White Lives Matter banner flew over football game

Started by snowdragon13 pages
I think it’s naive to think that "black leadership" is enough to enact change without widespread support.

To be abundantly clear, policing is done on a local level. It's not controlled federally like the FBI.

The more appropitate answer to this is simply a question, if there is so much racism why do most the minority cities with problems boast a significant black leadership?

Our system is setup so communities can vote in officials locally to decide what happens, not nationally for policing. So my question stands that you danced around, how is it the problems generally reside in communities that are led by democratically elected black officials who can dictate the change when in office.

Most of these problems are literally not supposed to be a part of the presidents arsenal of power.

Originally posted by snowdragon
To be abundantly clear, policing is done on a local level. It's not controlled federally like the FBI.

Our system is setup so communities can vote in officials locally to decide what happens, not nationally for policing. So my question stands that you danced around, how is it the problems generally reside in communities that are led by democratically elected black officials who can dictate the change when in office.

Most of these problems are literally not supposed to be a part of the presidents arsenal of power.

👆

snowdragon, I disagree with you.

Don't get mad at me. Read my whole post first. Then hate me.

estahuh

The US should have a federally regulated level of quality for both gun control and local police.

A minimum level. This would be a federal law that regulates the quality of police.

Police do get federal funds:

https://www.spacesaver.com/markets/public-safety-storage/space-optimization/funding-sources-for-police-departments/

So the American people should get a say in the quality of the police that police us.

That's a minimum level of regulation. I am all for no-nonsense regulations.

Check it out: if I am required to run IT Enterprises with a certain level of Separation of Duties to meet Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, local police should be regulated to a minimum standard, as well. They can kill people. I cannot. So why do I get the stiffer regulations? Because Enron execs stole lots of money. You read that right: police are not nationally regulated through law like companies are because some rich people stole tons of money and other rich people got mad. So we got a law that regulates trillions of dollars but not laws that regulates the loss of life. Also, the prison systems have hundreds of billions of dollars to throw around so they don't want police to regulate. 🙂

Here, I have your very valid and honest counter-argument to my position.

"Great. Nice lofty goals. Have any specifics or are these just more empty platitudes you're speaking to placate the masses? I've seen hot air from politicians, before. We don't need more overly bloated regulations that just end up costing tax payers money but do nothing to change the social and financial problems that plague the US."

Good point. And that's a legit concern to have about more regulations.

But I've been clear about the regulations I want to see from this:

Science-based de-escalation procedures that focuses, with the utmost priority, saving lives during police engagements.

Psych-evals required to be hired and maintain your ability to interface with the public (street patrols, detectives, etc.). If you fail, you can be moved to administrative duties until deemed fit for duty by a licensed and relevant mental health professional (no signed documents from therapists for, say, childhood therapists who specialize in auditory sensory, for example. You need to get your documentation signed and/or peer reviewed by someone specializing in violence, PTSD, etc. Directly relevant to policing).

In addition, regulation related to weapons and tactical engagement. Other police forces, in the world, handle violent offenders with less-lethal outcomes compared to the US. Some of those police forces are required to have degrees and years of training before they can hit the streets. Why not the US?

We also need physical fitness requirements. No more 350lbs police trying to make arrests. No more 110lbs women patrolling the streets without partners. You need to have to meet the same or similar standards that firemen do if you're expected to wrestle and safely cuff a 210lbs man who is high on PCP and/or meth.

I wrote this during a meeting. So forgive any errors - 0 proofreading was done.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Where is your source DDM? The Blaze?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Disagree DDM says this

Is not true, however S and M says it's a site of top integrity.

DDM posted names and numbers from a group who handles accounts for multiple purposes. He needs to prove the names and figures of money come from the BLM source or other sources also managed by the same group. He hasn't yet.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Here you go... the real skinny!

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/want-know-where-all-those-corporate-donations-blm-are-going-n1225371

This report also conflicts from far right social media propaganda on where the money is going.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
open secrets themselves say this on their twitter feed.

Now imagine granny gives mum 25 dollars and grand pa gives mum 25 dollars. Mum has 50 dollars she give 25 dollars from gran to Jo Biden none of grand pa's money has gone to Jo Biden. Prove where the money came in and went out in your table DDM.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
no he wouldn't, I'm asking you to prove money from a specific source held centrally by a company that holds money from many sources is the source of the donations you talk about. When the source of your charts say.

Reported.

Stop using ‘black-on-black’ crime to deflect away from police brutality

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- “Why aren’t we talking about black on black crime?”

If you’ve expressed support for Black Lives Matter, spoken out against police brutality, or written a modest column in the past few weeks, you’ve probably been asked (or chastised) for not mentioning how many more black people kill other black people compared to the police.

There are answers to the question, “Why aren’t we talking about black on black crime?” But critics of Black Lives Matter don’t want to hear them.

If they cared, they’d be asking about crime within the African American community year-round, as many black activists and neighborhood leaders do. But as Doughboy told Tre in 1991’s “Boyz N the Hood” (and it’s still true today), “Either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about what’s going on in the hood.”

When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable.

When someone commits an act of terrorism against in the United States, which rightfully leads to anger and sadness, no one asks, “Well what about how many Americans kill other Americans each year?” Because that would crazy, now wouldn’t it?

But, by all means, let’s talk about “black on black crime.” You’ve probably heard a statistic like this before – The majority of black people murdered are killed by other black people. That’s true, but also misleading. The overwhelming majority of white murder victims each year are killed by white assailants. So, when’s the last time you heard the term “white on white crime?”

As shocking as it may be for some to hear, people generally commit crimes against people they know or live near. If you want to have a real discussion about crime, let’s talk about the factors that contribute to it happening in the first place.

White supremacists have attributed the fact that crime rates are higher among African Americans than whites to people of color being biologically more prone to violence. In reality, crime is directly linked more to poverty than race or any other factor.

According to the Bureau for Justice Statistics, People living in households with income below the federal poverty threshold are twice as likely to commit a violent crime than people in high-income households, regardless of race.

We live in a country where the poverty rate is more than twice as high among black Americans than white. And that has as much to do with 400 years of systematic racism than anything else.

White supremacists will tell you slavery was abolished more than 150 years ago. So, get over it. Yet, just as that was a hard sell to African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, it’s equally hard to accept 30 years after Rodney King and the L.A. Riots and weeks removed from the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd.

Thomas Abt, a senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, writes:

“Racial disparities in crime and punishment are real, but they have been produced in large part by a sustained campaign of persecution by whites against disempowered minorities, particularly African Americans. Officially, that effort has ended; overt racial discrimination has been prohibited by law for decades. Nevertheless, the brutal legacy of that campaign — racism, segregation, concentrated poverty, and violence — remains.”

None of this necessarily means a black person being killed by another black person is more or less significant than if they were killed by a police officer. Death is death and murder is murder.

Yet, what if it were captured on video? Could a victim’s family take solace in knowing evidence exists for that person to be prosecuted? That’s usually the case. But that may not matter for George Floyd. It certainly didn’t matter in the cases of Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.

What is someone supposed to do when you can be murdered legally? When police can harass you and then choke you out because you’re selling loose cigarettes or when a cop can kneel on your neck as you cry out “I can’t breathe" while his colleagues stand by and watch.

That’s why police brutality is its own unique horror. And African Americans are two and half times more likely than whites to be killed by law enforcement.

When you step outside every day knowing you’re twice as likely to be killed by someone sworn to protect you just because of the color of your skin, you’re dealing with a different type of fear. Don’t let statistics, ignorance or flat out racism cloud that. -snip

Bingo

Originally posted by dadudemon
Reported.
no probs, I'll reiterate show me that b gave money from a to c when b has money from multiple sources and your own source said a did not give money to c though. No one is disputing b gave c money, just as the source you got your tables from said, it didn't come from a. No one is going to ban me for wanting that proof.

This made me chuckle:

Lefty Minneapolis neighborhood decided to virtue signal and refuse calling the police. Now they're overrun with crime and homeless.

"Last week, Mitchell Erickson was cornered outside his home by two black teenagers, and one stuck a gun in his chest.

They demanded his car keys, but when he mistakenly gave them his house keys, the boys got frustrated and ran off before reportedly stealing someone else's car.

After the altercation, Erickson decided to call the police, a decision he now says he "regrets."

"Been thinking more about it," Erickson wrote in a text to a New York Times reporter. "I regret calling the police. It was my instinct but I wish it hadn't been. I put those boys in danger of death by calling the cops."

The reporter allegedly responded asking about the fact that the boys put his life in danger.

Erickson replied: "Yeah I know and yeah it was scary but the cops didn't really have much to add after I called them. I haven't been forced to think like this before. So I would have lost my car. So what? At least no one would have been killed."

Dear mods please click the link.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-black-lives-matter-donations-do-not-go-to-democratic-party/285-0277ba48-e79e-49fb-8cc6-4376d18e7626

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Dear mods please click the link.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-black-lives-matter-donations-do-not-go-to-democratic-party/285-0277ba48-e79e-49fb-8cc6-4376d18e7626

It's a Rightist talking point/distraction and attack meant to target BLM and Democrats. Old tactics, newer topic.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Dear mods please click the link.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-black-lives-matter-donations-do-not-go-to-democratic-party/285-0277ba48-e79e-49fb-8cc6-4376d18e7626

in any reasonable discussion, that wouldn't be necessary. burden of proof wasn't even on you. and it will soon be dismissed or ignored outright by the usuals. the gdf is garbage. forget bannings and shut it down, I say.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a Rightist talking point/distraction and attack meant to target BLM and Democrats. Old tactics, newer topic.
yup, act blue get paid by lots of people to provide a platform. What they do with that money, in terms of who they donate to is up to them. The money goes in a pot. They are one of many third parties BLM use.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
in any reasonable discussion, that wouldn't be necessary. burden of proof wasn't even on you. and it will soon be dismissed or ignored outright by the usuals. the gdf is garbage. forget bannings and shut it down, I say.
I wouldn't go as far as to shut it down, but I agree 100% with everything else.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Dear mods please click the link.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-black-lives-matter-donations-do-not-go-to-democratic-party/285-0277ba48-e79e-49fb-8cc6-4376d18e7626

I'm not a mod but I found the title suspicious and not straight forward:

VERIFY: Donations to Black Lives Matter do not go directly to the Democratic Party

Where that money goes after donation is anyone's guess, it's not like it has to be associated with act blue. That just validates more of my narrative driven garbage I already addressed though.

Rob, your article is another narrative piece and it's terrible. The fact that they use white supremacists to support a position when white suppremists make up the smallest percent of the us population in addition to having a supremely small influence just speaks volumes to the purpose of the article.

DDM, I don't think what you said counters what I said at all just adds to it. I am for HUGE changes to the police policies. I've said it many times in other forums from losing the paramilitary aspect, losing protections granted from unions (not losing the unions though,) and other changes.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I'm not a mod but I found the title suspicious and not straight forward:

Where that money goes after donation is anyone's guess, it's not like it has to be associated with act blue. That just validates more of my narrative driven garbage I already addressed though.

Rob, your article is another narrative piece and it's terrible. The fact that they use white supremacists to support a position when white suppremists make up the smallest percent of the us population in addition to having a supremely small influence just speaks volumes to the purpose of the article.

DDM, I don't think what you said counters what I said at all just adds to it. I am for HUGE changes to the police policies. I've said it many times in other forums from losing the paramilitary aspect, losing protections granted from unions (not losing the unions though,) and other changes.

you're very combative today old pal, that's three people across the political spectrum you disagree with in one post. Keep it up. 🙂 😉

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop using ‘black-on-black’ crime to deflect away from police brutality

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- “Why aren’t we talking about black on black crime?”

If you’ve expressed support for Black Lives Matter, spoken out against police brutality, or written a modest column in the past few weeks, you’ve probably been asked (or chastised) for not mentioning how many more black people kill other black people compared to the police.

There are answers to the question, “Why aren’t we talking about black on black crime?” But critics of Black Lives Matter don’t want to hear them.

If they cared, they’d be asking about crime within the African American community year-round, as many black activists and neighborhood leaders do. But as Doughboy told Tre in 1991’s “Boyz N the Hood” (and it’s still true today), “Either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about what’s going on in the hood.”

When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable.

When someone commits an act of terrorism against in the United States, which rightfully leads to anger and sadness, no one asks, “Well what about how many Americans kill other Americans each year?” Because that would crazy, now wouldn’t it?

But, by all means, let’s talk about “black on black crime.” You’ve probably heard a statistic like this before – The majority of black people murdered are killed by other black people. That’s true, but also misleading. The overwhelming majority of white murder victims each year are killed by white assailants. So, when’s the last time you heard the term “white on white crime?”

As shocking as it may be for some to hear, people generally commit crimes against people they know or live near. If you want to have a real discussion about crime, let’s talk about the factors that contribute to it happening in the first place.

White supremacists have attributed the fact that crime rates are higher among African Americans than whites to people of color being biologically more prone to violence. In reality, crime is directly linked more to poverty than race or any other factor.

According to the Bureau for Justice Statistics, People living in households with income below the federal poverty threshold are twice as likely to commit a violent crime than people in high-income households, regardless of race.

We live in a country where the poverty rate is more than twice as high among black Americans than white. And that has as much to do with 400 years of systematic racism than anything else.

White supremacists will tell you slavery was abolished more than 150 years ago. So, get over it. Yet, just as that was a hard sell to African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, it’s equally hard to accept 30 years after Rodney King and the L.A. Riots and weeks removed from the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd.

Thomas Abt, a senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, writes:

“Racial disparities in crime and punishment are real, but they have been produced in large part by a sustained campaign of persecution by whites against disempowered minorities, particularly African Americans. Officially, that effort has ended; overt racial discrimination has been prohibited by law for decades. Nevertheless, the brutal legacy of that campaign — racism, segregation, concentrated poverty, and violence — remains.”

None of this necessarily means a black person being killed by another black person is more or less significant than if they were killed by a police officer. Death is death and murder is murder.

Yet, what if it were captured on video? Could a victim’s family take solace in knowing evidence exists for that person to be prosecuted? That’s usually the case. But that may not matter for George Floyd. It certainly didn’t matter in the cases of Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.

What is someone supposed to do when you can be murdered legally? When police can harass you and then choke you out because you’re selling loose cigarettes or when a cop can kneel on your neck as you cry out “I can’t breathe" while his colleagues stand by and watch.

That’s why police brutality is its own unique horror. And African Americans are two and half times more likely than whites to be killed by law enforcement.

When you step outside every day knowing you’re twice as likely to be killed by someone sworn to protect you just because of the color of your skin, you’re dealing with a different type of fear. Don’t let statistics, ignorance or flat out racism cloud that. -snip

Bingo

That author's entire point is nullified with facts. They try to bring in white supremacists as if they have anything to do with our black violence and black homicide issues.

White supremacists are not killing young black men to the tune of 7000+ each year. 70% of black victims of violence are victims of violence from other black people - that still leaves a very large amount of 30% of violence against black people committed by other races (meaning, we don't just have a pure black on black violence problem that needs to be addressed). But that number shoots up above 90% when you talk about homicides (meaning, an overwhelming majority of black homicide victims are committed by black perpetrators).

If it was purely a "race" problem, then our African immigrants would experience the same exact violence problems. They don't and black immigrants are among the best of American denizens of any race or ethnicity demographic.

Trying to force the white-supremacist label on the black violence problem in the US is not only dishonest, it is harmful to the actual black violence problem. It does not solve the problem and instead, tries to make it taboo to even discuss it. This does not help black lives and only harms the situation. It is racist as hell to try and stigmatize the black violence problem in the US because it avoids a problem that can actually save black lives. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who spouts the nonsense about us not having a black violence problem is a racist.

But who cares about all that. Let's stick to the facts. Forget everything I just said (everyone will):

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/expanded-homicide

Mathematically compare the data between poverty and homicides, by race. Anyone interested in doing that?

You don't need to because I'll do it:

Estimated 60 million Hispanics in the US.
Average poverty across all stats is 19% for the Hispanic population.

Estimated 41.4 million Blacks in the US.
Average poverty across all stats is 22% for the Hispanic population.

So if the idea that it is a poverty problem is true, then we should see all 3 variables correlated for the Hispanic population like we see for the black population.

22% of the black population are in poverty = 9,108,000
19% of the Hispanic population who are in poverty = 13,200,000

Black Homicide Victims = 7,407
Hispanic Homicide Victims = 2,173

Homicide to Poverty Ratio (lower is better - means less are dying per 100,000 people in poverty):
Black Homicide to Poverty Ratio: 81 homicides per 100,000 people
Hispanic Homicide to Poverty Ratio: 16.5 homicides per 100,000 people

When controlling for specifically for poverty, in order for the Hispanic population to catch up to the black violence problem, you need about 5 times the Hispanic homicide victims.

We have a very clear black violence problem in the US and denying it is racist. Until the "progressives" and Democrats are willing to acknowledge the facts and actually do something about it, the bodies of young black men will continue to pile up in the streets.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
you're very combative today old pal, that's three people across the political spectrum you disagree with in one post. Keep it up. 🙂 😉

When you're wrong it's nice to have somone tell you then huh🙂 Just so we're clear you think I'm right wing when I've voted green party in the past, that's as far left in the USA as you can get so we aren't all that varied in politics, just opinions.

Ralph Nader was the boss, I'm for Andrew Yang policies. I just dislike information being spit out that skews information with it's inherent bias pretending to act neutrally.

So this guy flies his banner over the Burnley game in an obvious attempt to insult some people and Burnley reward him by never letting him watch a Burnley game ever again.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
in any reasonable discussion, that wouldn't be necessary. burden of proof wasn't even on you. and it will soon be dismissed or ignored outright by the usuals. the gdf is garbage. forget bannings and shut it down, I say.

Stop lying and this is the type of garbage that needs people to be banned.

He is making the claim it goes to anyone else and keeps spamming the same image over and over as though it makes any new point that I did not already address.

I already pointed out that #9 on the top 10 list for ActBlue is the DNC and Open Secrets debunked the myth that all the BLM funds are going to the DNC.

All others for ActBlue are for Democrats. If anyone would like to make the claim that no one else on Act Blue's list benefits from the BLM's donations go to anyone else besides the DNC, they are welcome to do so. The burden of proof is on anyone claiming that the Democrats do not benefit from ActBlue-powered donations. The direct connection is there and plain for any reasonable person, who is not a troll, to see.

Originally posted by samhain
So this guy flies his banner over the Burnley game in an obvious attempt to insult some people and Burnley reward him by never letting him watch a Burnley game ever again.
Job done