You can't look at a media outlet today without someone commenting on the 'Black lives matter' issue commanding attention in the country. You see signs posted every where in most leftist cities proclaiming the fact, politicians being attacked if they disagree, but do black lives really matter to the left?
How many times have we seen the leftist media ignore black on black crime statistics, especially in the predominately black communities where black on black crime statistics are staggering? Chicago comes to mind, where black on black murders are an every day occurrence. Yet the most staggering statistic is in the abortion rate for black babies. A statistic that is largely ignored by not only the media, but by the black community.
Quote[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, "The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety." How can the "Dream" survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.
source (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/)
MLK was murdered almost 50 years ago, but what he said then is relevant today. What would he say today if he say that the rate for black abortions today was over 35% of all pregnant black women? (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/) That figure is from 2009!
It becomes readily apparent to anyone with a functioning neuron in their brain, that the only black lives that matter are those that can be used for political gain, or those that further the leftist agenda.
The black community will start a riot at the drop of a hat when a black is killed by a white person, but are mute when faced with black on black murders of the black abortion rate. Why? Maybe because the black leaders are silent?
.... And the Black leaders are silent because they care even less about their black supporters than the white liberals do. It's all about power, money, and limelight. And if tomorrow they find they can make more use of "poor white trash" for their purposes, then "Black Lives Matter" will be tossed out like week-old sliced tomatoes.
Yes black lives matter, just as much as any other life.
The current "black lives matter" slogan is stupid empty verbiage. They only like to chant those words when one of them gets killed by a police officer. They are quiet as a mouse when blacks kill other blacks.
There have been almost a hundred murders in Baltimore ever since the Freddie Gray death.
All lives matter regardless of skin color.
Quote from: tac on July 27, 2015, 01:36:48 PM
All lives matter regardless of skin color.
You are absolutely correct. However, the race industry does not agree with us. It keeps them going.
Quote from: tac on July 27, 2015, 01:36:48 PM
All lives matter regardless of skin color.
When politicians say that, they are required to apologize.
Quote from: zewazir on July 27, 2015, 03:49:09 PM
When politicians say that, they are required to apologize.
Especially if they claim that unborn lives matter!!! :ohmy:
Quote from: zewazir on July 27, 2015, 03:49:09 PM
When politicians say that, they are required to apologize.
That's because they have cajones the size of raisins.
Quote from: tac on July 27, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
That's because they have cajones the size of raisins.
This attention to black people is probably overdue. Since the 1960's, a lot of Americans had kind of forgotten about the black people and their individual concerns. My opinion is that Barack Obama, with his Black White House, has more than made up for any deficiency in that area over the past eight years. He has also introduced us to the softer side of Islamic Jihad, like we needed that.
This is another way of saying, "See you later, Barack. Thanks for the effort. Now, don't let the door hit you on the way out."
What is over due is a society that does not pay attention to skin color when it comes to laws and policies. Some forms of individual racism will ALWAYS exist, even when shoved into the background. We are, after all, dealing with human beings, and some human beings will continue to pass the poisons of racism to the following generations no matter what we try to do about it.
But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Assistance for the poor needs to help the poor, not help the blacks or Hispanics or whatever other "special" class the liberals want to enslave. We need to get rid of any law or policy which gives any type of unequal consideration due to race, creed, or gender.
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. For 60 years now the dims have managed to keep a significant percentage of blacks cooped up and dependent, trading the plantations of the old South for the projects of so-called civil rights. Th democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.
Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white. "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Every time the liberals put race in their policy, they piss on Martin Luther King's grave.
Quote from: zewazir on July 27, 2015, 09:03:02 PM
What is over due is a society that does not pay attention to skin color when it comes to laws and policies. Some forms of individual racism will ALWAYS exist, even when shoved into the background. We are, after all, dealing with human beings, and some human beings will continue to pass the poisons of racism to the following generations no matter what we try to do about it.
But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Assistance for the poor needs to help the poor, not help the blacks or Hispanics or whatever other "special" class the liberals want to enslave. We need to get rid of any law or policy which gives any type of unequal consideration due to race, creed, or gender.
racists
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. For 60 years now the dims have managed to keep a significant percentage of blacks cooped up and dependent, trading the plantations of the old South for the projects of so-called civil rights. Th democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.
Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white. "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Every time the liberals put race in their policy, they piss on Martin Luther King's grave.
Unfortunately politicians don't think that way. Does anyone think that LBJ wasn't paying attention to skin color when he rammed the Civil Right Act 1964 through CONgress?
Quote from: zewazir on July 27, 2015, 09:03:02 PM
What is over due is a society that does not pay attention to skin color when it comes to laws and policies. Some forms of individual racism will ALWAYS exist, even when shoved into the background. We are, after all, dealing with human beings, and some human beings will continue to pass the poisons of racism to the following generations no matter what we try to do about it.
But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Assistance for the poor needs to help the poor, not help the blacks or Hispanics or whatever other "special" class the liberals want to enslave. We need to get rid of any law or policy which gives any type of unequal consideration due to race, creed, or gender.
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. For 60 years now the dims have managed to keep a significant percentage of blacks cooped up and dependent, trading the plantations of the old South for the projects of so-called civil rights. Th democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.
Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white. "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Every time the liberals put race in their policy, they piss on Martin Luther King's grave.
Quote from: zewazir on July 28, 2015, 11:22:23 AM
What did you find inaccurate? I'll admit those comments were, by far, incomplete. (I don't think the forum is equipped for a multi-volume, 10 megaword analysis.)
But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Sounds good in practice. In reality, let's not confuse black with white. Two cultures. Two sets of values. When the Black Panthers declared war on the police, there was no implication that I would join in. In fact, after they win the war with police, they'll probably start on white men over 50 and all white women.
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. When was black and white anything but divided? Sometimes I listen to recordings by Nat King Cole and Natalie, watch pre 1960 films, and think to myself, what fools the black and white are. They were actually beginning to assimilate. Of course they will tell you things were never good for them. Again, that leads us to Liberia.
The democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it. What in the world is that supposed to mean? I see zero exploitation of black labor. Black votes, maybe. But any city Democratic machine liberal will tell you they have no answer to the race issue. Believe me, they have tried.
Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white. On this we are in complete agreement.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 28, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Sounds good in practice. In reality, let's not confuse black with white. Two cultures. Two sets of values. When the Black Panthers declared war on the police, there was no implication that I would join in. In fact, after they win the war with police, they'll probably start on white men over 50 and all white women.
As long as the government comes along promoting the ideal that different races need special consideration in the law, it will continue to promote the idea that the so-called protected classes cannot compete without that help. It promotes among the protected classes the idea that they are inferior, which in turn produces feelings of anger, which then turns into race hatred. Because the programs are promoted as trying to help protected classes achieve equality, those who promote those programs can then turn rhetoric against those who oppose race based programs, labeling us as the racists. But when push comes to shove, it is the federal government and their race based programs are the primary source of continued division between the races. Supporting point: the military does not give any special consideration to anyone. Each soldier is expected to do their part, no excuses, and success is dependent on teamwork. The military also does not tolerate individual racism. The end result is people of all races working side by side, literally depending on each other for their very lives, even though the individuals come from those two (or more) divergent cultures you reference. The division between races is artificial, and deliberately maintained by government because it gives government more power.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 28, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. When was black and white anything but divided? Sometimes I listen to recordings by Nat King Cole and Natalie, watch pre 1960 films, and think to myself, what fools the black and white are. They were actually beginning to assimilate. Of course they will tell you things were never good for them. Again, that leads us to Liberia.
There are many examples in which race relations were getting better. If that were not so, the movies you reference would not have been the box office successes they were. People of both races wanted to get along. There was still rampant racism up through the 60s, but there was (and still is) a larger movement which shed light on the evil of racism. Blacks were making progress in demanding equality in pay, while more and more whites joined in calling for equality. There was also resistance to accepting equality between the races, which in turn led to conflict, including violence on the part of both sides. (When has major social change NOT involved conflict?) Government forces saw opportunity in this strife, and have used it for the past 60 years to gain more and more power at the cost of liberty; on the one hand passing laws with the purported purpose of enforcing equality, forcing integration, while simultaneously assuring the gross affect of their programs would result in even more segregation via housing projects, even more race associated poverty via welfare programs, and even more racial tension with other race based programs such as "affirmative action". ALL these programs have the ultimate design of keeping blacks economically suppressed and dependent, which coupled with the "white privilege" rhetoric assures a dependable voting block; without which the democratic party would have lost power decades ago.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 28, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
The democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it. What in the world is that supposed to mean? I see zero exploitation of black labor. Black votes, maybe. But any city Democratic machine liberal will tell you they have no answer to the race issue. Believe me, they have tried.
Dependency is the new slavery. The democratic machine (to use your terminology) no longer gives a crap about getting labor out of their slaves, because that type of labor is no longer needed. But in keeping the black community dependent on government programs - programs which they threaten the evil racist conservatives will take away from them - they have themselves a dependable voting block - ie: political power. And political power, rather than getting rich off unpaid labor, is the new end game of the democratic socialist party.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 28, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white. On this we are in complete agreement.
Bottom line: the VAST majority of strife between the races is artificially created by, and maintained by our benevolent and loving federal government. This is even more apparent under the leadership of the big O IN THE WH, and his race baiting buddies.
Quote from: zewazir on July 28, 2015, 04:52:35 PM
There are many examples in which race relations were getting better. If that were not so, the movies you reference would not have been the box office successes they were. People of both races wanted to get along. There was still rampant racism up through the 60s, but there was (and still is) a larger movement which shed light on the evil of racism.
Bottom line: the VAST majority of strife between the races is artificially created by, and maintained by our benevolent and loving federal government. This is even more apparent under the leadership of the big O IN THE WH, and his race baiting buddies.
Those are rational assessments, z-man. I find nothing to quibble, but copied only a few highlights just to save space. I may be defensive, but I find the tone of this response rational, whereas the tempo of the original was a mite hyperbolic.
I spent some of the formative years in industrial Ohio. My friends' Dads told me they rather enjoyed the black co worker. We can certainly understand that. The sense of humor is legendary. What they didn't like were the union agitators (professional Democrats) and the 90 day wonders -- bosses who were little more than brown noses and company stooges. I'm sure little has changed.
Mind you, this was pre Kennedy/Johnson, kind of a golden era. Ripe for charlatans like King, LBJ, and the Kennedy brothers picking. Well, you know what happened to steel and auto. Later the public schools would crash.
No, the Democratic Political Machine is not some figment of my imagination. If you read your own words carefully, you'll see that you and I refer to the same thing, only our semantic choices differ. The Democratic organization, since Wilson, coveted the power and position, but they had done nothing to produce it, much less had they conditioned themselves to the open-ness and flexibility required to make it work. I mean, the open mindedness of a Henry Ford and John D Rockefeller. Hah! JDR, Junior dropped hundreds of millions on the Catholic Church, after the fortune had been established. He was not forced to. That was the ethic -- giving back to the people who made you rich.
Those same Catholics were encouraged to hate Capitalism. Go figure! So, my point is, as has been proven by psychology, it is those liberals, those famous open minded liberals, who are the true stiffs on the landscape. At the heart, they are fake.
I encourage you to continue structuring your thoughts, maybe start a blog, z-man. You have talent for it.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 28, 2015, 05:43:11 PM
No, the Democratic Political Machine is not some figment of my imagination.
I never said it was, nor intended to seem to imply.
You have a particular name for it, whereas I do not, which is why I said "using your term." It was an acknowledgement of a simple semantic difference rather than differing overall opinion.
Actually, if I were to start using a similar type label, I would probably call it the Federal Political Machine, since, in reality, all gains in power over the decades have invariably been used by both parties, regardless of which party was in power when the new authority was usurped. I mention the democratic party as the primary instigator in the race war because they are the party which continues to promote the federal policies which are resulting in the racial divisions we see today. And it has been magnified by an order of magnitude since the O took office.
My original post, if seeming hyperbolic, was simply due to trying to describe a vastly complicated issue with vastly complicated history in less than a book sized entry. Sorry if I did so poorly.
Quote from: zewazir on July 28, 2015, 06:21:51 PM
Actually, if I were to start using a similar type label, I would probably call it the Federal Political Machine, since, in reality, all gains in power over the decades have invariably been used by both parties, regardless of which party was in power when the new authority was usurped. I mention the democratic party as the primary instigator in the race war because they are the party which continues to promote the federal policies which are resulting in the racial divisions we see today. And it has been magnified by an order of magnitude since the O took office.
My original post, if seeming hyperbolic, was simply due to trying to describe a vastly complicated issue with vastly complicated history in less than a book sized entry. Sorry if I did so poorly.
Truth be known, your knowledge is probably just more up to date than mine. As some here know, I am on something of a personal mission to assure all in the Tea have been briefed on the history of patronage politics, immigrant driven, in New York, Boston, Phila, New Haven, Chi, SF., so that by the time I get around to checking out, I can say that at least I tried. I am a MA native, 1944.
What I mean is this popular idea that the state's attorneys have put an end to patronage politics, which is really illegal, in those cities, is just another Democratic lie.
The truth is that those organizations have used the majority rule to extend power to the State Houses and, as you observe, the nation's capitol.
Therefore the push to "residential integration," which is, of course, serves a high moral purpose. :blink:
I could be putting my foot in my mouth. You could be a Princeton professor for all I know, and here I am, presuming to correct you. But, in honesty, I or anyone else here can only offer gut reaction, well intentioned. No flippancy intended by referring to you as z-man. Just that the name is not familiar to me.
So, yeah, I take the effort you are making to frame issues to be worthwhile and quite provoking. I am not sure how you would deal with the question of your presuming to speak for the black population, but that's your bridge to cross. Still, I see you having the framework for an argument, a thesis, and won't hesitate to offer an opinion, with your permission.
I have no idea what is meant by "presuming to speak for the black population". I am not presuming to speak for anyone.
I am proposing a hypothesis as to the origins and causes of the current level of racial division in our society. Specifically, that the current social conditions between races is the result of deliberate social engineering on the part of the humanist progressive faction of the federal government; social engineering which remains unopposed by the so-called conservative faction of the federal government because they, too, use the reward of increased federal authority.
I am also proposing that as long as governmental policies continue to focus on race, the racial tensions on our society will continue and probably get worse. IF policies were to be rewritten to ignore race and only respond to economic conditions, which is supposedly why those policies exist in the first place, racial relations in our society would have a chance to heal.
Quote from: zewazir on July 29, 2015, 07:41:03 AM
I have no idea what is meant by "presuming to speak for the black population". I am not presuming to speak for anyone.
I am proposing a hypothesis as to the origins and causes of the current level of racial division in our society. Specifically, that the current social conditions between races is the result of deliberate social engineering on the part of the humanist progressive faction of the federal government; social engineering which remains unopposed by the so-called conservative faction of the federal government because they, too, use the reward of increased federal authority.
I am also proposing that as long as governmental policies continue to focus on race, the racial tensions on our society will continue and probably get worse. IF policies were to be rewritten to ignore race and only respond to economic conditions, which is supposedly why those policies exist in the first place, racial relations in our society would have a chance to heal.
Hindsight and history prove you to be correct.
Quote from: Solar on July 29, 2015, 07:56:29 AM
Hindsight and history prove you to be correct.
B: I need help. It's all your fault. Give me a handout.
W: Oh, all right. Here's a handout.
B: Now look what you have gone and done. You have made me dependent.
That's the argument I find absurd. It is a con.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 29, 2015, 08:37:59 AM
B: I need help. It's all your fault. Give me a handout.
W: Oh, all right. Here's a handout.
B: Now look what you have gone and done. You have made me dependent.
That's the argument I find absurd. It is a con.
I think if you grow up with that kind of thinking, it becomes a way of life for a lot of people. They don't know any different. It takes good role models to break the cycle.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 28, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Sounds good in practice. In reality, let's not confuse black with white. Two cultures. Two sets of values. When the Black Panthers declared war on the police, there was no implication that I would join in. In fact, after they win the war with police, they'll probably start on white men over 50 and all white women.
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. When was black and white anything but divided? Sometimes I listen to recordings by Nat King Cole and Natalie, watch pre 1960 films, and think to myself, what fools the black and white are. They were actually beginning to assimilate. Of course they will tell you things were never good for them. Again, that leads us to Liberia.
The democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it. What in the world is that supposed to mean? I see zero exploitation of black labor. Black votes, maybe. But any city Democratic machine liberal will tell you they have no answer to the race issue. Believe me, they have tried.
Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white. On this we are in complete agreement.
Let me explain it to you red. The welfare system as it exists today, punish's and penalizes anyone, who once on it, even tries to better themselves and get off of it. Even forcing some folks to pay the government the money, that say, they need for school, if they do.
Which btw, they do to injured and disabled vets too. It really is "how dare you step off the government plantation without our permission, well we got something for that"!
Quote from: red_dirt on July 29, 2015, 08:37:59 AM
B: I need help. It's all your fault. Give me a handout.
W: Oh, all right. Here's a handout.
B: Now look what you have gone and done. You have made me dependent.
That's the argument I find absurd. It is a con.
Because your condensation of the situation is grossly inaccurate.
A more accurate description is:
Blacks: We deserve equal opportunity!
Whites (small voice): Yes, you do.
Racists (large voice): No, you don't.
Whites (growing voice): YES, they DO!
Racists (shrinking voice): NO, they DON'T!
Blacks: Yes, we do!
Whites (large voice): Yes, they do!
Racists (small voice): No, they'll ruin everything!!
Government: Yes, they do.
Liberal Government: But only on our terms.
Blacks: Give us equal rights!
Whites (LARGE voice): Give them equal rights!
Racists (squeaky voice): They have too many already!
Liberal Government: We did, but they still cannot make it on their own, so we need special programs.
Liberal Government: Here, we'll give you special housing projects (while complaining about segregation.) Gotta raise taxes, though, and add more regulations.
Liberal Government: Here, we'll give you money for your children (Be sure to have lots by multiple men, and don't bother getting married because it will screw up your benefits.) Gotta raise taxes, though, and add more regulations.
Liberal Government: Hey, you need special considerations to "level the playing field". (because, according to the liberal government, blacks aren't good enough to compete on their own merits.) Gotta raise taxes, though, and add more regulations.
Liberal Government: Hey, don't go and earn too much on your own, we'll have to take away your benefits!
(Lather, rinse, repeat for a couple decades, during which liberal government policies have run off the majority of industry and high paying jobs....)
Blacks: Ummm, why are we still poor?
Liberal Government: Because those evil conservatives won't share. Be sure and vote liberal so those evil conservatives don't take away your government handouts. Oh, and here's some more freebies. Gotta raise taxes, though, and add more regulations.
Quote from: tac on July 26, 2015, 07:15:41 AM
You can't look at a media outlet today without someone commenting on the 'Black lives matter' issue commanding attention in the country. You see signs posted every where in most leftist cities proclaiming the fact, politicians being attacked if they disagree, but do black lives really matter to the left?
How many times have we seen the leftist media ignore black on black crime statistics, especially in the predominately black communities where black on black crime statistics are staggering? Chicago comes to mind, where black on black murders are an every day occurrence. Yet the most staggering statistic is in the abortion rate for black babies. A statistic that is largely ignored by not only the media, but by the black community.
MLK was murdered almost 50 years ago, but what he said then is relevant today. What would he say today if he say that the rate for black abortions today was over 35% of all pregnant black women? (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/) That figure is from 2009!
It becomes readily apparent to anyone with a functioning neuron in their brain, that the only black lives that matter are those that can be used for political gain, or those that further the leftist agenda.
The black community will start a riot at the drop of a hat when a black is killed by a white person, but are mute when faced with black on black murders of the black abortion rate. Why? Maybe because the black leaders are silent?
TAC this is precisely why O'whats it's name, should never have apologized for saying ALL lives matter.
When a society allows any segment of that society to start saying this groups lives matter more, than this groups lives.
You wind up with this:
(https://allthechildrenoflight.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/hitler2evil.gif)(https://furtherglory.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/80253.jpg)
Thank God a majority of Americans reject such notions as apologizing for daring to think that all lives matter.
Quote from: Dori on July 29, 2015, 10:57:27 AM
I think if you grow up with that kind of thinking, it becomes a way of life for a lot of people. They don't know any different. It takes good role models to break the cycle.
Sure it does, and that way of thinking is human nature, not African instinct. Put anyone on welfare indefinitely and gain the same result. What's over my head is this bit where whites are supposed to feel guilty about what welfare has done to blacks. If it would make the left feel better, we can make it a loan, low interest, of course.
Quote from: red_dirt on July 29, 2015, 01:03:53 PM
Sure it does, and that way of thinking is human nature, not African instinct. Put anyone on welfare indefinitely and gain the same result. What's over my head is this bit where whites are supposed to feel guilty about what welfare has done to blacks. If it would make the left feel better, we can make it a loan, low interest, of course.
I don't feel guilty about laws and reps I didn't vote for. I do feel sorry for kids born to parents who abuse and neglect them. I believe it's an epidemic in this country. Go look up all the schools in poor areas. According to their grades, the kids are barely getting any kind of education, and the majority are getting free meals. Not that there is a connection to how kids are treated, but the numbers seem to go hand in hand. If kids in poor areas aren't being parented correctly, what exactly can we do about it?
Quote from: Dori on July 29, 2015, 05:58:21 PM
I don't feel guilty about laws and reps I didn't vote for. I do feel sorry for kids born to parents who abuse and neglect them. I believe it's an epidemic in this country. Go look up all the schools in poor areas. According to their grades, the kids are barely getting any kind of education, and the majority are getting free meals. Not that there is a connection to how kids are treated, but the numbers seem to go hand in hand. If kids in poor areas aren't being parented correctly, what exactly can we do about it?
There is not much you can do about bad parents. BUT..... we could privatize education and issue school vouchers. That would improve things for everyone. Kids would get a better education.. even with bad parents. Kids that refuse to conform would be sent to reform schools. Where there is a "will" there is a "way".
There are things that can be done to improve our current poor ghetto situation. Make everyone work for their government paycheck..... do drug testing.... etc, etc. We do not do squat now to improve the conditions.
Quote from: kroz on July 29, 2015, 06:55:18 PM
There is not much you can do about bad parents. BUT..... we could privatize education and issue school vouchers. That would improve things for everyone. Kids would get a better education.. even with bad parents. Kids that refuse to conform would be sent to reform schools. Where there is a "will" there is a "way".
There are things that can be done to improve our current poor ghetto situation. Make everyone work for their government paycheck..... do drug testing.... etc, etc. We do not do squat now to improve the conditions.
That way they can become really bad ass kids. I am more for Boot Camp for kids. Their time is more controlled.
Quote from: walkstall on July 29, 2015, 07:18:04 PM
That way they can become really bad ass kids. I am more for Boot Camp for kids. Their time is more controlled.
Whatever works...... I'm flexible.
We must come together in formulating solutions to these long ongoing problems.
Quote from: Dori on July 27, 2015, 01:31:14 PM
Yes black lives matter, just as much as any other life.
The current "black lives matter" slogan is stupid empty verbiage. They only like to chant those words when one of them gets killed by a police officer. They are quiet as a mouse when blacks kill other blacks.
There have been almost a hundred murders in Baltimore ever since the Freddie Gray death.
Yes, and vapid and devoid of substance.
What's being left out of this discussion is how the leftist government is ACTIVELY ATTACKING Blacks by:
1 - Exporting jobs, which is taking more jobs from Blacks (proportionally) than Whites
and
2 - Illegal immigration, which is taking more jobs from Blacks (proportionally) than Whites.
Both are promoted by leftist government:
1 - Our current tax system heavily punishes American jobs, but lets imports in tax free.
(Fair Tax would eliminate this INVERSE TARIFF.)
and
2 - Leftist Dems plan to have all the uneducated, illegal aliens illegally registered to vote NEXT YEAR!
Leftist Rs want illegal aliens to continue driving wages down.
Quote from: je_freedom on August 03, 2015, 09:57:06 PM
What's being left out of this discussion is how the leftist government is ACTIVELY ATTACKING Blacks by:
1 - Exporting jobs, which is taking more jobs from Blacks (proportionally) than Whites
and
2 - Illegal immigration, which is taking more jobs from Blacks (proportionally) than Whites.
Both are promoted by leftist government:
1 - Our current tax system heavily punishes American jobs, but lets imports in tax free.
(Fair Tax would eliminate this INVERSE TARIFF.)
and
2 - Leftist Dems plan to have all the uneducated, illegal aliens illegally registered to vote NEXT YEAR!
Leftist Rs want illegal aliens to continue driving wages down.
I'm a huge Fairtax supporter!
Quote from: taxed on August 03, 2015, 10:10:24 PM
I'm a huge Fairtax supporter!
Why is a Fair tax better than a Flat tax? "Fair" is arbitrary. "Flat" is not.
No room in this discussion, of course, for moral restrain and impulse control. That's all out the window as moral relativism and cultural diversity are ushered in. The fools have been led to believe communism will save them.
Quote from: kroz on August 04, 2015, 04:27:55 AM
Why is a Fair tax better than a Flat tax? "Fair" is arbitrary. "Flat" is not.
Nothing really changes under a flat tax, under a Fair tax, the govt gets put on a choker leash.
https://fairtax.org/research-library/taxes-and-tax-reform
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 05:21:57 AM
Nothing really changes under a flat tax, under a Fair tax, the govt gets put on a choker leash.
https://fairtax.org/research-library/taxes-and-tax-reform
That makes it totally relevant to who is in power! It would be inconsistent.
A flat tax is totally consistent..... and reliable.
I realize there are pros and cons on both sides of this debate.
Quote from: kroz on August 04, 2015, 06:02:53 AM
That makes it totally relevant to who is in power! It would be inconsistent.
A flat tax is totally consistent..... and reliable.
I realize there are pros and cons on both sides of this debate.
Nope. A flat tax is still based on income, where you pay a flat fed to the Fed, while a Fairtax is collected by the State, based on your purchases. Food is not taxed under Fairtax, neither is the purchase of used items
Poor people would benefit the ,ost under a Fairtax, while the rich, buying luxury items get nailed.
Under a Flattax system, your income is taxed, regardless. That in reality is unconstitutional.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 06:26:10 AM
Nope. A flat tax is still based on income, where you pay a flat fed to the Fed, while a Fairtax is collected by the State, based on your purchases. Food is not taxed under Fairtax, neither is the purchase of used items
Poor people would benefit the ,ost under a Fairtax, while the rich, buying luxury items get nailed.
Under a Flattax system, your income is taxed, regardless. That in reality is unconstitutional.
Ah-so, it is a consumption tax! VAT
That definitely has its pros and cons.
Are there exemptions..... such as groceries?
Quote from: kroz on August 04, 2015, 06:44:23 AM
Ah-so, it is a consumption tax! VAT
That definitely has its pros and cons.
Are there exemptions..... such as groceries?
Ya beat me to the punch. I was going to say that. Solar did say that food items were exempted.
Getting back to the topic, shouldn't all lives matter?
A flat tax is still an income tax. No real change. It's still an inverse tariff. It still leaves the IRS in power.
Fair Tax is a consumption tax, not an income tax. It's paid on what you buy, not what you produce. It would ABOLISH the IRS! It would make the IRS NOT EXIST!
VAT (Value Added Tax) is still an income tax, only MORE intrusive! It would be a step FURTHER in the wrong direction!
ANY income tax is immoral! As Alan Keyes said,
"To say that the government is entitled to ANY percent of your income is
to say that the government is entitled to the FIRST percent of your income!"
Quote from: kroz on August 04, 2015, 06:44:23 AM
Ah-so, it is a consumption tax! VAT
That definitely has its pros and cons.
Are there exemptions..... such as groceries?
The problem with a Flattax is the IRS still exists as it stands, with a Fairtax, the State takes the receipts, bypassing the IRS and sends them off to Washington, leaving them with no recourse over the citizen, such as an audit.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 08:16:27 AM
The problem with a Flattax is the IRS still exists as it stands, with a Fairtax, the State takes the receipts, bypassing the IRS and sends them off to Washington, leaving them with no recourse over the citizen, such as an audit.
Excellent point!!! :thumbup:
Quote from: je_freedom on August 04, 2015, 08:06:23 AM
A flat tax is still an income tax. No real change. It's still an inverse tariff. It still leaves the IRS in power.
Fair Tax is a consumption tax, not an income tax. It's paid on what you buy, not what you produce. It would ABOLISH the IRS! It would make the IRS NOT EXIST!
VAT (Value Added Tax) is still an income tax, only MORE intrusive! It would be a step FURTHER in the wrong direction!
ANY income tax is immoral! As Alan Keyes said,
"To say that the government is entitled to ANY percent of your income is
to say that the government is entitled to the FIRST percent of your income!"
You're right, income is NOT profit. You traded your time (your life) for pay.
The income tax was a creation of the early 20th century Progressives. The Founders never envisioned this.
Quote from: carlb on August 04, 2015, 09:44:16 AM
The income tax was a creation of the early 20th century Progressives. The Founders never envisioned this.
Out of curiosity, how was government paid for prior to the income tax?
Not to most Liberals.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 04, 2015, 10:42:24 AM
Not to most Liberals.
Only if killed by a white person, then it matters. I have been around a long time. I have yet to see a demonstration or street protest in action about blacks killing black.
Quote from: Dori on August 04, 2015, 09:56:29 AM
Out of curiosity, how was government paid for prior to the income tax?
I'm not the person to answer this question but I know there were trade tariffs which provided government money and there were certain fees and licenses required...... but I don't really know when they began.
But you ask a good question.
Of course black lives matter. Who else are liberals supposed to denigrate and take advantage of?
Why is management intent on rerouting this thread? The title is Black Lives, not Tax reform.
If you all are sick of eight years of racist obsession, I understand, perfectly.
Quote from: red_dirt on August 04, 2015, 01:27:19 PM
Why is management intent on rerouting this thread? The title is Black Lives, not Tax reform.
If you all are sick of eight years of racist obsession, I understand, perfectly.
Management did not change the subject.
I think the subject of tax started in Reply #29 of this thread. Threads do tend to veer off sometime.
Quote from: walkstall on August 04, 2015, 11:17:03 AM
Only if killed by a white person, then it matters. I have been around a long time. I have yet to see a demonstration or street protest in action about blacks killing black.
There is no upside or money in it for the race industry, liberals and democrats. If they make an issue of this deplorable situation it only confirms that they, themselves, are responsible for what is happening with their policies.
I suspect that if they really cared about black lives they'd be picketing abortion clinics and raising hell about all the black on black murders. Since they choose to ignore that, the only black lives that matter are those that can be useful to the agenda of the racist demagogues that appear out of no where when a black thug is killed by a whitey. :thumbdown:
Quote from: tac on August 04, 2015, 04:20:29 PM
I suspect that if they really cared about black lives they'd be picketing abortion clinics and raising hell about all the black on black murders. Since they choose to ignore that, the only black lives that matter are those that can be useful to the agenda of the racist demagogues that appear out of no where when a black thug is killed by a whitey. :thumbdown:
Indeed, or
they would be showing outrage at the attack on the Christian Church, or religion for that matter, both here and in Africa. One of the brightest spots in the African American population is the church. It is unifying, moral, and has results. Just look at the outstanding athlete's who testify one after the other what faith means to them. But the real kicker, and the
real reason the communists want to destroy the church is that religion is the thing that could unwind the hatred and division that is the communist's stock in trade.
Look, there have been times, granted in the past, that white and black had love for each other. As far off a proposition as that may seem right now, that is the answer.I am just reading about the demise of the Catholic Sanitorium System, a network of mental health facilities that served generations of all faiths. It was run by the brothers and sisters and did a superb job of treating and restoring mental health all over America and Europe, for many many years. Now, ask,
"What happened to that system?"In a word, Marxism. The Communists made it top priority to destroy any trace of religion in healing. People will not believe this, but Freud (the cocaine addict who hypnotized patients to refresh trauma memories,) Pavlov and Skinner, (who applied animal training principles to humans,) indeed
the field of psychology flourished in the universities and the media after the elite college faculties had been infiltrated by communist subversives. Think about what psychology really accomplishes! It is the scientific method of State mind control agenda.
Look at the mental health of the nation. Tell me I am making this up. I am not.
Of all the candidates in the GOP Primary "debate" last night, only Dr. Carson had the insight to comment on the communist agenda loose in the land. He even referenced Saul Alinsky in connection with Obama. Obama's busted!
(Note: No, this post does not belong in the religion forum.)
WALLER COUNTY, Texas – At the end of what was supposed to be a non-violent rally supporting the life of Sandra Bland, a violent confrontation broke out between some of the protesters and Waller County Sheriff's Office deputies. A small group of people with the #BlackLivesMatter rally barged into the lobby of the sheriff's office and began shouting and pounding on windows and doors, according to officials. The group had to be forcibly removed by deputies.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/10/peaceful-rally-for-sandra-bland-turns-into-violent-confrontation-with-deputies/
What you wanna bet these folks are being paid by people inside the Administration?
Ditto for the BLM folks who killed Sanders' Rally!
Quote from: kroz on August 10, 2015, 08:12:34 AM
WALLER COUNTY, Texas – At the end of what was supposed to be a non-violent rally supporting the life of Sandra Bland, a violent confrontation broke out between some of the protesters and Waller County Sheriff's Office deputies. A small group of people with the #BlackLivesMatter rally barged into the lobby of the sheriff's office and began shouting and pounding on windows and doors, according to officials. The group had to be forcibly removed by deputies.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/10/peaceful-rally-for-sandra-bland-turns-into-violent-confrontation-with-deputies/
What you wanna bet these folks are being paid by people inside the Administration?
Ditto for the BLM folks who killed Sanders' Rally!
Probably by George Soros with full blessing of the WH and Clinton, Inc. It is known he was involved with paid instigators with the initial Ferguson nonsense. I think he saw value in that unrest and has moved on with "Black lives matter".
Now they are threatening civil unrest
Police: Man shot near Ferguson protest critically injured (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-man-shot-near-ferguson-protest-critically-injured/ar-BBlAat3?ocid=ansnewsap11)
A man who shot at officers in Ferguson, Missouri, on the anniversary of Michael Brown's death Sunday was critically wounded when officers fired back.
The man approached the officers, who were in an unmarked police van, and opened fire, Belmar said. The officers returned fire from inside the vehicle and then pursued the man on foot when he ran.
The man again fired on the officers, the chief said, and all four officers fired back. He was struck and fell.
Quote from: Dori on August 10, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
Now they are threatening civil unrest
Police: Man shot near Ferguson protest critically injured (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-man-shot-near-ferguson-protest-critically-injured/ar-BBlAat3?ocid=ansnewsap11)
A man who shot at officers in Ferguson, Missouri, on the anniversary of Michael Brown's death Sunday was critically wounded when officers fired back.
The man approached the officers, who were in an unmarked police van, and opened fire, Belmar said. The officers returned fire from inside the vehicle and then pursued the man on foot when he ran.
The man again fired on the officers, the chief said, and all four officers fired back. He was struck and fell.
To bad they didn't kill the stupid fuck! :cursing:
Quote from: Dori on August 10, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
Now they are threatening civil unrest
Police: Man shot near Ferguson protest critically injured (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-man-shot-near-ferguson-protest-critically-injured/ar-BBlAat3?ocid=ansnewsap11)
A man who shot at officers in Ferguson, Missouri, on the anniversary of Michael Brown's death Sunday was critically wounded when officers fired back.
The man approached the officers, who were in an unmarked police van, and opened fire, Belmar said. The officers returned fire from inside the vehicle and then pursued the man on foot when he ran.
The man again fired on the officers, the chief said, and all four officers fired back. He was struck and fell.
The media will be all over this as will the 'protesters',naturally blaming the police for defending themselves by shooting back at this thug. Thankfully none of the police officers sustained fatal injuries, and neither did the perp.
The community may want to make Brown a martyr but in reality he was just a thug.
Waiting for the race baiters to start their riot inciting rhetoric. :popcorn:
There's a good reason this is in distraction. If not for the leftist media, the riots would never have turned out the way they did.
In fact, had the media told the truth, there never would have been a riot in the first place.
I was just about to open a thread on this.
I think these people are looking for an excuse to riot, loot and pillage more than "memorialize" a strong armed robbery thug.
Of Course the cops are going to be blamed for this and the professional agitators will lie their way into the hearts of and all to collusionary media with some BS about how he was "provoked" by the cops or something.
Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2015, 09:46:16 AM
There's a good reason this is in distraction. If not for the leftist media, the riots would never have turned out the way they did.
In fact, had the media told the truth, there never would have been a riot in the first place.
Telling the truth does not fit the leftist agenda of polarizing the nation. After all, if there were no riots what would they report?
Ouch! This should hurt libs a bit:
Black Clergy's petition to have the bronze-bust of Margaret Sanger removed from the Smithsonian...
http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/08/black-pastors-petition-smithsonian-to-remove-bust-of-planned-parenthood-founder/
The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves "Ministers Taking a Stand." It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery's "Struggle for Justice" exhibit in the first place.
Quote from: kit saginaw on August 10, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
Ouch! This should hurt libs a bit:
Black Clergy's petition to have the bronze-bust of Margaret Sanger removed from the Smithsonian...
http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/08/black-pastors-petition-smithsonian-to-remove-bust-of-planned-parenthood-founder/
The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves "Ministers Taking a Stand." It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery's "Struggle for Justice" exhibit in the first place.
oohhhh.... great find, kit!
Quote from: kit saginaw on August 10, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
Ouch! This should hurt libs a bit:
Black Clergy's petition to have the bronze-bust of Margaret Sanger removed from the Smithsonian...
http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/08/black-pastors-petition-smithsonian-to-remove-bust-of-planned-parenthood-founder/
The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves "Ministers Taking a Stand." It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery's "Struggle for Justice" exhibit in the first place.
They finally woke up huh? Hope these ministers take a stand and denounce the `RATS and everything they stand for.
Quote from: tac on August 10, 2015, 11:35:47 AM
Telling the truth does not fit the leftist agenda of polarizing the nation. After all, if there were no riots what would they report?
Looking at the City of Ferguson annual report, the annual budget is about $19 Million.
Net assets of the City are about $55 Million, half of that is liability. Ferguson and surrounding towns occupy a unique geographic spot, the north of St. Louis, along the river, a good place to live for people who wanted a short drive south to the industrial and commercial heart.
Ferguson was also unique in that is remained one of the last holdouts for working whites. You could say that when the schools were finally destroyed, that was it for the whites.
Looking at the balance sheets, we observe the finances are in the early stages of decline normally attributed to gradually declining revenues. Ferguson is a full service city.
Quote from: red_dirt on August 10, 2015, 03:46:39 PM
Looking at the City of Ferguson annual report, the annual budget is about $19 Million.
Net assets of the City are about $55 Million, half of that is liability. Ferguson and surrounding towns occupy a unique geographic spot, the north of St. Louis, along the river, a good place to live for people who wanted a short drive south to the industrial and commercial heart.
Ferguson was also unique in that is remained one of the last holdouts for working whites. You could say that when the schools were finally destroyed, that was it for the whites.
Looking at the balance sheets, we observe the finances are in the early stages of decline normally attributed to gradually declining revenues. Ferguson is a full service city.
Detroit in the making.
IF Black lives really matter. WHY do they keep killing each other?
Quote from: walkstall on August 10, 2015, 05:27:20 PM
IF Black lives really matter. WHY do they keep killing each other?
You have an excellent question, one that should be asked of the black community. Not that you'll get an answer, but it should be asked. The same goes for the high number of aborted black babies. Do those lives matter? Probably not, since the black lives matter crowd are just sock puppets for the left that wants to maintain a divided country.
Are the latest riots on any channel? I love watching liberals destroy themselves while I do some work.
Quote from: tac on August 10, 2015, 06:01:24 PM
You have an excellent question, one that should be asked of the black community. Not that you'll get an answer, but it should be asked. The same goes for the high number of aborted black babies. Do those lives matter? Probably not, since the black lives matter crowd are just sock puppets for the left that wants to maintain a divided country.
It's only an "excellent question" to be asked of those actually killing each other. Otherwise the statement reads as if ALL blacks are killing each other.
Simply asking the black lives matter crowd to protest the gang violence in the ghettos where the vast majority of the murders are taking place is a better approach.
Quote from: carlb on August 10, 2015, 06:12:38 PM
It's only an "excellent question" to be asked of those actually killing each other. Otherwise the statement reads as if ALL blacks are killing each other.
Simply asking the black lives matter crowd to protest the gang violence in the ghettos where the vast majority of the murders are taking place is a better approach.
good luck.
Quote from: tac on August 10, 2015, 05:13:25 PM
Detroit in the making.
Yeah, exactly. For all the effort social scientists put into blaming society for the plight of the black man, you wonder if it ever occurred to one to track the financial decline of cities that have run off all the whites and conservatives. I've heard numbers like once the population tops 18% it's all over.
Quote from: carlb on August 10, 2015, 06:12:38 PM
It's only an "excellent question" to be asked of those actually killing each other. Otherwise the statement reads as if ALL blacks are killing each other.
Simply asking the black lives matter crowd to protest the gang violence in the ghettos where the vast majority of the murders are taking place is a better approach.
In a way they are. Look how they vote.
Quote from: walkstall on August 10, 2015, 08:22:54 PM
In a way they are. Look how they vote.
Walks can you use a darker color in your highlights? My old eyes can't read that light pink crap!
Quote from: walkstall on August 10, 2015, 08:22:54 PM
In a way they are. Look how they vote.
Works better if you use silver, if you're going for the fade away look.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/blacklivesmatter-supporter-shoots-8-black-people-in-head-in-houston/
EDIT: Dori brought a good point... I'm not laughing at innocent people getting hurt.. I'm laughing at the irony.
Blame the racist gun! :rolleyes:
Quote from: taxed on August 10, 2015, 09:29:51 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/blacklivesmatter-supporter-shoots-8-black-people-in-head-in-houston/
I don't find the humor in that.
David Ray Conley III, 49, was charged with multiple counts of capital murder, in the deaths of six children and two adults.
Five children and three adults were shot point blank in the head.
Quote from: Dori on August 11, 2015, 05:18:04 AM
I don't find the humor in that.
David Ray Conley III, 49, was charged with multiple counts of capital murder, in the deaths of six children and two adults.
Five children and three adults were shot point blank in the head.
You're probably right, but I laughed too.
Quote from: Dori on August 11, 2015, 05:18:04 AM
I don't find the humor in that.
David Ray Conley III, 49, was charged with multiple counts of capital murder, in the deaths of six children and two adults.
Five children and three adults were shot point blank in the head.
It is irony.... not humor.
Fake Lives Matter
Some blogger discovered that the group's lead-male is white;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/
Quote from: kit saginaw on August 20, 2015, 04:12:29 AM
Fake Lives Matter
Some blogger discovered that the group's lead-male is white;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's Rich!!! :lol:
It looks like only those black lives that are taken by whitey matter, this black life sure doesn't qualify. No riots, no protests, no looting and no race baiters for this young life.
QuoteGirl, 9, killed, mother injured in Ferguson shooting
http://www.kmov.com/story/29834250/girl-9-killed-mother-injured-in-ferguson-shooting
They mean the lives of black criminals are more important than any white persons life.
Quote from: carlb on August 20, 2015, 08:35:11 AM
They mean the lives of black criminals are more important than any white persons life.
Hypocrites, but I expect nothing less from the left and their sock puppets in the media and black community. If they rioted and looted every time one black killed another, it would be non stop in most cities. Places like Chicago would be a war zone.
Quote from: kit saginaw on August 20, 2015, 04:12:29 AM
Fake Lives Matter
Some blogger discovered that the group's lead-male is white;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/
Gosh. Sheriff David Clark was talking about the BLM crowd. He said this is a phony group. He said he renamed them to "Black Lies Matter". He called it the bastard child of "hands up don't shoot" crowd. He also said it was a conglomeration of misfits. The Occupy movement, organized labor, criminals, black race baiters, cop haters and anarchists. He added that blacks can no longer lay claim to the victim status, except in one situation. They are the victims of the Democrat party.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrouchyoldcripple.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F08%2FV__6A22.jpg&hash=33593e8f5192affb7537991e8a997b9489e4b39d)
Oh, geezz, is that for real?
No one could possibly be THAT stupid. Must be a "set-up".
Quote from: kroz on August 21, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
Oh, geezz, is that for real?
No one could possibly be THAT stupid. Must be a "set-up".
There a saying "they walk among us".
Not if you point guns at cops.
Two more of b o "sons."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p_LbvJjhs4&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Dori on August 11, 2015, 05:18:04 AM
I don't find the humor in that.
David Ray Conley III, 49, was charged with multiple counts of capital murder, in the deaths of six children and two adults.
Five children and three adults were shot point blank in the head.
You're right. I meant the irony of it. I don't know those people or their situations, so I don't feel an immediate connection to them, but I was laughing at the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
Quote from: walkstall on August 21, 2015, 07:33:39 PM
Two more of b o "sons."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p_LbvJjhs4&feature=player_embedded
She's white. She doesn't matter.
Now, if someone shot those little darlings as they assaulted this elderly woman, there'd be riots (riot for da children)
Quote from: walkstall on August 21, 2015, 09:50:51 AM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrouchyoldcripple.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F08%2FV__6A22.jpg&hash=33593e8f5192affb7537991e8a997b9489e4b39d)
Grouchy Old Cripple strikes again. Looks like the photo itself went through a ton of people and added visual grunge at every stop (AND the caption), but it still looks barely legit.
That photo is obviously shopped. Whatever sign the dude was displaying, the sign in the picture is not it.
However, this IS, in essence, what the BLM crowd is supporting. Criminals should not have to pay for criminal behavior, as long as they are BLACK criminals.
Peggy Hubbard slams Black Lives Matter (language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubSxtcF-6gw
Quote from: Dori on August 23, 2015, 01:36:35 PM
Peggy Hubbard slams Black Lives Matter (language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubSxtcF-6gw
The good news is there are many more in the Black community who are making individual decisions and understand what has been going on for at least fifty years. This is why the democrats are in a panic to try and do the same thing with the Hispanic community what they did fifty years ago with the Black community.