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.

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.

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.

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/ne...tm_campaign=nl

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

Good one! The prep school is paying off...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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"

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.

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?

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..

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.

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/articl...jonah-goldberg


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

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

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.

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 . . .

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/201.../?subscriber=1