White Lives Matter banner flew over football game

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

Originally posted by dadudemon
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 Old Man Whirly!
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 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

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

You're logical deduction has no place for discussion here, if you can't print and prove it then tough titties...........I hate you DDM............this was also the case in Obama's run in the past where ppl used prepaid CC out of country to fund with the code to detect what country it was from.........oh well not legal now. 😱

Originally posted by snowdragon
You're logical deduction has no place for discussion here, if you can't print and prove it then tough titties...........I hate you DDM............this was also the case in Obama's run in the past where ppl used prepaid CC out of country to fund with the code to detect what country it was from.........oh well not legal now. 😱

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!
this would be the case in court, which is why you would need a forensic accountant.

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 read your article the first time man, no need to repost it. We have a hugely scandelous system in the USA to funnel money and it started with the judicial system. We f-d ourselves with citizens united and allowing corporations to be "people" of course without a moral compass.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I read your article the first time man, no need to repost it. We have a hugely scandelous system in the USA to funnel money and it started with the judicial system. We f-d ourselves with citizens united and allowing corporations to be "people" of course without a moral compass.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
that's one way of looking at it, I prefer to think a liberal cause would use a liberal platform.

It could but I believe that's where our politics split. You believe at any expense and I believe through democracy even if it's flawed.

I could be wrong though, you tell me.

Originally posted by snowdragon
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.

Well, that's because you're a dirty filthy Libertarian. uhuh

But, yes, if most people agree with us...what's the problem with reforming?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that's because you're a dirty filthy Libertarian. uhuh

But, yes, if most people agree with us...what's the problem with reforming?

I don't know, even though I am against much of the green party platform I agree with the spirit of it and at this point I would probably vote that way.

Here’s the way forward

-Remove money from politics.
- Just because you serve one term in Congress does not give you the right to retire with a full pension.
-Congress cannot vote to give themselves raises
-Make Congress pay grade like the Military.
-Remove incentives from Corporations. As in stop letting get away with shits. Amazon and Apple are 2 of the biggest ones.

Those are just the ones that can up without thinking to much on it.

Originally posted by SquallX
Here’s the way forward

-Remove money from politics.
- Just because you serve one term in Congress does not give you the right to retire with a full pension.
-Congress cannot vote to give themselves raises
-Make Congress pay grade like the Military.
-Remove incentives from Corporations. As in stop letting get away with shits. Amazon and Apple are 2 of the biggest ones.

Those are just the ones that can up without thinking to much on it.

Agreed with all these.

And I highly doubt any honest person active in the GDF would disagree with these.

Like I said before, SquallX for president.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Top-Notch!

👆

Whirly is right, you are a great addition to the GDF. Super glad to have you around. I also donate and spend time with other orgs that help the black community without all the politics and anti-science junk.

Drug War: no
Stop and Frisk: no

Black people are veritably, with solid nonpartisan science, disparately impacted by those 2 policies. Relative to white people, population prevalence, and violent crime prevalence, white people are disproportionately killed by police compared to any other race demographics.

The US Police, in general, need to improve across the board. It's an American problem, not just a black problem. By improving the police, we help black lives: that message should not get lost. And the uppity white people getting their panties in a bunch because of the people who want police to stop manhandling and killing black people need to take note that the policies people - who are well-read and intelligent - want, will help literally everyone else, too.

That's a media created problem and a black culture problem. The exceptions do not make the science.

Better regulations with the media could have saved dozens of lives that have been lost directly related to the George Floyd riots. Directly, dozens of people died because of these actions. And the hate and anger was almost entirely driven by the Mainstream Media. That is not protected speech. Round the clock news coverage of George Floyd's death, inciting anger, shaming the public, fear-mongering the people - not proteted speech under the first amendment. It directly led to lost lives. Were the 20+ lives lost during the riots worth the coverage of George Floyd's death? Was 1 life worth those other 20+?. I say, no. Not even close.

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.

Which is why I don't buy the argument that the presence of black officials without reform mean their are no racial issues to be tackled, least of all because it demands we make assumptions about that person's knowledge & character based solely on their race.

Anyway, for me the jury is out on how widespread racism is within US police. But in my view closing loopholes that empower racists to act can only be a good thing.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I'm aware.
In Minneapolis it took 8/13 councillors to vote for the abolition of their police force, and there is still talk that it could be blocked by the mayor. That's 14 interested parties, none of whom can individually dicate anything, discounting the populace they rely on for support, and the police lobbies that pour millions into influencing reform. Officials on any level of governance cannot just snap their fingers and make change occur, it has to be negotiated.

Which is why I don't buy the argument that the presence of black officials without reform mean their are no racial issues to be tackled, least of all because it demands we make assumptions about that person's knowledge & character based solely on their race.

Anyway, for me the jury is out on how widespread racism is within US police. But in my view closing loopholes that empower racists to act can only be a good thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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).

This is false, that is not what the article said. The two mentions of "White Supremacist" are:

"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." -snip

*Which is a fact WS do say that*

"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." -snip

*Which is a fact WS do say that* *Which is a fact that the mistreatment of Black people didn't end with when slavery ended*

I deleted the rest of your post as the premise was founded on non-truth and then you went on to do what the article is claiming, using Black-on-Black violence as a means to deflect away from police brutality. They're two separate issues, one does not negate the other.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is false, that is not what the article said. The two mentions of "White Supremacist" are:

"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." -snip

*Which is a fact WS do say that*

"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." -snip

*Which is a fact WS do say that* *Which is a fact that the mistreatment of Black people didn't end with when slavery ended*

I deleted the rest of your post as the premise was founded on non-truth and then you went on to do what the article is claiming, using Black-on-Black violence as a means to deflect away from police brutality. They're two separate issues, one does not negate the other.

If you'd like to read the post beyond the first sentence, I address everything the author brings up and directly nullify it.

Let me know when you've read the author's complete article and then read my rebuttals and let's see if you want to discuss the topic.

I appreciate it.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is false, that is not what the article said. The two mentions of "White Supremacist" are:

"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." -snip

*Which is a fact WS do say that*

"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." -snip

*Which is a fact WS do say that* *Which is a fact that the mistreatment of Black people didn't end with when slavery ended*

I deleted the rest of your post as the premise was founded on non-truth and then you went on to do what the article is claiming, using Black-on-Black violence as a means to deflect away from police brutality. They're two separate issues, one does not negate the other.

That's weird because anyone that uses a position of "white supremists" to make a point that is meant to overcome general discussion points seems a bit odd, like if you dissent from my opinion your a white supremist.

Seems valid to me too then...........what a bucket of fail that is.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That's weird because anyone that uses a position of "white supremists" to make a point that is meant to overcome general discussion points seems a bit odd, like if you dissent from my opinion your a white supremist.

Seems valid to me too then...........what a bucket of fail that is.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
only if the dissent enters into the realms of white supremacy surely.

Seems weird then to use such language to quell dissent. If I use those stats does that make me a white suppremist as the author infers........once again a narrative driven garbage article........I can assure you I'm not a white suppremist with a mixed heritage family........unless somehow clayton bigsby has infiltrated my family.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Seems weird then to use such language to quell dissent. If I use those stats does that make me a white suppremist as the author infers........once again a narrative driven garbage article........I can assure you I'm not a white suppremist with a mixed heritage family........unless somehow clayton bigsby has infiltrated my family.