Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108965)

White people riot all the time, hell I've been tear gassed in a riot before.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108965)

I think you guys are also missing the point that a big reason people flip out when it looks like the killing was justified is a lack of trust in the police by some minority communities.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1108974)

Prob. need a face to face rather than a 30 sec. blurb here.

I think it was an attempt to deligitamize the first black Pres. It unearthed racist sentiments where they felt free to voice them in a way w/o using language they knew was inappropriate. So the birther and a black Pres. also brought forth a feeling obo Blacks that they are not going to take it any more. So they protest (and the scummy/liberal ones riot). Blacks feel discriminated against and now even (as in Charlotte) you might have a "legitamate" shooting but they don't see it that way.

here is something I just read. A little hard to read bc the author added their own comments.

One of Donald Trump's Ohio campaign chairs has a very unique, revisionist view of American history that she is proudly sharing with the world.

Mahoning County campaign chair Kathy Miller, who is white, told the Guardian that there was "no racism" in the 1960s and if black people fail in this country, it's their "own fault."

"If you're black and you haven't been successful in the last 50 years, it's your own fault. You've had every opportunity, it was given to you," she told the Guardian.

"Growing up as a kid [in the 1960s], there was no racism," Miller adds. "... I never experienced it."


Ah, yes. Much like gravity, ultraviolet light and dark matter, racism doesn't exist unless you can see it with your own eyes.

"I don't think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this ..." Miller says. "Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that's a big change, and I think that's the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America."

She doubles down by adding that black children "had the same schools as everyone else" (false), extra benefits to go to college that "white kids didn't have" (gross oversimplification of affirmative action), and that lower turnout among black voters is due to "the way they're raised" (voter turnout in Ohio in the last two presidential elections was higher among black voters than white ones).

"When do they take responsibility for how they live?" Miller demands.

The video is worth watching if only for the expression on the face of the poor interviewer, who at one point nicely asks Miller if some might find her comments offensive.

"I don't care," Miller says. "It's the truth."

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1108969)

"White people riot all the time,"

Conservative white people?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108980)

Not sure, I know my university riots were pretty conservative.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108980)

Not sure, I know my university riots were pretty conservative.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108980)

Not sure, I know my university riots were pretty conservative.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108980)

Not sure, I know my university riots were pretty conservative.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1108992)

Because I'm bored, as you know, I have been googling trying to find a college riot that involved conservatism . So far zip ... But if you want some funny reading, look up Forbes 2015 top ten ridiculous college riots .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1108992)

Because I'm bored, as you know, I have been googling trying to find a college riot that involved conservatism . So far zip ... But if you want some funny reading, look up Forbes 2015 top ten ridiculous college riots .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1109000)

Rookies, those aren't riots.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1108936)

I have seen surveys that said that almost 1/2 of Repubs. believe Pres. Obama was a Muslim and/or born outside the US. There was 0 proof of that.

I agree anyone running for office should provide the proper docs. So do you think Pres. Obama was elected Pres. w/o having to provide those docs. and if so, w/o anyone reviewing those docs. or looking into his background? I can't imagine that. He was on the Senate Foreign relations committee. I'm sure he was briefed by our intelligence agencies. I would think they would have looked into his background bf those briefings.

I'd be interested in Dennis' thoughts.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1108940)

you should check with Hillary and friends...pretty sure she gave rise to the birther phenomenon..she might have your answers as to why there was ever a question....:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1108954)

Why does it bother you that I bring it up? And what is the time limit on bringing something up with you not liking it? Does Hillary's sniper comment get an exemption?


I bring it up BC almost 50% of the Republicans believed in it and I think it had/has a huge amount to do with the current racial climate.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108965)

White people riot all the time, hell I've been tear gassed in a riot before. They just do it for superficial reasons and not perceptions of inequality.

I think you guys are also missing the point that a big reason people flip out when it looks like the killing was justified is a lack of trust in the police by some minority communities.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1108980)

Not sure, I know my university riots were pretty conservative.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1108992)

Because I'm bored, as you know, I have been googling trying to find a college riot that involved conservatism . So far zip ... But if you want some funny reading, look up Forbes 2015 top ten ridiculous college riots .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1108954)

I bring it up BC almost 50% of the Republicans believed in it and I think it had/has a huge amount to do with the current racial climate.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1109045)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37447915

Must be where Jim got his ideas about blacks

2nd link didn't see the 1st one

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1109046)

Just out of curiosity, what do you presume my "ideas about blacks" are?

I want them to all succeed and be happy, to break the cycle of poverty and crime. I doubt you have a problem with that. When I display the brains to take the next step, and connect the dots between black poverty and liberalism, now all of a sudden, I'm a racist.

Good Lord, when I have I ever said something as stupid as "blacks hate white people"?

That legislator has to go.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1109048)

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.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1109050)

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

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1109049)

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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1109061)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1109053)

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.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1109061)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1109065)

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.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1109066)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1109065)

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.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1109066)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1109053)

"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.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1109064)

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.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1109075)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1109079)

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??

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1109050)

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

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1109085)

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 :kewl:

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1109088)

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