you can connect racism to what happened to Garner, but that's all anyone talked about.

DiBlasio didn't create racial animosity, but he (and Sharpton and Obama) make it worse, by claiming it is occurring when clearly it's not. And just as importantly, it takes attention and resources away from th ereal problem, which is lifting these people out of poverty for good. Telling them that their lives don't matter to white cops is demonstrably falese and counter-productive. But it gets your base riled up, so it's OK.

Not changing the subject, I just think it's pretty silly to claim political correctness had muted criticism of Obama when he's been subjected to the most racially motivated attacks I've ever seen.

.

So when a few kooks on the left yell "we want dead cops", you dismiss that as the lunatic fringe (which I agree with) When a few kooks on the right make racist comments about Obama, you say it's significant.

So when the left acts stupidly, you dismiss it. When the right acts stupidly, you hold us accountable.

See any flaws there, Spence? Any hypocrisy? Any at all? No?

Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

Clowns are good, no? Cowboys used to be good, until G.W. got elected. Then cowboy became bad. If clown is bad, then you're insulting Hannity. Insulting is good, no?

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

"Perception" is the key word. Demanding action on perception rather than facts is a form of putting the horse before the cart. Taken to violent extremes, it can be a form of functional psychosis. Milder forms, massive protest and shouting, is not as serious, just silly and disruptive. But they can trigger violent responses in those who are functionally psychotic. So it behooves those with civil power not to fan the flame of perception.

The guy was also clearly crazy.

The key difference which might make that relevant to the "whole story" is whether he was functionally or organically psychotic. If it was an organic, physical, a malfunction in his circuitry, then it would essentially have nothing to do with the whole story except in that he was given the trigger by words and actions around him to express his psychotic rage. If it was functional, then the cause of his mental disorder would be a misperception of his relation to society probably informed, again, by the words and actions around him. If he reacted not out of misperception, but logically from perceptions that fit the facts, then he wouldn't be crazy.

I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

If one doesn't look into the factual basis for what appears to be patterns, then one can create a nonfactual narrative which would not only lead to false conclusions, but stimulate already functionally psychotic tendencies, as well as outbursts of organic psychosis. If one only considers and responds to what"appears" to be disproportionate by raw number alone, and disregards the actual causes for the killings, then one can be led to false conclusions . . . and to silliness, social disruptions, and to more killings, psychotic or otherwise.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Social processes are inherently biased toward society. It is the nature of social processes to protect and make cohesive the societal structure. Police are part of the oversight and enforcement of the social process. They are commanded by society to confront those who commit anti-social acts. That "appearance" or fact of bias cannot be eliminated. If you want to suggest how the process should be improved, that would be interesting to hear. I suspect that what's more important than process here, is not a systemic bias, but personal biases. If you can figure out how to, in short time, eliminate personal biases, go for it.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

"Real" outrage based on false premises is the big problem. The "system" of justice devised in this country is one of the least biased in the world. Individual misperceptions and biases which can coalesce into various group or crowd mentalities are a problem that no "system" of justice can eliminate. The system can only prosecute the justice due to those who manifest their "perceptions" by socially destructive action.

And we have massive national data which, if read correctly, could explain, at least to rational folks, what the raw numbers really mean. Piling more national data on top of the tomes of info pumped out annually by the Federal government would not only cost more money but would give even more fuel to those who choose to twist data to fit their perceptions.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

The question is, do the words fit the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean in general, but specifically the events in question? Did the unwanted elements just happen to show up? Or was there purpose in their presence. Were the majority of marchers saying "what do we want, dead cops" saying that by spontaneous accident or on purpose as planned. Who was the unwanted element in such a crowd? People who opposed what was being chanted? Yeah, I can imagine if a bunch of hard core racists were marching and singing racial epithets, spontaneously mind you, and some peaceful little guy got in the middle of it pleading for tolerance, the racists might spontaneously beat the crap out of him. But I think the racists would not consider the beating just some spontaneous event, but rather a justified retaliation against a deliberate provocation. However possible it could be that some one would accidentally insert himself into a major demonstration which is already filled with reactionary emotion, and then accidentally say or do something to further provoke the demonstrators, however possible that might be, I find it hard to believe in these events. My suspicion, however wrong it may be, is that whatever violence occurred was not spontaneous of the moment. But that it was done, not in the unconscious heat of the moment, but on purpose..

Weren't there over 25 thousand people marching in NYC? Your example while offensive is in the dozens.

I am not able to see the connection of your response to my post.

It's being spun by some media as if to claim there's a militant uprising welling against the police.

I admit I haven't been paying attention to the media spin.

Isn't that every bit and perhaps more the incitement you're arguing against?

Didn't realize I was arguing against incitement. I thought I was stating my doubts as to the spontaneity of crowd reactions.

In regard, though, to media incitement, I agree that the media like to provoke and draw out for expanded coverage time--provoke for profit. On the other hand, when they DO report objectively, or some semblance of that, there's the problem of viewer twist. As we have been demonstrating in these posts, perceptions based on bias rather than facts is a big problem.

Too bad we are such a flawed species. Wouldn't it be better if we were as regimented as the other species on the planet? That would make our "system" and "process" so much more manageable. Maybe the federal government should gather and publish lots of data on media provocation and viewer misperception. The data, then, could tell us how we are supposed to act.

We would then be a totally peaceful society. It would probably even eradicate the need for torture.

Not changing the subject, I just think it's pretty silly to claim political correctness had muted criticism of Obama when he's been subjected to the most racially motivated attacks I've ever seen.

Disregarding and not responding to my main point (your extreme characterization that "nobody" would insult Obama rather than, as I said, less would do so) in order to focus on a reason for that point is changing the subject. And replacing the word "insult" with "political correctness" and "racially motivated attacks" is also changing the subject. "Insults" have a much wider scope than your peeves about political correctness or racial attacks, neither of which necessarily involve insults. And you, again, make a switch--from less ("muted") criticism to the "most" racially motivated attacks you've ever seen. Criticism can involve so much more than racial attacks. Actually, a racial attack would be more of an irrational rant than a criticism. Actually, most of the criticism of Obama that I've ever seen involved his policies, not his race. In fact, though I'm sure there must be some, I don't remember any criticisms of him due to his being black.

You have this maddening habit of morphing from what is said into whatever ax you wish to grind. That you "perceive" that Obama is subject to the most racially motivated attacks you've "ever seen" is too subjective for me to respond. If you want to factually quantify that statement and flesh it out to what you consider a racial "attack" that would make a discussion possible. Otherwise, its just your opinion which may be provocative but not interesting. I recall a previous thread where you thought you were listing racial attacks when nothing on your list was actually racial. And when you could not verify that they were, you referred to them as "code." That's too convenient and unconvincing.

As for the most insulted? I'm sure history has it's moments but certainly within my lifetime.

Your lifetime and your "perception." The first is too short to be relevant, and the last is too subjective to be meaningful for anybody but you . . . or those who want to be told what you say.

Your lifetime and your "perception." The first is too short to be relevant, and the last is too subjective to be meaningful for anybody but you . . . or those who want to be told what you say.

brilliant.............:rotf2:

"Double standards are seductive. If you’ve been demonized unfairly, it is only human to turn the tables at the first opportunity. Giving in to that temptation, however, leads to madness."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395303/demonization-double-standard-jonah-goldberg


funny isn't it...after a while the guy that actually pulled the trigger barely gets mentioned.....:uhuh:

The guy was also clearly crazy.


I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.



Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this? I agree that blacks are disproportionately killed by cops, the numbers make that obvious. You say, with great honesty, that cops aren't just looking to kill black people. So you think there's some biased part of "the system" that leads to this. Can you specify what that is?

In my opinion, it's caused by a current black culture where (1) the nuclear family has almost gone extinct, (2) rejecting a lifestyle that encourages decidion-making that helps one to avoid poverty, and (3) embracing a lifestyle that encourages the kind of self-destructive decision-making that leads to poverty and hopelessness.

In my opinion, black culture has been lead by the hand to get to this point, by liberal policies which eliminate work ethic, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-determination, and replacing that with addiction to welfare and victimhood. I say this because blacks who reject the typical black culture and make those good decisions, seem to to well. And whites who make th esame self-destricive decisions, do not do well.

So I don't see it as being about race. People who make the right decisions, regardless of race, do well in this country. People who make terrible decisions, regardless of race, struggle in this country. We all know what the productive decisions are, but for some reason that escapes me, the left is unwilling to tell blacks to change their values and decision-making. You'd rather give them just enough welfare to avoid death, but not nearly enough to get ahead, pat them on th ehead, and say "there, there".

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post:
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Reply by Jim in CT:
Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this?

Jim, I think Spence just likes the world "systemic." I don't think that most of the times he uses the word there is actually a "system" to which he is referring. Aside from the redundant nature of the phrase in this case, instead of referring to a "systemic pattern" he could have just said "pattern" as in "a pattern of racial assassinations." Or he could have dropped the word "pattern" and simply said "a system of racial assassinations." But either simplification would be more easily verifiable. If it were an actual system of assassinations, that would be something you could point to and describe. As such, it could readily be prosecuted and rooted out of existence. A system would be intentionally and specifically designed. A pattern of group behavior, however, can occur, more or less, as Spence might like to say, spontaneously. Rather than being intentionally designed, it can just "appear" to happen. So, I think, it was not necessary for Spence to insert the words "systemic" or "system" into his assertion of what there "appears" to be.

I wonder if Spence, being a social and political progressive, unconsciously speaks from the "perspective" that it is systems rather than individuals by which or by whom we must order our lives. That, ultimately, individuals are either too powerless, as in the masses, or too powerful, as in the wealthy, to rely on as the purpose for a social order. So, for a progressive, rather than system being a product of consent by sovereign individuals, it is the regulator of individuals who must act by its consent or dictate. System responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, is either the solution or the fault. So by mingling the loosely similar words into a concoction of an appearance, he manages to convey an intangible problem that cannot be laid at the feet of individual biases, but must be inherent in some "systemic" malfunction

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post:
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Reply by Jim in CT:
Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this?

Jim, I think Spence just likes the world "systemic." I don't think that most of the times he uses the word there is actually a "system" to which he is referring. Aside from the redundant nature of the phrase in this case, instead of referring to a "systemic pattern" he could have just said "pattern" as in "a pattern of racial assassinations." Or he could have dropped the word "pattern" and simply said "a system of racial assassinations." But either simplification would be more easily verifiable. If it were an actual system of assassinations, that would be something you could point to and describe. As such, it could readily be prosecuted and rooted out of existence. A system would be intentionally and specifically designed. A pattern of group behavior, however, can occur, more or less, as Spence might like to say, spontaneously. Rather than being intentionally designed, it can just "appear" to happen. So, I think, it was not necessary for Spence to insert the words "systemic" or "system" into his assertion of what there "appears" to be.

I wonder if Spence, being a social and political progressive, unconsciously speaks from the "perspective" that it is systems rather than individuals by which or by whom we must order our lives. That, ultimately, individuals are either too powerless, as in the masses, or too powerful, as in the wealthy, to rely on as the purpose for a social order. So, for a progressive, rather than system being a product of consent by sovereign individuals, it is the regulator of individuals who must act by its consent or dictate. System responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, is either the solution or the fault. So by mingling the loosely similar words into a concoction of an appearance, he manages to convey an intangible problem that cannot be laid at the feet of individual biases, but must be inherent in some "systemic" malfunction

As usual, awesome points. But I'd love to know what he means by "patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. " I asked him a few times to expand on that, and he didn't, which is likely more revealing than anything he coud have posted. His silence on the topic is deafening.

This is getting to the point where recently, riots are breaking out were there seems to be evidence in one case that the deceased pointed a gun at the cop, and most recently, a man was actually firing a gun into a crowd, was killed by a cop, and the crowd, instead of thaking the cop, turned on him because he was wite and the dead criminal was black. Pure genius on the part o fthe cowd that th ecop was trying to protect.

As usual, awesome points. But I'd love to know what he means by "patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. " I asked him a few times to expand on that, and he didn't, which is likely more revealing than anything he coud have posted. His silence on the topic is deafening.

His silence merely adds to the mystique of nebulous patterns within unnamed systems. It is the "seemingly" plausible assertion that something actually exists, even if there is no rational concrete evidence for it. It is exactly the kind of rhetoric demagogues use to influence the masses to threaten the social order for a change, which upon examination, is more destructive to society than the supposed "problem" it purports to solve.

This is getting to the point where recently, riots are breaking out were there seems to be evidence in one case that the deceased pointed a gun at the cop, and most recently, a man was actually firing a gun into a crowd, was killed by a cop, and the crowd, instead of thaking the cop, turned on him because he was wite and the dead criminal was black. Pure genius on the part o fthe cowd that th ecop was trying to protect.

I know that those who consider themselves "liberal" (whatever they mean by that) poo-poo the notion that the "left" resorts to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals techniques . . . but if it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a . . .

Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this? I agree that blacks are disproportionately killed by cops, the numbers make that obvious. You say, with great honesty, that cops aren't just looking to kill black people. So you think there's some biased part of "the system" that leads to this. Can you specify what that is?

In my opinion, it's caused by a current black culture where (1) the nuclear family has almost gone extinct, (2) rejecting a lifestyle that encourages decidion-making that helps one to avoid poverty, and (3) embracing a lifestyle that encourages the kind of self-destructive decision-making that leads to poverty and hopelessness.

In my opinion, black culture has been lead by the hand to get to this point, by liberal policies which eliminate work ethic, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-determination, and replacing that with addiction to welfare and victimhood. I say this because blacks who reject the typical black culture and make those good decisions, seem to to well. And whites who make th esame self-destricive decisions, do not do well.

So I don't see it as being about race. People who make the right decisions, regardless of race, do well in this country. People who make terrible decisions, regardless of race, struggle in this country. We all know what the productive decisions are, but for some reason that escapes me, the left is unwilling to tell blacks to change their values and decision-making. You'd rather give them just enough welfare to avoid death, but not nearly enough to get ahead, pat them on th ehead, and say "there, there".

The "equality" arguments are not new, but they constantly require a new infusion of the old arguments or else the "perception" that things are not "fair" or "equal" becomes the "reality" which can be the fuel for transfers of power to those who wish to "fundamentally transform" a society. Here's another article from Dr. Sowell that supports what you say, and refreshes an old argument:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/01/06/the-equality-racket/?subscriber=1