This is why they kneel

https://i.imgur.com/tTu5ufw.png

I guess it’s white privilege now to call 911?


https://twitter.com/eddiezipperer/st...964370432?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

I guess it’s white privilege now to call 911?


https://twitter.com/eddiezipperer/st...964370432?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

What is your point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still don’t understand this defund the police thing but i think there are situations we use cops where other professionals are better suited for the job. My brother is mentally ill. No serious record, no violent history, but he can hear voices, be delusional etc. if someone like him needed a wellness check I’d prefer it came from a social worker instead of a crime fighter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Once you realize it’s not who specifically gave the order it’s the total optics of protestors being gassed so Trump can walk to a church you might have a brain.

Seriously, you really don’t see why people would critique that? Even if not a single politician gave an order to tear gas and disperse a crowd to open a space to kneel, if a crowd of peaceful protestors had been gassed so they could kneel for a photo op yeah they’d be getting a rash of **** too.

---

Question in the Church issue………

Do you think the police or secret service walked out to the crowd and started shooting pepper bullets and smoke grenades (it wasn't tear gas)???

or

Do you think the police or secret service walked out to the crowd and (SEVERAL TIMES) asked them to clear the area and move back??? Then, once the crowd refused to kove and probably became aggressive, the police used pepper bullets and smoke grenades (it wasn't tear gas).

Which do you think most likely happened????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

I still don’t understand this defund the police thing but i think there are situations we use cops where other professionals are better suited for the job. My brother is mentally ill. No serious record, no violent history, but he can hear voices, be delusional etc. if someone like him needed a wellness check I’d prefer it came from a social worker instead of a crime fighter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

As someone whose sister was bipolar and on full disability because of it for years, I know full well the issues that can arise there. Early on, prior to her diagnosis, she lived in the same city I did in Oregon. She would get herself into situations/altercations for reasons I couldn't figure out for awhile. The end result was my having something of an understanding with local police officers where, at times, rather than even confront her directly, they'd first call me. Police officers by and large aren't trained for that and, since people with mental illnesses aren't always immediately identifiable, an officer would quite often be the exact opposite of what a person might need.

As far as the defund the police thing, until I heard some about Camden, NJ having done this 7 years ago, I thought it an automatically bad idea. Perhaps they spend time looking at Camden to see how much of a model that could be for significant change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Question in the Church issue………

Do you think the police or secret service walked out to the crowd and started shooting pepper bullets and smoke grenades (it wasn't tear gas)???

or

Do you think the police or secret service walked out to the crowd and (SEVERAL TIMES) asked them to clear the area and move back??? Then, once the crowd refused to kove and probably became aggressive, the police used pepper bullets and smoke grenades (it wasn't tear gas).

Which do you think most likely happened????

---

MY guess is....somewhere in between..as is often the case in these situations.
Your first is from the protesters POV, your 2nd is what the govt says happened.
Reality is, it was likely somewhere in between where the police may have asked the crowd to move back, but didn't do it in a way they were being taken seriously, then possibly too quickly went from that to the pepper bombs...or some similar gray area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

They ARE treated differently tho. That's the part you're not understanding. Other factors lead to how one is treated, such as mannerisms, appearance, etc, but skin color is also one factor.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

I have to agree with nastynice. there are more blacks treated differently than whites. I don't know the percent but it's happening and because they;re black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Nah, it actually is what you've done (as you show in the second sentence here). :laugh2:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

I'm sure they'd really appreciate you telling them how wrong they are in their approach to everything.

---

not everything.

I disagreed with a method of protesting.

I also gave Kaepernick credit for the money that he donated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

You provide WAY more than enough.

---

then it should be really easy for you to show that. if there has been this much, back that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Is this a serious post? Trump was criticized for holding a bible up in front of a church, he was criticized for holding a bible up in front of a church after gassing peaceful protestors to clear a path to get there.

Unless I missed it, none of the Politicians who knelt and had a moment of silence threw gas to clear away peaceful protestors to get there.

C’mon Dbroncisno, you’re normally smarter than this.

---

Trump was criticized for the bible part and that alone was called a photo op.

these Democrats did the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flips333

Also what's all this science behind not doing drugs? just asking cause I'm literally a scientist who studies drugs.

---

Point 1…I don't really care if they legalize al the drugs they want to. I've given up on this. People want to mess themselves up, that's on them.

Point 2…you're the scientist. So what are you saying here? That the science and medical field has/has not determined that illicit drugs are/are not detrimental to those who take them??? Not enough studies??? Not enough info??? What is your point???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

So ... would you rather garnish wages (including from the government) of someone collecting $0 or pay to house and feed them, while also sponsoring them learning more ways to commit crimes when they get out that will cost society even more? Do you know anyone who chooses to have no money and is happy? The reality is that even if a tiny number of people never earn money so we never collect money from them we are still far better off.

Other places that have legalized drugs have managed it so can we. You might have noticed the medical marijuana industry didn't suffer by legalization.

I never suggested ignoring crime, just that I don't want non-violent people going to prison.

Do you pay a toll to drive on the road in front of your house? Do you pay a toll to get mail? To use the library? We pay for a lot of things we deem as essential from our taxes. Cities with subways want the people off the street in their cars, they don't want to maintain parking structures for them. Make the subway free and pay for the vast majority of it by letting go of all the people who manage tolls and maintain the machines and the people used to collect them.

I've lived where there are toll booths and the dramatic difference doing away with the toll booths on the bridges would have made both in millions of YEARS of wasted time, but also dramatically reducing pollution, and in the end saving money. Most of the tolls you pay pays for the infrastructure that collects the tolls.

The tolls on the bridges where I used to live were introduced as limited time issues, instead of ending when the bridge was paid off they increased and increased and increased and on and on, and they went from paying minimum wage to toll collectors to giving them government pensions that include hazard pay bonuses.

I'm also for getting rid of the DMV because we can do the same job without all that extra infrastructure and save money and time in the long run and do a better job.

---

This is where all these liberal and progressive ideas get really, really stupid.

Eliminate tolls will be offset by the elimination of time wasted at toll booths and by eliminating pollution from those waiting cars? Free transit is offset cutting back on employees??? That's just plain stupid. Why don't we have delivery trucks deliver our food to eliminate the time wasted going to the supermarket and the carbon footprint of all those cars. Maybe make it illegal to throw away clothes less that 5 years old (they're still good right) so as to avoid the need of landfills and clothing factories.

When you make stupid points like this you lose all credibility. You really do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

The issue I have with it is that it's not a proposed policy change. My brother told me years ago that "I will form a commission/committee" is politician for "**** you".

I'm not a career politician and I have opinions on what is reasonable and should sell very well with the public, I don't believe he doesn't. I suspect that he isn't saying anything more because he has had strong support with the police for decades and he doesn't want to lose it by doing what is popular and he's not saying what he really thinks because he knows he will lose a LOT of votes if he does.

---

Well to be fair he did put forth policy changes as well. Otherwise I'd agree.

well I guess Ruth Bader Ginsburg is racist. :shrug:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/polit...ick/index.html

Quote:

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Kaepernick protests: 'I think it's dumb and disrespectful'

---

Quote:

---

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, never shy to weigh in on the controversies of the day, said she thinks "it's really dumb" for San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and others to refuse to stand for the national anthem.

But the 83-year-old justice said she "wouldn't lock a person up for doing it."

---

Quote:

---

Of Kaepernick and others she says, she thinks their actions are "dumb and disrespectful".

"I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it's a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn't lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act."

---

I don't think anyone Trump included said to lock up people protesting during the anthem.


Kaepernick speaks, from the same article..

Quote:

---

Kaepernick said Tuesday it was "disappointing to hear a Supreme Court justice call a protest against injustices and oppression 'stupid, dumb.' "

---

Quote:

---

"I was reading an article and it refers to white critique of black protests and how they try to de-legitimize it by calling it 'idiotic, dumb, stupid,' things of that nature, so they can sidestep the real issue," he told reporters Tuesday, according to the Mercury News. "As I was reading that I saw more and more truth how this has been approached by people in power and white people in power in particular."

---

RBG didn't say the protest in general was dumb, just this method.

the next paragraph is telling, apparently someone white (like RBG) isn't allowed to have an opinion on the method of protest, and they are sidestepping the issue. despite many (including media) talking about the method and not the issue.

anyone white or not isn't sidestepping the issue, they are commenting on the choice of method, which wouldn't be happening if Kaepernick and others picked a less controversial method.