(12-09-2016 01:52 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  I'm sure they want the job. That isn't point. The point is that many companies are making record profits yet the vast majority of employees don't see any increase in wages. I mean, it's surprising to me that I even have to argue this since supposedly the cornerstone of Trump's campaign was how he was going to help these people.

You (and others like you) completely misunderstand the purpose of capital and it's rewards... and why the VAT with a pre-fund turning the middle class into 'investors' is such a good idea. You aren't entitled to a share of the corporate earnings unless your actions specifically contributed to those earnings in some meaningful way. That's the difference between a job and a career. That's how you get raises, and how you advance in the company. You can't 'lose' money as an employee, you CAN lose money as an investor. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing if a company does more than that... I'm saying they are under no legal or moral obligation to do so... nor do they get much 'benefit' from doing so. If you could be replaced tomorrow by 15 people who could do your job just as well, then you have a 'job' and you get your wage. You aren't going to be worth any more to them than the guy they replace you with. When unemployment is ACTUALLY low, you get wage increases WITHOUT doing anything, because they can't replace you any cheaper. This whole idea that you are OWED part of the earnings because you took no risk, aren't 'special' and earned your paycheck whether or not money was made by the company is just out of touch.

Make it so that they can't replace you (either because unemployment really IS low, or because you're better than the alternatives) and they WILL pay you to keep you.

The cornerstone of Trump's campaign is that he will bring jobs back here... and even a job that DOESN"T pay part of its record earnings to you is better than NO job... PLUS, if you also limit illegal labor and offshoring, even a little... you reduce REAL unemployment which puts upward pressure on wages and creates opportunities for workers to MAKE themselves valuable.

Quote:What I'm saying is that certain jobs that are available in your area may not be available in many areas, and may not be open to all people. There's a huge difference between being in construction in Dallas vs. Detroit, for example.

You may have to take a chance and move to improve your position in life. The government has been complicit in this... as an example, ending coal mining jobs in Pa and replacing them with solar installation jobs in Ca.... just as an example and not as a 'they actually did this'. If you REALLY want to do such things (not saying you do, but IF you do)... what you do is subsidize a solar factory in PA and let them compete for jobs with the miners. You offer training to transition people between those jobs. You offer relocation assistance if that just isn't possible maybe to mining something less hazardous or to something with similar skill sets... maybe in the oil field or construction fields.

What you DON'T do is take away someone's job where they've perhaps worked for generations and it's the only game in town and tell them that their great grandchildren will thank them because the ocean that they can't afford to visit won't eliminate any beach-front resorts that they can't afford to stay in.

(12-09-2016 01:03 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  My problem with all of this is tossing aside Black Lives Matter as a 'terrorist organization' and saying it's their fault for having kids out of wedlock and being criminals.

But that's not what he said about 'them'. He said that about a small subset of 'them'.

For those who ARE criminals and have kids out of wedlock, who lack the capacity to care for those children... putting them (out of necessity) on the government dole and in many cases damning their children to the same fate, it IS at least in some part, 'their fault'. As to BLM, that's a matter of semantics to me whether they are terrorists or merely trouble makers. They certainly aren't ISIS or Tim McVeigh, but that doesn't mean they aren't at least as much part of the 'problem' as they are for anyone a 'solution'.

If cops trying to help clean up a crime infested neighborhood are viewed as the 'enemy', then you've lost. If you're more concerned about being able to exercise your right to tell a cop to eff off than you are about the criminals hiding among you, then you've lost. OF COURSE it can and sometimes IS taken too far... but THAT problem is NOTHING compared to the problem of the criminals in your midst that the cops are there to deal with.

Pick your poison.
You can move...
Or you can put up with a little tyranny from cops (where at least you have SOME recourse) so that they can more effectively deal with a LOT of tyranny from criminals (where you have NO recourse). Of course that needs to stop when they've won. Sort of like ANY war.

BLM is taking the 5 problematic cop incidents, and intentionally and wrongly conflating them with 30 incidents where the cop was actually right... while ignoring the 1,000 incidents where the CRIMINALS the cops are there to stop were in the wrong, and ignoring the 2,000 criminal incidents that were stopped or solved or deterred because of those cops.

We can ALL be upset about the 5 and work to fix them, without having to give up the focus on the 3,030.

The REAL problem with BLM is that what they're essentially doing is saying that because as a percentage black people are more subjected to mistreatment that the larger number of white people who are mistreated, though a smaller percentage, DON'T matter. They're taking something that we ALL care about (abusive cops) and telling 75% of the population to 'eff off'.

(12-09-2016 01:03 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me try and help you with Gak, Kap.

My problem with all of this is tossing aside Black Lives Matter as a 'terrorist organization' and saying it's their fault for having kids out of wedlock and being criminals.

stop conflating the two things..

(12-09-2016 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You (and others like you) completely misunderstand the purpose of capital and it's rewards... and why the VAT with a pre-fund turning the middle class into 'investors' is such a good idea. You aren't entitled to a share of the corporate earnings unless your actions specifically contributed to those earnings in some meaningful way. That's the difference between a job and a career. That's how you get raises, and how you advance in the company. You can't 'lose' money as an employee, you CAN lose money as an investor. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing if a company does more than that... I'm saying they are under no legal or moral obligation to do so... nor do they get much 'benefit' from doing so. If you could be replaced tomorrow by 15 people who could do your job just as well, then you have a 'job' and you get your wage. You aren't going to be worth any more to them than the guy they replace you with. When unemployment is ACTUALLY low, you get wage increases WITHOUT doing anything, because they can't replace you any cheaper. This whole idea that you are OWED part of the earnings because you took no risk, aren't 'special' and earned your paycheck whether or not money was made by the company is just out of touch.

Make it so that they can't replace you (either because unemployment really IS low, or because you're better than the alternatives) and they WILL pay you to keep you.

The cornerstone of Trump's campaign is that he will bring jobs back here... and even a job that DOESN"T pay part of its record earnings to you is better than NO job... PLUS, if you also limit illegal labor and offshoring, even a little... you reduce REAL unemployment which puts upward pressure on wages and creates opportunities for workers to MAKE themselves valuable.

I get this point of view, so long as you acknowledge that it's completely immoral. The CEO of Walmart making the average annual wage of an employee in an hour is pathetic. Other companies have made very successful business while treating their workers as people. There's nothing different between the cashier at Walmart and the cashier at CostCo in skill. The cashier at CostCo, however, is earning over $10,000 more a year.

So the question here isn't whether or not Walmart can afford to pay better salaries. They obviously can. The question is, "can the federal government legislate against such brazen income inequality?" From the left, this is what I would like to see, while simultaneously realizing it is a very complex problem. The right sees it as Socialism (it's not), and have the most to gain from this battle.

Quote:You may have to take a chance and move to improve your position in life. The government has been complicit in this... as an example, ending coal mining jobs in Pa and replacing them with solar installation jobs in Ca.... just as an example and not as a 'they actually did this'.

Yeah, but this has been used by the right against the left, too. If jobs disappear from where you live, then move. But then the pundits on the right say how people are tied to where they live and it's not as simple as that. I actually agree with that notion. All the same, you can't turn it around and use the same argument in favor of companies who are exploiting the lack of jobs in order to pay lower wages.

Quote:But that's not what he said about 'them'. He said that about a small subset of 'them'.

The argument was that the BLM movement and what they stand for should be ignored, and he used that subset and a couple criminal cases to justify it. That conveniently ignores the issues being brought to the forefront.

Quote:If cops trying to help clean up a crime infested neighborhood are viewed as the 'enemy', then you've lost. If you're more concerned about being able to exercise your right to tell a cop to eff off than you are about the criminals hiding among you, then you've lost. OF COURSE it can and sometimes IS taken too far... but THAT problem is NOTHING compared to the problem of the criminals in your midst that the cops are there to deal with.

The fact that it is taken so far is one of the issues here. Stop and frisk, harrassment, and racial bias in general have lead to inconsistency in law enforcement. Again, people aren't fighting to be treated in a special way. They're fighting to be treated the same as everyone else.

Quote:BLM is taking the 5 problematic cop incidents, and intentionally and wrongly conflating them with 30 incidents where the cop was actually right... while ignoring the 1,000 incidents where the CRIMINALS the cops are there to stop were in the wrong, and ignoring the 2,000 criminal incidents that were stopped or solved or deterred because of those cops.

You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. Non-black people look at it as 5 incidents and think "what's the big deal?" Black Lives Matter are saying they live with harassment and double standards from police and the general public every day. These handful of cases aren't the reason for the movement. Decades of pent up anger due to racism is the reason.

Quote:The REAL problem with BLM is that what they're essentially doing is saying that because as a percentage black people are more subjected to mistreatment that the larger number of white people who are mistreated, though a smaller percentage, DON'T matter. They're taking something that we ALL care about (abusive cops) and telling 75% of the population to 'eff off'.

Again, this is right wing spin. The name of the movement is Black Lives Matter. Not Black Lives Matter More. Not White Lives Don't Matter, etc. I think the Michael Che clip is relevant.

"Matters is a starting point to negotiation."

(12-09-2016 02:22 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  I get this point of view, so long as you acknowledge that it's completely immoral. The CEO of Walmart making the average annual wage of an employee in an hour is pathetic. Other companies have made very successful business while treating their workers as people. There's nothing different between the cashier at Walmart and the cashier at CostCo in skill. The cashier at CostCo, however, is earning over $10,000 more a year.

So the question here isn't whether or not Walmart can afford to pay better salaries. They obviously can. The question is, "can the federal government legislate against such brazen income inequality?" From the left, this is what I would like to see, while simultaneously realizing it is a very complex problem. The right sees it as Socialism (it's not), and have the most to gain from this battle.

You sound like the guy at the garage sale who wants to price things based on what they're worth 'to him'.

All this is is an effort to 'shame' people into doing things based on some supposed sense of morality.

The reality is that you and your skills are worth what someone will pay you... and not what some 'moral compass' says you should.

The left also repeatedly tries to tie the right to greedy businessmen when it fits the narrative like now, or the poor and uneducated when it fits the narrative like during the election. All the while ignoring the greed and lack of education in their own party.

A doctor can be a complete and total a-hole and morally bankrupt... but his skills and training are STILL going to always be worth more than the angelic ditch digger.

Quote:

Quote:You may have to take a chance and move to improve your position in life. The government has been complicit in this... as an example, ending coal mining jobs in Pa and replacing them with solar installation jobs in Ca.... just as an example and not as a 'they actually did this'.

Yeah, but this has been used by the right against the left, too. If jobs disappear from where you live, then move. But then the pundits on the right say how people are tied to where they live and it's not as simple as that. I actually agree with that notion. All the same, you can't turn it around and use the same argument in favor of companies who are exploiting the lack of jobs in order to pay lower wages.

Sure you can. It's called supply/demand. If you CAN move to where the demand for your labors is, you will be better off. If you can't, you will be worse off.

The problem comes when the government decides for POLITICAL reasons (like votes) to kill jobs in one area to create them in another. Blaming this solely on EITHER party is a lie... and even trying to compare the degrees, merely an opinion.

They all do it.

Quote:The argument was that the BLM movement and what they stand for should be ignored, and he used that subset and a couple criminal cases to justify it. That conveniently ignores the issues being brought to the forefront.

Once again, being told what 'our' argument is.

The fact is that there are just as many 'bad' people in the BLM as there are who are against the BLM movement. To deny this is to deny reality.

Quote:The fact that it is taken so far is one of the issues here. Stop and frisk, harrassment, and racial bias in general have lead to inconsistency in law enforcement. Again, people aren't fighting to be treated in a special way. They're fighting to be treated the same as everyone else.

But they don't live in an area that is like everyone else's. I don't have gang violence in my neighborhood. 'You' do. The cop patrolling my neighborhood is mostly looking for expired registrations and poor parking jobs. The cop patrolling yours is looking for guns. You don't treat someone who might have an expired registration the same as you treat someone who might have a gun.... because the risk of that person to you and to others isn't remotely the same.... neither are the risks of being wrong in your initial assumption.

Surely you understand/agree that there are situations under which MANY 'constitutional rights' can and would be suspended... i,e, martial law.... IN a limited area and/or FOR a limited time.

There are obviously a wide variety of possible combinations between that and 'Mayberry'.

Quote:You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. Non-black people look at it as 5 incidents and think "what's the big deal?" Black Lives Matter are saying they live with harassment and double standards from police and the general public every day. These handful of cases aren't the reason for the movement. Decades of pent up anger due to racism is the reason.

You're admitting exactly what I said.... and the decades of pent up anger have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cop was 'following the law' when he shot the kid.

Quote:

Quote:The REAL problem with BLM is that what they're essentially doing is saying that because as a percentage black people are more subjected to mistreatment that the larger number of white people who are mistreated, though a smaller percentage, DON'T matter. They're taking something that we ALL care about (abusive cops) and telling 75% of the population to 'eff off'.

Again, this is right wing spin. The name of the movement is Black Lives Matter. Not Black Lives Matter More. Not White Lives Don't Matter, etc. I think the Michael Che clip is relevant.

That's just left-wing spin.

I never said black lives matter more... or white lives don't.... That's all in your head. What I said was you're making this about cops against black people... neither of which is me.

If you want me to join in your campaign, you have to engage me. If the only way it matters to me is that you're going to bad-mouth me for being white and talk about my 'privilege' and act like cops don't also sometimes wrongly shoot white people OR correctly shoot people at all.... then I've got better things to do with my time. Perhaps shame works on you... or perhaps you have some personal sense of responsibility for slavery. It sucks and is a travesty.... but once again, that has nothing to do with the facts in a shooting yesterday.

The facts of the shooting yesterday matter to all of us... regardless of the race of the cop OR the victim. When I hear someone say 'Black lives DON'T matter', I'll be right there calling that person a racist and wanting them off the police force and in jail if they acted on that belief. That's not what's happening with BLM. What's happening is that there is a presumption that if a black person is killed by a cop, it's because of racism.

(12-09-2016 05:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You sound like the guy at the garage sale who wants to price things based on what they're worth 'to him'.

All this is is an effort to 'shame' people into doing things based on some supposed sense of morality.

The reality is that you and your skills are worth what someone will pay you... and not what some 'moral compass' says you should.

The left also repeatedly tries to tie the right to greedy businessmen when it fits the narrative like now, or the poor and uneducated when it fits the narrative like during the election. All the while ignoring the greed and lack of education in their own party.

A doctor can be a complete and total a-hole and morally bankrupt... but his skills and training are STILL going to always be worth more than the angelic ditch digger.

I actually have no idea what the political leanings of the CEO of Walmart might be, although I could hazard a guess. The only political part I pointed out was that the people hit hardest by income inequality are by far on the right.

What I'm referring to specifically is how upper-level management has continued to exponentially reward itself since Reagan, while the middle class and below has continued to erode.

Quote:The fact is that there are just as many 'bad' people in the BLM as there are who are against the BLM movement. To deny this is to deny reality.

I don't think those numbers are anywhere even close. BLM has its bad apples, to be sure, but denying a problem exists is one of the talking points of the right.

Quote:But they don't live in an area that is like everyone else's. I don't have gang violence in my neighborhood. 'You' do. The cop patrolling my neighborhood is mostly looking for expired registrations and poor parking jobs. The cop patrolling yours is looking for guns. You don't treat someone who might have an expired registration the same as you treat someone who might have a gun.... because the risk of that person to you and to others isn't remotely the same.... neither are the risks of being wrong in your initial assumption.

So, just to be sure that I understand, your argument is that black people don't live in nice areas? Or are you saying that some black people live in bad areas?

Assuming you mean the second, is your argument then that the concerns of Black Lives Matter are limited to black people living in crime ridden areas?

Quote:Surely you understand/agree that there are situations under which MANY 'constitutional rights' can and would be suspended... i,e, martial law.... IN a limited area and/or FOR a limited time.

No way. Now maybe in the event of war or something, but what you're hinting at is Jim Crow by another name.

Quote:You're admitting exactly what I said.... and the decades of pent up anger have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cop was 'following the law' when he shot the kid.

No, what I'm saying is they see an example of what they've been seeing for decades. Now that it's on video for everyone to see, the hope is that finally people can see what they've endured for decades now. Of course, the response from the right is to downplay every situation, and thus the movement itself.

Quote:That's just left-wing spin.

I never said black lives matter more... or white lives don't.... That's all in your head. What I said was you're making this about cops against black people... neither of which is me.

I've literally never said it's just about cops vs. black people. I've said that it's systemic oppression that is reaching a boiling point.

Quote:If you want me to join in your campaign, you have to engage me. If the only way it matters to me is that you're going to bad-mouth me for being white and talk about my 'privilege' and act like cops don't also sometimes wrongly shoot white people OR correctly shoot people at all.... then I've got better things to do with my time. Perhaps shame works on you... or perhaps you have some personal sense of responsibility for slavery. It sucks and is a travesty.... but once again, that has nothing to do with the facts in a shooting yesterday.

It's not shaming, though. I mean, it's like if I told you I had third degree burns on half my body, and your response was, "yeah, I got a sunburn once. It was terrible." You're both downplaying the painful experience I've been through while saying everyone gets burned the same. It's not the same ballpark.

Quote:When I hear someone say 'Black lives DON'T matter', I'll be right there calling that person a racist and wanting them off the police force and in jail if they acted on that belief. That's not what's happening with BLM. What's happening is that there is a presumption that if a black person is killed by a cop, it's because of racism.

No, the presumption is that if black people are not treated the same, marginalized, imprisoned, or even killed that no one cares. That's why it's called Black Lives Matter.

Quote:

Quote:The fact is that there are just as many 'bad' people in the BLM as there are who are against the BLM movement. To deny this is to deny reality.

I don't think those numbers are anywhere even close. BLM has its bad apples, to be sure, but denying a problem exists is one of the talking points of the right.

I love how you deny what I said was true, and then accuse me of denying it.

Percentages... not numbers... and I don't care if they're remotely close. There are plenty of bad people. The point has nothing to do with measuring.

Quote:So, just to be sure that I understand, your argument is that black people don't live in nice areas? Or are you saying that some black people live in bad areas?

It's all about race to you. Go screw yourself if you're going to play this game. The people we're talking about who live in crime ridden areas don't live in nice areas. I don't care what their race is.

Quote:Assuming you mean the second, is your argument then that the concerns of Black Lives Matter are limited to black people living in crime ridden areas?

No. Go back and read what I said and what you responded to. We're talking about the places where people are talking about 'stop and frisk' being allowed. It's not Central Park West... and numerous black people live there.

Quote:

Quote:Surely you understand/agree that there are situations under which MANY 'constitutional rights' can and would be suspended... i,e, martial law.... IN a limited area and/or FOR a limited time.

No way. Now maybe in the event of war or something, but what you're hinting at is Jim Crow by another name.

More of your racist BS. No. I'm talking about places where crime is rampant. Nothing to do with race... nothing to do with 'war'. Martial law has been implemented during times of natural disasters, so it's not just war.... and as I said, to deny the millions of possible points between Mayberry and a natural disaster is ignorant. If you want to play that way to make your point, then I'll just quit now.

East LA and Beverly Hills cops don't face the same concerns. Stop feigning ignorance.

Quote:

Quote:You're admitting exactly what I said.... and the decades of pent up anger have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cop was 'following the law' when he shot the kid.

No, what I'm saying is they see an example of what they've been seeing for decades.

Everything looks the same if you only look for similarities. I'm not talking about any specific event right now, but I've seen numerous of the specific events where BLM was protesting where there was absolutely NO evidence of any wrongdoing by the police... and even situations where the cop was black... and yet here people are, comparing a cop protecting the public (often the black public) from a criminal to a hate crime... with the ONLY similarity being the race of the dead person.

Quote:

Quote:That's just left-wing spin.

I never said black lives matter more... or white lives don't.... That's all in your head. What I said was you're making this about cops against black people... neither of which is me.

I've literally never said it's just about cops vs. black people. I've said that it's systemic oppression that is reaching a boiling point.

Jesus,.... I said I said it.... and I'm talking about BLM and 'bad cops'.

Of course it's reaching a boiling point... in part because EVERY time a cop shoots a black person, people like CUSA come on here and claim racism. Only later do we find out whether that actually was the case or not, and in FAR more cases than not... it isn't.

Quote:It's not shaming, though. I mean, it's like if I told you I had third degree burns on half my body, and your response was, "yeah, I got a sunburn once. It was terrible." You're both downplaying the painful experience I've been through while saying everyone gets burned the same. It's not the same ballpark.

Not at all the same. You're asking ME to be concerned... to start protesting... to do 'whatever' over something that by your own definition, doesn't impact me. Bad cops DOES impact me. The fact that it impacts you more is immaterial to the fact that it impacts me. If I'm not at risk for 'whatever you're concerned about', then I care less about it than if I am. Not I don't care, but I care less.

Quote:No, the presumption is that if black people are not treated the same, marginalized, imprisoned, or even killed that no one cares. That's why it's called Black Lives Matter.

No evidence that 'no one cares'. That's the entire myth of BLM. The presumption is that somewhere someone has said they don't. As I said, when you present those people, I'll join you in shunning/arresting/whatever it takes those people. In fact while i don't buy into it, that's precisely why some people talk about the thousands of black lives in places like Chicago taken by mostly gang violence. Do black lives matter? Or do they only matter if someone can claim racism was the driver?

I don't care very much about gang bangers/drug dealers/bad people etc etc who kill each other or get killed by the cops. I care a whole lot about the innocent killed by them.

Their race and the race of their killers is wholly immaterial to me.

(12-09-2016 06:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I love how you deny what I said was true, and then accuse me of denying it.

What I took from your original point was that there are just as many bad people in BLM as there are bad people against BLM. If that isn't what you meant, then I missed it.

Quote:It's all about race to you. Go screw yourself if you're going to play this game. The people we're talking about who live in crime ridden areas don't live in nice areas. I don't care what their race is.

What? When did the topic change from Black Lives Matter?

Quote:No. Go back and read what I said and what you responded to. We're talking about the places where people are talking about 'stop and frisk' being allowed. It's not Central Park West... and numerous black people live there.

Ok, so your argument then is it's ok to violate rights of any race so long as it's a bad area?

Quote:More of your racist BS. No. I'm talking about places where crime is rampant. Nothing to do with race... nothing to do with 'war'. Martial law has been implemented during times of natural disasters, so it's not just war.... and as I said, to deny the millions of possible points between Mayberry and a natural disaster is ignorant. If you want to play that way to make your point, then I'll just quit now.

East LA and Beverly Hills cops don't face the same concerns. Stop feigning ignorance.

What I'm saying is that constitutional rights do not end at the railroad tracks.

Quote:Everything looks the same if you only look for similarities. I'm not talking about any specific event right now, but I've seen numerous of the specific events where BLM was protesting where there was absolutely NO evidence of any wrongdoing by the police... and even situations where the cop was black... and yet here people are, comparing a cop protecting the public (often the black public) from a criminal to a hate crime... with the ONLY similarity being the race of the dead person.

Again, because this is a way of life for them. Is every situation justification for outrage? No. It's not, "We're upset because of this one event!" It's, "here's yet another example of what we've been seeing for decades."

Quote:Not at all the same. You're asking ME to be concerned... to start protesting... to do 'whatever' over something that by your own definition, doesn't impact me. Bad cops DOES impact me. The fact that it impacts you more is immaterial to the fact that it impacts me. If I'm not at risk for 'whatever you're concerned about', then I care less about it than if I am. Not I don't care, but I care less.

No one's asking anyone to protest or anything, lol. This all came up because someone called BLM a terrorist organization, and insinuated that it was fake outrage. Your last couple sentences are exactly what I've been saying. People are concerned for themselves first, and everyone else second. That's human nature.

Quote:No evidence that 'no one cares'. That's the entire myth of BLM. The presumption is that somewhere someone has said they don't. As I said, when you present those people, I'll join you in shunning/arresting/whatever it takes those people. In fact while i don't buy into it, that's precisely why some people talk about the thousands of black lives in places like Chicago taken by mostly gang violence. Do black lives matter? Or do they only matter if someone can claim racism was the driver?

But we're talking about two separate things. BLM is a reaction to systemic racism. Your last part about gang violence is a deflection, so it's good you don't buy into it.

(12-09-2016 08:24 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  What I took from your original point was that there are just as many bad people in BLM as there are bad people against BLM. If that isn't what you meant, then I missed it.

'the numbers' don't matter. If you don't believe that there are some total racist pricks in BLM, you're not paying attention.

Quote:It's all about race to you. Go screw yourself if you're going to play this game. The people we're talking about who live in crime ridden areas don't live in nice areas. I don't care what their race is.

What? When did the topic change from Black Lives Matter?[/quote]

You keep going back and forth when it suits you about this being about race or not.

Not wanting cops to kill innocent people ISN'T a racial issue.... UNTIL people like you and BLM make it so.

Quote:Ok, so your argument then is it's ok to violate rights of any race so long as it's a bad area?

More racist bull****.

The police are more aggressive because the criminals are more aggressive. Has nothing to do with the race of the cops OR the criminals OR the innocents in the area. Only the dangerous criminal activity.

If you can't understand that, then you're not worth talking to.

Quote:What I'm saying is that constitutional rights do not end at the railroad tracks.

Nobody said they do. The constitution also hinges on 'reasonable' actions. Obviously it isn't reasonable to pull a gun on someone you think has an expired car registration. It IS reasonable to pull a gun on someone you think has a gun, especially if you think they have or would use it against you or another citizen.

Whether the neighborhood is white or black or brown or green makes no difference. What makes the difference is the pervasiveness of dangerous criminals.

Again, stop feigning ignorance in what seems to be a constant effort to paint reasonable people like me as racists.

Quote:Again, because this is a way of life for them. Is every situation justification for outrage? No. It's not, "We're upset because of this one event!" It's, "here's yet another example of what we've been seeing for decades."

That's fine, except for the numerous times when it ISN'T an example of what they've seen for decades... because the shooting was justified... especially if it is used to justify random shootings of cops against whom (individually) no such accusations have been made.

As I've repeatedly said... if you want me on your side, you have to make it matter to me. People using such things as an excuse for random shooting or even just abuse and accusations of cops doesn't do that.... because I rely on the cops to protect me from criminals.

Quote:

Quote:No evidence that 'no one cares'. That's the entire myth of BLM. The presumption is that somewhere someone has said they don't. As I said, when you present those people, I'll join you in shunning/arresting/whatever it takes those people. In fact while i don't buy into it, that's precisely why some people talk about the thousands of black lives in places like Chicago taken by mostly gang violence. Do black lives matter? Or do they only matter if someone can claim racism was the driver?

But we're talking about two separate things. BLM is a reaction to systemic racism. Your last part about gang violence is a deflection, so it's good you don't buy into it.

So you admit that BLM is entirely about race... and while many support it in the grander 'common good' sense, many of them do not... and PART of that racism is focused against the people we employ to protect us to criminals.

The TRULY stupid thing is the argument that 'all lives matter' is a bad response.
How the HELL is that a bad idea?

That's no different than the difference between 'equality' and 'affirmative action'. Since you agree that people put themselves first, you know that asking someone to put themselves at a disadvantage for jobs or education or anything else to 'make up for' something they were never responsible for in the first place is going to get resistance... and that doesn't make the resistors 'racists', which is the repeated claim.

and yes, blue lives matter because we've hired them to put their lives at risk to protect us. Thus if THEIR lives don't matter, then OUR COLLECTIVE lives are at risk. That's a job, not a race. No different from how many people think our military should be treated 'better than average' because of the risk at which they place themselves on our behalf.

That doesn't mean they should be allowed to be racists.