Latest Protests

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

when will anyone get it ..its about not the killings of a criminal or some one with a gun its about killing people who are unarmed I repeat unarmed...

I have said it before My men and I in Iraq had more restraint then some of these police .. and we were in combat , we couldn't just shoot someone because they looked scary or we thought they had a weapon ..

No issues pull a gun on police and they shoot you Fake or real

and these stats have some influence on what we see


Police killed at least 102 unarmed black people in 2015, nearly twice each week. (See which police departments were responsible for these deaths)

Nearly 1 in 3 black people killed by police in 2015 were identified as unarmed, though the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting

37% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population

Unarmed black people were killed at 5x the rate of unarmed whites in 2015

Only 10 of the 102 cases in 2015 where an unarmed black person was killed by police resulted in officer(s) being charged with a crime, and only 2 of these deaths (Matthew Ajibade and Eric Harris) resulted in convictions of officers involved. Only 1 of 2 officers convicted for their involvement in Matthew Ajibade's death received jail time. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail and allowed to serve this time exclusively on weekends. Deputy Bates, who killed Eric Harris, will be sentenced May 31.

What don't you get ? Although blacks only comprise about 13% of the population they commit a much much larger percentage of crimes then do whites and Hispanics and this would increase the number of police encounters .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by buckman

What don't you get ? Although blacks only comprise about 13% of the population they commit a much much larger percentage of crimes then do whites and Hispanics and this would increase the number of police encounters .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would also think the percentage who comply or don't resist arrest may be racially tilted also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

No you have never said "blacks hate white people"?

More about his information blaming of the welfare system for the past 50 years for the current issues


he should go I agree.. but he wont go his gerrymandering district
most likely wont allow it

"More about his information blaming of the welfare system for the past 50 years for the current issues "

WDMSO, a lot of people agree with that. Not just welfare. But liberalism has played a role in the cultural and economic downfall of blacks in this country, I genuinely believe that. I don't believe it because I hate liberalism, that's backwards. It's because I believe (I know for a certainty) that liberalism has been disastrous, that's why I hate liberalism.

Liberals want blacks to stay on welfare, and to be angry at those that are responsible for their lot in life. Conservatives want to teach blacks how to help themselves, so they can escape poverty once and for all.

It's that simple. And you can't make it sinister, no matter how hard you, or Paul, try.

[The Dad Fisherman]

And while Charlotte is in total disarray, our Commander in Chief was on Good Morning America today talking about.......his new museum dedicated to his legacy.

Great Friggin Leadership right there....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

And while Charlotte is in total disarray, our Commander in Chief was on Good Morning America today talking about.......his new museum dedicated to his legacy.

Great Friggin Leadership right there....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has an uncanny ability to forget what his job is supposed to be...what a wasted opportunity we gave him.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not just welfare. But liberalism has played a role in the cultural and economic downfall of blacks in this country, I genuinely believe that.

"Liberals" would disagree with you Jim. "Liberals" would probably have a different notion of culture and economics than you probably have. Culture, for a "liberal," is flexible, fluid, and constantly changing. Supposedly, all cultures for a "liberal" are to be tolerated, even promoted. Of course, that's not really true, but "liberals" believe that's true. And, anyway, it doesn't matter if it's true or not since all cultures will change and disappear anyway. In fact, "liberals" probably believe that being open and loving to all cultures would soften the hard edges of any that might not quite fit with the others. And, with a bit of societal (government) "assistance," the hard edge ones would be transformed to the better. The "better" being what they believe is better. Finally, all the cultures would disappear eventually, even with a bit of government regulation to help their way to extinction.

As for economics, you should know by now that "liberals" have a different notion of economics than you probably have. Whether they admit it or not, their notion of economic well being is not having as much stuff as you personally can afford. There is an inherent inequality in that sort of consumerism. All things should be distributed evenly, including health care as well as all the things that they consider necessary.

The fact that you might be more capable of acquiring wealth should not redound to your personal well being or to your desire for personal luxury. Your talents and abilities should benefit the well being of society at large, and the fruits of your abilities should equally be enjoyed by all. And you, personally, in return will gain not only the appreciation of society, but will be rewarded equally with all the benefits that society has to offer.

"Liberals" would consider welfare an equalization of the distribution of stuff--for the benefit of society. It would be, probably, a temporary fix not to just get some back on their feet, as your notion might be, but at least a temporary societal adjustment until the government assists us all into a truly egalitarian society where welfare would not be needed because everyone will automatically share in the good that society has to offer. In a sense, everybody will be on the greatest, most generous and equally distributed welfare system society has to offer. It will be an economic transformation that eliminates the friction between cultures (most of which, if not all, will have dissolved through government assistance), and will, if disseminated worldwide, end war, famine, human misery in general.

And "Liberals" obviously are not concerned by government debt. That is debt that the people owe to themselves. At least that will be so when the extinction of inequality (income or otherwise) is achieved. Those to whom money is owed will understand that forgiveness of that debt is a forgiveness that they will participate in. After all, they will automatically be given all the good, what's left of it, that society has to offer equally as it is given to everyone else.

So the temporary malfunctions which you call a "downfall" in so-called minority communities is a prerequisite to the coming change. Rather than hating what has happened to blacks under "liberalism," you should appreciate that it is a step toward the coming necessary equality. The upheavals occurring should be assisted in order to stimulate the necessary change in the distribution of society's goods

I don't believe it because I hate liberalism, that's backwards. It's because I believe (I know for a certainty) that liberalism has been disastrous, that's why I hate liberalism.

I think that there is a widespread confusion about what "liberal" means. Most people attribute concepts such as liberty, tolerance, equality, and such good things to what is called modern political liberalism. Actually, it is not liberal in those ways. Those good things are restricted by "liberal" government's regulations. And, probably, necessarily so.

To be truly liberal in the fullest sense would verge on anarchy. If one is truly flexible, tolerant, accepting of all things, one would have no stable foundation for a process of living. Certainly, such a thing as liberal government would be a contradiction. Liberalism can function only in smaller more personal doses. Society at large needs some method of cooperation to exist.

The present method of political liberalism is not liberal in its application. As it is applied, it is very authoritarian. It is somewhat liberal in its approach. It doesn't adhere to any foundational principles. It legislates and adjudicates at will and fancy--by various personal notions of good and justice and so-called equality. However, if there is any observable direction of modern political liberalism, it is toward an authoritarian state which is forming through a process of destruction of the constitutional order by a series of "crises" that is herded by "liberal" helpers and by temporary "fixes," legislative and judicial, which head us into a sort of benevolent dictatorship.

I don't think you hate actual liberalism. Try the word Progressivism. That has a more distinct meaning.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

And while Charlotte is in total disarray, our Commander in Chief was on Good Morning America today talking about.......his new museum dedicated to his legacy.

Great Friggin Leadership right there....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They were at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture where he was interviewed about the racial unrest.

I'm sure you're not a rabid GMA viewer so I'll assume your bigoted remark was in error.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

They were at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture where he was interviewed about the racial unrest.

I'm sure you're not a rabid GMA viewer so I'll assume your bigoted remark was in error.

How was his remark bigoted ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by buckman

How was his remark bigoted ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

They were at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture where he was interviewed about the racial unrest.

I'm sure you're not a rabid GMA viewer so I'll assume your bigoted remark was in error.

Now we know why there's so much racial tension in the country.

Congratulations on being part of the problem instead of part of the solution
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

How was his remark bigoted ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because to a liberal, any and all criticism of liberalism is racist.

They don't want to win the debate anymore, they want to cancel the debate.

That remark right there, is why Trump won the nomination. Republicans are fed up with getting called a racist, and they want someone will say tell the race huckster (pence in this case), to STFU. That has tremendous appeal.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"More about his information blaming of the welfare system for the past 50 years for the current issues "

WDMSO, a lot of people agree with that. Not just welfare. But liberalism has played a role in the cultural and economic downfall of blacks in this country, I genuinely believe that. I don't believe it because I hate liberalism, that's backwards. It's because I believe (I know for a certainty) that liberalism has been disastrous, that's why I hate liberalism.

Liberals want blacks to stay on welfare, and to be angry at those that are responsible for their lot in life. Conservatives want to teach blacks how to help themselves, so they can escape poverty once and for all.

It's that simple. And you can't make it sinister, no matter how hard you, or Paul, try.

I dont have to make anything Sinister.. your doing fine all by yourself

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think that there is a widespread confusion about what "liberal" means. Most people attribute concepts such as liberty, tolerance, equality, and such good things to what is called modern political liberalism. Actually, it is not liberal in those ways. Those good things are restricted by "liberal" government's regulations. And, probably, necessarily so.

To be truly liberal in the fullest sense would verge on anarchy. If one is truly flexible, tolerant, accepting of all things, one would have no stable foundation for a process of living. Certainly, such a thing as liberal government would be a contradiction. Liberalism can function only in smaller more personal doses. Society at large needs some method of cooperation to exist.

The present method of political liberalism is not liberal in its application. As it is applied, it is very authoritarian. It is somewhat liberal in its approach. It doesn't adhere to any foundational principles. It legislates and adjudicates at will and fancy--by various personal notions of good and justice and so-called equality. However, if there is any observable direction of modern political liberalism, it is toward an authoritarian state which is forming through a process of destruction of the constitutional order by a series of "crises" that is herded by "liberal" helpers and by temporary "fixes," legislative and judicial, which head us into a sort of benevolent dictatorship.

I don't think you hate actual liberalism. Try the word Progressivism. That has a more distinct meaning.

"Most people attribute concepts such as liberty, tolerance, equality, and such good things to what is called modern political liberalism"

That's how people who call themselves liberal, describe liberalism. The convenient thing about describing your beliefs that way, is that it allows you to describe everyone who disagrees with you, as being opposed to those good things, and thus the other side is naturally inferior.

"Culture, for a "liberal," is flexible, fluid, and constantly changing"

Oh, it's changing all right, it gets nuttier and nuttier all the time. 5 years ago, if I told you that it would be controversial to say "if you have a wee wee, I think you should use the men's room", you would have laughed it me. But thanks to "progress", here we are. Yippee.

"you should know by now that "liberals" have a different notion of economics than you probably have"

Oh, I agree. I look at the economic situation that blacks are enduring, and my heart breaks. When liberals (progressives) look at that, they say "see, our economic plan works". I will go to my grave wondering if that is working as they intended - are progressives that sinister? Or are they that oblivious as to what is happening?

"So the temporary malfunctions which you call a "downfall" in so-called minority communities is a prerequisite to the coming change"

How long does the collapse have to last, before we can say it's not temporary?

"I don't think you hate actual liberalism. Try the word Progressivism. That has a more distinct meaning"

Agreed. I just don't bother to make those distinctions.

"the fruits of your abilities should equally be enjoyed by all. And you, personally, in return will gain not only the appreciation of society"

Yes, and as we all know, Progressives are just falling all over themselves to appreciate those who have achieved success. Progressives aren't trying to divide us along these lines by calling them the "one percenters", and claiming that they "don't pay their fair share", heavens no.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I dont have to make anything Sinister.. your doing fine all by yourself

Let me make sure I have this straight. When I look at what's going on in our cities, and if I conclude (1) blacks deserve better, and (2) whatever we have been doing for these people, it isn't working. If I conclude those two things, you say I am sinister.

Got it, that makes tons of sense, and it isn't crazy at all.

Again, instead of demonizing me, how about telling us what I said, exactly, that is incorrect??

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let me make sure I have this straight. When I look at what's going on in our cities, and if I conclude (1) blacks deserve better, and (2) whatever we have been doing for these people, it isn't working. If I conclude those two things, you say I am sinister.

Got it, that makes tons of sense, and it isn't crazy at all.

Again, instead of demonizing me, how about telling us what I said, exactly, that is incorrect??

your message is the issue.. your very simplistic view on the reason and the method and manner on how the cities got the way they are and your only solution for a fix.. is to scream Republican ! They are and have always been part of the problem

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by buckman

What don't you get ? Although blacks only comprise about 13% of the population they commit a much much larger percentage of crimes then do whites and Hispanics and this would increase the number of police encounters .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Police killed at least 102 unarmed black people do you understand we are taking unarmed

or is the above your skittle like
analogy.. for the police

if 3 out the 13% might have a gun shoot 1st ??

[Sea Dangles]

Spence has an uncanny way of displaying ignorance and then hiding. You will not get an explanation that justifies his nonsensical remark.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your message is the issue.. your very simplistic view on the reason and the method and manner on how the cities got the way they are and your only solution for a fix.. is to scream Republican ! They are and have always been part of the problem

It's not simple, it's complicated.

It's actually simple, and understandable if you don't have any knowledge of events, to embrace liberalism. It's simple to say "it's good for the poor if we take from the rich and give to the poor, even give aid to the ones who are capable of working". I used to believe that, because it sounds un-assailable.

WDMSO, do you deny that we need to do something very different for poor blacks?

Again, you "tell" me I'm wrong, but you provide zero specifics. Just saying "you are wrong" isn't really evidence that I am actually wrong.


Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a very liberal Democrat senator from NY. Red his report on what he aid liberal welfare was going to do to blacks, and why. He wrote it 40 years ago. He was exactly right.



But then you look at what is happening, EVERYWHERE that is being tried. It's a disaster. So I conclude that it doesn't work.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Spence has an uncanny way of displaying ignorance and then hiding. You will not get an explanation that justifies his nonsensical remark.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dots, connect dots.

[Sea Dangles]

The riddler strikes again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's not simple, it's complicated.

It's actually simple, and understandable if you don't have any knowledge of events, to embrace liberalism. It's simple to say "it's good for the poor if we take from the rich and give to the poor, even give aid to the ones who are capable of working". I used to believe that, because it sounds un-assailable.

WDMSO, do you deny that we need to do something very different for poor blacks?

Again, you "tell" me I'm wrong, but you provide zero specifics. Just saying "you are wrong" isn't really evidence that I am actually wrong.


Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a very liberal Democrat senator from NY. Red his report on what he aid liberal welfare was going to do to blacks, and why. He wrote it 40 years ago. He was exactly right.



But then you look at what is happening, EVERYWHERE that is being tried. It's a disaster. So I conclude that it doesn't work.

Welfare payments vary by state, but the average family of four in the United States can receive as much as $900 per month. A single person may receive as much as $200 per month.

thats the reality anyone on welfare white or black are not living off 900 bucks a month no way no how .. but many of the Anti welfare people think they are getting much more then they are .. Some get section 8

I say stop the fraud.. but you cant because states wont hire people to stop the fraud ,, its cheaper to give out 200 a month checks

another issues is The word "welfare" has different meanings for different people. Many think it refers to cash payouts to people who aren’t working; others think it includes anyone who receives government assistance of any type.

Even our military need food stamps AKA welfare hence why its not easy or simple Because inner city Blacks are not the sole recipients of Welfare in the United States

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Welfare payments vary by state, but the average family of four in the United States can receive as much as $900 per month. A single person may receive as much as $200 per month.

thats the reality anyone on welfare white or black are not living off 900 bucks a month no way no how .. but many of the Anti welfare people think they are getting much more then they are .. Some get section 8

I say stop the fraud.. but you cant because states wont hire people to stop the fraud ,, its cheaper to give out 200 a month checks

another issues is The word "welfare" has different meanings for different people. Many think it refers to cash payouts to people who aren’t working; others think it includes anyone who receives government assistance of any type.

Even our military need food stamps AKA welfare hence why its not easy or simple Because inner city Blacks are not the sole recipients of Welfare in the United States

Pretty interesting. What is your source I would like to research this also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Welfare payments vary by state, but the average family of four in the United States can receive as much as $900 per month. A single person may receive as much as $200 per month.

thats the reality anyone on welfare white or black are not living off 900 bucks a month no way no how .. but many of the Anti welfare people think they are getting much more then they are .. Some get section 8

I say stop the fraud.. but you cant because states wont hire people to stop the fraud ,, its cheaper to give out 200 a month checks

another issues is The word "welfare" has different meanings for different people. Many think it refers to cash payouts to people who aren’t working; others think it includes anyone who receives government assistance of any type.

Even our military need food stamps AKA welfare hence why its not easy or simple Because inner city Blacks are not the sole recipients of Welfare in the United States

You need to add all the benifits together to get an accurate tally, other then that I agree with you and that is one of the reasons I am voting for change .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device