# Nobody who complains about NFL players taking a knee during the anthem stands up for it at home



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

Players taking a knee instead of rising for the national anthem as a form of protest is brilliant. It is non-violent, it reaches a massive audience, and it symbolizes what the founders of the USA intended. The action is seen by many as unpatriotic. In the spirit of revolution I disagree and counter that it is the most patriotic action they could take, as peaceful protest is granted in the US constitution.
Another concern is how they are using celebrity status and expressing views that conflict or are not necessarily in accordance with the organization, their employer, while on company time. That should not matter, as it it is a right to protest, and there is no law implicitly stating that every US citizen absolutely must stand for the national anthem. People who are angered by players taking a knee during the anthem do not rise from their easychair at home when the anthem plays. I find the hypocrisy appalling.

*The protest is against police violence. It is the police's job to enforce laws. It is not their job to interpret laws and carry out punishment. Those who attempt to stifle such a protest and those who promote the suppression of this protest are allowing fascism to propagate in the guise of patriotism.*


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 2, 2018)

it shouldn't even just be police brutality, because in addition to killing an obscene amount of black people in the most cowadly ways possible, they're also somehow not arresting an obscene amount of white people who manage to end the life of a black person (also true for neo nazis and other white nationalists killing non-white nationalists).


----------



## JellyPerson (Jun 2, 2018)

Racist white people are a plague tbh
But you know, they should keep their opinions to themselves rather than killing everyone they hate
that's just senseless


----------



## raystriker (Jun 2, 2018)

I feel they could protest in a better forum, instead of disrespecting the flag.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> it shouldn't even just be police brutality, because in addition to killing an obscene amount of black people in the most cowadly ways possible, they're also somehow not arresting an obscene amount of white people who manage to end the life of a black person (also true for neo nazis and other white nationalists killing non-white nationalists).



Oh the issues run much deeper than police brutality. The fact that a corporation (now legally having the rights of an individual, wtf is that nonsense?) can penalize an employee for taking advantage of their constitutional right to protest an issue which is clearly effecting a large populous sets a dangerous precedent.
US citizens need to move forward with caution, it seems as though we are an enemy to corporate entities.



raystriker said:


> I feel they could protest in a better forum, instead of disrespecting the flag.


See title and get back to me after some critical thought.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 2, 2018)

raystriker said:


> I feel they could protest in a better forum, instead of disrespecting the flag.



The most respectful way to treat the US flag is to protest when it is being raised to support positions that are antithetical to the spirit of America.  This includes things like forcing people to stand and respect it.  I don't care what you do to a physical object like a flag.  I do care how you treat the people around you and how you accord yourself in your actions in government.


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 2, 2018)

i don't get it, shouldn't kneeling before the flag be seen as a more respectful gesture than standing up?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 2, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> i don't get it, shouldn't kneeling before the flag be a more respectful gesture than standing up?



its a bit complicated.
on the one hand, kneeling is historically a sign of respect. but it's also a sign of submission. the flag is no symbol that demands respect or submission by force, the way it is currently demanded by president racism and his party of crooks.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SwitchMiiWii said:


> Black men account for half of all murders in the US despite making up a tenth of the population. There’s a reason they get killed so much



do you mean half of all murders are committed by black men (which sounds farfetched) and that this is a good reason to kill them just to be on the safe side?
that sounds incredible racist to me.


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 2, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> its a bit complicated.
> on the one hand, kneeling is historically a sign of respect. but it's also a sign of submission. the flag is no symbol that demands respect or submission by force, the way it is currently demanded by president racism and his party of crooks.


if people are going to demand respect to the flag by force then maybe all people should start kneeling instead.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 2, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> do you mean half of all murders are committed by black men (which sounds farfetched) and that this is a good reason to kill them just to be on the safe side?
> that sounds incredible racist to me.


1980-2008 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
and another 2003-2011 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf

Alot of it is gang violence/ black on black murders which the media will completely ignore


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

Police act on gut feeling. I cannot believe how many people honestly believe that it is fair to judge what a police officer did when you don't have his background, or training, or experience, or limited knowledge of the situation. After the fact, we can all see that the man did not have a gun, but could the police officer? He misjudged the situation, nothing more, nothing less. By taking a magnifying glass to an issue that the police officer only had a 1x zoom on does not a fair case make.

Am I saying that all police violence is just misjudged situations? Absolutely not. I know that there are police officers who will abuse their power, I have seen it. Does that mean that all police officers abuse their power? Absolutely not. The media chooses to comment on things that will produce an outrage.

About the kneeling, I have mixed feelings. I don't believe they are actually doing it for a cause except attention. On the other hand, they may be doing it for a cause and I am being quick to judge, and on the third hand they should have chosen a different method. I just don't know what to think and I definitely don't need you telling me that I don't stand for it at home, because I am not stupid enough to watch mind-numbing sports like football.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 2, 2018)

"Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders."

I guess by SwitchMiiWii's logic, we should expect all males to suffer police brutality without complaint.

In all seriousness, if the issue is black-on-black violence (which seems to be the case with the stats), then the issue is a police presence that mitigates this.  Adding to this is not the answer.



blujay said:


> Police act on gut feeling. I cannot believe how many people honestly believe that it is fair to judge what a police officer did when you don't have his background, or training, or experience, or limited knowledge of the situation. After the fact, we can all see that the man did not have a gun, but could the police officer? He misjudged the situation, nothing more, nothing less. By taking a magnifying glass to an issue that the police officer only had a 1x zoom on does not a fair case make.



Read the above.  The only way we can have a stronger police presence in areas where criminals are acting without sufficient repudiation is if the police are not so good at "act on on gut feeling".  Yes, this sadly means more police will be killed by criminals than would otherwise.  But a system in which the police see everyone as a criminal and are so prime to kill the innocent because there are so many guilty is one in which no one wants to go to the police for help.  That's precisely the foundation of a system that cannot work to actual solve the crime problem.



blujay said:


> About the kneeling, I have mixed feelings. I don't believe they are actually doing it for a cause except attention. On the other hand, they may be doing it for a cause and I am being quick to judge, and on the third hand they should have chosen a different method.



I have little doubt that some do it for attention.  Most people who stand for the flag do it for attention, not because of some profound respect for the principles the flag stands for.  If that was your chief concern, we should stop en masse doing these flag standing, national anthem singing engagements.  They are much more disingenuous than a few sports stars aggrandizing a kneel in protest.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 2, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Racist white people are a plague tbh
> But you know, they should keep their opinions to themselves rather than killing everyone they hate
> that's just senseless


Rascist any type of people are a plague.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> "Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders."
> 
> I guess by SwitchMiiWii's logic, we should expect all males to suffer police brutality without complaint.
> 
> ...


Yup, majority of victims are Male. Cops target and kill Men more then Women. If people complain about Racism against Blacks, then they have to complain about Sexism against Men. And that Cops are sexist against men. If they don't then they are contradictory.

People say well men deserve it because they are inherently more violent. Well if men deserve getting shot for being more violent, then you also have to accept that blacks are shot because they are more violent and not because of racism. You know because black men are shot more then black women. So the explanation for this gender discrepancy then is not because of racism but because they are more violent.

If you accept racism as actually the issue, then you have to accept that being inherently more violent is not the issue, and the reason black men are shot more than black women is because of racism and sexism. If you see people protesting racism against blacks, and forming protest marches for blacks, and not form big protest marches against sexism for men, because they say sexism against men is not a thing, then they are contradictory and I wouldn't take what the say seriously.

*Tl;DR* So if you believe Cops are Racist against and Oppressing Blacks, then you also have to accept they are Sexist and Oppressing Men, and accept that Male Oppression in society is systemic. If you don't you are contradicting yourself.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Players taking a knee instead of rising for the national anthem as a form of protest is brilliant. It is non-violent, it reaches a massive audience, and it symbolizes what the founders of the USA intended. The action is seen by many as unpatriotic. In the spirit of revolution I disagree and counter that it is the most patriotic action they could take, as peaceful protest is granted in the US constitution.
> Another concern is how they are using celebrity status and expressing views that conflict or are not necessarily in accordance with the organization, their employer, while on company time. That should not matter, as it it is a right to protest, and there is no law implicitly stating that every US citizen absolutely must stand for the national anthem. People who are angered by players taking a knee during the anthem do not rise from their easychair at home when the anthem plays. I find the hypocrisy appalling.
> 
> *The protest is against police violence. It is the police's job to enforce laws. It is not their job to interpret laws and carry out punishment. Those who attempt to stifle such a protest and those who promote the suppression of this protest are allowing fascism to propagate in the guise of patriotism.*



The protest is an asinine move that only irritates those who served the country and believe in the flag symbolically. Kneeling for the flag isn't protesting. It's disobedience and arrogance. Also, how do you know nobody stands for it at home? Do you personally visit every home? No? Then shut up.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

At home it's your castle your rules. I get the argument here but it's as week as kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality. 
You guys always ignore the facts. Black people kill more black people than white people do and cops kill more whites than blacks. Cut the crap with victim hood. It's getting old.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 2, 2018)

raystriker said:


> I feel they could protest in a better forum, instead of disrespecting the flag.


No matter WHAT we do to protest, there's something wrong with it.
Burning cars? *OMG THE LEFT IS VIOLENT*
Literally bending our leg? *OMG THE LEFT IS DISRESPECTFUL*

There's nothing wrong with kneeling, and the only people that DO MANAGE to find something wrong with it are just easily triggered conservatives that feel like everyone should be required to wear a MAGA hat and attend a daily Trump ass-kissing rally.



SG854 said:


> they are Sexist and Oppressing Men


That "the minorities are the oppressors" victim card though, bahahahaha!


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> No matter WHAT we do to protest, there's something wrong with it.
> Burning cars? *OMG THE LEFT IS VIOLENT*
> Literally bending our leg? *OMG THE LEFT IS DISRESPECTFUL*
> 
> ...


Burning cars is very violent.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> No matter WHAT we do to protest, there's something wrong with it.
> Burning cars? *OMG THE LEFT IS VIOLENT*
> Literally bending our leg? *OMG THE LEFT IS DISRESPECTFUL*
> 
> ...


What? Did you read what I typed?
I was talking about Cops.
I'm guessing you just breezed through what I said and just wanna hear what you wanna hear.

Well in this case Cops are the minority so ya.
So of you believe Cop Racism against blacks, then you have to accept a minority (cops) is targeting a group bigger then them (Blacks).


----------



## Monado_III (Jun 2, 2018)

Memoir said:


> The protest is an asinine move that only irritates those who served the country and believe in the flag symbolically. Kneeling for the flag isn't protesting. It's disobedience and arrogance. Also, how do you know nobody stands for it at home? Do you personally visit every home? No? Then shut up.


I don't get this, everyone and anyone who serves a western country (in the military) should know that they are protecting the freedoms and rights of their country, including *everyone's* right to peacefully protest whatever the heck they want. If they get mad at people exercising their rights (that they fought for) they probably aren't very patriotic themselves. In fact they should be proud of people protesting as they live in and fought for one of the relatively few countries where you can protest and not get killed/thrown in jail for it (ie Tiananmen Square 1989).


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 2, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Burning cars is very violent.


I didn't say it wasn't, lol. It's being equated with bending a leg, which only a triggered conservative will throw a fit over. But leave it to someone like you to focus on only parts of my post and conveniently ignore the majority of it.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I didn't say it wasn't, lol. It's being equated with bending a leg, which only a triggered conservative will throw a fit over. But leave it to someone like you to focus on only parts of my post and conveniently ignore the majority of it.


I'm curious what you mean by someone like me. What label were you thinking of?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 2, 2018)

SG854 said:


> What? Did you read what I typed?
> I was talking about Cops.
> I'm guessing you just breezed through what I said and just wanna hear what you wanna hear.
> 
> ...


Except _men aren't oppressed in any situation at all_. You equated cops oppressing men to cops killing black men, which only ONE of those actually happens.

And, no, any pack of terrorists (racist cops) with guns are not minorities.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Except _men aren't oppressed in any situation at all_. You equated cops oppressing men to cops killing black men, which only ONE of those actually happens.


Yup, you didn't read what I typed.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 2, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I'm curious what you mean by someone like me. What label were you thinking of?


Someone that will:


dpad_5678 said:


> focus on only parts of my post and conveniently ignore the majority of it.



Anyways, no matter how much the right digs and digs and digs for a reason why kneeling is bad or destructive, they won't find one. Disrespecting the flag? Isn't it more American to exercise our first amendment, rather than being forced to stand over a piece of cloth? Sounds like North Korea to me, lul.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Except _men aren't oppressed in any situation at all_. You equated cops oppressing men to cops killing black men, which only ONE of those actually happens.
> 
> And, no, any pack of terrorists (racist cops) with guns are not minorities.


There are less Cops then blacks so they are the minority.

Why are Black Men shot more then Black Women?
Or even White Men more then White Women?


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 2, 2018)

SG854 said:


> There are less Cops then blacks so they are the minority.
> 
> Why are Black Men shot more then Black Women?
> Or even White Men more then White Women?


cops are not an ethnic minority, it is just a job.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> cops are not an ethnic minority, it is just a job.


Didn't mention they were an Ethnic minority.
I just said they were a minority in terms of numbers.

So why are Black Men shot more then Black Women?
Why is one gender more targeted then the other?


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Someone that will:
> 
> 
> Anyways, no matter how much the right digs and digs and digs for a reason why kneeling is bad or destructive, they won't find one. Disrespecting the flag? Isn't it more American to exercise our first amendment, rather than being forced to stand over a piece of cloth? Sounds like North Korea to me, lul.


While it is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment, I think those who don't stand are assholes. Men died for us on the battlefields of war. Showing some respect would be adequate.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

Well that's just a silly comparison to make.  No one is watching you in your home, you can stand or sit if you please, but if you're in a public setting where everyone is asked to stand for the anthem, you just do it.  I mean if you see a family singing happy birthday on TV, you don't join in the song, yet if you're friend is getting his cake right in front of you, you're gonna sing along, sure you can simply not sing, but that's a good way too look like a jerk to your friend or family.  (lol just the thought of someone not singing happy birthday as some sort of protest made me laugh)


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Players taking a knee instead of rising for the national anthem as a form of protest is brilliant. It is non-violent, it reaches a massive audience, and it symbolizes what the founders of the USA intended. The action is seen by many as unpatriotic. In the spirit of revolution I disagree and counter that it is the most patriotic action they could take, as peaceful protest is granted in the US constitution.
> Another concern is how they are using celebrity status and expressing views that conflict or are not necessarily in accordance with the organization, their employer, while on company time. That should not matter, as it it is a right to protest, and there is no law implicitly stating that every US citizen absolutely must stand for the national anthem. People who are angered by players taking a knee during the anthem do not rise from their easychair at home when the anthem plays. I find the hypocrisy appalling.
> 
> *The protest is against police violence. It is the police's job to enforce laws. It is not their job to interpret laws and carry out punishment. Those who attempt to stifle such a protest and those who promote the suppression of this protest are allowing fascism to propagate in the guise of patriotism.*


yeah like why don't people stand up when they watch old football games too, seriously everyone should always stand up when they hear the national anthem no matter where they hear it

Even as someone who supports their right to protest this is a really fucking stupid argument

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dpad_5678 said:


> Except _men aren't oppressed in any situation at all_.


Can you actually, factually fuck off


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 2, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Didn't mention they were an Ethnic minority.
> I just said they were a minority in terms of numbers.
> 
> So why are Black Men shot more then Black Women.


cause men tend to see women as less of a physical threat than men.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

Memoir said:


> The protest is an asinine move that only irritates those who served the country and believe in the flag symbolically. Kneeling for the flag isn't protesting. It's disobedience and arrogance. Also, how do you know nobody stands for it at home? Do you personally visit every home? No? Then shut up.



Of course I have not been in EVERYONE'S house and observed them sit through the anthem, but it is safe to extrapolate that is the case, because the reality is people don't do what they don't have to. As mentioned before. THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING THAT SORT OF COMPLIANCE. (I wouldn't be surprised if there was soon though) Don't tell me you stand, hand on heart, every time the anthem is played through a TV, because you don't.



MikaDubbz said:


> Well that's just a silly comparison to make.  No one is watching you in your home, you can stand or sit if you please, but if you're in a public setting where everyone is asked to stand for the anthem, you just do it.  I mean if you see a family singing happy birthday on TV, you don't join in the song, yet if you're friend is getting his cake right in front of you, you're gonna sing along, sure you can simply not sing, but that's a good way too look like a jerk to your friend or family.  (lol just the thought of someone not singing happy birthday as some sort of protest made me laugh)



That's a terrible sense of patriotism. "I'll do it because other people are, and they're watching me." That is herd mentality, blindly following without a thought. Go back to work for your masters and stay out of this discussion, this topic is too deep for you.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> That's a terrible sense of patriotism. "I'll do it because other people are, and they're watching me." That is herd mentality, blindly following without a thought. Go back to work for your masters and stay out of this discussion, this topic is too deep for you.



I'm not saying you do it because people are watching you, I say you do it because of the setting that you're in.  You might as well have gone to a great play that everyone stands up and applauds for at the end, and you're the one asshole sitting down waiting for the thing to be done so you can go home.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 2, 2018)

ITT: why political discussion actually has no place on a website with an average user age of 13.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> I'm not saying you do it because people are watching you, I say you do it because of the setting that you're in.  You might as well have gone to a great play that everyone stands up and applauds for at the end, and you're the one asshole sitting down waiting for the thing to be done so you can go home.



You literally just proved my point.
The setting you continually reference is other people around witnessing your actions.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> You literally just proved my point.
> The setting you continually reference is other people around witnessing your actions.



No, the setting is an event where there are traditions.  You're asked at the event to stand for the anthem, you're not asked at home to stand for the anthem LOL!


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> *THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING THAT SORT OF COMPLIANCE.*



The act of pushing people to do so borders on tyrannical fascism. Forced patriotism is how the Nazi party came to power in the first place.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

Literally no one is saying you're legally obligated to. Instead of flipping shit about dumbshit, punk, you should read what they're saying.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

No one is saying that a tradition is a law.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 2, 2018)

SG854 said:


> So if you believe Cops are Racist against and Oppressing Blacks, then you also have to accept they are Sexist and Oppressing Men, and accept that Male Oppression in society is systemic. If you don't you are contradicting yourself.



I do.  Male oppression in society is systemic.  Male support in society is also systemic.  They don't cancel out.  Police brutality is wrong, period.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Literally no one is saying you're legally obligated to. Instead of flipping shit about dumbshit, punk, you should read what they're saying.



Right. I'm aware of that and I have been reading to comprehend.

However, the situation at hand, where players are being penalized and reprimanded for a simple harmless act in opposition to a tradition which we have established participation is not required is the issue we cannot lose sight of.

Coerced "patriotism" is not "patriotism" in the least.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Right. I'm aware of that and I have been reading to comprehend.
> 
> However, the situation at hand, where players are being penalized and reprimanded for a simple harmless act which we have established is not required is the issue we cannot lose sight of.
> 
> Coerced "patriotism" is not "patriotism" in the least.


I don't have any investment in the debate either way, I think it's stupid to penalize them for it. I just think the argument you opened with is like, frankly, really fucking retarded. You keep shooting yourself in the foot by turning this into some rage against the machine kind of shit.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

raystriker said:


> I feel they could protest in a better forum, instead of disrespecting the flag.


Believe it or not the flag is just a piece of cloth. And besides, anyone who wears shirts with the flag on it, uses beach towels that look like the flag, eat with napkins with flag imagery printed on it, etc., are disrespecting it far more than anyone refusing to stand for the anthem


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I don't have any investment in the debate either way, I think it's stupid to penalize them for it. I just think the argument you opened with is like, frankly, really fucking retarded. You keep shooting yourself in the foot by turning this into some rage against the machine kind of shit.



Dude. My argument may be retarded possibly because the whole scenario is retarded to begin with.
People have the right to an opinion.
People have the right to protest.
People have the right to a fair trial.
People have the right to not be killed by cops.
People have the no right to infringe on any of the above stated rights.

My speech may not be as elegant as that of Zach De La Rocha and for that I apologize. But this is some Rage Against the Machine shit.
The fines and penalties the protesters face are unconstitutional and should be recognized as such. I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, just trying to open their eyes to a form of oppression they may not see.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Jun 2, 2018)

I usually worry about what me and my family are doing, rather than trying to make sense of what other people (who I don’t even know) are doing. I go less crazy that way. Want to take a knee, take a knee. If you want to shoot up at a bus stop, I’ll probably call the police. Want to collect guns, go ahead (in your legal fashion). Want to hit me, I hit you. We can’t control the actions of others only our own.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Dude. My argument may be retarded possibly because the whole scenario is retarded to begin with.
> People have the right to an opinion.
> People have the right to protest.
> People have the right to a fair trial.
> ...


"I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, just trying to change their minds"
Like instead of clearly copying and pasting a line, and then lying about your intentions just be honest about it dude. You see it as an injustice, and that more people should be angry about this. There's way better ways to go about this but really all you're doing by acting like this is making your position seem like it's that of an angry, whiny teenager than someone legitimately concerned about liberty.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

-snip-


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Believe it or not the flag is just a piece of cloth. And besides, anyone who wears shirts with the flag on it, uses beach towels that look like the flag, eat with napkins with flag imagery printed on it, etc., are disrespecting it far more than anyone refusing to stand for the anthem



This post made me think of this meme and I feel like the irony made it too good to pass up


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Believe it or not the flag is just a piece of cloth. And besides, anyone who wears shirts with the flag on it, uses beach towels that look like the flag, eat with napkins with flag imagery printed on it, etc., are disrespecting it far more than anyone refusing to stand for the anthem


This is wrong. The flag itself is a symbol of a nation. The flag was specifically designed to be symbolic of our nation and our ideals. To say it's just a cloth is like saying this is just "land" so anything critical to the foundation of the USA -- our rights, freedoms, etc -- has no value. This is incredibly disingenuous. While I don't believe that the flag should be worshiped, I don't thinks it's meaning and symbolism should ever be ignored.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 2, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Racist white people are a plague tbh
> But you know, they should keep their opinions to themselves rather than killing everyone they hate
> that's just senseless


Well, sure, but this almost never happens. There are no wild packs of Neo Nazis running around killing people.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, just trying to change their minds"
> Like instead of clearly copying and pasting a line, and then lying about your intentions just be honest about it dude. You see it as an injustice, and that more people should be angry about this. There's way better ways to go about this but really all you're doing by acting like this is making your position seem like it's that of an angry, whiny teenager than someone legitimately concerned about liberty.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


Something tells me that rather than saying "not attempting to", @PuNKeMoN meant to say "expecting to". I agree with him for the most part but his message is definitely jumbled

Also I'd remove that quote and just "@" xpoverzion, given that his post is DEFINITELY going to come down and that way you can save your own


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

black on black crime is through the roof. black crimes on others is high too. its a culture that cant be fixed. nfl lost half its viewers because people dont want politics to mix with sports


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Something tells me that rather than saying "not attempting to", @PuNKeMoN meant to say "expecting to". I agree with him for the most part but his message is definitely jumbled
> 
> Also I'd remove that quote and just "@" xpoverzion, given that his post is DEFINITELY going to come down and that way you can save your own


I doubt it, his other anti-semetic posts have stayed up just fine despite reporting him for it. I'll edit my post to reflect what he said was removed and link an archive of it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Well, sure, but this almost never happens. There are no wild packs of Neo Nazis running around killing people.


http://www.newsweek.com/outspoken-n...girlfriends-parents-after-they-ordered-758237


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> cause men tend to see women as less of a physical threat than men.


Why were Black Men seen as a physical threat in the first place?

Then doesn't that mean they are then Sexist against Men because they see Men more of a threat than Women, which then leads to innocent Males dying.
Just like how Slave Owners thought of Blacks as inherently evil which justified their murder of Black people.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> black on black crime is through the roof. black crimes on others is high too. its a culture that cant be fixed. nfl lost half its viewers because people dont want politics to mix with sports


Why is everyone so obsessed with "black on black crime"

Like I've literally only ever seen it as a way to shut down other, more valid arguments

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MaverickWellington said:


> This is wrong. The flag itself is a symbol of a nation. The flag was specifically designed to be symbolic of our nation and our ideals. To say it's just a cloth is like saying this is just "land" so anything critical to the foundation of the USA -- our rights, freedoms, etc -- has no value. This is incredibly disingenuous. While I don't believe that the flag should be worshiped, I don't thinks it's meaning and symbolism should ever be ignored.


It is indeed symbolic, but to treat it physically as though it is more important than a human being is objectively wrong


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why is everyone so obsessed with "black on black crime"
> 
> Like I've literally only ever seen it as a way to shut down other, more valid arguments


That's specifically why. Every time I see it mentioned it's just to go "ok you're against police violence but why aren't you against black on black violence tooo??????" even though shittons of rap artists have come out to condemn both, especially gang violence. Tupac comes to mind as the most prevalent one.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 2, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> Standing for the Jewnited states of Jewmerica's national anthem is something I won't do either.  Maybe someday when America becomes an independent, and sovereign nation again, I might stand for it then.  For now, the flag represents Israels nefarious agendas in the middle east, and the nefarious agendas of it's diaspora around the globe.


so a Nazi flag is better for you?


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why is everyone so obsessed with "black on black crime"
> 
> Like I've literally only ever seen it as a way to shut down other, more valid arguments



black on black crime is the root of the cause but people try to brush that aside. black on asian crime is very high too, along with black on whites, black on green, black on rainbow, you name it and its true. people try to brush off the facts because victimization is more popular nowadays.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, just trying to change their minds"
> Like instead of clearly copying and pasting a line, and then lying about your intentions just be honest about it dude. You see it as an injustice, and that more people should be angry about this. There's way better ways to go about this but really all you're doing by acting like this is making your position seem like it's that of an angry, whiny teenager than someone legitimately concerned about liberty



So now you call me a liar and comparing my position to that of a whiney teenager. A feeble attempt to attack my character at best.

People develop their own opinion based on evidence.
I merely called out hypocrisy and exposed infringement of constitutional rights. Up to the people what they do with that information.

Despite not having "any investment in this debate" you sure are posting a lot.
My opinion of you based on evidence is that I don't need to waste any more time with you.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> black on black crime is the root of the cause but people try to brush that aside. black on asian crime is very high too, along with black on whites, black on green, black on rainbow, you name it and its true. people try to brush off the facts because victimization is more popular nowadays.


The root of the cause is police training instructing them to whip out a gun at the first sign of trouble but go off I guess


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> http://www.newsweek.com/outspoken-n...girlfriends-parents-after-they-ordered-758237


That sounds more like a typical white on white crime of passion involving some lone nut who just happens to identify as a Neo Nazi.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 2, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> That sounds more like a typical white on white crime of passion involving some lone nut who just happens to identify as a Neo Nazi.



nothing burger just a lone wolf


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> That sounds more like a typical white on white crime of passion involving some lone nut who just happens to identify as a Neo Nazi.


If you read anything about the issue he specifically separated her from her friends and killed her family because they found out how anti semetic he was. I'd say it's definitely because he was a Nazi


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> how many of you guys are from the ghetto? i grew up in a violent neighborhood in the 90s, most of the violence was from blacks. we werent allowed to play outside alone etc.etc
> 
> even in this song Tupac role-plays as a typical gangbanger and 20yrs later nothing really changed except video games are keeping them more busy from criming on people




West side of Chicago wasn't quite the ghetto back then but I did watch my neighbor get shot when I was 8 years old.

Oh and it was a Latino man shooting a white man.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

back to the nfl. most of the ghetto players move away once they get paid because they fear for their life and they never go back and then marry white women. the reason they protest is because they dont wanna get shot for driving an expensive car, most of the protests are for self preservation


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> back to the nfl. most of the ghetto players move away once they get paid because they fear for their life and they never go back and then marry white women. the reason they protest is because they dont wanna get shot for driving an expensive car, most of the protests are for self preservation


What kind of Fox News BULLSHIT


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> So now you call me a liar and comparing my position to that of a whiney teenager. A feeble attempt to attack my character at best.
> 
> People develop their own opinion based on evidence.
> I merely called out hypocrisy and exposed infringement of constitutional rights. Up to the people what they do with that information.
> ...


You didn't call out a hypocrisy, you made a completely absurd connection that wasn't connected at all then called it a hypocrisy on the spot. I am not calling you a "liar," because of your position. I called you one because of the way you express it. You and I have literally the same stance -- that it's harmless and shouldn't have repercussions against it, and to have them violates the right to protest that this country was built upon. My point from the start is that you just express your argument like a whiny teenager. Just because I have a discussion with people doesn't mean I'm not someone who's as invested as you. Perhaps I misspoke by saying I'm not invested in the debate despite having a clear stance, but one thing is undeniable: You and I, despite having the same stance, express our stances differently. Quit stomping your feet and demanding change while lying about the fact you're demanding change and that more people demand change too.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> What


Literally me rn


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> West side of Chicago wasn't quite the ghetto back then but I did watch my neighbor get shot when I was 8 years old.
> 
> Oh and it was a Latino man shooting a white man.



west chicago is all mexican. but the blacks on southside will beat the shit out of you or kill you for not being black


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> back to the nfl. most of the ghetto players move away once they get paid because they fear for their life and they never go back and then marry white women. the reason they protest is because they dont wanna get shot for driving an expensive car, most of the protests are for self preservation


This sounds like someone who's only interaction with ghettos is watching Don't Be a Menace to South Central. Great movie, but not a great representation of the hood or its life.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> The root of the cause is police training instructing them to whip out a gun at the first sign of trouble but go off I guess


You can't not have police trained to respond in situations like that. The excessive force is fucking awful and shouldn't happen, full stop, but police should have the training and capabilities to respond quickly in situations that justify such force. The problem is not the training, it's where they use it. They respond to situations with ways that do not suit the situation.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you read anything about the issue he specifically separated her from her friends and killed her family because they found out how anti semetic he was. I'd say it's definitely because he was a Nazi


His beliefs are what led up to the crime, but his reaction to their disapproval was atypical for anyone, including so called Nazis. This guy would have killed them no matter what their problem with him was.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> This sounds like someone who's only interaction with ghettos is watching Don't Be a Menace to South Central. Great movie, but not a great representation of the hood or its life.



''Don't Be a Menace'' is actually spot on


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> ''Don't Be a Menace'' is actually spot on



You're fucking with me right


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> You're fucking with me right




its a parody but the messages are spot on. even keenan ivory wayans yells 'MESSAGE' to tell these black folk to wake up


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> its a parody but the messages are spot on. even keenan ivory wayans yells 'MESSAGE' to tell these black folk to wake up


PLEASE be fucking with me. The reason he says "MESSAGE" at messages present in literally every single fucking film it's parodying (which you haven't seen one of evidently) is to make fun of how shoehorned and in your face they are. Do you watch South Park and expect it to all be unironic, and 100% serious?


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

blujay said:


> Police act on gut feeling. I cannot believe how many people honestly believe that it is fair to judge what a police officer did when you don't have his background, or training, or experience, or limited knowledge of the situation. After the fact, we can all see that the man did not have a gun, but could the police officer? He misjudged the situation, nothing more, nothing less. By taking a magnifying glass to an issue that the police officer only had a 1x zoom on does not a fair case make.
> 
> Am I saying that all police violence is just misjudged situations? Absolutely not. I know that there are police officers who will abuse their power, I have seen it. Does that mean that all police officers abuse their power? Absolutely not. The media chooses to comment on things that will produce an outrage.



Cops shouldn't be shooting to kill. Guilty parties still have a right to due process and a chance to reform.
Even in cases where lethal force is authorized, I would still consider that to be too much power for a person to carry.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Cops shouldn't be shooting to kill. Guilty parties still have a right to due process and a chance to reform.
> Even in cases where lethal force is authorized, I would still consider that to be too much power for a person to carry.


And even if they are shooting to incapacitate (which is generally what one would do), they should NOT be waiting 8 minutes to call for medical treatment while standing around and making fun of the person they shot, as has unfortunately seemed to become rather common


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Cops shouldn't be shooting to kill. Guilty parties still have a right to due process and a chance to reform.
> Even in cases where lethal force is authorized, I would still consider that to be too much power for a person to carry.


In hostage situations, they should shoot to kill. When there is an active shooter, they should shoot to kill. When someone has literally killed someone, the police should shoot to kill. Period. Shooting to kill is a deterrent. If all they're gonna get is life in a prison it's not going to deter people as much as knowing that if they do some dumb shit like this, they will literally die. See Anders Brevik and the prison cell he's in.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2018)

There's no reason at all that NFL players shouldn't be able to protest however they see fit.  It triggers Trump and some of the more racist team owners, though, so it also wasn't surprising to see those people stomping all over the first amendment by banning that form of protest.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> In hostage situations, they should shoot to kill. When there is an active shooter, they should shoot to kill. When someone has literally killed someone, the police should shoot to kill. Period. Shooting to kill is a deterrent. If all they're gonna get is life in a prison it's not going to deter people as much as knowing that if they do some dumb shit like this, they will literally die. See Anders Brevik and the prison cell he's in.



No.

Death penalty (which I support) is decided by a jury. That's 12 people. Not 1.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> In hostage situations, they should shoot to kill. When there is an active shooter, they should shoot to kill. When someone has literally killed someone, the police should shoot to kill. Period. Shooting to kill is a deterrent. If all they're gonna get is life in a prison it's not going to deter people as much as knowing that if they do some dumb shit like this, they will literally die. See Anders Brevik and the prison cell he's in.


Conversely, reaching for your wallet is NOT a good excuse for an officer to shoot you, even if they think you may be armed, and ESPECIALLY if you've stated you're not reaching for a weapon


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Cops shouldn't be shooting to kill. Guilty parties still have a right to due process and a chance to reform.
> Even in cases where lethal force is authorized, I would still consider that to be too much power for a person to carry.



its only when the cop is white that causes an uproar. nfl is dead. i try not to push double standards so im leaving this sjw thread


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> its only when the cop is white that causes an uproar. nfl is dead. i try not to push double standards so im leaving this sjw thread



Bye. Your weak "contributions" won't be missed.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> its only when the cop is white that causes an uproar. nfl is dead. i try not to push double standards so im leaving this sjw thread


So you're just going to ignore the black cop that shot the white woman, huh

Just gonna completely leave out that everyone was furious about that because it doesn't fit your narrative, I suppose


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So you're just going to ignore the black cop that shot the white woman, huh
> 
> Just gonna completely leave out that everyone was furious about that because it doesn't fit your narrative, I suppose



blacks dont consider africans 'black'. the somalian cop shot a white woman in 'uptown' a nice neighborhood, and nobody cared


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I never said it was though.


I recognize that, I'm just stating that there's a line that keeps being crossed that for whatever reason always seems to be justified under the same logic you were providing. I agree, I'm just differentiating

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gameboy said:


> blacks dont consider africans 'black'. the somalian cop shot a white woman in 'uptown' a nice neighborhood, and nobody cared


See my edit, because that's not at all what I was talking about

Nor is that remotely accurate


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I recognize that, I'm just stating that there's a line that keeps being crossed that for whatever reason always seems to be justified under the same logic you were providing. I agree, I'm just differentiating


I completely agree then. There are clear cut cases where shooting to kill is justified, but most importantly, necessary. The problem is that we have cops that are too jumpy making rash decisions. There should be something that people could do to meet this half way. Maybe agree to step out of the car at a traffic stop and let them search until the jumpy cops are replaced with actually good ones? I've known both crooked and incredibly upstanding cops in my life, and I know that the upstanding one should not bear the burdens of the shitty crooked ones.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gameboy said:


> blacks dont consider africans 'black'. the somalian cop shot a white woman in 'uptown' a nice neighborhood, and nobody cared


Can you leave the "SJW" thread so that we can debate in peace thanks


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I'm glad morally inconsistent people like you don't make laws.



Can you please explain how have inconsistent morals?


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "SJW thread"
> man shut the fuck up, you're not even 16 at the most



im a millenial and ive seen my fair share of crazy ghetto violence. gbatemp isnt a place i can show prof and whatnot, so yea im leaving this SJW thread


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jun 2, 2018)

The title of this thread is the truest shit I ever saw.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Can you please explain how have consistent morals?


No, because you don't.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

If a gunman is in a school, or other public location, killing people systematically, they have no right to trial or jury, and should be killed by police (or a responsible gun owner) on the spot. These people are not innocent, are are subhuman troglodytes worthy of death.  Fair trial my ass, especially if they plea for insanity.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> im a millenial and ive seen my fair share of crazy ghetto violence. gbatemp isnt a place i can show prof and whatnot, so yea im leaving this SJW thread


You're a kid and are trying to pipe up on something you've only seen in movies, while citing a parody of other dramas like they're factual. You can leave whenever you want, no one cared that you were here to begin with.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> You're a kid and are trying to pipe up on something you've only seen in movies, while citing a parody of other dramas like they're factual. You can leave whenever you want, no one cared that you were here to begin with.



kids dont know what 'dont be a menace' is


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I completely agree then. There are clear cut cases where shooting to kill is justified, but most importantly, necessary. The problem is that we have cops that are too jumpy making rash decisions. There should be something that people could do to meet this half way. Maybe agree to step out of the car at a traffic stop and let them search until the jumpy cops are replaced with actually good ones? I've known both crooked and incredibly upstanding cops in my life, and I know that the upstanding one should not bear the burdens of the shitty crooked ones.


I disagree, I don't feel as though there's ever an instance where a civilian should be asked to exit their vehicle in a routine traffic stop, and it is well within their right to stay in the vehicle, especially if the purpose is to dial 911 to make sure there is a record of the interaction and to confirm that there is an officer dispatched in your location (malicious fake police officers and/or off-duty cops are, sadly, a legitimate threat)

Again, it comes down to how officers react to a scenario. I understand that they need to be trained to have lightning reflexes, but deescalation also needs to be a crucial part of training, and there DEFINITELY needs to be better vetting of personality type


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> If a gunman is in a school, or other public location, killing people systematically, they have no right to trial or jury, and should be killed by police (or a responsible gun owner) on the spot. These people are not innocent, are are subhuman troglodytes worthy of death.  Fair trial my ass, especially if they plea for insanity.



Killing someone on the spot, no matter how obviously guilty, denies them their rights. Even if they are killing people and thus robbing them of their right to live.

It would be an open and shut case. Send them to the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, gallows, hell I don't care how the execution is handled as long as they are still granted their right to a trial.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yeah man how the fuck are you gonna reform someone who takes like 6+ lives because he just felt like it? Even if he does learn to regret what he's done there's no bringing them back. He has no right to live. You can decide it among 1 or 12 people, but leave that shit in the courtroom. In an active shooting, the best, immediate response, is to shoot to kill, because you're a target too. Not only is everyone else's life on the line, but yours is too, and you have to defend yourself if you're capable.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



They broke the law, they killed innocent people in plain sight, in broad daylight, there are almost always witnesses. How on earth do they have a fair trial? I don't care if they are "insane", if they are competent enough to buy a gun, buy ammo, and then decide one day to shoot people, they are neither innocent nor insane. That's just their own pussy way to get out of going to prison, just shoot the gunman point blank in the head.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, fuck you. If someone shoots up a school and is actively shooting at teachers and students you have to shoot to kill. It's a deterrent. If you're able to restrain, great! But if you can't, shoot to kill. Simple as that.



Shooting to kill is shooting to miss; specific aiming instead of aiming for center mass means you're more likely to fail.  Shooting to incapacitate has non-negligible odds of also being a death sentence; it's why shooting people in general is bad.  If you don't think spending the rest of your life in jail is a deterrent, which it clearly isn't for some people, what makes you think shooting to kill is some sort of more meaningful deterrent?  You've heard of "suicide by cop", right?  You've heard of war, right?  Clearly people make a choice to do things that risk or even motivate their own death.

I understand your anger.  I understand that you want people who are monsters to suffer.  But being a monster to monsters doesn't solve anything.  If it did, our rule of law would be heading towards barbarism and the crime rates would go down.  I don't mean that figuratively.  That sort of system would be abused, like all systems are, and the result upon the innocent would be as that done by criminals today.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I disagree, I don't feel as though there's ever an instance where a civilian should be asked to exit their vehicle in a routine traffic stop, and it is well within their right to stay in the vehicle, especially if the purpose is to dial 911 to make sure there is a record of the interaction and to confirm that there is an officer dispatched in your location (malicious fake police officers and/or off-duty cops are, sadly, a legitimate threat)
> 
> Again, it comes down to how officers react to a scenario. I understand that they need to be trained to have lightning reflexes, but deescalation also needs to be a crucial part of training, and there DEFINITELY needs to be better vetting of personality type


And I totally understand the officers are the problem. The point I'm making is that until the jumpy, unfit officers are removed from the equation, a way needs to be determined to stay safe in these scenarios, and I think the best way is to stand out of your car so it's clear where your hands are, and what you're reaching for.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Killing someone on the spot, no matter how obviously guilty, denies them their rights. Even if they are killing people and thus robbing them of their right to live.
> 
> It would be an open and shut case. Send them to the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, gallows, hell I don't care how the execution is handled as long as they are still granted their right to a trial.


No, he's right. If someone is indeed posing an active threat, the best and most humane response is to eliminate said threat


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Killing someone on the spot, no matter how obviously guilty, denies them their rights. Even if they are killing people and thus robbing them of their right to live.
> 
> It would be an open and shut case. Send them to the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, gallows, hell I don't care how the execution is handled as long as they are still granted their right to a trial.



They lost their "rights" the second they decided to kill innocent people. Just don't keep them in prison for twenty years and then "oh let's give him the chair". Execute them on the spot. Who the hell cares about a gunman's rights? They lost
their privileges to rights the second they decide to be psychopath. I hope the people accused of murder in prison get their ass raped and torture the most horrific ways for killing people. F*** murderers.

Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman kill and then brought to "justice" is more humane than to save people?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> And I totally understand the officers are the problem. The point I'm making is that until the jumpy, unfit officers are removed from the equation, a way needs to be determined to stay safe in these scenarios, and I think the best way is to stand out of your car so it's clear where your hands are, and what you're reaching for.


I'd argue it's not just "jumpy" officers, because there are also the people who join the force because they get off on being more powerful than other people. Those officers could be steel-tempered and still walk up to a car and shoot someone if they weren't "following orders"


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jun 2, 2018)

As someone who lives outside the US, and looks at the situation with a clear perspective, I say that both sides are at fault. the police are doing their jobs, but are too eager to pull the trigger ( WTF happened to Tasers ? ) and a lot of the black people in those neighborhoods belong to gangs. those officers aren't going to nicely ask them to identify themselves when someone's firing at them.
but at he same time, I've heard more than a few stories about a rookie cop shooting a black person who was reaching for his wallet to show some ID. case in point the story of a black gun owner. I've forgotten his name, but the details are in my mind.

the dude was driving with his girlfriend when they got pulled over by a cop, when asking for license and ID, he informed the police officer that he had a gun, and was about to also tell him that he had a license for it when the cop shot him. his girlfriend told the news that that was supposed to be an in joke at his gun safety classes, but got him killed. 
the exact line the man said was : " Officer, I am a carrying a gun, but I have my license for it here" when he got to "gun" the officer, who already had his pistol out, shot him.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Shooting to kill is shooting to miss; specific aiming instead of aiming for center mass means you're more likely to fail.  Shooting to incapacitate has non-negligible odds of also being a death sentence; it's why shooting people in general is bad.  If you don't think spending the rest of your life in jail is a deterrent, which it clearly isn't for some people, what makes you think shooting to kill is some sort of more meaningful deterrent?  You've heard of "suicide by cop", right?  You've heard of war, right?  Clearly people make a choice to do things that risk or even motivate their own death.
> 
> I understand your anger.  I understand that you want people who are monsters to suffer.  But being a monster to monsters doesn't solve anything.  If it did, our rule of law would be heading towards barbarism and the crime rates would go down.  I don't mean that figuratively.  That sort of system would be abused, like all systems are, and the result upon the innocent would be as that done by criminals today.


Shooting at a gunman in an active shooter scenario is not barbaric, it's something you basically have to do. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm assuming you think I meant that it's a deterrent that will stop 100% of people, which isn't what I said at all. You then go off on a tangent about being monsters as an umbrella term and I'm just not gonna bother addressing it, as it's irrelevant.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> They lost their "rights" the second they decided to kill innocent people. Just don't keep them in prison for twenty years and then "oh let's give him the chair". Execute them on the spot. Who the hell cares about a gunman's rights? They lost
> their privileges to rights the second they decide to be psychopath. I hope the people accused of murder in prison get their ass raped and torture the most horrific ways for killing people.


That mentality is almost just as dangerous as his. The elimination of a threat is something that should be done out of necessity due to circumstances, rather than for the joy of executing a criminal. Far to many people join the police force with that fantasy in mind, and that's part of what's causing the constant string of brutality that we're seeing today


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Killing someone on the spot, no matter how obviously guilty, denies them their rights. Even if they are killing people and thus robbing them of their right to live.
> 
> It would be an open and shut case. Send them to the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, gallows, hell I don't care how the execution is handled as long as they are still granted their right to a trial.


Executing someone in general denies them their rights to life and happiness but go off I guess


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That mentality is almost just as dangerous as his. The elimination of a threat is something that should be done out of necessity due to circumstances, rather than for the joy of executing a criminal. Far to many people join the police force with that fantasy in mind, and that's part of what's causing the constant string of brutality that we're seeing today



Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman get away with killing more people, get caught (or having him shoot himself to take the coward's way out), have said person brought to "justice", is more humane, than it is to have him neutralized in order to save more people? If they do get caught, they get caught up in the "justice" system for decades, at the taxpayer's expense, and then euthanized by lethal inject, yeah, sounds right.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That mentality is almost just as dangerous as his. The elimination of a threat is something that should be done out of necessity due to circumstances, rather than for the joy of executing a criminal. Far to many people join the police force with that fantasy in mind, and that's part of what's causing the constant string of brutality that we're seeing today


Basically, see this guy?





Don't be this guy. Don't enable this guy. Push and protest to have him kicked out of the police.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

lcie nimbus said:


> case in point the story of a black gun owner. I've forgotten his name, but the details are in my mind.
> 
> the dude was driving with his girlfriend when they got pulled over by a cop, when asking for license and ID, he informed the police officer that he had a gun, and was about to also tell him that he had a license for it when the cop shot him. his girlfriend told the news that that was supposed to be an in joke at his gun safety classes, but got him killed.
> the exact line the man said was : " Officer, I am a carrying a gun, but I have my license for it here" when he got to "gun" the officer, who already had his pistol out, shot him.


Philandro Castile


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman kill more people, get caught, have said person brought to "justice", is more humane, than it is to have him neutralized in order to save more people?


No, what he's saying that looking forward to it with the prospect of enjoying executing them is just as bad as not killing them at all ever, because on both sides it just enables psychopathy or at minimum sociopathy, which is the last thing we need determining our laws.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman kill more people, get caught, have said person brought to "justice", is more humane, than it is to have him neutralized in order to save more people?


No. I'm saying that "neutralizing" him for the sake of saving others shouldn't EVER be done with the intention of proudly calling it an "execution"


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, what he's saying that looking forward to it with the prospect of enjoying executing them is just as bad as not killing them at all ever, because on both sides it just enables psychopathy or at minimum sociopathy, which is the last thing we need determining our laws.



I never said people would enjoy neutralizing or had to enjoy executing the gunman, or getting a joy from it. I'm just saying that someone should be there, like a security guard, or something.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> No. I'm saying that "neutralizing" him for the sake of saving others shouldn't EVER be done with the intention of proudly calling it an "execution"



Fine, then I redact that portion. All the same, the threat should be neutralized by local authorities. If criminals decide to act by killing people, how on earth can they even be deemed innocent?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Philandro Castile


Now I know nothing about the situation so I'm just going off that guy's summary but maybe a joke about owning a gun while an officer is close, pointing a gun at your head isn't the best joke to make at that time.

The cop shouldn't have had the gun on his head in the first fucking place though, that makes me really angry.
EDIT: To further clarify, situations like this are precisely why I propose getting out of your car and just letting them search it. Yeah, it's shitty, and you shouldn't have to, but in situations like this I'd much rather choose living than privacy as much as I'd fucking love to have both. If it keeps some trigger happy dickhead from busting a cap in my cracker ass, hey, search away homie.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Now I know nothing about the situation so I'm just going off that guy's summary but maybe a joke about owning a gun while an officer is close, pointing a gun at your head isn't the best joke to make at that time.
> 
> The cop shouldn't have had the gun on his head in the first fucking place though, that makes me really angry.
> EDIT: To further clarify, situations like this are precisely why I propose getting out of your car and just letting them search it. Yeah, it's shitty, and you shouldn't have to, but in situations like this I'd much rather choose living than privacy as much as I'd fucking love to have both. If it keeps some trigger happy dickhead from busting a cap in my cracker ass, hey, search away homie.


The worst part is he didn't joke about anything. He informed the officer that he is a registered gun ownership and that there is a gun in his glove compartment, the officer screams for him to get his ID, Castile informs the officer that his ID is in the glove compartment, and in the time where he is (slowly) reaching for the ID the cop yells at him to stop reaching for the gun and shoots him 3(?) times

In a situation like that, where the officer is ready to shoot at the slightest of movements, I REALLY don't see how stepping out of the car would have done anything


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> All the same, the threat should be neutralized by local authorities. If criminals decide to act by killing people, how on earth can they even be deemed innocent?



Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The worst part is he didn't joke about anything. He informed the officer that he is a registered gun ownership and that there is a gun in his glove compartment, the officer screams for him to get his ID, Castile informs the officer that his ID is in the glove compartment, and in the time where he is (slowly) reaching for the ID the cop yells at him to stop reaching for the gun and shoots him 3(?) times
> 
> In a situation like that, where the officer is ready to shoot at the slightest of movements, I REALLY don't see how stepping out of the car would have done anything


"Officer, I would like to step out of the vehicle so that you can see I am not armed. You may search me" or something. I've never been stopped nor have I ever had a gun held to my face by an officer so I wouldn't know the best way to react there, I'm just going off guesses, but I don't see how even the jumpiest of officers would hear "I am stepping out of the vehicle so you may search me" and shoot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



PuNKeMoN said:


> Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
> It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.


Yeah but then you get left disabled for life. What about muh rights? I have a right to not get shot in the lungs and have a disabled lung for the rest of my life, or to lose a kneecap. I mean come on!


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
> It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.


Now this is something I agree with, an officer should ONLY shoot to kill if someone actually shoots at them, or they have an active hostage situation. barring a few exceptions, I believe Tasers are a FAR better option that pulling a gun on someone.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yeah but then you get left disabled for life. What about muh rights? I have a right to not get shot in the lungs and have a disabled lung for the rest of my life, or to lose a kneecap. I mean come on!



A lifetime with a debilitating injury seems like a pretty good deterrent to me. Depending on the situation that could quite possibly be a fair punishment as well. As I recall a lot of these mass shooters are expecting to die anyway. Shooting to kill them doesn't give them time to reflect on their crime, it just gives them what they want.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "Officer, I would like to step out of the vehicle so that you can see I am not armed. You may search me" or something. I've never been stopped nor have I ever had a gun held to my face by an officer so I wouldn't know the best way to react there, I'm just going off guesses, but I don't see how even the jumpiest of officers would hear "I am stepping out of the vehicle so you may search me" and shoot.


First off, that completely disregards your right not to be searched, but secondly, I will respectfully disagree; I can think of numerous hypothetical scenarios that a jumpy cop could use to mentally justify shooting someone for getting out of a car, including "standing outside of a car makes it easier for this guy to shoot me if he IS armed" and "getting out of the car enables this guy to potentially run away"

Obviously, neither of those are GOOD justifications, but then rarely are any others that we've seen up to this point


----------



## smf (Jun 2, 2018)

Americans are weird. Kneeling is a sign of respect.

It's not like they are burning the american flag (which is also how you respectfully dispose of it)



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I can think of numerous hypothetical scenarios that a jumpy cop could use to mentally justify shooting someone for getting out of a car, including "standing outside of a car makes it easier for this guy to shoot me if he IS armed" and "getting out of the car enables this guy to potentially run away"



You don't need hypothetical scenarios, the police in the US come up with all the crazy scenarios by themselves. Getting rid of guns would solve their problems, at least start with the police as they all seem to end up there because they can't cope getting a job anywhere else.



lcie nimbus said:


> Now this is something I agree with, an officer should ONLY shoot to kill if someone actually shoots at them, or they have an active hostage situation. barring a few exceptions, I believe Tasers are a FAR better option that pulling a gun on someone.



If you can ever justify killing someone then you shouldn't be allowed access to a gun, if you are absolutely forced into taking the decision to kill someone to protect others then that should weigh heavily on your heart for the rest of your life.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

It isn't about taking a knee.

It's about the colour of the people doing it.

Racism in the guise of free speech. America.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



raystriker said:


> I feel they could protest in a better forum, instead of disrespecting the flag.


People like you make me sick.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

ip60 said:


> Racism in the guise of free speech. America.


That can be taken one of two ways; what did you mean by that?


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That can be taken one of two ways; what did you mean by that?


I mean America is extremely racist country, a place where institutional racism lives. Those who partake in said racism do it under the guise of free speech.

If white people were kneeling about the cancellation of Rosanne, no one would say a damn thing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gameboy said:


> its only when the cop is white that causes an uproar. nfl is dead. i try not to push double standards so im leaving this sjw thread


I like threads like these makes it very easy to weed out the racists.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
> It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.



Okay, I relent and that's what I should have stated. Incapacitate would be a good option, knees, back, whatever it takes to stop them from running from their consequences


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

ip60 said:


> I like threads like these makes it very easy to weed out the racists.



its not racism, is b.s. selective victimization in which any other opinion is view as racism. the people that arent black or white, like myself, could gives less of a flying Hestu's Gift


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> At home it's your castle your rules. I get the argument here but it's as week as kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality.
> You guys always ignore the facts. Black people kill more black people than white people do and cops kill more whites than blacks. Cut the crap with victim hood. It's getting old.


Here we go, so what? black people are naturally more violent? is that what you are trying to say? the pigment of their skin makes them more violent? or MAYBE just maybe it has something to do with institutional racism? nah can't be 

black people are just evil right 

I mean its not like over 50% of those black people in jail are there for non violent drug offences, I mean its not like weed being illegal was made just for the specific purpose of criminalizing minorities. 

I mean its not like Police themselves originated as a slave patrols in this country nah no institutional racism at all. None.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gameboy said:


> its not racism, is b.s. selective victimization in which any other opinion is view as racism. the people that arent black or white, like myself, could gives less of a flying Hestu's Gift


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> black on black crime is the root of the cause but people try to brush that aside. black on asian crime is very high too, along with black on whites, black on green, black on rainbow, you name it and its true. people try to brush off the facts because victimization is more popular nowadays.


Yet no one ever talks about white on white crime. Or the fact that white guys have the highest rate of mass shootings in this country. The reason why they only bring up "black on black crime" is as a means of undermining the Black community. As well it's only being used now to undermine a peaceful protest to raise awareness to a growing problem of police brutality.

Also this protest does not disrespect the flag and is covered by Freedom of Speech.


----------



## nero99 (Jun 2, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Racist white people are a plague tbh
> But you know, they should keep their opinions to themselves rather than killing everyone they hate
> that's just senseless


So are racist black people. Oh wait, I forgot there can be no such thing as racism against whites if you’re black. Stupid ass double standards


----------



## JellyPerson (Jun 2, 2018)

nero99 said:


> So are racist black people. Oh wait, I forgot there can be no such thing as racism against whites if you’re black. Stupid ass double standards


I know right?


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 2, 2018)

nero99 said:


> So are racist black people. Oh wait, I forgot there can be no such thing as racism against whites if you’re black. Stupid ass double standards



Caucasian/white is race, I don't get how people can be so effing sodding stupid and think that black people can't be racist. It is BS.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

nero99 said:


> So are racist black people. Oh wait, I forgot there can be no such thing as racism against whites if you’re black. Stupid ass double standards


On a personal level? sure.

On a Government, institutional level? hell no

keep feeling sorry for yourself


----------



## Flame (Jun 2, 2018)

black on black crime? its cause of gang wars. because they have no other choice. for last decades/centuries they have been treated as not humans. do they have any other choice? when all the companies are owned by white people. which of that a good percentage is racist, will they allow a black man to have a job? when they are allowed jobs, they have no hope of going up the ladder in the work place.

if you treat a human like an animal they will act like an animal.


edit: also how this racist hide behind this freedom of speech. "something something something racist; its my freedom of speech law."

when a black person wants to show a act of they want same equality in life. "how dare they have rights, fuck they freedom"

nice double standards.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

going back to the nfl. why dont these players protest and ban other players when it comes to domestic violence and other crimes?


----------



## gameboy (Jun 2, 2018)

ip60 said:


> This is the type of racist that makes me so sick it's so vile.
> 
> Has nothing to add except racist remakes and ad hominem, completely overlooks discussions such as institutional racism and culture he only looks to escalate a already touchy subject with offensive remarks. Has no heart and soul and no care in the world for these people.
> 
> Openly Racist on the internet where there are no repercussions.



its not racism idiot, just pointing out blatant double standards


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 2, 2018)

Do you have anything actually constructive to say other than calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a nazi or a racist?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Do you have anything actually constructive to say other than calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a nazi or a racist?


You know... It's difficult not to call a racist person out on racism. Hell, even though I'm not racist I'd rather someone tell me if they thought I said something racist so I could reevaluate it for myself and make steps to fix it. But I've found that if someone gets worked up about being called racist (with the exception of if they openly admit it), it's usually because they were acting racist and don't like being called out


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> im not a SJW, and _*you're *_making it black/white


Not racist = SJW

2018


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> im not a SJW, and _*you're *_making it black/white


You literally posted a comment talking about black on black crime. You have virtually no room to say "no u"

Besides, when did he call you a SJW


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Shooting at a gunman in an active shooter scenario is not barbaric, it's something you basically have to do.



Shooting at a gunman != shooting to kill.  You're right that shooting at an active gunman can be a necessity.  That doesn't translate to every police officer being an executioner.  That argument is barbaric.



MaverickWellington said:


> I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm assuming you think I meant that it's a deterrent that will stop 100% of people, which isn't what I said at all.



No, but using the word "deterrent" is meaningless if you have absolutely no standards.  Will "shoot to kill" reduce schoolings by 1%?  50%?  If all you have to use is the word "deterrent" to justify behavior, your argument degenerates into nothing.  The same as capital punishment is "a deterrent".  Just as life in prison is "a deterrent".  If we actually look at crime rates in the US vs most other developed countries, it's really hard to justify any claim that the US has any real notion of what a deterrent is.



MaverickWellington said:


> You then go off on a tangent about being monsters as an umbrella term and I'm just not gonna bother addressing it, as it's irrelevant.



Use whatever term you like.  "Active shooter" works just as well.  If I could trust that the police were infallible and brave or their mistakes were handled with all the same seriousness of an "active shooter", then I could possible support the notion of police aiming to kill active shooters.  Instead, we see police/sheriffs who cower for shelter and men without guns who are shot and killed because they moved their hands towards their hips before they even moved towards being an "active shooter".

It's funny how the police are so afraid of ruining the life of a person who made a mistake in judgment because they reacted out of emotion in a tense situation but only if they're a police officer.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You literally posted a comment talking about black on black crime. You have virtually no room to say "no u"
> 
> Besides, when did he call you a SJW


He's saying I'm a SJW because I'm not racist. It's in vogue right now to be racist.


----------



## Flame (Jun 2, 2018)

gameboy said:


> going back to the nfl. why dont these players protest and ban other players when it comes to domestic violence and other crimes?



wow. nice. so you are now implying that all blacks do domestic violence and crimes?


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

Flame said:


> wow. nice. so you are now implying that all blacks do domestic violence and crimes?


please please don't feed him


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

i luv it when the word "SJW" is used as an insult
what have we become


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> you're right because that's not what I said



What do you think "shoot to kill" means?



MaverickWellington said:


> I think it's pretty fucking disingenuous to imply that because a quantitative observation is not present there's suddenly no argument. I've never said it would reduce anything by a specific amount, I said it would essentially make people think twice before doing any stupid shit like that. People who don't value their lives won't be stopped by it, no shit.



"deterrent - a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something."  Yep, so me giving out ice cream to stop violent crime is a deterrent.  Which is better?  My plan or your "shoot to kill" plan?  Don't want a quantitative comparison?  Gosh, I wonder why people don't want to adopt your plan when you can only back it up with "intent".



MaverickWellington said:


> You must be a barbarian because you both have one thing in common: you're both illiterate, and that's racist.



I have no idea what you're saying here, but okay, whatever.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> What do you think "shoot to kill" means?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To shoot to kill, duh.

Hahahahhahaha holy fuck you are so mad. Take your meds and chill out before you bust a blood vessel. 

That's how I felt reading your third paragraph. Glad we're on the same page.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> To shoot to kill, duh.



A policy of "shoot to kill" means to choose killing over incapacitation.  It does not mean to choose killing as a necessity of incapcitation if the situation arises.  To place that power upon the police is to put within them the power to try and convict people upon their own judgment and carry out a death sentence.  That is barbarism in a system of laws that separates judgment of punishment from that punishment precisely because placing that power in the hands of one person is such a corrupting, corrosive force that it destroys civil society.

But, yea, whatever.  Must all be mad because I'm not taking my "meds".


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> A policy of "shoot to kill" means to choose killing over incapacitation.  It does not mean to choose killing as a necessity of incapcitation if the situation arises.  To place that power upon the police is to put within them the power to try and convict people upon their own judgment and carry out a death sentence.  That is barbarism in a system of laws that separates judgment of punishment from that punishment precisely because placing that power in the hands of one person is such a corrupting, corrosive force that it destroys civil society.
> 
> But, yea, whatever.  Must all be mad because I'm not taking my "meds".


Let's check your reading comprehension. What situation was I saying justified a shot to kill?


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> What situation was I saying justified a shot to kill?



An active shooter.  You have decided to place it upon police to judge that a person is an active shooter, that they may then condemn that active shooter to death, and then they should execute that active shooter.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> An active shooter.  You have decided to place it upon police to judge that person is an active shooter, that they may then condemn that active shooter to death, and then they should execute that active shooter.


And what do you define as an active shooter?
Because it isn't just someone with a gun, it's not some guy saying he owns a gun, or a guy buying a gun, or a guy near a gun, or the myriad of stupid shit you're clearly pretending it is. There is a concise situation, and one situation only: Someone has a gun, and they are firing at other civilians. You went on this massive, incoherent tirade as if I was saying cops should just kill everyone or something equally stupid and that wasn't what I was saying at all.

So yes, you really need to go take your meds before you bust a vessel.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> And what do you define as an active shooter?



The question is, what does the police officer consider to be an active shooter?  It is he who is the one who will be executing people.  Will you accept his judgment?  What will be the punishment when he is wrong?  Nothing about how police who current shoot and kill people with less verifiable justification make me believe any policy that codifies "shoot to kill an active shooter" will be used for merely that purpose accurately or necessarily.  It is not enough to introduce hypotheticals that under any sort of examination of application are almost certainly to fail miserably not only in their intended effect (a deterrent) but also in their application (only in the scope of active shooters).

If you think that taking meds would in some fashion calm me to be oblivious to this, then I'm sad to tell you I won't take my soma.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

you guys act like 'whites' cops eat donuts all day and shoot blacks on site, disregarding that they put their life on the line everyday. not to mention all the crime scenes and disputes and emergencies they have to go through. 

in the nfl they kneel for who knows what but wont say something when their QB is a serial rapist or their guy punched out a chick... its why the nfl is dead because very few really care. dont mix politics outside of politics


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> you guys act like 'whites' cops eat donuts all day and shoot blacks on site, disregarding that they put their life on the line everyday. not to mention all the crime scenes and disputes and emergencies they have to go through.
> 
> in the nfl they kneel for who knows what but wont say something when their QB is a serial rapist or their guy punched out a chick... its why the nfl is dead because very few really care. dont mix politics outside of politics


You know... There are so many other jobs where the people doing them put their life on the line, and somehow they manage not to shoot anyone

And besides, if a police officer's job is to "protect and serve" the community, you can't afford to have their judgement impared by getting tired from crime scenes, disputes, and various emergencies, as you imply. If they can't do what the job demands, they're by definition unfit


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You know... There are so many other jobs where the people doing them put their life on the line, and somehow they manage not to shoot anyone
> 
> And besides, if a police officer's job is to "protect and serve" the community, you can't afford to have their judgement impared by getting tired from crime scenes, disputes, and various emergencies, as you imply. If they can't do what the job demands, they're by definition unfit



your disregarding all the violent stuff they seen and gone through. they're human being too


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> you guys act like 'whites' cops eat donuts all day and shoot blacks on site, disregarding that they put their life on the line everyday. not to mention all the crime scenes and disputes and emergencies they have to go through.
> 
> *in the nfl they kneel for who knows what *but wont say something when their QB is a serial rapist or their guy punched out a chick... its why the nfl is dead because very few really care. dont mix politics outside of politics



this is the problem and this is why they kneel


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> this is the problem and this is why they kneel



maybe you should tell them why they should kneel because 99.9% of the players dont know why to kneel or refuse to kneel because the pay is too good.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> The question is, what does the police officer consider to be an active shooter?  It is he who is the one who will be executing people.  Will you accept his judgment?  What will be the punishment when he is wrong?  Nothing about how police who current shoot and kill people with less verifiable justification make me believe any policy that codifies "shoot to kill an active shooter" will be used for merely that purpose accurately or necessarily.  It is not enough to introduce hypotheticals that under any sort of examination of application are almost certainly to fail miserably not only in their intended effect (a deterrent) but also in their application (only in the scope of active shooters).
> 
> If you think that taking meds would in some fashion calm me to be oblivious to this, then I'm sad to tell you I won't take my soma.


So basically what you're saying is a hypothetical scenario is bad because of something completely unrelated to it: crooked people and corrupt leaders letting their underlings do whatever and get away with it.

Yeah I think I can totally see why you're on meds now.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gameboy said:


> maybe you should tell them why they should kneel because 99.9% of the players dont know why to kneel or refuse to kneel because the pay is too good.


Yeah can I just like remind everyone this is the guy who bases his experience with black on black crime on a fucking parody of hood dramas?


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> So basically what you're saying is a hypothetical scenario is bad because of something completely unrelated to it: crooked people and corrupt leaders letting their underlings do whatever and get away with it.
> 
> Yeah I think I can totally see why you're on meds now.
> 
> ...



just because its made into a comedy doesnt make the other 95% of it not based on real behaviors. sure its not as bad today, but if your old enough and saw how the early 90s were you wouldnt say stupid shit


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> just because its made into a comedy doesnt make the other 95% of it not based on real behaviors. sure its not as bad today, but if your old enough and saw how the early 90s were you wouldnt say stupid shit


But you weren't old enough for the early 00s and all you've said is stupid shit. You're literally basing this shit off a fucking parody that grossly exaggerates reality or flat out lies about it in favor of comedy. I can tell you aren't black, nor that you've ever lived in such a time period, let alone in any ghetto. Check your shit at the front door, champ.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> your disregarding all the violent stuff they seen and gone through. they're human being too


I'm confused as to what your point is. If you're saying that seeing "violent stuff" is a good excuse for shooting unarmed civilians then... No, it objectively isn't. If you're saying that by comparison, shooting someone isn't even the worst part of their job, then... What? Otherwise, it really just looks like you're throwing shit and hoping it looks like an argument


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> But you weren't old enough for the early 00s and all you've said is stupid shit. You're literally basing this shit off a fucking parody that grossly exaggerates reality or flat out lies about it in favor of comedy. I can tell you aren't black, nor that you've ever lived in such a time period, let alone in any ghetto. Check your shit at the front door, champ.



i remember when this black girl stole my sisters shoes and when my sister tried to take it back the girls moms started yelling at the girl to beat my sisters ass, when that girl didnt, the mom came out and started violently pulling my sisters hair and started hitting here, we all tried to pull the mom off, keep in mind none of us were over 9yr old. then my older brother had his bat and just beat the shit out of this crazed bitch mom, my brother was 6. that wasnt the first time and ir wasnt the last


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

ip60 said:


> Here we go, so what? black people are naturally more violent? is that what you are trying to say? the pigment of their skin makes them more violent? or MAYBE just maybe it has something to do with institutional racism? nah can't be
> 
> black people are just evil right
> 
> ...


I never said they where evil because they are black. Don't put words in my mouth. Lol


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I never said they where evil because they are black. Don't put word in my mouth. Lol



if your not with them your a racist lol


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> if your not with them your a racist lol


They can think what ever they want. I deal with all kinds of races year around and I've only been called racist and a bigot by white people with white guilt. Or I was discriminating them. It's pretty funny.


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> i remember when this black girl stole my sisters shoes and when my sister tried to take it back the girls moms started yelling at the girl to beat my sisters ass, when that girl didnt, the mom came out and started violently pulling my sisters hair and started hitting here, we all tried to pull the mom off, keep in mind none of us were over 9yr old. then my older brother had his bat and just beat the shit out of this crazed bitch mom, my brother was 6. that wasnt the first time and ir wasnt the last


so you're basing all the stuff you said on negative interactions with black people?


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> so you're basing all the stuff you said on negative interactions with black people?


Yes and his low intelligence quotient.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> They can think what ever they want. I deal with all kinds of races year around and I've only been called racist and a bigot by white people with white guilt. Or I was discriminating them. It's pretty funny.


White Guilt = Kind, anti-racist white people


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> so you're basing all the stuff you said on negative interactions with black people?



no, but the police might... again black on black crime is the root of the police shooting them. nobody cares when it happens and nobody cares when whites get killed by cops either. i used gave a small PG example of one small thing i saw when i grew up in a bad neighborhood because someone said i knew nothing about bad neighborhoods.

but the nfl wants to just rub everyones nose in this sjw movement and now half the audience left because there are other blatant double standards and politics about the nfl that people hate. dont mix politics in nonpolitical things

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ip60 said:


> Yes and his low intelligence quotient.



iq is just a measurement of how well someone recognizes patterns, an autistic person can score very high on an iq test. but you my friend dont see this little sjw pattern your stuck and its very easy to see how you would score on an iq test


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> no, but the police might... again black on black crime is the root of the police shooting them.


... Police might shoot innocent black people because of their previous experience with black crime?

Something tells me the issue might just be something else


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> no, but the police might... again black on black crime is the root of the police shooting them. nobody cares when it happens and nobody cares when whites get killed by cops either. i used gave a small PG example of one small thing i saw when i grew up in a bad neighborhood because someone said i knew nothing about bad neighborhoods.
> 
> but the nfl wants to just rub everyones nose in this sjw movement and now half the audience left because there are other blatant double standards and politics about the nfl that people hate. dont mix politics in nonpolitical things
> 
> ...


I'm not a SJW but even if I was SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR social justice is not a bad thing, you using it as a insult just proves how deplorable you really are you vile piece of shit. 

May I ask why, won't you admit you are a racist? you don't like black people, everything you've stated is racist in some way and clearly demonstrates you don't like black people. So why do you keep denying it? just say I don't like black people. 

I mean it's the internet you are safe, we both know you wouldn't say ANY of this in real life in person.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... Police might shoot innocent black people because of their previous experience with black crime?
> Something tells me the issue might just be something else



Yeah because all police officers racist. lol Something tells me it's bad parenting and behavioral issues. 
Happens to other races to.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah because all police officers racist. lol Something tells me it's bad parenting and behavioral issues.
> Happens to other races to.


Yes, police shoot unarmed black men because of parenting issues.

Truly idiotic.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

ip60 said:


> Yes, police shoot unarmed black men because of parenting issues.
> 
> Truly idiotic.


Yes. Police do shoot innocent people sometimes. I'm not a moron. Calm your tits okay?
It happens to all races so it isn't just a black thing.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah because all police officers racist. lol Something tells me it's bad parenting and behavioral issues.
> Happens to other races to.


It's "tough on crime," the Southern Strategy, the War on Drugs, lingering effects of the Jim Crow era, and creeping authoritarianism in general.  Anyone too young to remember the years before 9/11 wouldn't even realize how many freedoms we've lost since then.  Police in modern America can seize your money with no reason given.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's "tough on crime," the Southern Strategy, the War on Drugs, lingering effects of the Jim Crow era, and creeping authoritarianism in general.  Anyone too young to remember the years before 9/11 wouldn't even realize how many freedoms we've lost since then.


I like how you guys preach against racism and bigotry but you're quick to be racist and bigoted. lol


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yes. Police do shoot innocent people sometimes. I'm not a moron. Calm your tits okay?
> It happens to all races so it isn't just a black thing.


Except every statistic points to unarmed black men being shot by police at a much higher rate than other races.

People like you ignore the problem, then blame the victim's "behaviour issues"


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I like how you guys preach against racism and bigotry but you're quick to be racist and bigoted. lol


What?  I was giving an explanation for why minorities in this country continue to be over-prosecuted and over-policed.  It also applies to poor white communities.

"Top Adviser to Richard Nixon Admitted that 'War on Drugs' was Policy Tool to Go After Anti-War Protesters and 'Black People'"

http://www.drugpolicy.org/press-rel...itted-war-drugs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

ip60 said:


> Except every statistic points to unarmed black men being shot by police at a much higher rate than other races.
> People like you ignore the problem, then blame the victim's "behaviour issues"



People like you enable victim hood. I'm not ignoring the problem. The problem is that you're making it a black problem when really it's everyone's problem.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> People like you enable victim hood. I'm not ignoring the problem. The problem is that you're making it a black problem when really it's everyone's problem.


Police Brutality/corruption is absolutely a problem. So is racism, they are two separate issues that sometimes overlap.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> What?  I was giving an explanation for why minorities in this country continue to be over-prosecuted and over-policed.  It also applies to poor white communities.
> 
> "Top Adviser to Richard Nixon Admitted that 'War on Drugs' was Policy Tool to Go After Anti-War Protesters and 'Black People'"
> 
> http://www.drugpolicy.org/press-rel...itted-war-drugs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti


That was 1968 pretty sure things are not as bad as 1968. 2018 everyone hates white people.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ip60 said:


> Police Brutality/corruption is absolutely a problem. So is racism, they are two separate issues that sometimes overlap.


Racism is only a problem if you let it be a problem.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> That was 1968 pretty sure things are not as bad as 1968. 2018 everyone hates white people.


It all carries over and is part of a long trend.  AFAIK the War on Drugs hasn't officially "ended," either, and blacks are still prosecuted at almost a 3:1 ratio compared to whites, despite statistics showing both races use illegal drugs at about the same rate.

https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA Fact Sheet_Drug War Mass Incarceration and Race_(Feb. 2016)_0.pdf


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> That was 1968 pretty sure things are not as bad as 1968. 2018 everyone hates white people.


Yes everyone hates white people, the boogeyman is out to get you.

How about everyone hates racists? white people are in power so a white person who is a racist who is also a cop is bad news, it really isn't so hard to understand.

You seem to only care for yourself though.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> It all carries over and is part of a long trend.  AFAIK the War on Drugs hasn't officially "ended," either, and blacks are still prosecuted at almost a 3:1 ratio compared to whites, despite statistics showing both races use illegal drugs at about the same rate.
> 
> https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA Fact Sheet_Drug War Mass Incarceration and Race_(Feb. 2016)_0.pdf


Why don't you tell him what the police were originally designed to do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> That was 1968 pretty sure things are not as bad as 1968. 2018 everyone hates white people.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Uh, no racism is a problem, even if your eyes are closed.

Wtf does this even mean?


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

ip60 said:


> lmao
> pathetic
> Yes everyone hates white people, the boogeyman is out to get you.
> How about everyone hates racists? white people are in power so a white person who is a racist who is also a cop is bad news, it really isn't so hard to understand.
> ...



I'm not playing victim or anything in fact I don't really care if you hate me. Just stating facts from all the posts wishing white genocide for Christmas.
But now you know what it looks like when black people pull a victim card out of no where when no one is out to get them.
But yes please educate me on the 70s and all the stuff I already know.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I've yet to meet a white guilt kind person.
> 
> 
> I'm not playing victim or anything in fact I don't really care if you hate me. Just stating facts from all the posts wishing white genocide for Christmas.
> ...


Whatever man you keep using the term SJW and White Gulit you are what you are.

White genocide? how do you get to this from what I am saying? I am white, do you think I want to die?

wtf is wrong with the world....racism run rampant, hate run rampant

I had enough of this depression shit today.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

ip60 said:


> Whatever man you keep using the term SJW and White Gulit you are what you are.
> 
> White genocide? how do you get to this from what I am saying? I am white, do you think I want to die?
> 
> ...



When did I call anyone here an SJW? Or say that anyone here had white guilt?
I used examples from people in real life but no one here.

I didn't say that YOU said anything about white genocide I was referring to this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...threats/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.da92248c65c0.
Slow down and read and understand what I'm saying.

Edit: fixed.


----------



## JellyPerson (Jun 3, 2018)

This thread should have gone like
Temper A: racism sucks
Temper B: ikr
Temper C: ya


Oh well.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

ip60 said:


> Yes and his low intelligence quotient.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Alright let's not be disingenuous now. "White guilt" is a legitimate thing, specifically the people who are really, REALLY brownnosey (pun not intended) towards blacks, especially regarding slavery. That said, you aren't really white guilt in this case from what I'm seeing. Lemme finish reading the whole debate before I start calling more people idiots.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> That was 1968 pretty sure things are not as bad as 1968. 2018 everyone hates white people.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


>everyone hates white people
>posts about people calling for white genocide as if they're an issue

>racism is only a problem if you let it be a problem
dude you didn't just shoot yourself in the foot, you blew your whole damn leg off


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> Oh the issues run much deeper than police brutality. *The fact that a corporation* (now legally having the rights of an individual, wtf is that nonsense?)* can penalize an employee for taking advantage of their constitutional right to protest an issue* which is clearly effecting a large populous sets a dangerous precedent.



They have a right to protest. They don't have the _right_ to use the NFL's facilities, events, and media coverage to grandstand that protest. The players are under contract to abide by a code of conduct, breaching which can rightly be met by fines or termination. It's a private business contract, and has squat to do with the 1st Amendment. The NFL has been lax on the issue but has given plenty of notice for the upcoming season that it must stop. So they can protest, but the NFL can take action if the player has contractually obligated himself (and they all have) not to behave against the league's wishes while in uniform. Whether the NFL actually follows through on it, we'll see.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> They have a right to protest. They don't have the _right_ to use the NFL's facilities, events, and media coverage to grandstand that protest. The players are under contract to abide by a code of conduct, breaching which can rightly be met by fines or termination. It's a private business contract, and has squat to do with the 1st Amendment. The NFL has been lax on the issue but has given plenty of notice for the upcoming season that it must stop. So they can protest, but the NFL can take action if the player has contractually obligated himself (and they all have) not to behave against the league's wishes while in uniform. Whether the NFL actually follows through on it, we'll see.



$10mil slave contracts lol


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> $10mil slave contracts lol


Haven't you said you were gonna leave this "SJW thread" twice now? Did you only stay because you think you can "trigger" them or some shit?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> They have a right to protest. They don't have the _right_ to use the NFL's facilities, events, and media coverage to grandstand that protest. The players are under contract to abide by a code of conduct, breaching which can rightly be met by fines or termination. It's a private business contract, and has squat to do with the 1st Amendment. The NFL has been lax on the issue but has given plenty of notice for the upcoming season that it must stop. So they can protest, but the NFL can take action if the player has contractually obligated himself (and they all have) not to behave against the league's wishes while in uniform. Whether the NFL actually follows through on it, we'll see.


I think the bulk of the matter isn't whether they're legally allowed to do it or not, it's whether it's ethical or not to prevent them from protesting in such a harmless manner. It'd be one thing if they were straight up throwing games or betraying their team, but they're just kneeling during the anthem. Is it really that big of a deal?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> They have a right to protest. They don't have the _right_ to use the NFL's facilities, events, and media coverage to grandstand that protest.


You realize the NFL brought this all on themselves, right?  Players never used to be required to be on the field during the anthem and pre-game, they stayed in the locker room.  Then the NFL started requiring them to be on the field.  Then players used that as a way to protest.  Then the NFL said stay in the locker room if you want to protest, lol.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It all carries over and is part of a long trend.  AFAIK the War on Drugs hasn't officially "ended," either, and blacks are still prosecuted at almost a 3:1 ratio compared to whites, despite statistics showing both races use illegal drugs at about the same rate.
> 
> https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA Fact Sheet_Drug War Mass Incarceration and Race_(Feb. 2016)_0.pdf



What gets you prosecuted and incarcerated for drugs in the US is either 1) dealing drugs, or 2) drugs in combination with violence, particularly firearms. Simple possession rarely is worth the State's time anymore, especially at the Federal level. Maybe if someone is arrested with a bunch of carfentanil, but not for usual possession. So the statistics showing that whites and blacks "use" drugs at the same rate but are disproportionately incarcerated don't mean much. Are a higher percentage of blacks per capita involved in dealing & gang drug activity? I don't know and don't have stats, but it's a theory that would explain the disparity.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> What gets you prosecuted and incarcerated for drugs in the US is either 1) dealing drugs, or 2) drugs in combination with violence, particularly firearms. Simple possession rarely is worth the State's time anymore, especially at the Federal level. Maybe if someone is arrested with a bunch of carfentanil, but not for usual possession. So the statistics showing that whites and blacks "use" drugs at the same rate but are disproportionately incarcerated don't mean much. Are a higher percentage of blacks per capita involved in dealing & gang drug activity? I don't know and don't have stats, but it's a theory that would explain the disparity.


The first graph in the linked PDF shows roughly four times as many arrests for possession as there are for drug sales.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It all carries over and is part of a long trend.  AFAIK the War on Drugs hasn't officially "ended," either, and blacks are still prosecuted at almost a 3:1 ratio compared to whites, despite statistics showing both races use illegal drugs at about the same rate.
> 
> https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA Fact Sheet_Drug War Mass Incarceration and Race_(Feb. 2016)_0.pdf


Let's address the elephant in the room. You're citing sources that are from a heavily biased source that uses said sources in arguments to further its agenda. It'd be better to get numbers on such arrests from the people who arrest them, IE, the FBI.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> What gets you prosecuted and incarcerated for drugs in the US is either 1) dealing drugs, or 2) drugs in combination with violence, particularly firearms. Simple possession rarely is worth the State's time anymore, especially at the Federal level. Maybe if someone is arrested with a bunch of carfentanil, but not for usual possession. So the statistics showing that whites and blacks "use" drugs at the same rate but are disproportionately incarcerated don't mean much. Are a higher percentage of blacks per capita involved in dealing & gang drug activity? I don't know and don't have stats, but it's a theory that would explain the disparity.


Not true at all, one of the reasons officers will ask to search a car during a "standard" traffic stop is to look for drugs, of which possession is obviously illegal


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Let's address the elephant in the room. You're citing sources that are from a heavily biased source that uses said sources in arguments to further its agenda. It'd be better to get numbers on such arrests from the people who arrest them, IE, the FBI.


The document sources the FBI, the Census Bureau, the Justice Department and other similar institutions.  It's not an opinion piece.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The document sources the FBI, the Census Bureau, the Justice Department and other similar institutions.


And it can just as easily have fucked with them to suit its own argument. It'd be like trusting PETA to give reasonable statistics for literally anything related to animals. It's best to get sources directly from the source, not a website with an agenda to push.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Alright let's not be disingenuous now. "White guilt" is a legitimate thing, specifically the people who are really, REALLY brownnosey (pun not intended) towards blacks, especially regarding slavery. That said, you aren't really white guilt in this case from what I'm seeing. Lemme finish reading the whole debate before I start calling more people idiots.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Looks like you only saw like two of my comments then said something. 
Yes racism wouldn't be a problem if that's all you talk about. 
I know Morgan Freeman doesn't speak for all black people but when he was asked "How do we stop racism?".
He said to stop talking about it. But here you guys are. I'm at fault to but this is entertaining and funny. So eh.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The first graph in the linked PDF shows roughly four times as many arrests for possession as there are for drug sales.



Arrested ≠ prosecuted and/or incarcerated.

I see the _results_ of simple drug possession arrests all the time in my work. Diversion programs, probation (sometimes with expungement if successfully completed), and dismissals. Not prison.

For example, get busted for DUI, expired registration, and a misdemeanor amount of marijuana. They'll usually drop the MJ charge if you'll plead guilty to the DUI and get your registration paid up.

Possession with intent is a different kettle of fish, but is still a "possession" arrest even though the legal assumption is the person is dealing because of the amount in their possession.

Making an arrest for an actual drug sale is rather difficult, as someone involved must either be a cop, or a snitch.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that many of those possession arrests would have been "possession with intent", meaning still talkin about dealers, not just users.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> And it can just as easily have fucked with them to suit its own argument. It'd be like trusting PETA to give reasonable statistics for literally anything related to animals. It's best to get sources directly from the source, not a website with an agenda to push.


The last page of the PDF is a long list of original sources and where they can be found.  It's fine to be skeptical, but too much skepticism just quells discussion.  It's a thoroughly researched document.  If you can find another document contradicting all these statistics, that'd be another thing.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Looks like you only saw like two of my comments then said something.
> Yes racism wouldn't be a problem if that's all you talk about.
> I know Morgan Freeman doesn't speak for all black people but when he was asked "How do we stop racism?".
> He said to stop talking about it. But here you guys are. I'm at fault to but this is entertaining and funny. So eh.


Yeesh, your posts are stunted as fuck. If you have something to say, just say it and get to the point. Racism in power is something that needs to be removed. Full stop. Just not talking about it makes people blissfully ignorant to the harsh reality of the issue. If people can put so much effort into living in blissful ignorance, they can put the same effort into fixing it so they don't have to cover their eyes and ears.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> The last page of the PDF is a long list of original sources and where they can be found.  It's fine to be skeptical, but too much skepticism just quells discussion.  It's a thoroughly researched document.


I don't see what quells discussion about "these guys have an agenda to push, let's look specifically at their sources to make sure there's no fuckery"


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I don't see what quells discussion about "these guys have an agenda to push, let's look specifically at their sources to make sure there's no fuckery"


Feel free to look into each and every one of those sources, but I personally couldn't find anything contradicting the numbers they're claiming.

The ones pushing an "agenda" are those that perpetuate the War on Drugs.  If anything, those asking for responsible drug policy are pushing a common sense anti-agenda.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yeesh, your posts are stunted as fuck. If you have something to say, just say it and get to the point. Racism in power is something that needs to be removed. Full stop. Just not talking about it makes people blissfully ignorant to the harsh reality of the issue. If people can put so much effort into living in blissful ignorance, they can put the same effort into fixing it so they don't have to cover their eyes and ears.


I don't know. Keeping black people in victim hood is stunted as fuck. Which no white person (except for leftist) is doing and if anyone is holding anyone back it's themselves for letting it happen.
Except for maybe a rare case.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

You cannot go to work and do what you please while on the clock,  it is a business with employees and not a protest.
Do it on your own time.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I don't know. Keeping black people in victim hood is stunted as fuck. Which no white person is doing and if anyone is holding anyone back it's themselves.
> Except for maybe a rare case.


The problem is that people don't realize the majority of oppression is systematic.  No individual white person caused the racial issues that we face today, yet there are plenty of white people who will take personal offense whenever the subject arises.  That's why we can never take steps toward fixing things.


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yeesh, your posts are stunted as fuck. If you have something to say, just say it and get to the point. Racism in power is something that needs to be removed. Full stop. Just not talking about it makes people blissfully ignorant to the harsh reality of the issue. If people can put so much effort into living in blissful ignorance, they can put the same effort into fixing it so they don't have to cover their eyes and ears.



You mean like "kill de boer" in africa?
Or the killing of non muslims in parts of the middle east?
Maybe the full on distrust of blacks that you can find in parts of asia?.

Or was it only blacks in the usa you cared about?

And on the taking a knee bit, the players have a right to disassociate, but so do the owners of the team.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The problem is that people don't realize the majority of oppression is systematic.  No individual white person caused the racial issues that we face today, yet there are plenty of white people who will take personal offense whenever the subject arises.  That's why we can never take steps toward fixing things.


I can't believe that any oppression is systematic when you have people of color who are billionaires in America.
Seriously I agree that white people who have white guilt need to stfu.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Greymane said:


> You mean like "kill de boer" in africa?
> Or the killing of non muslims in parts of the middle east?
> Maybe the full on distrust of blacks that you can find in parts of asia?.
> 
> ...


I was gonna make this argument to but right now the focus is America.
Or are we including the whole planet on this?


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> You cannot go to work and do what you please while on the clock,  it is a business with employees and not a protest.
> Do it on your own time.



your e a racist

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> The problem is that people don't realize the majority of oppression is systematic.  No individual white person caused the racial issues that we face today, yet there are plenty of white people who will take personal offense whenever the subject arises.  That's why we can never take steps toward fixing things.



the problem is that people cant see past the first level to get to the next and so on and so forth. instead the people that see past it are labeled racists


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> your e a racist


Why you gotta go for his e like that man


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I can't believe that any oppression is systematic when you have people of color who are billionaires in America.


That's not at all relevant.  I never claimed there was a law preventing people of color from having a certain amount of money or being born rich.  You've purposely ignored any/all evidence I've posted of systemic racism.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's not at all relevant.  I never claimed there was a law preventing people of color from having a certain amount of money or being born rich.  You've purposely ignored any/all evidence I've posted of systemic racism.


What evidence? I can't ignore it if it doesn't exist. It may have existed in the 1970s but it's way better now than it was back then.


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I was gonna make this argument to but right now the focus is America.
> Or are we including the whole planet on this?



We can keep the focus on the usa.
Though it doesnt change to much with the call of certain groups/people to kill cops, whites, outsiders etc.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> your e a racist



Wow!  Such rocket surgeons in here that the only things they worry about is getting on people's asses because of spelling, while the rest of the world have more serious concerns to worry about!
And yes I am a Racist .  I do hate everyone un-equally.   And in my honest evreyone can go ahead and walk of a cliff like Lemmings do.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Looks like you only saw like two of my comments then said something.
> Yes racism wouldn't be a problem if that's all you talk about.
> I know Morgan Freeman doesn't speak for all black people but when he was asked "How do we stop racism?".
> He said to stop talking about it. But here you guys are. I'm at fault to but this is entertaining and funny. So eh.


Ignoring issues doesn't make them go away nor does it fix the problems that these players are trying to protest. Look at some of the most recent events, you have black people killed by police for literally doing nothing. Yet you have White males committing mass shootings and coming out just fine. That's a pretty glaring an obvious problem that can't simply be ignored, but of course it always overlooked because "black on black violence." You aren't fixing the issues, you are just making them worse by trying to pretend like they aren't there.



Cylent1 said:


> You cannot go to work and do what you please while on the clock,  it is a business with employees and not a protest.
> Do it on your own time.


So they are just expected to protest in quiet? That's not how protests work, they don't do it when it's most convent to others. Not to mention it's a peaceful protest that in no matter effects the way they are doing their job. They are still playing the game when the anthem is done and thus still doing their job. Standing for the Anthem isn't part of their job nor should it ever be part of their job because that would strip away their right to protest.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> What evidence? I can't ignore it if it doesn't exist. It may have existed in the 1970s but it's way better now than it was back then.


How about clicking the PDF I posted, which has statistics for 2016?  Or do I have to remind you again that the War in Drugs continues, and is not just a relic of the 70s, though it absolutely should be.

I get the feeling your next argument is "Obama was elected president, so racism is over."  Unfortunately that argument completely went out the window when we elected Trump, who opened his campaign on the line, "Mexicans are rapists and drug mules."  We've come full circle to the next Nixon.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> So they are just expected to protest in quiet? That's not how protests work, they don't do it when it's most convent to others. Not to mention it's a peaceful protest that in no matter effects the way they are doing their job. They are still playing the game when the anthem is done and thus still doing their job. Standing for the Anthem isn't part of their job nor should it ever be part of their job because that would strip away their right to protest.



Who pays their checks?  if there were no fans left, there would be no NFL!!!

Go to work then just do what you want when you want on the clock and tell me how it goes...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> What evidence? I can't ignore it if it doesn't exist. It may have existed in the 1970s but it's way better now than it was back then.


Saying "it's better now" doesn't change the fact that it could still be better and that passive oppression still doesn't exist. A great example would be majority-black communities (especially in the south) that """happen""" to be low-income and have awful housing; it comes from generations of black people being born into poverty and not having enough money to leave, as well as not having proper schooling due to schools being funded by property taxes. Like it's no wonder a lot of people in the Hood resort to peddling drugs and joining gangs, to them it's the only way they can put bread on the table and have any sort of security

Obviously things have to change, but measures have to be taken to bring low-income neighborhoods up above poverty standards to even begin that process


----------



## gameboy (Jun 3, 2018)

seriously though, can someone tell me why ese guys keel for the anthem? and why is it just nfl? shouldn't the nba do it too then?


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Who pays their checks?  if there were no fans left, there would be NFL!!!
> 
> Go to work then just do what you want when you want on the clock and tell me how it goes...


Forcing patriotism is fascism and it's a violation of their Constitutional right to protest and as I just started, they are still doing their job. Their job is to play football, which is what they do after they've finished their protest. The protest in no matter effects the outcome of the game, it in no matter effects how they preform, and it done outside of their actual job. People are acting like they are doing it in the middle of the game, which they aren't. They have a right to protest and stripping them of that right is unconstitutional.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> seriously though, can someone tell me why ese guys keel for the anthem? and why is it just nfl? shouldn't the nba do it too then?


Nobody should kneel for the anthem if you are a true American!
Blacks kill more blacks every year for decades and you all are worried about is 1 out of about 10,000 cops being racist and killing blacks, but the bottom line is blacks are their own doom!
Do you ever see blacks kneeling to theirselves?


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Saying "it's better now" doesn't change the fact that it could still be better and that passive oppression still doesn't exist. A great example would be majority-black communities (especially in the south) that """happen""" to be low-income and have awful housing; it comes from generations of black people being born into poverty and not having enough money to leave, as well as not having proper schooling due to schools being funded by property taxes. Like it's no wonder a lot of people in the Hood resort to peddling drugs and joining gangs, to them it's the only way they can put bread on the table and have any sort of security
> 
> Obviously things have to change, but measures have to be taken to bring low-income neighborhoods up above poverty standards to even begin that process



So then what to do?.
Lowering the amount of one parent households(this one should happen natural when conditions improve).
funding schools on all the levels up to university butn ot inlcuding it.
Acteal help for drug addicts, and the teaching of usable job skills to unemployed/low educated.

Note that doing this on a scale of even a state will cost alot of money, and might not show result for years if at all depending on how it is done.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Forcing patriotism is fascism and it's a violation of their Constitutional right to protest and as I just started, they are still doing their job. Their job is to play football, which is what they do after they've finished their protest. The protest in no matter effects the outcome of the game, it in no matter effects how they preform, and it done outside of their actual job. People are acting like they are doing it in the middle of the game, which they aren't. They have a right to protest and stripping them of that right is unconstitutional.



Only the left would think it would be OK to go to work and get paid to protest on the clock. lol
WOW!  I wonder why this shithole of a planet is going to hell,  You have people who believes things like this.

In the real world and not your make believe fantasy land where 1 is 2 and 2+2=8, you will find out as youmature and become a part in this society we are all stuck in.  So suck it up buttercup youre feelings don't matter.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> So then what to do?.
> Lowering the amount of one parent households(this one should happen natural when conditions improve).
> funding schools on all the levels up to university butn ot inlcuding it.
> Acteal help for drug addicts, and the teaching of usable job skills to unemployed/low educated.
> ...


I mean

A Universal Basic Income would be ideal, but the US seems to hate being decent to its citizens for some reason


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> So suck it up buttercup youre feelings don't matter.


Precisely what should be said to anybody who is triggered by the innocuous act of a kneel.


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Forcing patriotism is fascism and it's a violation of their Constitutional right to protest and as I just started, they are still doing their job. Their job is to play football, which is what they do after they've finished their protest. The protest in no matter effects the outcome of the game, it in no matter effects how they preform, and it done outside of their actual job. People are acting like they are doing it in the middle of the game, which they aren't. They have a right to protest and stripping them of that right is unconstitutional.



They have the right to protest, but the owners of the team also have the right to dissasociate with them over it.
If not you are saying one(the players) hold more rights to dis/asociation, then the team owners.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Only the left would think it would be OK to go to work and get paid to protest on the clock. lol
> WOW!  I wonder why this shithole of a planet is going to hell,  You have people who believes things like this.
> 
> In the real world and not your make believe fantasy land where 1 is 2 and 2+2=8, you will find out as youmature and become a part in this society we are all stuck in.  So suck it up buttercup youre feelings don't matter.


Have you never heard of a union before


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

Their job is not to protest but to play football!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Their job is not to protest but to play football!


Firstly, they aren't protesting during the game, the pre-game is all pageantry and a waste of time.  Secondly, even during a game of football there are moments when it's strategically advantageous to kneel the ball.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Have you never heard of a union before



I have, and myself and my wife were both in the union when I was in my early 20's when everyone thought it was cool.
My wife was not allowed maternity leave twice.  Thats really cool!


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I mean
> 
> A Universal Basic Income would be ideal, but the US seems to hate being decent to its citizens for some reason



That would be nice, but not realy doable unless there is a way for the goverment to get resources/money with minimal human investment(salary).
Since it would take alot of money.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Only the left would think it would be OK to go to work and get paid to protest on the clock. lol
> WOW!  I wonder why this shithole of a planet is going to hell,  You have people who believes things like this.
> 
> In the real world and not your make believe fantasy land where 1 is 2 and 2+2=8, you will find out as youmature and become a part in this society we are all stuck in.  So suck it up buttercup youre feelings don't matter.





Greymane said:


> They have the right to protest, but the owners of the team also have the right to dissasociate with them over it.
> If not you are saying one(the players) hold more rights to dis/asociation, then the team owners.


Actually the founding fathers believed you had the right to protest
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Their rights to speech and gather are protected under the First Amendment and your "on the clock" or "team owner" argument is superseded by their Conditional rights. Violating their rights is a violation of their human rights. They are still doing their job, but they are perfectly within their right to protest regardless of what the fans, team owners, or politicians want to say.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Firstly, they aren't protesting during the game, the pre-game is all pageantry and a waste of time.  Secondly, even during a game of football there are moments when it's strategically advantageous to kneel the ball.


If you are on the clock, which they are, do your job!
If it were my team, every kneeler would be gone!  Just look at Kaepernick and the rest of his gang!


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> How about clicking the PDF I posted, which has statistics for 2016?  Or do I have to remind you again that the War in Drugs continues, and is not just a relic of the 70s, though it absolutely should be.
> 
> I get the feeling your next argument is "Obama was elected president, so racism is over."  Unfortunately that argument completely went out the window when we elected Trump, who opened his campaign on the line, "Mexicans are rapists and drug mules."  We've come full circle to the next Nixon.


Yeah war on drugs doesn't mean war on only one or two races. White people sell drugs to. Trump was talking about illegal Mexicans coming across the boarder being a part of MS13. And yes MS13 are rapists and drug mules among other things.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> I have, and myself and my wife were both in the union when I was in my early 20's when everyone thought it was cool.
> My wife was not allowed maternity leave twice.  Thats really cool!


... I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing against the effectiveness of unions or if you're saying that your union failed you and because of that you hate everything



Greymane said:


> That would be nice, but not realy doable unless there is a way for the goverment to get resources/money with minimal human investment(salary).
> Since it would take alot of money.


Honestly? Eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and reducing military spending would go a long way to close that gap


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Actually the founding fathers believed you had the right to protest
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> Their rights to speech and gather are protected under the First Amendment and your "on the clock" or "team owner" argument is superseded by their Conditional rights. Violating their rights is a violation of their human rights. They are still doing their job, but they are perfectly within their right to protest regardless of what the fans, team owners, or politicians want to say.



And like i said they have the right to dissacosiation(protest) and so do the owners.
The only thing that part says is that the goverment is not allowed to impede ones rights to it.
And from what i can remember the team owners are not goverment, and thus have the rights as well.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

And all this is arguable obviously just like the Constitution. Right?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah war on drugs doesn't mean war on only one or two races. White people sell drugs to. Trump was talking about illegal Mexicans coming across the boarder being a part of MS13. And yes MS13 are rapists and drug mules.


On paper, yes. But if you actually look at the charts @Xzi linked you'd see that minorities are disproportionately targeted in spite of that. It's up to the police officers to enforce the laws as they see fit

Which is literally the issue that the topic is in reference to


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing against the effectiveness of unions or if you're saying that your union failed you and because of that you hate everything
> 
> 
> Honestly? Eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and reducing military spending would go a long way to close that gap



If the wealthy then stay in the usa, and if the money from the military isnt used for something else, like healthcare.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> And like i said they have the right to dissacosiation(protest) and so do the owners.
> The only thing that part says is that the goverment is not allowed to impede ones rights to it.
> And from what i can remember the team owners are not goverment, and thus have the rights as well.


Absolutely not true, it is illegal for companies to penalize someone from unionizing or protesting in a way that doesn't take away from doing their work. This is actually an issue Elon Musk is under fire for currently


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah war on drugs doesn't mean war on only one or two races. White people sell drugs to. Trump was talking about illegal Mexicans coming across the boarder being a part of MS13. And yes MS13 are rapists and drug mules among other things.


Well, if you had actually clicked on it or read my previous posts, you'd know that blacks are prosecuted at about a 3:1 rate compared to whites for both possession and sales of drugs.  2:1 for Latinos.  And I already posted an article with a quote from a Nixon aide admitting that the War on Drugs was primarily a racial thing, so you're just completely wrong on that first point.

Trump didn't say "MS13," he said Mexicans.  There's really no justifying or excusing away his statements.



Cylent1 said:


> If you are on the clock, which they are, do your job!


Lol, they don't have a time clock.  NFL players aren't paid hourly.


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "racism is bad"
> "OH SO YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT BLACKS HUH"
> Leave it to a literal horsefucker to be so astonishingly retarded that I don't need to say anything else.



You say that yet you entirely ignored my question, so elobarate.
On the racism in the usa only btw, since as said to another that is the scope now used.

and if  trying to denounce somebody purely based on a profile pic and putting words in ones mouth is all you can do, go back to school.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On paper, yes. But if you actually look at the charts @Xzi linked you'd see that minorities are disproportionately targeted in spite of that. It's up to the police officers to enforce the laws as they see fit
> 
> Which is literally the issue that the topic is in reference to


It's a Police officers job to investigate potential drug dealers and wrong doers. If you dress and act like one then you raise concern. 
I've been searched it's no big deal. Just let the officer do his job and keep your hands where they can see them. And don't get an attitude.
You can talk shit later. 9 times out of 10 every one will walk away out of the situation.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> and if  trying to denounce somebody purely based on a profile pic and putting words in ones mouth is all you can do, go back to school.


Well... And username and forum title :/

I'm not judging you but I'm pointing out that you're not exactly doing yourself any favors


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Lol, they don't have a time clock.  NFL players aren't paid hourly.


I rest my case....  They are always on the clock!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> If you dress and act like one then you raise concern.


Sorry but what the hell does this mean


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Absolutely not true, it is illegal for companies to penalize someone from unionizing or protesting in a way that doesn't take away from doing their work. This is actually an issue Elon Musk is under fire for currently



Though it is not formulated as such in the sentence of the constitution, so that part should have come from a law outside it.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, if you had actually clicked on it or read my previous posts, you'd know that blacks are prosecuted at about a 3:1 rate compared to whites for both possession and sales of drugs.  2:1 for Latinos.  And I already posted an article with a quote from a Nixon aide admitting that the War on Drugs was primarily a racial thing, so you're just completely wrong on that first point.
> 
> Trump didn't say "MS13," he said Mexicans.  There's really no justifying or excusing away his statements.
> 
> ...


But he clearly meant MS13.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> Though it is not formulated as such in the sentence of the constitution, so that part should have come from a law outside it.


I guess I don't know specifics but I'd assume it was a Supreme Court ruling

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Cylent1 said:


> I rest my case....  They are always on the clock!


Or, alternatively, they're payed to play football and whatever else they do (so long as it doesn't impact performance) is their business


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry but what the hell does this mean


Do I have to spell it out? Wearing colors, cuts, patches, bandannas.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Do I have to spell it out? Wearing colors, cuts, patches.


Yes actually because I have no idea what you just said


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I guess I don't know specifics but I'd assume it was a Supreme Court ruling
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



There seems to be a ruling from around 1969 https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-spee...cy/can-schools-discipline-students-protesting
Though that is only schools but could be taken as being in effects for the workplace to.
That as long as it does not impede work/school protest 100% is allowed and cannot be punnished


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> And like i said they have the right to dissacosiation(protest) and so do the owners.
> The only thing that part says is that the goverment is not allowed to impede ones rights to it.
> And from what i can remember the team owners are not goverment, and thus have the rights as well.


You got me there, but at the same time they can still site the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> There seems to be a ruling from around 1969 https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-spee...cy/can-schools-discipline-students-protesting
> Though that is only schools but could be taken as being in effects for the workplace to.
> That as long as it does not impede work/school protest 100% is allowed and cannot be punnished


Yep, I knew about the school one, no idea if it extends to the workplace though. Logic would say yes, but laws are fickle


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yes actually because I have no idea what you just said


Let me reword it for you. If you look like you're part of a gang/club you may be a part of one so the Police will investigate.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> But he clearly meant MS13.


No, that isn't clear.  That's a good interpretation if you're trying to make him more likable, but in reality it's not as if he hasn't made a ton of similar statements in the more recent past.



Cylent1 said:


> I rest my case....  They are always on the clock!


They're only "on the clock" in the metaphorical sense when the game clock is running, since they do often get performance bonuses.  Pre-game and the anthem don't affect that in any way.  They can jack off on the sidelines during the anthem for all I care, I'm not even paying attention for that part nine times out of ten.  Anybody who takes offense at kneeling is a snowflake.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, that isn't clear.  That's a good interpretation if you're trying to make him more likable, but in reality it's not as if he hasn't made a ton of similar statements in the more recent past.



You can dislike him all you want but that's what he meant. Now when he refers to MS13 he calls them MS13.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> You can dislike him all you want but that's what he meant. And now when he refers to MS13 he calls them MS13.


You can like him all you want, but that doesn't mean you get to edit his comments after the fact.  He said what he said.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> You say that yet you entirely ignored my question, so elobarate.
> On the racism in the usa only btw, since as said to another that is the scope now used.
> 
> and if  trying to denounce somebody purely based on a profile pic and putting words in ones mouth is all you can do, go back to school.


This is a thread.
On a topic relating US sports.
Relative to US perceptions of racism.

Why would we be talking about racism elsewhere, and even then, I straight up said racism is bad period. That's all there is to it. I don't need to condemn things specifically, I said the whole thing is bad. If you're wanting me to condemn things specifically, suck my ass. I don't follow the standards of some fucking loser who watches cartoon horses.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> It's a Police officers job to investigate potential drug dealers and wrong doers. If you dress and act like one then you raise concern


Nice dog whistle.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You can like him all you want, but that doesn't mean you get to edit his comments after the fact.  He said what he said.


I didn't edit anything. But he is referring to MS13.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MaverickWellington said:


> This is a thread.
> On a topic relating US sports.
> Relative to US perceptions of racism.
> 
> Why would we be talking about racism elsewhere, and even then, I straight up said racism is bad period. That's all there is to it. I don't need to condemn things specifically, I said the whole thing is bad. If you're wanting me to condemn things specifically, suck my ass. I don't follow the standards of some fucking loser who watches cartoon horses.


Chill this is a friendly debate.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You got me there, but at the same time they can still site the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.




Easily distinguished. Public schools are government institutions.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I didn't edit anything. But he is referring to MS13.


No, but you're claiming something demonstrably false.  He said Mexicans, therefore he was referring to Mexicans.  He's since made other racist statements toward Mexicans and Arabs which were later used against him in the DREAMER and Muslim ban court decisions.


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> This is a thread.
> On a topic relating US sports.
> Relative to US perceptions of racism.
> 
> Why would we be talking about racism elsewhere, and even then, I straight up said racism is bad period. That's all there is to it. I don't need to condemn things specifically, I said the whole thing is bad. If you're wanting me to condemn things specifically, suck my ass. I don't follow the standards of some fucking loser who watches cartoon horses.



In short anything outside of that shouldnt be talked about according to you, no matter if they might further the discussion.
And i didnt ask you to condem anything i simply asked you about racism outside the usa.

You could have simply pointed to your post and sayed that you find racism in general to be bad no matter where and how it happens.
But then again actealy making a point intead of screaming "horse fucker" seems to be a to low standerd for you.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, but *you're claiming something demonstrably false.  He said Mexicans, therefore he was referring to Mexicans.*  He's since made other racist statements toward Mexicans and Arabs which were later used against him in the DREAMER and Muslim ban court decisions.




Did he? I just went to youtube because I never heard the actual statement. The person asking the question is talking about illegal immigrants who are in jail and her frustration that ICE isn't allowed access, and ends by specifically mentioning MS-13. Then Trump responds. I don't hear the words "Mexicans," or "Mexico."


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, but you're claiming something demonstrably false.  He said Mexicans, therefore he was referring to Mexicans.  He's made other racist statements toward Mexicans and Arabs which were later used against him in the DREAMER and Muslim ban court decisions.


Muslim terrorists were coming to the US and suicide bombing us in the name of their god. Yeah not all of them but you need to weed out the terrorist out before you start letting more people back in. I've already said what I have to say about MS13 so I'm not gonna go in circles with you about it anymore. 
And yes other gangs are a problem to but we can deal with them once we fix the illegal immigrant problem. Which should have been taken care of a long time ago.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


>



I was referring to his comments at the opening of his campaign.  Here's a long list of Trump's insults toward Mexico/Mexicans, but the video shows the one I'm talking about early on:

http://time.com/4473972/donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult/


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I was referring to his comments at the opening of his campaign.  Here's a long list of Trump's insults toward Mexico/Mexicans, but the video shows the one I'm talking about early on:
> 
> http://time.com/4473972/donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult/


I like how you ignore the part where he said "And I assume some are good people." Clearly you can tell he wasn't referring to ALL Mexicans.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Muslim terrorists were coming to the US and suicide bombing us in the name of their god. Yeah not all of them but you need to weed out the terrorist out before you start letting more people back in. I've already said what I have to say about MS13 so I'm not gonna go in circles with you about it anymore.
> And yes other gangs are a problem to but we can deal with them once we fix the illegal immigrant problem. Which should have been taken care of a long time ago.


First and foremost, when was the last suicide bomber in the US? Because looking it up brings 6, 6 cases in the US and none of them happening around that time. Actually how many terrorist attacks have actually happened as a cause of refugees in the US? As well he said nothing about MS13, this is what he said
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
There's nothing about MS13 in this statement. It's literally a blanket statement saying that Mexico is sending us rapists and drug dealers. 


DrGreed said:


> I like how you ignore the part where he said "And I assume some are good people." Clearly you can tell he wasn't referring to ALL Mexicans.


Of course ignoring the last bit of "I assume," basically just showing that he still doesn't even fully believe there are good people in there. Trump wasn't talking about MS13, he was making a racist statement.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I like how you ignore the part where he said "And I assume some are good people." Clearly you can tell he wasn't referring to ALL Mexicans.


Oh, I'm not ignoring it, but it's practically an insult on top of an insult.  Yet he says it like it was supposed to make the statements before all better.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I like how you ignore the part where he said "And I assume some are good people." Clearly you can tell he wasn't referring to ALL Mexicans.


The use of "some" implies the "good" ones are a minority


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> First and foremost, when was the last suicide bomber in the US? Because looking it up brings 6, 6 cases in the US and none of them happening around that time. Actually how many terrorist attacks have actually happened as a cause of refugees in the US? As well he said nothing about MS13, this is what he said
> “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
> There's nothing about MS13 in this statement. It's literally a blanket statement saying that Mexico is sending us rapists and drug dealers.
> 
> Of course ignoring the last bit of "I assume," basically just showing that he still doesn't even fully believe there are good people in there. Trump wasn't talking about MS13, he was making a racist statement.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010–present



Xzi said:


> Oh, I'm not ignoring it, but it's practically an insult on top of an insult.  Yet he says it like it was supposed to make the statements before all better.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> The use of "some" implies the "good" ones are a minority



You guys are really just stretching the truth because you don't like Trump. It's okay like I said dislike him all you want but don't make up
BS and spread it like it's the undeniable truth. Once you guys get out of your current mind set, I believe you might turn out to be happier people
instead of being angry at fairy tales.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010–present
> You guys are really just stretching the truth because you don't like Trump. It's okay like I said dislike him all you want but don't make up
> BS and spread it like it's the undeniable truth. Once you guys get out of your current mind set, I believe you might turn out to be happier people
> instead of being angry at fairy tales.


And just how many of those were actually caused by foreigners? Because I am seeing a lot of American names on that list, oh wait
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Foreign_terrorist_attacks
According to that list, the last terrorist attack from someone outside of the US was in 2002. 
Trump's comments were nothing more than racists and anti-immigrants comments made to to spread racism. The deeper meaning to his comments is racism and to spread fear about immigrants, it was never about MS13.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> And just how many of those were actually caused by foreigners? Because I am seeing a lot of American names on that list, oh wait
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Foreign_terrorist_attacks
> According to that list, the last terrorist attack from someone outside of the US was in 2002.
> Trump's comments were nothing more than racists and anti-immigrants comments made to to spread racism. The deeper meaning to his comments is racism and to spread fear about immigrants, it was never about MS13.


 Clearly you missed the other Muslim terrorist in that list. Or you have a bad case of selective reading.


----------



## Viri (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Foreign_terrorist_attacks





Spoiler






> *Methods used in terrorism[edit]*
> The following is a list of techniques that have been utilized by politically violent individuals in terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> ...





One of these things are not like the other!


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Clearly you missed the other Muslim terrorist in that list. Or you have a bad case of selective reading.


Muslim doesn't mean foreign, I was looking for foreigners who committed terrorist attacks. I asked about how many refuges actually committed terrorists attacks. I saw a lot of American and even Muslim American names on that list, but I didn't see a lot of obvious foreign names. I then provided a list of foreign terrorist attacks that happened, which answered my own question. There hasn't been a terrorist attack from a foreigner since 2002, this in reply to this comment


DrGreed said:


> Muslim terrorists were coming to the US and suicide bombing us in the name of their god.


There aren't Muslim terrorists coming here to committing suicide bombings and there hasn't been a terrorist attack from a foreigner since 2002. You are talking about this issue like it's a daily thing, when it hasn't happened for 16 years now.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> You guys are really just stretching the truth because you don't like Trump. It's okay like I said dislike him all you want but don't make up
> BS and spread it like it's the undeniable truth. Once you guys get out of your current mind set, I believe you might turn out to be happier people
> instead of being angry at fairy tales.


You're just grasping at straws at this point.  Republicans have been using the Southern Strategy to get votes for decades, Trump is simply the inevitable bullhorn where others used a dogwhistle.


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Muslim terrorists were coming to the US and suicide bombing us in the name of their god. Yeah not all of them but you need to weed out the terrorist out before you start letting more people back in. I've already said what I have to say about MS13 so I'm not gonna go in circles with you about it anymore.
> And yes other gangs are a problem to but we can deal with them once we fix the illegal immigrant problem. Which should have been taken care of a long time ago.


the travel ban was supposed to be an executive order that would expire 90 days after its implementation in order to give the government "time to figure things out", yet what happened after those 90 days?, did they figure things out?, No, cause he only wanted to keep his campaign promise of banning all muslims, only he needed to make the scope smaller so it would be constitutional which he failed to do so another 2 times.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You're just grasping at straws at this point.  Republicans have been using the Southern Strategy to get votes for decades, Trump is simply the inevitable bullhorn where others used a dogwhistle.


Lol. No I don't need to grasp at straws or twist words to fit a narrative. You do though so I mean the pot is calling the kettle black here.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol. No I don't need to grasp at straws or twist words to fit a narrative. You do though so I mean the pot is calling the kettle black here.


So we've gone from you twisting Trump quotes to claiming that I'm the one twisting Trump quotes.  K.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So we've gone from you twisting Trump quotes to claiming that I'm the one twisting Trump quotes.  K.


No. Lol. You twisted it first. I corrected you. It's adorable that you thought that though.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. Lol. You twisted it first. I corrected you. It's adorable that you thought that though.


Fuck man, I posted the video.  He never said MS13 in there.  You're full of shit and flailing at this point.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Fuck man, I posted the video.  He never said MS13 in there.  You're full of shit and flailing at this point.


But it's what he meant. Just admit it.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> In short anything outside of that shouldnt be talked about according to you, no matter if they might further the discussion.
> And i didnt ask you to condem anything i simply asked you about racism outside the usa.
> 
> You could have simply pointed to your post and sayed that you find racism in general to be bad no matter where and how it happens.
> But then again actealy making a point intead of screaming "horse fucker" seems to be a to low standerd for you.


>in short anything outside of that shouldn't be talked about according to you, no matter if they might further the discussion
I'm sure having things in your mouth is standard for you but putting as many words as you can into other people's mouths is not how you argue. You asked me about it to detract from the fact that I said racism as a whole was bad and were trying to pull some non-sequitor whataboutism.

That horsecock has impaled your brain to mush evidently. Had you read my posts instead of just barging in asking questions I've already answered we wouldn't even be here. So yes, you're a retard.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> But it's what he meant. Just admit it.


It's not my job to guess what he meant.  It's his job to say what he means and try to make it sound like he doesn't have Alzheimer's in the process.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's not my job to guess what he meant.  It's his job to say what he means and try to make it sound like he doesn't have Alzheimer's in the process.


Lol. Oh please. You don't have to guess. You already have a negative idea about Trump therefore you discredit anything he says just because.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah war on drugs doesn't mean war on only one or two races. White people sell drugs to. Trump was talking about illegal Mexicans coming across the boarder being a part of MS13. And yes MS13 are rapists and drug mules among other things.


you are aware that MS13 is a Central American gang, not a Mexican one; right?
please educate yourself or you will just be one of them poorly educated chumps that Trump loves.

also it would be nice to know. tho i suspect the latter


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol. Oh please. You don't have to guess. You already have a negative idea about Trump therefore you discredit anything he says just because.


The point is that I don't have to guess.  He said what he meant, and you know it.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> you are aware that MS13 is a Central American gang, not a Mexican one.
> please educate yourself or you will just be one of them poorly educated chumps that Trump loves.


Are you aware they are made up of illegals? And founded by illegals imitating black gangs?


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> But it's what he meant. Just admit it.


So why didn't he say it was about MS13 when he interviewed on his comments?

He literally just doubled down on his statements and even continued with follow up dog whistle comments.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> So why didn't he say it was about MS13 when he interviewed on his comments?
> He literally just doubled down on his statements and even continued with follow up dog whistle comments.


Hell, he recently put tariffs on Mexico and Canada for no good reason, but no tariffs on MS13.  Hmmm... 

Yes I know that's not how tariffs work.  Point is he hates Mexico in general and hasn't done anything to combat MS13 in specific.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Are you aware they are made up of illegals? And founded by illegals imitating black gangs?


actually they were founded in california by legal latinos
again, educate yourself


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Hell, he recently put tariffs on Mexico and Canada for no good reason, but no tariffs on MS13.  Hmmm...


It's almost like none this has anything to do with MS13 and his supporters are only mentioning this now because Trump recently made a comment on MS13 and his supporters literally parrot  everything Trump says.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> actually they were founded in california by legal latinos
> again, educate yourself


Lol seriously gtfo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol seriously gtfo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13


did you even read that?
lol
it says it originated in california


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> did you even read that?
> lol
> it says it originated in california


Yes founded by illegals.


----------



## Greymane (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> >in short anything outside of that shouldn't be talked about according to you, no matter if they might further the discussion
> I'm sure having things in your mouth is standard for you but putting as many words as you can into other people's mouths is not how you argue. You asked me about it to detract from the fact that I said racism as a whole was bad and were trying to pull some non-sequitor whataboutism.
> 
> That horsecock has impaled your brain to mush evidently. Had you read my posts instead of just barging in asking questions I've already answered we wouldn't even be here. So yes, you're a retard.



You realy seem to be incabable of making arguments without attacking the other dont you?
Atleast try making a decent argument next time instead of screaching.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It's almost like none this has anything to do with MS13 and his supporters are only mentioning this now because Trump recently made a comment on MS13 and his supporters literally parrot  everything Trump says.


Gangs have always been an issue. MS13 has been the most violent as of late.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yes founded by illegals.


doesnt say illegals
says immigrants
they were given permits at one point and it really comes down to the children of the those immigrants who made the gang.
but than again
what does it matter 
youll still think they are Mexicans and illegals.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yes founded by illegals.





Don Jon said:


> doesnt say illegals
> says immigrants
> they were given permits at one point and it really comes down to the children of the those immigrants who made the gang.
> but than again
> ...


So there is some truth to this from what I can find.  Ernesto Miranda (Smokey) was one of the founders of the gang and he was indeed in the States illegally, but I am also finding several of the members were also legally in the US. So the truth, some were illegal and some were also legal, which is kind of the nature of a gang like this.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> So there is some truth to this from what I can find.  Ernesto Miranda (Smokey) was one of the founders of the gang and he was indeed in the States illegally, but I am also finding several of the members were also legally in the US. So the truth, some were illegal and some were also legal, which is kind of the nature of a gang like this.


The US has the ability to take the piss out of nearly every gang at once, US and Mexican, at any time.  It involves legalizing and regulating most drugs currently listed as illegal, however, so the likelihood of it happening is very low, especially considering how hooked we are as a nation on privatized prison cashflow.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> doesnt say illegals
> says immigrants
> they were given permits at one point and it really comes down to the children of the those immigrants who made the gang.
> but than again
> ...


Don't act like you know me. It just says they were immigrants and they were deported after gang activities. No where does it say they were legal.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Don't act like you know me. It just says they were immigrants and they were deported after gang activities. No where does it say they were legal.


its been known that it was made from legal children from the central american immigrants
yes other illegals joined them
but like i said 
why does it matter
youll still think they were Mexican and illegal


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 3, 2018)

It looks like kneeling during the anthem has worked out pretty well. They pissed off the people they meant to piss off and they drew a bunch of attention.

Anyway, I don't see a problem. They're not hurting anyone. I can't prove it, but I have an aching suspicion that many of the ones pissed off by the kneeling are the same people who call others "snowflakes".


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

Whats a Mexicans favorite sport?

Cross Country


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> It looks like kneeling during the anthem has worked out pretty well. They pissed off the people they meant to piss off and they drew a bunch of attention.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see a problem. They're not hurting anyone. I can't prove it, but I have an aching suspicion that the many of the ones pissed off by the kneeling are the same people who call others "snowflakes".


Indeed.  The right-wing is blind to their own hypocrisy.

A: "Fuck your feelings."
B: "ROFL Samantha Bee called Ivanka a feckless cunt."
A: "SHE CAN'T SAY THAT, IT HURTS MY FEELINGS!"


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

gameboy said:


> you guys act like 'whites' cops eat donuts all day and shoot blacks on site, disregarding that they put their life on the line everyday. not to mention all the crime scenes and disputes and emergencies they have to go through.
> 
> in the nfl they kneel for who knows what but wont say something when their QB is a serial rapist or their guy punched out a chick... its why the nfl is dead because very few really care. dont mix politics outside of politics


Well 80% of police officers are either obese or overweight, so they do fit the donut eating stereo type.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Don't act like you know me.


Let's just say you definitely fit a stereotype and you're not exactly doing anything to deviate from it


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Indeed.  The right-wing is blind to their own hypocrisy.
> 
> A: "Fuck your feelings."
> B: "ROFL Samantha Bee called Ivanka a feckless cunt."
> A: "SHE CAN'T SAY THAT, IT HURTS MY FEELINGS!"


Yeah, in general I feel like the farther right you go, the more the policies are based on feelings instead of actual common sense or reason. Just look at where they stand with abortions or gay marriage.

Tbh though, I don't think that stuff actually matters to most the rightwing politicians. It's a front to secure easy votes. They just wanna enact more "trickle down economics" policies.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 3, 2018)

I just want to note that Trump actually disrespect the flag where the players have done nothing of the sort.

Code of Conduct for the flag. 



> *§176. Respect for flag*
> No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
> 
> (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
> ...




Source: http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html#172

While Trump has actually BROKEN THE LAW with this, and the Calling of Samantha Bee's firing:



> (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
> (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
> (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
> shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
> ...



Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227


----------



## Delerious (Jun 3, 2018)

Perhaps off-topic, I find it hilarious how everyone here just immediately categorizes each other as either left or right-wing based on their opinions on this matter. And I think it's stupid that people automatically lump someone as a Trump supporter when they give a moderate to conservative opinion.

As for my views on the matter, I do believe that players do have the right to express their opinion, but I'm not sure if kneeling before the flag is a positive way to go about it.

And as for the police brutality thing, yes, police brutality does exist, and yes, we need to hold those involved accountable. However, I also believe that it is blown out of proportion at times, and I certainly don't believe it exists on as large of scale as the media wants you to believe. After all, that's what big media likes to do, is blow things out of proportion to get people all riled up and following a side like sheep. I also think it's ridiculous that people are suddenly developing this view that all police are scumbags. Honestly, if you want to get into the whole matter of crime against X group of people, then look at the statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, which I'll leave linked below, and look at how much crime has actually decreased in recent years as a whole, especially with black-on-white and white-on-black crime. People want to talk about this whole systemic racism thing like white people everywhere are trying to put black people down. When really, we are still in a transitional period. When you think about the southern segregation laws and what they brought, well, a good chunk of the black population at that time still lived in the south. And hell, there's still a good chunk of the black population in Mississippi, Louisiana and especially Georgia. With segregation laws, a lot of black people didn't have a whole lot of access to education, and it wasn't until MLK and President Kennedy that people started addressing those issues. Now you think about the generational gap between then and now, with 20-25 years being a generation, it's not big at all. In fact, 50 years is pretty recent. Considering how few black people had a good education back then, and looking at the difference in wealth and social status during that time, do you really think that kind of change is going to happen overnight? Of course not. And how likely are one's children to pursue an education when the parents aren't well-educated? It's probably not as likely as one with educated parents, and only recently do you actually have more people in the black community going into college. Hell, look at the number of black men attending college vs black men in prison from 2003 to 2009 (link below). The number in prison during that time remained mostly stagnant, whereas there was a pretty good increase of black men enrolling in college.

Is this to say that the system isn't entirely racist? No. There are probably some areas, especially in southern states, where things ought to change. But considering where we're at right now, I don't think that systemic racism exists on the scale that leftists think it does, and black people clearly aren't being held back on such a grand scale these days. If there is one good thing that does come from the left, it's that many of them are trying to encourage more people in the black community to get a good education. But I think the continuous push of this victim mentality isn't going to help people rise up. Instead, it only encourages them to expect something from society. And for those that are legitimately victims, they need to be encouraged to rise out of their position. Victim cards are never good for anyone.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...te-on-white-crime_us_59e8a84fe4b0d0e4fe6d953b
https://www.amren.com/news/2013/03/more-black-men-in-college-than-in-prison/


----------



## Tigran (Jun 3, 2018)

Delerious said:


> As for my views on the matter, I do believe that players do have the right to express their opinion, but I'm not sure if kneeling before the flag is a positive way to go about it.



Again.. I want to point out that Kneeling is not disrespecting the flag.. But most "MERICANS!" disrespect it in every way imaginable on the 4th of July, and again, our IoC has disrespected it numerous times.


----------



## Delerious (Jun 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Again.. I want to point out that Kneeling is not disrespecting the flag.. But most "MERICANS!" disrespect it in every way imaginable on the 4th of July, and again, our IoC has disrespected it numerous times.



Did I say anything about it being disrespectful? No. I merely said it may not be the most positive way to go about it. Stop trying to put words in people's mouths.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 3, 2018)

Delerious said:


> Did I say anything about it being disrespectful? No. I merely said it may not be the most positive way to go about it. Stop trying to put words in people's mouths.



Well the only way for a Protest to work.. It must annoy others. So what way -would- you suggest?


----------



## Delerious (Jun 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Well the only way for a Protest to work.. It must annoy others. So what way -would- you suggest?



Any sort of pre-game ritual that is visible to the crowd, but doesn't spark up controversy. For me, it's not a matter of respecting or disrespecting the flag. I'm not super patriotic myself, but when you do something that sparks up controversy, you start to lose a lot of loyalty from your fanbase, and the NFL and its teams rely on the fanbase. I suppose you could make the argument that greater controversy brings greater attention to the matter, but in this case, all it has done is brought more attention to the ones committing the controversial action, not so much the subject they are trying to protest.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter though. Americans are often times dull enough to forget this kind of shit and go back to watching their favorite teams pummel one another for status.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 3, 2018)

Delerious said:


> Any sort of pre-game ritual that is visible to the crowd, but doesn't spark up controversy. For me, it's not a matter of respecting or disrespecting the flag. I'm not super patriotic myself, but when you do something that sparks up controversy, you start to lose a lot of loyalty from your fanbase, and the NFL and its teams rely on the fanbase. I suppose you could make the argument that greater controversy brings greater attention to the matter, but in this case, all it has done is brought more attention to the ones committing the controversial action, not so much the subject they are trying to protest.
> 
> In the end, it probably doesn't matter though. Americans are often times dull enough to forget this kind of shit and go back to watching their favorite teams pummel one another for status.




Then again you miss the point of a protest. It -has- to be visible and either annoying or to some to be insulting for it to be of any use. And honestly... What do the players care of a Team Owner pays a fine? Unless there is something specific about it in their contract, *Which may or may not* any firings could be seen as wrongful termination.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

Delerious said:


> Any sort of pre-game ritual that is visible to the crowd, but doesn't spark up controversy.


The idea of a Protest IS to spark up controversy; if you're protesting, there's clearly something you view as an issue that someone else is doing, and that other entity is going to keep doing it unless a conversation is started


----------



## Delerious (Jun 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Then again you miss the point of a protest. It -has- to be visible and either annoying or to some to be insulting for it to be of any use. And honestly... What do the players care of a Team Owner pays a fine? Unless there is something specific about it in their contract, *Which may or may not* any firings could be seen as wrongful termination.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> The idea of a Protest IS to spark up controversy; if you're protesting, there's clearly something you view as an issue that someone else is doing, and that other entity is going to keep doing it unless a conversation is started



Hm, you do make a fair point.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

U.S. Census Bureau count's people from the Middle East as White. So it puts them in the oppressor category. 
People from Saudi Arabia and Iran better check their White Privilege. All Muslims from the Middle East are benefiting from systemic oppression.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

SG854 said:


> U.S. Census Bureau count's people from the Middle East as White. So it puts them in the oppressor category.
> People from Saudi Arabia and Iran better check their White Privilege. All Muslims from the Middle East are benefiting from systemic oppression.


I really wish that I had time to unpack all the stupid that you managed to cram into 41 words


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I really wish that I had time to unpack all the stupid that you managed to cram into 41 words


Not stupid
https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf

And it was a joke brah.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I really wish that I had time to unpack all the stupid that you managed to cram into 41 words


Damn how'd you know I typed exactly 41 words?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Not stupid
> https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf
> 
> And it was a joke brah.


I gathered that it was a joke, but like

Even if you categorized middle-easterns as "white" (rather than brown, or better yet, Middle-eastern), that'd be like saying since Gypsies/Roma people live in France, they can't be an oppressed class. When speaking of Europe and Eastern European countries, "white" doesn't hold nearly the same cultural description it does in the US; both skin shade and mannerisms vary by location, and unfortunately nationalism is just as alive there as it is here

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Damn how'd you know I typed exactly 41 words?


Word counter


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I gathered that it was a joke, but like
> 
> Even if you categorized middle-easterns as "white" (rather than brown, or better yet, Middle-eastern), that'd be like saying since Gypsies/Roma people live in France, they can't be an oppressed class. When speaking of Europe and Eastern European countries, "white" doesn't hold nearly the same cultural description it does in the US; both skin shade and mannerisms vary by location, and unfortunately nationalism is just as alive there as it is here
> 
> ...


Yes Yes I know. No need to explain the nuances.
And your description is exactly why you can't blame White People in America. Because which White people are you talking about? There are so many lumped into the White category. Wouldn't including Middle Eastern people in the same category as White mess with statistics a bit. So are Bureau statistics then not as trust worthy when arguing race?

There are statistics where White People are the majority that are under the poverty line.
So how do you differentiate People from Middle East and White people not from Middle Eastern areas when they are all lumped together in statistics?
Police data includes Middle Eastern people in the White Category in their crime statistics. And since data doesn't include Middle Easterners as a separate category you don't know the extent of what they experience in America.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Yes Yes I know. No need to explain the nuances.
> And your description is exactly why you can't blame White People in America. Because which White people are you talking about? There are so many lumped into the White category. Wouldn't including Middle Eastern people in the same category as White mess with statistics a bit. So are Bureau statistics then not as trust worthy when arguing race?
> 
> There are statistics where White People are the majority that are under the poverty line.
> ...


The problem in the deep South, as I understand it, is that rather than blame a society structured so that makes it nearly impossible for people below the poverty line to climb the proverbial food chain, impoverished White People™ choose to blame affirmative action and Big Government for all their issues


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Let's just say you definitely fit a stereotype and you're not exactly doing anything to deviate from it


What stereotype? All I'm doing is stating facts that don't fit your narrative.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

I 100% guaranty that if Hillary was the president you guys would be licking her feet completely ignoring the fact that she has made racist comments. https://downtrend.com/71superb/top-...-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore/


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> What stereotype? All I'm doing is stating facts that don't fit your narrative.


Check Yo privilege White Boy. 
Check Yo Self befoe you Wreck Yo Self.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

^^this is how serious i take your article


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> this is how serious i take your article


 Did she also carry Tapatio. Was there any pander to Mexicans?


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> ^^this is how serious i take your article


That's actually a good question. Clearly a double standard here. Hillary does it, no one says anything. Trump does it you lose your minds. This needs explanation.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

Greymane said:


> You realy seem to be incabable of making arguments without attacking the other dont you?
> Atleast try making a decent argument next time instead of screaching.


There's no arguments to make against someone who looks at the phrase "racism is wrong, full stop" and assumes this means I don't want anyone to talk about other examples of racism as it pertains to the subject at hand, or that I think racism towards blacks is the only real racism, or the rest of your nonsensical assumptions. I don't really think someone who's defining trait is blatant strawmans should be playing the role of arbiter regarding what is and is not a decent argument. You just came in making retarded assumptions, got called a retard, and whined about personal attacks. Not an argument to be found from you since your arrival in this thread.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> That's actually a good question. Clearly a double standard here. Hillary does it, no one says anything. Trump does it you lose your minds. This needs explanation.


i cant seem to recall any outburst over trump eating his frito pie.
was it racist for him to eat KFC too?


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> i cant seem to recall any outburst over trump eating his frito pie.
> was it racist for him to eat KFC too?


I never said anything about him being racist. There was an outburst of leftists calling him racist.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I never said anything about him being racist. There was an outburst of leftists calling him racist.


no there wasnt.
if anything they might have found it insulting
but racist no.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I 100% guaranty that if Hillary was the president you guys would be licking her feet completely ignoring the fact that she has made racist comments. https://downtrend.com/71superb/top-...-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore/


What does this have to do with anything? Can you people go a day in your lives without whining about Hillary?


----------



## Navonod (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> What does this have to do with anything? Can you people go a day in your lives without whining about Hillary?


Maybe that's what you guys should ask yourself regarding Trump.

I was referring to the double standard on the left and used Hillary as an example. First time I've said anything about her in this whole post, and since Trump has been elected.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Maybe that's what you guys should ask yourself regarding Trump.
> 
> I was referring to the double standard on the left and used Hillary as an example. First time I've said anything about her in this whole post, and since Trump has been elected.


There are only two pages of search results that mention Trump for this thread. The first result, hilariously enough, is one saying that labeling entire groups in the argument is heavily detrimental to the debate at hand and tries to create a common ground.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/nobody-...up-for-it-at-home.506082/page-16#post-8023593

When you say "you guys" what you really mean is Xzi, a guy who basically can't go a single day in his life without shitting his pants over Trump, and some other guy just talking about what was said and what he meant. You doubled down like a motherfucker when people brought up how his generalizations have made people view his statements in a different light than he may or may not have meant for them to. I don't see why you feel the need to defend Trump so hard. He's a big boy, he can handle himself.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> You doubled down like a motherfucker when people brought up how his generalizations have made people view his statements in a different light than he may or may not have meant for them to. I don't see why you feel the need to defend Trump so hard. He's a big boy, he can handle himself.


^^^ that's the stereotype I was referring to, by the way


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> What does this have to do with anything? Can you people go a day in your lives without whining about Hillary?


It's literally like "My wife left me because of Hillary's emails!" lmfao.
(and, no, I don't even support Hillary)


----------



## lordkaos (Jun 3, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I 100% guaranty that if Hillary was the president you guys would be licking her feet completely ignoring the fact that she has made racist comments. https://downtrend.com/71superb/top-...-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore/


just like you're doing right now but with trump?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 3, 2018)

Ok guys let's please not all start mentioning Trump because I guarantee (((THOSE PEOPLE))) are gonna come into the thread to complain about our heinous double standard of being diehard hillary/bernie supporters/cultural marxists/bluepilled cucks.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Ok guys let's please not all start mentioning Trump because I guarantee (((THOSE PEOPLE))) are gonna come into the thread to complain about our heinous double standard of being diehard hillary/bernie supporters/cultural marxists/bluepilled cucks.


I know you probably didn't mean to use (((echo))) with malicious intention, but it's also a rather popular misuse of a Chrome extension that alt-right trolls use to "identify" Jews

Edit: actually I guess it predates the case that I was thinking of all the way back to a talk show in 2014, but my point stands


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know you probably didn't mean to use (((echo))) with malicious intention, but it's also a rather popular misuse of a Chrome extension that alt-right trolls use to "identify" Jews
> 
> Edit: actually I guess it predates the case that I was thinking of all the way back to a talk show in 2014, but my point stands


it's intentional, some idiot will make the comparison and out himself as one of them


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> it's intentional, some idiot will make the comparison and out himself as one of them


Eh... Honestly I'd rather not even mess around with anti-Semitic language, even if it is being used as bait


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 4, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Did he? I just went to youtube because I never heard the actual statement. The person asking the question is talking about illegal immigrants who are in jail and her frustration that ICE isn't allowed access, and ends by specifically mentioning MS-13. Then Trump responds. I don't hear the words "Mexicans," or "Mexico."



Because this is the agenda the left pushes.  the object is to get whatever they come up with that day against Trump trending enough to make it to the news, and when the damage is done, they then correct their statements or remove their post or whatever media they so chose.
This is their sad little way of playing I am the Victim!
I will say it again...  "The left would rather see America fail then to see Trump succeed".
All signs point to Trump Derangement Syndrome!


----------



## Navonod (Jun 4, 2018)

Lol. Wow you guys. All I see is babbling children now. I'll come back when this gets better.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol. Wow you guys. All I see is babbling children now. I'll come back when this gets better.


Then don't look in a mirror while you argue.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 4, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol. Wow you guys. All I see is babbling children now. I'll come back when this gets better.


This thread will never get better.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> I will say it again...  "The left would rather see America fail then to see Trump succeed".
> All signs point to Trump Derangement Syndrome!


It's more like I want America to work for the least of its citizens, and in doing so, it will be successful. The problem is that while Trump does occasionally do things that benefit America as a whole, most of the time when he says or does anything it's selfishly motivated to either help his business in some way or inflate his own ego. The fact that on top of that he's acting all "nothing to see here, heh heh!" in regards to an active investigation as to whether he fraudulently worked with a foreign entity to swing the election in his favor does him absolutely no favors in my eyes, either


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 4, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Ok guys let's please not all start mentioning Trump because I guarantee (((THOSE PEOPLE))) are gonna come into the thread to complain about our heinous double standard of being diehard hillary/bernie supporters/cultural marxists/bluepilled cucks.


Cucks? The real cucks are people who would support someone no matter what he does.
And, no, none of those are "fake news". Oof.



MaverickWellington said:


> cultural marxists cucks


Right, because capitalism is flawless and benefits everybody.


(Notice the use of the word "cuck", all signs are pointing to another easily triggered weak righty troll)


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Cucks? The real cucks are people who would support someone no matter what he does.
> And, no, none of those are "fake news". Oof.
> 
> 
> ...



sometimes i dont think that guy even knows what he's saying.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> sometimes i dont think that guy even knows what he's saying.


You'd have a lot in common with him then.



dpad_5678 said:


> Cucks? The real cucks are people who would support someone no matter what he does.
> And, no, none of those are "fake news". Oof.
> 
> 
> ...


Alright, before you type out some more sludge, please, I beg of you, read my post again and tell me if it's being serious or not. Then slap yourself for being a dunce.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 4, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> You'd have a lot in common with him then.
> 
> 
> Alright, before you type out some more sludge, please, I beg of you, read my post again and tell me if it's being serious or not. Then slap yourself for being a dunce.


I wasn't accusing you of being a psycho rightist, I was agreeing with what you are saying. The "fake news" remark was in regards to anyone saying "well if it's on CNN it's automatically a lie, even if it was previously true!!!!111!!! REEE!!! *righty screech*"
The last "cuck" line was equally sarcastic, as I've described die-hard hateful religious people as cucks before.
(but, as I read over it, a "/s" would've been necessary at the end of my reply. I often find myself forgetting that a sarcastic tone does not preserve itself in a text-only post. My bad)



gameboy said:


> sometimes i dont think that guy even knows what he's saying.


Shutchyo 160x144 low-resolution ass up.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> REEE!!! *righty screech*"


Don't, just... Don't.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I wasn't accusing you of being a psycho rightist, I was agreeing with what you are saying. The "fake news" remark was in regards to anyone saying "well if it's on CNN it's automatically a lie, even if it was previously true!!!!111!!! REEE!!! *righty screech*"
> The last "cuck" line was equally sarcastic, as I've described die-hard hateful religious people as cucks before.
> (but, as I read over it, a "/s" would've been necessary at the end of my reply. I often find myself forgetting that a sarcastic tone does not preserve itself in a text-only post. My bad)
> 
> ...


The last line is fucking hilarious so I'll cut you some slack there but holy shit, please cut it out with the partisan nonsense. It literally just goes to drive a wedge throughout the whole debate.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 4, 2018)

^need to quote his last part on my signature lol


----------



## EmulateLife (Jun 4, 2018)

Is it disrespecful if you happen to be taking a dump while the anthem is playing?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

NoSoul81 said:


> Is it disrespecful if you happen to be taking a dump while the anthem is playing?


Assuming your question is serious, no. If you're shitting on the flag, that's one thing, but it's not like you can help bodily functions. It's like saying it's disrespectful to be vomiting or something during the anthem.


----------



## EmulateLife (Jun 4, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Assuming your question is serious, no. If you're shitting on the flag, that's one thing, but it's not like you can help bodily functions. It's like saying it's disrespectful to be vomiting or something during the anthem.



Phew, I was worried Goodell was going to suspend me.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

all i know is that jerry jones made the whole team lock up to appeal zeke elliots suspension because he beats women and peop!e up for fun


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> all i know is that jerry jones made the whole team lock up to appeal zeke elliots suspension because he beats women and peop!e up for fun


Which is obviously fucked up and all, but in the context of this thread, dare I say... So?


----------



## Kurt91 (Jun 4, 2018)

It was a while back (Page 12 out of 19, according to my settings), but I'd like to ask a question to clarify something.

"Universal Basic Income". Is that something that other countries have that the United States doesn't, or was it just wishful thinking in general? I'm of the mindset that if there is a problem with US policy in certain regards, it would be best to look at the policies of other countries for ideas on how to adjust things. For instance, looking at other countries that have been marked as some of the best educational systems in the world while considering the educational system and it's failings in the United States.

One thing that I know from experience (correction: not personal experience, but from close friends and family) is that it's difficult to get a job to get out of needing welfare when the money gotten from welfare is more than what a minimum-wage job earns. Getting a job would actually make it more difficult to support a family in that type of condition than just staying on welfare.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

Kurt91 said:


> It was a while back (Page 12 out of 19, according to my settings), but I'd like to ask a question to clarify something.
> 
> "Universal Basic Income". Is that something that other countries have that the United States doesn't, or was it just wishful thinking in general? I'm of the mindset that if there is a problem with US policy in certain regards, it would be best to look at the policies of other countries for ideas on how to adjust things. For instance, looking at other countries that have been marked as some of the best educational systems in the world while considering the educational system and it's failings in the United States.
> 
> One thing that I know from experience (correction: not personal experience, but from close friends and family) is that it's difficult to get a job to get out of needing welfare when the money gotten from welfare is more than what a minimum-wage job earns. Getting a job would actually make it more difficult to support a family in that type of condition than just staying on welfare.


It's something that's being experimented with in various parts of the world. I know for a fact that there's a region of Canada that's successfully implemented it as an experiment to see what would happen, and I believe Seattle started messing around with it recently and the results were promising


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2018)

Kurt91 said:


> It was a while back (Page 12 out of 19, according to my settings), but I'd like to ask a question to clarify something.
> 
> "Universal Basic Income". Is that something that other countries have that the United States doesn't, or was it just wishful thinking in general? I'm of the mindset that if there is a problem with US policy in certain regards, it would be best to look at the policies of other countries for ideas on how to adjust things. For instance, looking at other countries that have been marked as some of the best educational systems in the world while considering the educational system and it's failings in the United States.
> 
> One thing that I know from experience (correction: not personal experience, but from close friends and family) is that it's difficult to get a job to get out of needing welfare when the money gotten from welfare is more than what a minimum-wage job earns. Getting a job would actually make it more difficult to support a family in that type of condition than just staying on welfare.


People are experimenting, but people don't really know how to redistribute wealth. If you have to much wealth equality that will screw things up, businesses will shut down and people will starve. Looking at other Countries can help but every place is different and has different needs. Thats why theres debates in the first place since no one really knows. Some people are afraid of raising wages too much, whatever that number is, and people suffer from it. In extreme cases create policies that will lead to death.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 4, 2018)

Kurt91 said:


> It was a while back (Page 12 out of 19, according to my settings), but I'd like to ask a question to clarify something.
> 
> One thing that I know from experience (correction: not personal experience, but from close friends and family) is that it's difficult to get a job to get out of needing welfare when the money gotten from welfare is more than what a minimum-wage job earns. Getting a job would actually make it more difficult to support a family in that type of condition than just staying on welfare.



not necessarily
you could always get a job and have welfare assistance also.
to qualify for welfare alone you are required to proof applications of jobs as well.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 4, 2018)

Free Governmemt Money Keeps the Peasants Pacified!


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 4, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Free Governmemt Money Keeps the Peasants Pacified!


Not getting beaten or killed by cops keeps the peasants from revolting.
Being treated like humans keeps the peasants from revolting.

I sincerely hope you understand that in the eyes of the elites, you too are a peasant. The aim of the top economic teir is to keep us busy fighting and arguing with each other so we don't disrupt the established order. Congratulations, your posts are not funny or useful. You are part of the problem.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Free Governmemt Money Keeps the Peasants Pacified!


If by "pacified" you mean "given the financial tools to do what they love (ideally) while not having to worry about starving themselves or their loved ones due to lack of suitable income because of either location or circumstance," then

Yeah


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> Free Governmemt Money Keeps the Peasants Pacified!


Ask me how I know you've literally never been on welfare in your life.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



PuNKeMoN said:


> Not getting beaten or killed by cops keeps the peasants from revolting.
> Being treated like humans keeps the peasants from revolting.
> 
> I sincerely hope you understand that in the eyes of the elites, you too are a peasant. The aim of the top economic teir is to keep us busy fighting and arguing with each other so we don't disrupt the established order. Congratulations, your posts are not funny or useful. You are part of the problem.


For once we agree on something, and I couldn't agree more. I've always found it amusing when people try to say the lower class are peasants and taunt people over it. If you're not an elite, you're a peasant to them. Simple as that. Just a pawn that gets them money. Slightly unrelated but that's also why I think console wars are fucking stupid. No company is gonna give a shit what brand you dedicate yourself to.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 4, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> For once we agree on something, and I couldn't agree more.



We agree on quite a few facts, just this time we agree fully, 100% on opinion as well.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 4, 2018)

PuNKeMoN said:


> We agree on quite a few facts, just this time we agree fully, 100% on opinion as well.


You can't agree or disagree on facts. You can only accept or deny them.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 4, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> You can't agree or disagree on facts. You can only accept or deny them.



Ok we accept a lot of the same facts. Same difference.

Man, you like going out of the way to be more difficult than is necessary.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2018)

So i'm still trying to figure out why Black Men are shot more then Black Women. What are they doing differently thats causing them to get shot more. Maybe the B.Men should look at what the B.Women are doing and copy that so they wont get shot as often. Or do cops just hate men so much that no matter what they'll do they will get shot. Because really cops are more racist and sexist to B.Men then to B.Women.

If cops were racists against Blacks then they would kill B.Men and B.Women equally. But some reason they don't. Is it because Men carry guns more often so cops can use the self defense excuse? But then why are the Men carrying more guns then Women? Is it because they are in Gangs more? To defend against racist police? If this was true, the fact that the Men carry guns more then Women, then means cops are more sexist against the Men, which then means then they need to carry guns and not the Women.

Gender is more of a factor for getting shot, but some reason no one is forming "Male Lives Matter" protests for something that is worse then race. Why is race clearly visible to everyone, but gender is clearly invisible? Isn't ignore B.Men the reason people complain that nothing gets solved and call it racism. Then doesn't that same logic apply to gender and should be called sexism. Except race gets way more attention then gender, so sexism for gender is worse then racism. People will do a lot for these B.Men and help them if they look at it from a gender perspective. To find out why Men get shot more, and find ways to avoid that.

Or is it Toxic Masculinity? Which explains why B.Men are shot more. And White men more then White Women. And cops are saving us from these Toxic Males by killing them? So they deserve to get shot because they are more violent. And racism amplifies B.Men to be targeted more. But if they are more violent because they are Toxic Men, then they deserved to get shot and killed because they were a threat, and racism then is not why they get shot. It only explains why Whites get shot less. So then the Racism is that less White People are killed. So we should promote killing more violent White People to make things less racist. And BLM should not protest stop shooting Black people (because why wouldn't you kill violent B.Man thats a threat), they should protest kill more violent White Men.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

SG854 said:


> So i'm still trying to figure out why Black Men are shot more then Black Women. What are they doing differently thats causing them to get shot more. Maybe the B.Men should look at what the B.Women are doing and copy that so they wont get shot as often. Or do cops just hate men so much that no matter what they'll do they will get shot. Because really cops are more racist and sexist to B.Men then to B.Women.
> 
> If cops were racists against Blacks then they would kill B.Men and B.Women equally. But some reason they don't. Is it because Men carry guns more often so cops can use the self defense excuse? But then why are the Men carrying more guns then Women? Is it because they are in Gangs more? To defend against racist police? If this was true, the fact that the Men carry guns more then Women, then means cops are more sexist against the Men, which then means then they need to carry guns and not the Women.
> 
> ...



those cases of people getting shot are less than 99.999% of all the stuff police do. and when that white guy got shot in the vegas hotel for trying to pull his pants up, most f the responses were 'lol kill that white bitch' same responses to when the white woman got shot by that racist Somalian cop. double standards. stick to football.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> those cases of people getting shot are less than 99.999% of all the stuff police do. and when that white guy got shot in the vegas hotel for trying to pull his pants up, most f the responses were 'lol kill that white bitch' same responses to when the white woman got shot by that racist Somalian cop. double standards. stick to football.


Something seems off. I'm guessing people are ignoring gender because it contradicts their belief that Women have it worse in society. It creates cognitive dissonance. People say Cop killing blacks is the epitome of structural racism and oppression in society against blacks. Then doesn't Cops killing more White Men and Black Men then Women mean its structural sexism and oppression in society against men. 

So either the BLM movement is filled with a bunch of nut cases. And the Black Men deserved to get shot because they were more violent, and men are more violent. So then its not the result of Sexism or Racism. Or there is actual racism for getting shot, but that must also mean you have to accept their is sexism and oppression against men. If you protest one but not then other then it contradicts your own beliefs. And should people take you seriously if you contradict yourself?


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Something seems off. I'm guessing people are ignoring gender because it contradicts their belief that Women have it worse in society. It creates cognitive dissonance. People say Cop killing blacks is the epitome of structural racism and oppression in society against blacks. Then doesn't Cops killing more White Men and Black Men then Women mean its structural sexism and oppression in society against men.
> 
> So either the BLM movement is filled with a bunch of nut cases. And the Black Men deserved to get shot because they were more violent, and men are more violent. So then its not the result of Sexism or Racism. Or there is actual racism for getting shot, but that must also mean you have to accept their is sexism and oppression against men. If you protest one but not then other then it contradicts your own beliefs. And should people take you seriously if you contradict yourself?



the only egregious case was when the guy who took care of special needs people got his leg shot when he followed all the rules, everyone else tried to quickly reached for something.

white people once marched in protest because a black guy got shot, without knowing the details, turns out the guy was in the act of trying to kill his girlfriend lol white people...


----------



## Navonod (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> the only egregious case was when the guy who took care of special needs people got his leg shot when he followed all the rules, everyone else tried to quickly reached for something.
> 
> white people once marched in protest because a black guy got shot, without knowing the details, turns out the guy was in the act of trying to kill his girlfriend lol white people...


Racist. I'm gonna riot now.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Racist. I'm gonna riot now.



racism is _so _2014...


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 4, 2018)

SG854 said:


> So i'm still trying to figure out why Black Men are shot more then Black Women. What are they doing differently thats causing them to get shot more. Maybe the B.Men should look at what the B.Women are doing and copy that so they wont get shot as often. Or do cops just hate men so much that no matter what they'll do they will get shot. Because really cops are more racist and sexist to B.Men then to B.Women.
> 
> If cops were racists against Blacks then they would kill B.Men and B.Women equally. But some reason they don't. Is it because Men carry guns more often so cops can use the self defense excuse? But then why are the Men carrying more guns then Women? Is it because they are in Gangs more? To defend against racist police? If this was true, the fact that the Men carry guns more then Women, then means cops are more sexist against the Men, which then means then they need to carry guns and not the Women.
> 
> ...



Statistics indicate that males, no matter the skin tone, are more violent than females.
That being said, the whole gender thing (or lack thereof as the case may be) is a can of worms best addressed in a different thread.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Something seems off. I'm guessing people are ignoring gender because it contradicts their belief that Women have it worse in society. It creates cognitive dissonance. People say Cop killing blacks is the epitome of structural racism and oppression in society against blacks. Then doesn't Cops killing more White Men and Black Men then Women mean its structural sexism and oppression in society against men.
> 
> So either the BLM movement is filled with a bunch of nut cases. And the Black Men deserved to get shot because they were more violent, and men are more violent. So then its not the result of Sexism or Racism. Or there is actual racism for getting shot, but that must also mean you have to accept their is sexism and oppression against men. If you protest one but not then other then it contradicts your own beliefs. And should people take you seriously if you contradict yourself?


It's absolutely not, everyone that I've ever talked to will readily recognize that there is a gender issue biased towards males. But again, it comes back to an issue of race, and you have to follow a thread back to get to it; in impoverished communities, it is very difficult to get into secondary education on an academic scholarship because schools don't have the resources to help kinds advance to an "exceptional" level. That combined with the facts that in impoverished communities there is little entertainment other than playing outside doing things like shooting hoops, and the fact that the pre-civil war slave trade effectively narrowed the genetic pool down to those that were capable of throwing around twice their weight like it was nothing, we end up with a black male population that effectively end up playing football from high school onwards, and because of their genetics, those guys get BIG. They could be the nicest guys you'll ever meet, but it would seem that in the end, trigger happy police officers only see a black man that looks like he could kill them with his bare hands without breaking a sweat


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's absolutely not, everyone that I've ever talked to will readily recognize that there is a gender issue biased towards males. But again, it comes back to an issue of race, and you have to follow a thread back to get to it; in impoverished communities, it is very difficult to get into secondary education on an academic scholarship because schools don't have the resources to help kinds advance to an "exceptional" level. That combined with the facts that in impoverished communities there is little entertainment other than playing outside doing things like shooting hoops, and the fact that the pre-civil war slave trade effectively narrowed the genetic pool down to those that were capable of throwing around twice their weight like it was nothing, we end up with a black male population that effectively end up playing football from high school onwards, and because of their genetics, those guys get BIG. They could be the nicest guys you'll ever meet, but it would seem that in the end, trigger happy police officers only see a black man that looks like he could kill them with his bare hands without breaking a sweat



slave genes are a myth, *cough*cough*racist!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> slave genes are a myth, *cough*cough*racist!


Say what you want, Jewish people show signs of genetic change due to trauma from the Holocaust that is passed down generationally. Something tells me the same applies in this case

If you want to link me to an academic article supporting your claim, though, be my guest. I recognize that my claim is mostly anecdotal, but from what I understand, that is the case


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Say what you want, Jewish people show signs of genetic change due to trauma from the Holocaust that is passed down generationally. Something tells me the same applies in this case
> 
> If you want to link me to an academic article supporting your claim, though, be my guest. I recognize that my claim is mostly anecdotal, but from what I understand, that is the case



slave genes are a myth, ive seen it for myself watching basketball and boxing and mma and all sports in general


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> slave genes are a myth, ive seen it for myself watching basketball and boxing and mma and all sports in general


... I don't know that "I've seen it" in the context of sports is exactly viable evidence


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... I don't know that "I've seen it" in the context of sports is exactly viable evidence



slavery ended 150rs ago, to say those 'genetics' still exist it'd have to be outside the 99.999999 percentile. blacks were only dominant in sports during the ''steroid era'' 1970-2000. since then the playing field has since been leveled.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> slavery ended 150rs ago, to say those 'genetics' still exist it'd have to be outside the 99.999999 percentile.


That's proveably false. Read this article on how sexual exploitation pre-civil war affects the modern gene pool today: https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans

Edit: also I don't think that you understand just how recent 150 years is. That's barely four, maybe five generations ago. And I know that this is opening a can of worms that's outside the scope of the discussion, but it's rather foolish to say that just because slavery FORMALLY ended 150 years ago, it didn't continue on for a decent time afterwards under the guise of "working off debt", for instance


----------



## gameboy (Jun 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's proveably false. Read this article on how sexual exploitation pre-civil war affects the modern gene pool today: https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans
> 
> Edit: also I don't think that you understand just how recent 150 years is. That's barely four, maybe five generations ago. And I know that this is opening a can of worms that's outside the scope of the discussion, but it's rather foolish to say that just because slavery FORMALLY ended 150 years ago, it didn't continue on for a decent time afterwards under the guise of "working off debt", for instance



your suggesting blacks are still breed like horses, gtfo... if most genes are from the same genepool as Lil'Wanye and fat joe or all those 80s rockstars like rck james, thats not a very good genepool to be from


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2018)

gameboy said:


> your suggesting blacks are still breed like horses, gtfo... if most genes are from the same genepool as Lil'Wanye and fat joe or all those 80s rockstars like rck james, thats not a very good genepool to be from


... What?...

What I'm suggesting is that due to the circumstances of post-slavery America, and due to the fact that romantic preference tends to be with a person of the same race (which is normal, don't try to "gotcha" me about how I'm ignoring interracial marriages, because I recognize them but majority preference is same-race marriage and up until recently there was a heavy stigma against interracial relationships), most blacks (that have family in the country dating back multiple generations) can trace their lineage back to someone who entered the country through slave trade. And what I'm saying on top of that is that situations like that have been proven to generationally affect descendants


----------



## Jonna (Jun 4, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I 100% guaranty that if Hillary was the president you guys would be licking her feet completely ignoring the fact that she has made racist comments. https://downtrend.com/71superb/top-...-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore/


Can you "guaranty" that 100%?

What science can you bring to the table to both execute and verify this?

If you've invented time travel, and invented the ability to record an alternate timeline and return back to this timeline, then get the hell off of GBATemp and burst right into the CIA because you will get paid way more and become a national legend more than sticking around here.


----------



## snails1221 (Jun 5, 2018)

Genuine question here, why are thread about politics allowed? All that they do is cause fights.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 5, 2018)

Jonna said:


> Can you "guaranty" that 100%?
> 
> What science can you bring to the table to both execute and verify this?
> 
> If you've invented time travel, and invented the ability to record an alternate timeline and return back to this timeline, then get the hell off of GBATemp and burst right into the CIA because you will get paid way more and become a national legend more than sticking around here.


First off if I had time travel I wouldn't share the technology with the CIA. Secondly I'd still be here bragging about how I could time travel and you couldn't.

Regarding the foot licking, it's only what I've observed. I'm sure others have seen it.


----------



## Jonna (Jun 5, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> First off if I had time travel I wouldn't share the technology with the CIA. Secondly I'd still be here bragging about how I could time travel and you couldn't.
> 
> Regarding the foot licking, it's only what I've observed. I'm sure others have seen it.


Sooooooo no 100%?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 5, 2018)

This man is super informed, he understands the issues of racism in America at a level few of us will ever comprehend.

Edit: Just fast forward like 2:11 into the video. (Although the entire video is worth watching.)


----------



## Navonod (Jun 5, 2018)

Jonna said:


> Sooooooo no 100%?


100% foot licking.


----------



## Jonna (Jun 5, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> 100% foot licking.


Alright, show scientifically and mathematically how you can guarantee your 100%. Nothing 99.99% or less, full on 100%.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 5, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... What?...
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that due to the circumstances of post-slavery America, and due to the fact that romantic preference tends to be with a person of the same race (which is normal, don't try to "gotcha" me about how I'm ignoring interracial marriages, because I recognize them but majority preference is same-race marriage and up until recently there was a heavy stigma against interracial relationships), most blacks (that have family in the country dating back multiple generations) can trace their lineage back to someone who entered the country through slave trade. And what I'm saying on top of that is that situations like that have been proven to generationally affect descendants



lol thats the most racist thing i've ever heard


----------



## Navonod (Jun 5, 2018)

Jonna said:


> Alright, show scientifically and mathematically how you can guarantee your 100%. Nothing 99.99% or less, full on 100%.


I'll share it when I get home tonight.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 5, 2018)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> This man is super informed, he understands the issues of racism in America at a level few of us will ever comprehend.
> 
> Edit: Just fast forward like 2:11 into the video. (Although the entire video is worth watching.)




smartest black guy ever


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jun 5, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It all carries over and is part of a long trend.  AFAIK the War on Drugs hasn't officially "ended," either, and blacks are still prosecuted at almost a 3:1 ratio compared to whites, despite statistics showing both races use illegal drugs at about the same rate.
> 
> https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA Fact Sheet_Drug War Mass Incarceration and Race_(Feb. 2016)_0.pdf


The war on drugs is going stronger than ever. An unelected government agency is given the power to practice medicine on the entire nation at once. You know there's something wrong when a nation can ban fucking plants. I think ending drug control would be a huge step forward to lowering police brutality. I believe most escalations occur due to suspicions of drug possession.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2018)

gameboy said:


> lol thats the most racist thing i've ever heard


How so, if I might ask?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 5, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> The war on drugs is going stronger than ever. An unelected government agency is given the power to practice medicine on the entire nation at once. You know there's something wrong when a nation can ban fucking plants. I think ending drug control would be a huge step forward to lowering police brutality. I believe most escalations occur due to suspicions of drug possession.



http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/

According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense. There were also 744,600 inmates in county and city jails. (The BOP data is current as of July 16. From BJS, the latest jail statistics are from midyear 2014, and the latest prison statistics from year-end 2013.) That’s an incarceration rate of about 725 people per 100,000 population.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Agro prohibition is fucking retarded.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/
> 
> According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense. There were also 744,600 inmates in county and city jails. (The BOP data is current as of July 16. From BJS, the latest jail statistics are from midyear 2014, and the latest prison statistics from year-end 2013.) That’s an incarceration rate of about 725 people per 100,000 population.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested in seeing statistics on a county-by-county basis (to see if it's consistent or if there are outliers one way or another), but even those statistics are horrifying knowing it's a national average


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 5, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Racist white people are a plague tbh



So black people can be racist and not be labeled as a plague?
Wow, nice equality you have there.

No, it's not "racist white people are a plague" it's racist people are a plague, regardless of skin colour.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 5, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How so, if I might ask?



i like you and everything but those views on breeding and genes just sound like slave master talk


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2018)

gameboy said:


> i like you and everything but those views on breeding and genes just sound like slave master talk


? I'm not talking about intentional "breeding," I'm talking about what happens when variance is eliminated from a gene pool and then said pool is forced to stay comparitively isolated over multiple generations

If it sounds like "slave master" talk, the reason behind that is because that's what caused the "culling" of any slaves that were "underproducting"


----------



## TunaKetchup (Jun 5, 2018)

This thread is hilarious

Just imagine a bunch of nerds who never leave their houses talking about how better to run the country

Fucking perfect. Glad I found this

I should link this thread to Congress. I can't believe the answer has been here for all this time


----------



## gameboy (Jun 5, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ? I'm not talking about intentional "breeding," I'm talking about what happens when variance is eliminated from a gene pool and then said pool is forced to stay comparitively isolated over multiple generations
> 
> If it sounds like "slave master" talk, the reason behind that is because that's what caused the "culling" of any slaves that were "underproducting"



basically everyone in america is obese, including the blacks, put that in your studies


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 5, 2018)

TunaKetchup said:


> This thread is hilarious
> 
> Just imagine a bunch of nerds who never leave their houses talking about how better to run the country
> 
> ...




Congress's approval rating is in the shiter you are a moron if you think they are competent at all.


----------



## TunaKetchup (Jun 5, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Congress's approval rating is in the shiter you are a moron if you think they are competent at all.



I am sure they are more competent than GBATemp users

LOL

Fucking wow

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I am sick of people who keep talking about how to fix things

But these people are the same people who stay at home watching anime videos

Go outside and do something about it you cans


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 5, 2018)

TunaKetchup said:


> I am sure they are more competent than GBATemp users
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...








Wait so let me get this shit straight. You think just because nobody here is any position of power we can't talk about it?

LOL

Fucking wow





oh and nobody cares if you are sick of it. You can go ahead and fuck off somewhere and you know, not click on this topic or you could say something smart but nah fuck that noise you rather use ad hominems then address our points.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 5, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Oh you got him so good. 10/10 best come back ever. What a genius. Somebody call the news we have a genius over here that the world needs to see.


We were joking around. We disagree but we don't hate each other. Shut up nerd.


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 5, 2018)

TunaKetchup said:


> I am sick of people who keep talking about how to fix things


So you like things in their current, shitty state. Good to know.



> But these people are the same people who stay at home watching anime videos


A person's hobbies and interests don't even matter.



> Go outside and do something about it you cans


Talking about it is the first step, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.



> Just imagine a bunch of nerds who never leave their houses talking about how better to run the country


The traditional 'nerd' is mocked because of their intelligence. I, for one, am all for intelligent people banding together and discussing the future of our nation. It's much better that the alternative.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2018)

gameboy said:


> basically everyone in america is obese, including the blacks, put that in your studies


http://frac.org/obesity-health/low-income-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-poor-nutrition-obesity

I fail to see the relevance to the conversation that has, though


----------



## gameboy (Jun 5, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> http://frac.org/obesity-health/low-income-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-poor-nutrition-obesity
> 
> I fail to see the relevance to the conversation that has, though



you referred to 'slave genes' to help argue why a very rare few amount of blacks are spectacular at sports yet fail to see that your argument about selective breeding is inconsistent.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2018)

gameboy said:


> you referred to 'slave genes' to help argue why a very rare few amount of blacks are spectacular at sports yet fail to see that your argument about selective breeding is inconsistent.


I used that argument to say why Black dudes get big, not why they're good at sports. Good lord dude how much of what I've typed have you actually been reading?


----------



## JellyPerson (Jun 5, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> So black people can be racist and not be labeled as a plague?
> Wow, nice equality you have there.
> 
> No, it's not "racist white people are a plague" it's racist people are a plague, regardless of skin colour.


To be fair a lot (and I mean a lot) of white people are racist. I said that only white racists are a plague, and I should have phrased it as all racists.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 5, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I used that argument to say why Black dudes get big, not why they're good at sports. Good lord dude how much of what I've typed have you actually been reading?



thats just called stereotyping


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 5, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> To be fair a lot (and I mean a lot) of white people are racist. I said that only white racists are a plague, and I should have phrased it as all racists.



Yet cultural racism is needed for diversity...

It's a double edged blade no matter how you look at it.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 5, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> To be fair a lot (and I mean a lot) of white people are racist. I said that only white racists are a plague, and I should have phrased it as all racists.



oh really? Seems most people don't give a fuck about the color of your skin.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2018)

gameboy said:


> thats just called stereotyping


I do hope you realize that's the point


----------



## Jonna (Jun 5, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I'll share it when I get home tonight.


It is now tomorrow. What happened to sharing it?


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 5, 2018)

The best part of all this is....  Everybody is Racist to one extent or another.
Also racism is taught.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 5, 2018)

Cylent1 said:


> The best part of all this is....  Everybody is Racist to one extent or another.
> Also racism is taught.



Taught hmmm I agree. best example I can possibly give is where I grew up there was no Black or Asian or Hispanic population to speak of. When I was like 4 I seen the very first black woman I had ever seen (thankfully she was a very nice woman to put up with my stupid 4 year old questions lol) but at the store I seen her and I can still clearly remember her fur coat (this was the late 70's) and she was dressed very well. I went up to her touched her hand and asked her what had happened to her... lol She laughed so hard and said "Honey I was born this way, haven't you seen a black person before?"  From that moment on I thought it was great there was different colors and not everyone at the store was mean (the town I am from is full of absolute racists with cross burning and all that... The last one was in 2014 so yeah....) and almost everyone was in a bad mood all the time for some reason, I guess hatred is hatred and when you hate something bad enough you end up hating everything and everyone. 

I wasn't taught to be racist at all, but at that moment as a child I could have become one so easily. Had the woman started yelling at me for asking a child question about her skin color, I would have been scared for life thinking black people where mean. Instead she laughed it off as a kid being a kid and explained to me why she was black. 

Sometimes fate has odd tasks in store for us.


----------



## Joeseph Mother (Jun 6, 2018)

Your premise is highly flawed. I don't stand up if the national anthem is played on TV, just like I don't say hello to a photograph of my mother when I walk by it, and I don't talk to myself in the mirror-it's a visualization of something, not the actual event. If I'm at the event, I'm on my feet.

The professional athletes kneeling and those defending it are unpatriotic. If it started with inner city high school football players, it would be one thing, because they don't have a voice and a broad stance to make a statement about the world they are living in. Pro athletes are on television constantly, have interviews for newspapers and other media outlets, and have the cash to buy advertising to support any cause they choose. They could also wear clothing or hold up signs with their message on it. They would be fined, but isn't that a small price to pay to spread your message across to millions of people, if it is really about the message?

The sad fact is, there is very little real patriotism anymore. If you are proud of your country, you are still proud of it despite its flaws, and would have the pride to stand for the anthem. If you are not willing to stand for the anthem of this country, you are disrespecting all of those who for for the creation of this country, and those who shaped it and made it what it is today.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 6, 2018)

Joeseph Mother said:


> Your premise is highly flawed. I don't stand up if the national anthem is played on TV, just like I don't say hello to a photograph of my mother when I walk by it, and I don't talk to myself in the mirror-it's a visualization of something, not the actual event. If I'm at the event, I'm on my feet.
> 
> The professional athletes kneeling and those defending it are unpatriotic. If it started with inner city high school football players, it would be one thing, because they don't have a voice and a broad stance to make a statement about the world they are living in. Pro athletes are on television constantly, have interviews for newspapers and other media outlets, and have the cash to buy advertising to support any cause they choose. They could also wear clothing or hold up signs with their message on it. They would be fined, but isn't that a small price to pay to spread your message across to millions of people, if it is really about the message?
> 
> The sad fact is, there is very little real patriotism anymore. If you are proud of your country, you are still proud of it despite its flaws, and would have the pride to stand for the anthem. If you are not willing to stand for the anthem of this country, you are disrespecting all of those who for for the creation of this country, and those who shaped it and made it what it is today.


First of all, unconditional patriotism is no longer patriotism, it's nationalism. I would not be proud of saying that you (used nebulously, not "you") believe that the entire population should be forced to stand in front of imagery representing your nation and salute it for that reason, specifically

But secondly... I see no reason why this ISN'T patriotic, anyway. Isn't a wish to improve your country, as opposed to either leaving or ignoring the problem, one of the more patriotic things someone could do with their life?


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 6, 2018)

Joeseph Mother said:


> Your premise is highly flawed. I don't stand up if the national anthem is played on TV, just like I don't say hello to a photograph of my mother when I walk by it, and I don't talk to myself in the mirror-it's a visualization of something, not the actual event. If I'm at the event, I'm on my feet.


No actually, the "visualisation" is happening live at the very moment people in their homes are observing it. So it is the actual event. 



> The professional athletes kneeling and those defending it are unpatriotic. If it started with inner city high school football players, it would be one thing, because they don't have a voice and a broad stance to make a statement about the world they are living in. Pro athletes are on television constantly, have interviews for newspapers and other media outlets, and have the cash to buy advertising to support any cause they choose. They could also wear clothing or hold up signs with their message on it. They would be fined, but isn't that a small price to pay to spread your message across to millions of people, if it is really about the message?


The USA was founded in the spirit of defiance, the American Revolution is proof enough of the concept. The whole country is based on protest, so much so that protesting is a right. The players are patriotic.



> The sad fact is, there is very little real patriotism anymore. If you are proud of your country, you are still proud of it despite its flaws, and would have the pride to stand for the anthem. If you are not willing to stand for the anthem of this country, you are disrespecting all of those who for for the creation of this country, and those who shaped it and made it what it is today.


Men who have defended the country have outright praised the players for their patriotism.


----------



## Joeseph Mother (Jun 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> First of all, unconditional patriotism is no longer patriotism, it's nationalism. I would not be proud of saying that you (used nebulously, not "you") believe that the entire population should be forced to stand in front of imagery representing your nation and salute it for that reason, specifically



I never said anybody should be forced to do anything, the professional athletes making millions of dollars should want to. They should be grateful for the opportunities afforded them because they are in this country.



> But secondly... I see no reason why this ISN'T patriotic, anyway. Isn't a wish to improve your country, as opposed to either leaving or ignoring the problem, one of the more patriotic things someone could do with their life?



Improving the country is a wonderful and patriotic goal, but again, we're talking about people who have nearly unlimited resources and can do this in ways that are not offensive and disrespectful.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



PuNKeMoN said:


> No actually, the "visualisation" is happening live at the very moment people in their homes are observing it. So it is the actual event.



If you're home alone on New Year's Eve, and watch it on TV, do you count down out loud, and join in on toasts people make on TV?



> The USA was founded in the spirit of defiance, the American Revolution is proof enough of the concept. The whole country is based on protest, so much so that protesting is a right. The players are patriotic.
> 
> 
> Men who have defended the country have outright praised the players for their patriotism.



The American Revolution was also a government upheaval, and as unpatriotic as could be to the British. I'm not saying protesting is bad, I'm against the form of protest because its being done by people who have much better ways of doing it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 7, 2018)

Joeseph Mother said:


> I never said anybody should be forced to do anything, the professional athletes making millions of dollars should want to. They should be grateful for the opportunities afforded them because they are in this country.


Just because someone is comfortable does not mean they can't use their influence to help people who aren't. To say otherwise is shortsighted and rather selfish



> Improving the country is a wonderful and patriotic goal, but again, we're talking about people who have nearly unlimited resources and can do this in ways that are not offensive and disrespectful.


Considering it's gotten a discussion started, I guess I can't think of any better method of using their influence as a way of protesting. Plus... How exactly is it disrespectful?...



> If you're home alone on New Year's Eve, and watch it on TV, do you count down out loud, and join in on toasts people make on TV?


Home alone, no, but that's maybe the worst example you could have used. They're both comparable because watching football is typically a social experience, much like celebrating New Year's, and I'd venture to say that most people join in the countdown



> The American Revolution was also a government upheaval, and as unpatriotic as could be to the British. I'm not saying protesting is bad, I'm against the form of protest because its being done by people who have much better ways of doing it.


What is your idea of a better protest that would generate as much interest as this one, then, if I may ask?...


----------



## PuNKeMoN (Jun 7, 2018)

Joeseph Mother said:


> Improving the country is a wonderful and patriotic goal, but again, we're talking about people who have nearly unlimited resources and can do this in ways that are not offensive and disrespectful.





> The American Revolution was also a government upheaval, and as unpatriotic as could be to the British. I'm not saying protesting is bad, I'm against the form of protest because its being done by people who have much better ways of doing it.


The protest is working whether you agree with it or not. One must truly be overly sensitive if some guys kneeling rather than standing for a symbol on a piece of cloth is offensive to them. Controversy leads to outrage. Outrage leads to change.
*The beauty of the US flag, or any flag for that matter, is that because it is a symbol it holds a different meaning to each individual who observes it.*
I understand your point that the many who suffered for it deserve respect. Kneeling is, get this... A form of respect. Ever been to a Catholic church? They have these pads built in to the back of the benches so that they can easliy kneel when people pray to their God, you know, because it is a respectful and humble action.

This by far is the best protest I've seen in the history of protests. It is better than those who riot and it is better than those who block public streets.



> If you're home alone on New Year's Eve, and watch it on TV, do you count down out loud, and join in on toasts people make on TV?


I wouldn't be home alone for NYE but even if I were. You fucking bet I would count down and toast. Would I look like a weirdo? Who would be there to prove it? Bad scenario. Try another one.


----------



## Jonna (Jun 7, 2018)

Joeseph Mother said:


> If you're home alone on New Year's Eve, and watch it on TV, do you count down out loud, and join in on toasts people make on TV?


Yep. Had to do this recently, actually.


----------

