George Floyd dies after police knelt on his neck (MOD NOTE IN POST #1)

2u2me

joe40 wrote: »

Where is that been asked for. Is it from anyone of influence.

Just saw it pop up again. The supposed 'anti-racist' inhabitants of the 'Chaz' (Chapel Hill autonomous zone) in Seattle (mostly blm protestors) have created a segregated plot of land for farming.

Overheal

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

where are the arabs rioting due to them being treated like terrorists.

where are the hispanics rioting and they get treated like dirt, have mothers separated from their kids and put in cages.

Seems even asking these questions will have some jump all over you, thankfully most with an agenda have gone on my ignore list.

If muslims held similar protests the national guard would be called out on day one. Did you not see the US national hysteria about a ‘ground zero mosque?’ Are you aware of the hate crimes exacted against Muslims since 2001?

If Hispanics did ICE would be out there day one, with mass arrests on the mere suspicion of illegal immigration.

Overheal

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

You can agree with protests, but despise violence and rioting.

What about curfew violations? Sitting in the front of a bus? Drinking at the wrong fountain?

You’ve said in this thread you are absolutely against breaking the law but where do you draw the line?

MeMen2_MoRi_

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

all good. I again am referring to things in general, not specifically you, when i say not everything is a clear case of black and white, Its not a simple case of us and them.


This agenda some have of putting people in certain groups because it does not suit their agenda is in my opinion idiotic.


You can believe racism exists in the police force, without believing it to be systematic.


You can agree with protests, but despise violence and rioting.

Your last point was argued against.

I'm open to finding middle ground, I just wish them cnuts that hold the levers of power would do the same and not "play to their base" they are the problem in the US at this moment.. it's wrecking a country by divide and conquer politics. In the 13 doc you had bush snr before Clinton, bush was all about hard on drugs, it won him the POTUS vote, to beat that you had Clinton being even harder on crime to win the vote. It's an extreme followed by an extreme, it's a no win situation.

Perfect example.. first black POTUS followed by imo by a racist. It's extreme followed by an extreme. I wasn't in favour of Hillary even with the man child being the other option, two **** options to choose from.. it is what it is!

Justin Credible Darts

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Your last point was argued against.

I'm open to finding middle ground, I just wish them cnuts that hold the levers of power would do the same and not "play to their base" they are the problem in the US at this moment.. it's wrecking a country by divide and conquer politics. In the 13 doc you had bush snr before Clinton, bush was all about hard on drugs, it won him the POTUS vote, to beat that you had Clinton being even harder on crime to win the vote. It's an extreme followed by an extreme, it's a no win situation.

Perfect example.. first black POTUS followed by imo by a racist. It's extreme followed by an extreme. I wasn't in favour of Hillary even with the man child being the other option, two **** options to choose from.. it is what it is!

if you are referring to other members being the ones who argued against it, then it must be by people like overheal who is on my ignore list but seems intent on trying to illicit a response.


On the topic of hilary clinton, it shows how unpopular and unlikable she is when people would rather have trump than her as president.
I disliked both also.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

What about curfew violations? Sitting in the front of a bus? Drinking at the wrong fountain?

You’ve said in this thread you are absolutely against breaking the law but where do you draw the line?

I suppose it’s easier to put me on ignore than answer these utterly reasonable questions about your stated position? Your silence speaks its own volumes.

Luxxis

Overheal wrote: »

If blacks and whites commit the same offenses at the same rates they should have the same experience in the system.

One of the highlighted problems have been drugs. Crack, favored by blacks, had for the longest time mandatory minimum sentences without parole. Cocaine, much much less so, and favored by affluent whites. A case of finding a dog whistle way of criminalizing one caste of people differently from another. This was the whole gag of demonizing marijhuana because those ‘lazy mexicanos’ smoke it while they steal your job and support communism etc Marijuana is used at the same rate regardless of race but blacks are convicted more often and face higher sentences in side by side comparisons of identical offenders white and black.

Strange how when crack was an epidemic problem for blacks it was vilified and criminalized; when whites realized much more recently that they are experiencing an opioid crisis, it’s been greeted with understanding and kid gloves, support programs and prosecuting the sources of the drug not the user etc. not rounding up the addicts and getting them off the street like we saw with crack cocaine who were jailed without parole.

Even up until a few decades ago, blacks couldn’t sit on a jury, and blacks were tried by all white panels. Blacks couldn’t be attorneys. Blacks couldn’t be judges. You certainly didn’t see black lawmakers either. So over time crime statistics stacked against blacks and minorities. It certainly did not help that blacks had fleeting representation in the news media, nevermind media at large, where they were depicted with negative connotations and racial stereotypes.

And even now that you have blacks in the profession and in civil service as lawmakers and what else, something around 1 in 13 of blacks already don’t have the right to vote because of prior convictions for, you guessed it, drug use and all else. Compare to 1 in 56 of all other demographics losing their right to vote. This is a direct problem in electing Sheriff's, mayors, officials, lawmakers etc. who are more representative of the communities they serve and beholden to the communities they serve. No politician has to cater to the civil rights of a felon that can’t vote for them, or a caste of people in the community that cannot.

Fake news,

Crack was cheaper, easier to produce and easier to distributed. In fact a lot of the pressure for the harsher sentencing came from black leaders as they saw a "crack epidemic" in their neighborhoods. While later the laws were changed to more even sentencing, Crack still carries a heavier sentence. (That was OBAMA by the way in 2010) So it was a very complex subject and to simply put it "racism" ignores the reality of it.

Good ref here https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm


Also In 1868, with Amendment XIV, the Constitution had finally given black men full citizenship and promised them equal protection under the law. Blacks voted, won elected office, and served on juries. Alabama being the anomaly.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

if you are referring to other members being the ones who argued against it, then it must be by people like overheal who is on my ignore list but seems intent on trying to illicit a response.


On the topic of hilary clinton, it shows how unpopular and unlikable she is when people would rather have trump than her as president.
I disliked both also.

The person I'm speaking of would have opinions like yours, to which disagree, I think they have a bit more black white stance, I could be wrong I hold my hands up if that's the case.

Trump/Hillary.. I view it as what I know now.. as internal policies versus external policies.. I agree with some of trump's external policies were as if it was Hillary I would of been totally against. Then it's a vice versa situation with internal policies. That how the dice rolls.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Luxxis wrote: »

Fake news,

Crack was cheaper, easier to produce and easier to distributed. In fact a lot of the pressure for the harsher sentencing came from black leaders as they saw a "crack epidemic" in their neighborhoods. While later the laws were changed to more even sentencing, Crack still carries a heavier sentence. (That was OBAMA by the way in 2010) So it was a very complex subject and to simply put it "racism" ignores the reality of it.

Good ref here https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm


Also In 1868, with Amendment XIV, the Constitution had finally given black men full citizenship and promised them equal protection under the law. Blacks voted, won elected office, and served on juries. Alabama being the anomaly.

What was the civil rights movement about in the ninteen sixties about?

Edit, pass by this!

titan18

Overheal wrote: »

Internment affected all Japanese Americans and they were all given back their civil rights after the war.

There was never a period where the police systemically arrested the Asian American patriarchy, for example. Though in the expansion era lots of Asian migrants were converted into cheap chain gang labor for building the railroads. By and large though the story of Asian Americans is starkly different from that of black chattel slaves.

It’s wrong to say there isn’t/wasn’t ghettoization of asians though, this is how we get Chinatown in NYC and Korea town in LA.

Never been to LA, but been to New York and I wouldn't have felt unsafe in Chinatown. I probably would feel unsafe in certain neighbourhoods of Harlem though even though it has improved.

Asians were treated poorly though was my point and rose above though through strong family structures and a lot of investment in their own education. In general, that doesn't seem the same amongst the black community. It does seem there's a higher percentage of Asians who rose above their historical situation than African Americans.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Google Sen. Huffman, washing hands..

Laughable bullsh!t

MeMen2_MoRi_

The dinosaurs that still infect politics is fcuking nuts, young people need to vote!

Overheal

Luxxis wrote: »

Fake news,

Crack was cheaper, easier to produce and easier to distributed. In fact a lot of the pressure for the harsher sentencing came from black leaders as they saw a "crack epidemic" in their neighborhoods. While later the laws were changed to more even sentencing, Crack still carries a heavier sentence. (That was OBAMA by the way in 2010) So it was a very complex subject and to simply put it "racism" ignores the reality of it.

Good ref here https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm


Also In 1868, with Amendment XIV, the Constitution had finally given black men full citizenship and promised them equal protection under the law. Blacks voted, won elected office, and served on juries. Alabama being the anomaly.

Sorry I should not have sweepingly said black jurors didn’t exist before the the voting rights act. But it had been a systemic problem, was also a problem in the Rodney King case when they went to change of venue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_discrimination_in_jury_selection

Luxxis

Overheal wrote: »

Sorry I should not have sweepingly said black jurors didn’t exist before the the voting rights act. But it had been a systemic problem, was also a problem in the Rodney King case when they went to change of venue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_discrimination_in_jury_selection

Fair enough

briany

"Defund the police" has got to be one of the most self-defeating messages to come out of this whole thing. The people advocating that must know that it's so easy for the media to paint that as calling for a state of utter lawlessness. If they can't see that, then they really are living in quite a bubble.

But then they go, "Oh, no, what we mean is to cut the budget and encourage the de-militarisation of the police force, and rethink approaches to policing." Grand, then what you really mean is 'Reform the police', and that's what should have been the leading hashtag.

2u2me

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

The dinosaurs that still infect politics is fcuking nuts, young people need to vote!

You need to stop listening to AOC.

Overheal

Folks greatly exaggerate how many people listen to AOC in earnest.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Folks greatly exaggerate how many people listen to AOC in earnest.

That's basically her tag line. (Above from memen2)

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

That's basically her tag line. (Above from memen2)

Well young people needing to vote is a perennial problem that is a lot older than she is.

Silentcorner

Well it turns out Abolish the police means just that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/#296f1beb71a5

Expect a surge in insurance premiums followed by a massive commercial exit, surge in unemployment...the democrats are playing with fire!!!

MeMen2_MoRi_

2u2me wrote: »

You need to stop listening to AOC.

I'd rather listen to someone relevant then a dinosaur.

Don't forget to was your hands boy!

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Well young people needing to vote is a perennial problem that is a lot older than she is.

That's not my problem with that statement. It's that old people are dinosaurs(that infect politics).

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I'd rather listen to someone relevant then a dinosaur.

Was the 75 year old man that was pushed on the street a dinosaur?

MeMen2_MoRi_

2u2me wrote: »

That's not my problem with that statement. It's that old people are dinosaurs(that infect politics).



Was the 75 year old man that was pushed on the street a dinosaur?

A dinosaur yes, speaking of relevant issues good on him.. you as you proclaim to be of a higher thinking, know exactly what the reference was to, but here you are playing the stupid card!

MeMen2_MoRi_

It's a funny thing with threads, the more the person posts, their true colours shine through.

Mealy-mouthed words "I'm not racist" the more you post they say so much more then you understand.

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well it turns out Abolish the police means just that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/#296f1beb71a5

Expect a surge in insurance premiums followed by a massive commercial exit, surge in unemployment...the democrats are playing with fire!!!

Did you bother to read beyond the headline? I did and it looks like a lot of positives.

Overheal

Erika Shields resigns from Atlanta PD Chief as another tragic death of a black man at the barrel of an Atlanta PD weapon goes viral

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/13/atlanta-shooting-police/

MeMen2_MoRi_

Overheal wrote: »

Erika Shields resigns from Atlanta PD Chief as another tragic death of a black man at the barrel of an Atlanta PD weapon goes viral

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/13/atlanta-shooting-police/

Any chance you can post a C&P.. your posts from them links always behind a paywall.

2u2me

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

It's a funny thing with threads, the more the person posts, their true colours shine through.

Mealy-mouthed words "I'm not racist" the more you post they say so much more then you understand.

If you're going to call someone a racist at least have the conviction to do it instead of this under-handed whispering accusations sh1te.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Did you bother to read beyond the headline? I did and it looks like a lot of positives.

no you didn't , or if you did you didn't understand it ,

by the way did you see that it was written by the sports columnist …..

MeMen2_MoRi_

2u2me wrote: »

If you're going to call someone a racist at least have the conviction to do it.

Why?

When they can't do it themselves.. man the fcuk up, do it themselves.. I have my own suspensions yes, if I was to call them out I'd be off this thread asap.