Stackhouse Responds To Article About Raptors Locking Arms During The Anthem

[OAKLEY_2]

You seem biased, you know more white people get killed by cops every year than black people right? Some how no one gives a **** about that. Just 3 months ago a teen got gunned down by a police officer and no one is talking about it, why? because he's white.
http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/body-cam-video-shows-cop-fatally-shooting-unarmed-teen/
He was unarmed. The black fatalities are usually justified, they have a gun, they fight with cops or are criminals. Then you have blm who come in and use the opportunity to start looting / burning towns down. 90% of Police black shootings are justified because they are usually a threat.
The worst was when BLM murdered those 5 white cops and then they were giving excuses that he had military mental issues etc. But what they didn't mention was that he was kicked out of the military for raping a girl.
Seriously dude you sound racist.

If your immediate position is that black people deserve to be killed, and that they are inherently criminals, you need to stop arguing because your confirmation bias has clouded your perception of reality.

Where did I say that you idiot, I said these protests are one sided. No one is talking about all the white people that constantly get killed by cops. Mostly all white and black cop killings are deserving but it seems pretty racist that nothing gets mentioned when innocent white teen gets gunned down and there is a body cam video of it.
Nearly 400 white people got shot by cops so far and 170 blacks. Can you name 1 white person?

If you are correct in what you say and whites are as much the victim of excessive police enforcement as African Americans then you should find comfort knowing Valancuinas and Poetl also locked arms with their African American friends. Somehow the African Americans seem to have more stories about friends and relatives getting killed by cops than citizens from Vilnius or Vienna.

[Double Helix]

1.I understand populism. I saw the rise of Rob Ford first hand. I understand why some seem to desperately crave the idea of an everyday average less-polished person in charge but at the same time I have to ask why. What is it about that which seems so appealing? What kind of ego does one have to think that they can tackle all of these important issues without listening to experts? This whole notion of trying to cast intellectuals in a negative light or "elitists" is absurd when one really stops to think about it. I want the person that's in charge of Finance to be somebody who is an expert in that area. Not my buddy.
.
.
2.Populist everyperson politicians tend to trade research, facts and pro-active thinking for conspiracies, emotion and knee-jerk, reactive quick fixes. They rally against the only groups fact-checking and the media and create echo chambers where anyone who questions anything is the enemy. They throw the baby (what is working) out with the dirty bathwater (what needs work).
.
.
3.I don't need to relate to the person in charge. I don't need to like them.

And yet I'm guessing you would have voted Obama over Romney.........

1.Obama had less experience and expertise..
2.Obama had more emotional populism.. yes we can hope and change
3.Obama had more likability - everyone's cool (1?) black friend

Romney had:

-A far better resume
-Less emotional voters
-Was less relatable

I'll leave it to others to decide the state of America 8 years later. Personally I think people vote based on personal ideology and seek to justify their vote based on selective reasoning. imho

personally, i think outcome is what matters. style is irrelevant. what trajectory do you wish for.

1) As others shared later it was McCain initially. With regard to experience in law-making though Obama had been an elected official for 12 years prior to his Presidential run. He may have looked young and didn't have the experience of McCain but he was infinitely more prepared than Trump was. At a certain point there's a point of diminishing returns with experience which is why companies don't always elect to go with the oldest most experienced CEOs out there. They want some experience but that's not all they're after. Still, there's a minimum requirement for every role unless the person was the founder of their own business.

2) When I personally think of populist politicians I think of them more in the context of demagogues who focus primarily on the most ignorant in the electorate. Some also call this appealing to the lowest common denominator. To me, it's more about the concept of pitching intellectuals as elites that think too much and are thus out of touch with what really matters to folks. People like Rob Ford and Donald Trump (among others) convert gaffes into strengths. Their appeal is that they seem to come at hot topics from the same perspective of the common man right down to the lack of polish or willingness to listen to experts and think long term. What would normally make them undesirable instead becomes their calling card charm for some. They milk that for all it's worth and it also buys them tremendous room for gaffes or missteps that would sink more serious candidates. They lower the bar both in terms of platform ideas and in discourse and in doing so all but force their opponents to do the same. They find wedge issues in polling that average voters seem ignorant or highly emotional about (The value or Brexit, the Niqab, path to citizenship, use of the words radical Islam or not, refugees) and go with the emotional, easier to explain side of the argument 99% of the time, applying that wedge in against the much harder, long-term, fair, side of the argument which their opponents are often forced to take up. Populists know that most people don't have time to read a few paragraphs for why free trade is favored by economists, or why Muslim women should have the right to wear a Niqab, or why an update in online policing might be necessary. So, they always take the easier, knee-jerk, more emotional side of the debate and ride these wedge issues to victory in many cases. I'm half surprised Trump didn't try to focus on the whole transgender bathroom controversy because that seems like a classic wedge issue somebody like him would normally pounce on because it's much harder to be on the defending side of the concept than it is to argue what if scenarios about potential sex offenders exploiting rules.

The TPP flip flop Clinton and countless others did earlier this year was brilliant strategy for this reason. It's all but impossible to explain to workers the economic benefits of these big deals and how some exporters benefit and she and her team knew it. All he'd have to do was say the things he's been saying about losing jobs and she'd have immediately been forced to explain macro economic theory essentially each and every time. Good luck trying that to the masses in easily digestible sound bites. It's hard enough to explain the complexities of Wall Street most of the time. It was the same way with Brexit. A simple message like "Let's look after our own and focus on us first" resonates. It's the easier sell. You're going to see a lot of politicians over the next decade try to use that to win because the counter arguments for globalist economics and allies and NATO are simply too complex to get into easily. Lowest common denominator messaging works. Advertisers call it the KISS principle. Keep it simple, stupid. Clinton likely would be in a much tighter race had she not flip flopped on the TPP against a populist like Trump.

3) Without a doubt Obama dominated his opponents with aesthetic qualities and characteristics that his opponents couldn't match. He was athletic. Approachable. He was a terrific speaker. Charming. Funny. I totally agree that these qualities helped him get votes. A lot of people vote for who they like or admire.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[OAKLEY_2]

1.I understand populism. I saw the rise of Rob Ford first hand. I understand why some seem to desperately crave the idea of an everyday average less-polished person in charge but at the same time I have to ask why. What is it about that which seems so appealing? What kind of ego does one have to think that they can tackle all of these important issues without listening to experts? This whole notion of trying to cast intellectuals in a negative light or "elitists" is absurd when one really stops to think about it. I want the person that's in charge of Finance to be somebody who is an expert in that area. Not my buddy.
.
.
2.Populist everyperson politicians tend to trade research, facts and pro-active thinking for conspiracies, emotion and knee-jerk, reactive quick fixes. They rally against the only groups fact-checking and the media and create echo chambers where anyone who questions anything is the enemy. They throw the baby (what is working) out with the dirty bathwater (what needs work).
.
.
3.I don't need to relate to the person in charge. I don't need to like them.

And yet I'm guessing you would have voted Obama over Romney.........

1.Obama had less experience and expertise..
2.Obama had more emotional populism.. yes we can hope and change
3.Obama had more likability - everyone's cool (1?) black friend

Romney had:

-A far better resume
-Less emotional voters
-Was less relatable

I'll leave it to others to decide the state of America 8 years later. Personally I think people vote based on personal ideology and seek to justify their vote based on selective reasoning. imho

personally, i think outcome is what matters. style is irrelevant. what trajectory do you wish for.

1) As others shared later it was McCain initially. With regard to experience in law-making though Obama had been an elected official for 12 years prior to his Presidential run. He may have looked young and didn't have the experience of McCain but he was infinitely more prepared than Trump was. At a certain point there's a point of diminishing returns with experience which is why companies don't always elect to go with the oldest most experienced CEOs out there. They want some experience but that's not all they're after. Still, there's a minimum requirement for every role unless the person was the founder of their own business.

2) When I personally think of populist politicians I think of them more in the context of demagogues who focus primarily on the most ignorant in the electorate. Some also call this appealing to the lowest common denominator. To me, it's more about the concept of pitching intellectuals as elites that think too much and are thus out of touch with what really matters to folks. People like Rob Ford and Donald Trump (among others) convert gaffes into strengths. Their appeal is that they seem to come at hot topics from the same perspective of the common man right down to the lack of polish or willingness to listen to experts and think long term. What would normally make them undesirable instead becomes their calling card charm for some. They milk that for all it's worth and it also buys them tremendous room for gaffes or missteps that would sink more serious candidates. They lower the bar both in terms of platform ideas and in discourse and in doing so all but force their opponents to do the same. They find wedge issues in polling that average voters seem ignorant or highly emotional about (The value or Brexit, the Niqab, path to citizenship, use of the words radical Islam or not, refugees) and go with the emotional, easier to explain side of the argument 99% of the time, applying that wedge in against the much harder, long-term, fair, side of the argument which their opponents are often forced to take up. Populists know that most people don't have time to read a few paragraphs for why free trade is favored by economists, or why Muslim women should have the right to wear a Niqab, or why an update in online policing might be necessary. So, they always take the easier, knee-jerk, more emotional side of the debate and ride these wedge issues to victory in many cases. I'm half surprised Trump didn't try to focus on the whole transgender bathroom controversy because that seems like a classic wedge issue somebody like him would normally pounce on because it's much harder to be on the defending side of the concept than it is to argue what if scenarios about potential sex offenders exploiting rules.

The TPP flip flop Clinton and countless others did earlier this year was brilliant strategy for this reason. It's all but impossible to explain to workers the economic benefits of these big deals and how some exporters benefit and she and her team knew it. All he'd have to do was say the things he's been saying about losing jobs and she'd have immediately been forced to explain macro economic theory essentially each and every time. Good luck trying that to the masses in easily digestible sound bites. It's hard enough to explain the complexities of Wall Street most of the time. It was the same way with Brexit. A simple message like "Let's look after our own and focus on us first" resonates. It's the easier sell. You're going to see a lot of politicians over the next decade try to use that to win because the counter arguments for globalist economics and allies and NATO are simply too complex to get into easily. Lowest common denominator messaging works. Advertisers call it the KISS principle. Keep it simple, stupid. Clinton likely would be in a much tighter race had she not flip flopped on the TPP against a populist like Trump.

3) Without a doubt Obama dominated his opponents with aesthetic qualities and characteristics that his opponents couldn't match. He was athletic. Approachable. He was a terrific speaker. Charming. Funny. I totally agree that these qualities helped him get votes. A lot of people vote for who they like or admire.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

So you are saying globalization (big all encompassing concept) TPP and Britain staying in the EU are sound policies from a macroeconomic perspective? What segments of society truly gain from shipping-outsourcing manufacturing to Asia? Who gains from policies that lead to greater income inequality? Who gains when there are less domestic consumers because multinational corporations for expediency and subsidized incentives relocate operations? Or in Apple's case illegally use Ireland to avoid domestic taxes?

Don't know about you but I freakin hate snowblowers from China and most of their other trinkets are shipping subsidized to North America in a near market free for all.

Politically we let this happen because of ignorance not in spite of it.

[Double Helix]

And yet I'm guessing you would have voted Obama over Romney.........

1.Obama had less experience and expertise..
2.Obama had more emotional populism.. yes we can hope and change
3.Obama had more likability - everyone's cool (1?) black friend

Romney had:

-A far better resume
-Less emotional voters
-Was less relatable

I'll leave it to others to decide the state of America 8 years later. Personally I think people vote based on personal ideology and seek to justify their vote based on selective reasoning. imho

personally, i think outcome is what matters. style is irrelevant. what trajectory do you wish for.

1) As others shared later it was McCain initially. With regard to experience in law-making though Obama had been an elected official for 12 years prior to his Presidential run. He may have looked young and didn't have the experience of McCain but he was infinitely more prepared than Trump was. At a certain point there's a point of diminishing returns with experience which is why companies don't always elect to go with the oldest most experienced CEOs out there. They want some experience but that's not all they're after. Still, there's a minimum requirement for every role unless the person was the founder of their own business.

2) When I personally think of populist politicians I think of them more in the context of demagogues who focus primarily on the most ignorant in the electorate. Some also call this appealing to the lowest common denominator. To me, it's more about the concept of pitching intellectuals as elites that think too much and are thus out of touch with what really matters to folks. People like Rob Ford and Donald Trump (among others) convert gaffes into strengths. Their appeal is that they seem to come at hot topics from the same perspective of the common man right down to the lack of polish or willingness to listen to experts and think long term. What would normally make them undesirable instead becomes their calling card charm for some. They milk that for all it's worth and it also buys them tremendous room for gaffes or missteps that would sink more serious candidates. They lower the bar both in terms of platform ideas and in discourse and in doing so all but force their opponents to do the same. They find wedge issues in polling that average voters seem ignorant or highly emotional about (The value or Brexit, the Niqab, path to citizenship, use of the words radical Islam or not, refugees) and go with the emotional, easier to explain side of the argument 99% of the time, applying that wedge in against the much harder, long-term, fair, side of the argument which their opponents are often forced to take up. Populists know that most people don't have time to read a few paragraphs for why free trade is favored by economists, or why Muslim women should have the right to wear a Niqab, or why an update in online policing might be necessary. So, they always take the easier, knee-jerk, more emotional side of the debate and ride these wedge issues to victory in many cases. I'm half surprised Trump didn't try to focus on the whole transgender bathroom controversy because that seems like a classic wedge issue somebody like him would normally pounce on because it's much harder to be on the defending side of the concept than it is to argue what if scenarios about potential sex offenders exploiting rules.

The TPP flip flop Clinton and countless others did earlier this year was brilliant strategy for this reason. It's all but impossible to explain to workers the economic benefits of these big deals and how some exporters benefit and she and her team knew it. All he'd have to do was say the things he's been saying about losing jobs and she'd have immediately been forced to explain macro economic theory essentially each and every time. Good luck trying that to the masses in easily digestible sound bites. It's hard enough to explain the complexities of Wall Street most of the time. It was the same way with Brexit. A simple message like "Let's look after our own and focus on us first" resonates. It's the easier sell. You're going to see a lot of politicians over the next decade try to use that to win because the counter arguments for globalist economics and allies and NATO are simply too complex to get into easily. Lowest common denominator messaging works. Advertisers call it the KISS principle. Keep it simple, stupid. Clinton likely would be in a much tighter race had she not flip flopped on the TPP against a populist like Trump.

3) Without a doubt Obama dominated his opponents with aesthetic qualities and characteristics that his opponents couldn't match. He was athletic. Approachable. He was a terrific speaker. Charming. Funny. I totally agree that these qualities helped him get votes. A lot of people vote for who they like or admire.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

So you are saying globalization (big all encompassing concept) TPP and Britain staying in the EU are sound policies from a macroeconomic perspective? What segments of society truly gain from shipping-outsourcing manufacturing to Asia? Who gains from policies that lead to greater income inequality? Who gains when there are less domestic consumers because multinational corporations for expediency and subsidized incentives relocate operations? Or in Apple's case illegally use Ireland to avoid domestic taxes?

Don't know about you but I freakin hate snowblowers from China and most of their other trinkets are shipping subsidized to North America in a near market free for all.

Politically we let this happen because of ignorance not in spite of it.

This is a good read. I keep looking for a great visualization on the rapid rise of mergers and acquisitions, which in my opinion, and the writer of that article's opinion is a massively underrated contributor to the joblessness in North America. So many startups now just want to get their company to a level where they're bought out by the biggest shark and retire. The economies of scale lead to massive job losses.

These are complex issues of course and not easily debated without complex ideas that aren't as easy to throw into a sound bite as high tariffs sound but as the article points out, and it's something Mark Cuban has been especially argumentative over lately, it's actually that cost of living would rise substantially for the poor and middle class if goods suddenly were tariffed massively. People are complaining about a carbon tax right now? Protectionism has been tried in America before and failed. Research the Smoot-Hawley tariff act. Better yet, have a look at this old ad from around that time period. It sounds a lot like Trump today with less inflammatory language. . What's more... nearly as many economists today see the Democratic economic plan as superior. They did then, too, and they were ignored but proven right.

That tariff act was like pouring gasoline on America's fires that were burning and it extended the Great Depression massively. It took FDR to get them out of that mess. If Trump somehow won, which is looking increasingly unlikely, and actually imposed all of those 35% tariffs the biggest winner oddly enough would be a country like Germany. Perhaps Great Britain if they didn't follow the US lead. Other countries would cut America out. Germany's pharmaceutical industry would clean up. Volkswagens would be cheaper than Chevys and Fords in many countries. Audis would be cheaper than Cadillacs and Buicks. And we'd see a whole host of other goods and brands from them flood into the Canadian, British and many other markets in retaliation over the US tariffs. Mark Cuban also pointed out another fallacy in Trump's high tariff concept. How long would it take for any companies to decide they're going to shut down recently built factories overseas and return to America to spend and build brand new ones. A decade? Maybe more. Maybe never given the propensity for regime change in America. Who would make that call without knowing that the next regime wouldn't just revert back? The Trump plan would lead to 4-8 years of less money in people's pockets while they waited and hoped some old factory jobs might return when in fact the Democrats would be focusing on a more modern jobs plan with many of the ideas outlined in the above article, including reducing the tariffs (which is basically what FDR did -- he listened to the economists) and so that entire 4-8 year run of pain would all be for nought and would likely lead to Germany's economic growth and many German brands establishing a stronger foothold in markets that have typically been US-friendly.

As I said, the job losses are an issue and trade is a complex issue but these high tariff gimmicks on offer also have complex repercussions that could lead to more working poverty, less disposable income for middle class working families, and perhaps very little actual job growth before the next regime changes.

Another challenge is that networking means you could have somebody controlling machinery from Mexico that's technically "made" in Flint supervised by one Union worker and QA'd by him. Technology can't be underestimated here. There will be workarounds. What state hosts the cloud?

One final aspect of globalization that is routinely overlooked and perhaps a little similar to global warming in that it's huge but hard for many to fathom or take seriously is the reduced threat of war. Everyone knows China is for real right now. Everyone knows Russia isn't playing around these days either. The biggest reasons why these sanctions work on countries is because they all see the benefits of globalization and so cutting one out can have devastating effects and force them to change. If China wasn't reliant on North America and Europe to buy goods I see little reason to believe they wouldn't be more hostile toward all of us. Their military might and populations are truly mind-boggling and if they wanted additional resources or land and didn't have the economic engine to buy these things legitimately it's not hard at all to imagine a more isolated China eventually having a leader bold enough to imagine taking it with Russia perhaps fanning those flames and joining in as allies. A war like that perhaps wouldn't be seen for another 30-50 years but it could happen and would be nightmarish for all involved if it did. It's far less likely to occur given the impacts of Globalization, which have dramatically reduced wealthy state conflicts from previous centuries. Terrorism may be up. Africa still has major wars. But Globalization, and NATO, and the UN (these are not necessarily related but I'm tying them together here to wrap this up nevertheless) have most of the G8 at least on solid speaking terms. And that's no small feat given our considerable differences.












Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[ontnut]

Finally someone with an IQ higher than 60 spoke out. Like he said, they should deal with american issues on their own time, this is Canada.

Seriously?
You think racism and tensions between police and (black) citizens is strictly a US problem, so only sporting events that happen in the US should be subject to protests or demonstrations? You think there have been no shootings or racially-inclined misconduct between police officers and black citizens in Toronto?

Seriously?

Nevemind that the athletes themselves are largely American, and that we are talking about an American sports league...

This is ignorance.

You seem biased, you know more white people get killed by cops every year than black people right? Some how no one gives a **** about that. Just 3 months ago a teen got gunned down by a police officer and no one is talking about it, why? because he's white.
http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/body-cam-video-shows-cop-fatally-shooting-unarmed-teen/
He was unarmed. The black fatalities are usually justified, they have a gun, they fight with cops or are criminals. Then you have blm who come in and use the opportunity to start looting / burning towns down. 90% of Police black shootings are justified because they are usually a threat.
The worst was when BLM murdered those 5 white cops and then they were giving excuses that he had military mental issues etc. But what they didn't mention was that he was kicked out of the military for raping a girl.
Seriously dude you sound racist.

Thanks for explaining the quote, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

[ontnut]

You seem biased, you know more white people get killed by cops every year than black people right? Some how no one gives a **** about that. Just 3 months ago a teen got gunned down by a police officer and no one is talking about it, why? because he's white.
http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/body-cam-video-shows-cop-fatally-shooting-unarmed-teen/
He was unarmed. The black fatalities are usually justified, they have a gun, they fight with cops or are criminals. Then you have blm who come in and use the opportunity to start looting / burning towns down. 90% of Police black shootings are justified because they are usually a threat.
The worst was when BLM murdered those 5 white cops and then they were giving excuses that he had military mental issues etc. But what they didn't mention was that he was kicked out of the military for raping a girl.
Seriously dude you sound racist.

If your immediate position is that black people deserve to be killed, and that they are inherently criminals, you need to stop arguing because your confirmation bias has clouded your perception of reality.

Where did I say that you idiot, I said these protests are one sided. No one is talking about all the white people that constantly get killed by cops. Mostly all white and black cop killings are deserving but it seems pretty racist that nothing gets mentioned when an innocent white teen gets gunned down and there is a body cam video of it.
Nearly 400 white people got shot by cops so far and 170 blacks. Can you name 1 white person?

Percentage of US population by race(2010):
Caucasian: 64%
African American: 13%
Hispanic/Latino: 16%

Percentage of prison inmate population by race (2016):
Caucasian: 39%
African American: 40%
Hispanic/Latino: 19%

The rate of incarceration of African Americans is over 300% the expected rate based on population, whereas Caucasians are incarcerated roughly 65% of their expected rate.

There are 5 times more Caucasians than African-Americans living in America, and yet, there are MORE African-Americans in prison than Caucasians.

The shooting statistics are similar, with 50% of police shooting victims being Caucasian (under-represented based on population), and 26% being African American (200% the the expected rate)

If you're going to be racist and say that African-American people are simply more predisposed to committing crime due to something inherent in their genes/psyche etc., then there's no sense in continuing this discussion. The fact of the matter is, they are VASTLY over-represented in the prison system, and this is NOT a recent phenomenon. It has been this way for decades, if not centuries.

The issue continues to be a broad one, involving economics, education, politics, race and more. It's not just about police vs. black citizens, although it is clearly a major issue due to disproportionate arrests, shootings etc., but it has much more to do with the environment that certain people are born into, and raised in, and how long-standing prejudices on both sides of the law result in clashes and conflicts that often turn deadly.

This is not to say that there isn't fault on both sides here, but to say that BLM or other protests are unjustified simply because "white people get shot too" is to complete sidestep the issue in a Donald-Trumpian way.

[ontnut]

Just fyi but the west as a whole (USA, Britain, Canada, France, ect.) didnt defeat hitler, not even close. 80% of all german military deaths came on the eastern front. Much as I hate them for occupying my ancestral home multiple times and all the innocents they killed, the soviets beat hitler, not the west, and certainly not America.

When hero worshiping people need to understand that Hitler and Mussolini were more than popular with international industry, banks, the Catholic church and many other persons of priviledge. Hitler as rogue madman is the worst bit of history distortion the "winners" ever wrote. The lovely allies, our heroes, also carpet bombed Hamburg and huge numbers of innocent civilians, men, women, children were scorched where they stood in the melting ashvault. This bombing carnage was practiced on the city of Lubeck to see how destructive it would be as an eventual war tactic. The bombing of Hamburg is widely considered to have been a war crime and was the brainchild of the British.

Are you a Nazi sympathizer or something? Two points to counter this ridiculous post.

1. Money makes the world go round. Even the worst dictators in the world will have banks, multi-national businesses and anyone else do business with them if the money is right. Remember hearing about all the celebrities and singers who performed for Gadhafi and various other Middle East dictators, back during the Arab spring? This is why sanctions are imposed for regimes that the rest of the world agrees needs to be stopped. It's just juvenile to expect banks, businesses and entire countries to say no to them out of some honor code. They know that somebody else, a competitor in their line of business, will say yes to the business they themselves are turning down.

2. Did you ever hear about the Battle of Britain? Or the Blitzkrieg? The Nazis bombed British civilian populations, intentionally I might add, years before the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. So you can't ask for a "fair" one way war. The only reason the bombings of major German cities should be considered wrong is that they didn't have the desired effect of demoralizing German citizens by breaking their collective will. Britain and the US should have realized this given that the Battle of Britain also didn't break British resolve and actually helped galvanize the collective war efforts of its citizens. It gave them grit and they should have realized a similar reaction would happen if Germany went through a similar event.

It's important to remember that history is written by the victors.
There were atrocities on both sides of the war.
Americans launched nukes on two major cities, knowing full well they were targeting citizens, killing hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people in the blink of an eye. But when American history is taught in schools, you'll hear about how Sept 11th was and example of the worst terrorist attack ever, or how Pearl Harbor was a despicable attack on US soil, but not about how Americans vaporized entire cities.

[OAKLEY_2]

When hero worshiping people need to understand that Hitler and Mussolini were more than popular with international industry, banks, the Catholic church and many other persons of priviledge. Hitler as rogue madman is the worst bit of history distortion the "winners" ever wrote. The lovely allies, our heroes, also carpet bombed Hamburg and huge numbers of innocent civilians, men, women, children were scorched where they stood in the melting ashvault. This bombing carnage was practiced on the city of Lubeck to see how destructive it would be as an eventual war tactic. The bombing of Hamburg is widely considered to have been a war crime and was the brainchild of the British.

Are you a Nazi sympathizer or something? Two points to counter this ridiculous post.

1. Money makes the world go round. Even the worst dictators in the world will have banks, multi-national businesses and anyone else do business with them if the money is right. Remember hearing about all the celebrities and singers who performed for Gadhafi and various other Middle East dictators, back during the Arab spring? This is why sanctions are imposed for regimes that the rest of the world agrees needs to be stopped. It's just juvenile to expect banks, businesses and entire countries to say no to them out of some honor code. They know that somebody else, a competitor in their line of business, will say yes to the business they themselves are turning down.

2. Did you ever hear about the Battle of Britain? Or the Blitzkrieg? The Nazis bombed British civilian populations, intentionally I might add, years before the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. So you can't ask for a "fair" one way war. The only reason the bombings of major German cities should be considered wrong is that they didn't have the desired effect of demoralizing German citizens by breaking their collective will. Britain and the US should have realized this given that the Battle of Britain also didn't break British resolve and actually helped galvanize the collective war efforts of its citizens. It gave them grit and they should have realized a similar reaction would happen if Germany went through a similar event.

It's important to remember that history is written by the victors.
There were atrocities on both sides of the war.
Americans launched nukes on two major cities, knowing full well they were targeting citizens, killing hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people in the blink of an eye. But when American history is taught in schools, you'll hear about how Sept 11th was and example of the worst terrorist attack ever, or how Pearl Harbor was a despicable attack on US soil, but not about how Americans vaporized entire cities.

Bingo. My point was rallying around the troops with unconditional "love" (We support our troops) may blind people to international aggression by whomever. Of course we support the work troops do but I am not sticking on the bumber sticker if I don't like the mission. The "freedom" those troops are paid to fight for protects my right to protest any potential deployment. If our regional para military aka the police are deployed in likewise questionable ways we all better protest.

[RaptorsJunkie]

I always cringe at the whole "the military protects us and our freedoms!" narrative. It's utter nonsense lol.

I can't believe this quote has 14 And One's (at the time of writing this).

You never think you are going to have cancer until you cancer just like you never believe you'll go to war until you are in war.

What is utter nonsense is your comment...

[JonnyFive5]

If your immediate position is that black people deserve to be killed, and that they are inherently criminals, you need to stop arguing because your confirmation bias has clouded your perception of reality.

Where did I say that you idiot, I said these protests are one sided. No one is talking about all the white people that constantly get killed by cops. Mostly all white and black cop killings are deserving but it seems pretty racist that nothing gets mentioned when an innocent white teen gets gunned down and there is a body cam video of it.
Nearly 400 white people got shot by cops so far and 170 blacks. Can you name 1 white person?

Percentage of US population by race(2010):
Caucasian: 64%
African American: 13%
Hispanic/Latino: 16%

Percentage of prison inmate population by race (2016):
Caucasian: 39%
African American: 40%
Hispanic/Latino: 19%

The rate of incarceration of African Americans is over 300% the expected rate based on population, whereas Caucasians are incarcerated roughly 65% of their expected rate.

There are 5 times more Caucasians than African-Americans living in America, and yet, there are MORE African-Americans in prison than Caucasians.

The shooting statistics are similar, with 50% of police shooting victims being Caucasian (under-represented based on population), and 26% being African American (200% the the expected rate)

If you're going to be racist and say that African-American people are simply more predisposed to committing crime due to something inherent in their genes/psyche etc., then there's no sense in continuing this discussion. The fact of the matter is, they are VASTLY over-represented in the prison system, and this is NOT a recent phenomenon. It has been this way for decades, if not centuries.

The issue continues to be a broad one, involving economics, education, politics, race and more. It's not just about police vs. black citizens, although it is clearly a major issue due to disproportionate arrests, shootings etc., but it has much more to do with the environment that certain people are born into, and raised in, and how long-standing prejudices on both sides of the law result in clashes and conflicts that often turn deadly.

This is not to say that there isn't fault on both sides here, but to say that BLM or other protests are unjustified simply because "white people get shot too" is to complete sidestep the issue in a Donald-Trumpian way.

Do black people on average commit more crime?

[OAKLEY_2]

It depends on how one defines crime. Is waterboarding torture a crime? Is extraordinary rendition a crime? Is spying on vast sections of society with no criminal history a crime? Is having sizeable income and paying no taxes a crime? Is racial profiling a crime? Is denying infrastructure investment to marginalized communities a crime? Is turning off the water to attract outsourced utility investment in Detroit a crime? Is selling public assets and equity to private interests without approval of citizens a crime? Is bailing out private financial institutions with public money without first putting it to a vote a crime? Is putting kids in debt for higher education a crime?

If any of these are crimes whites commit the greatest number of crimes hands down.

[JonnyFive5]

It depends on how one defines crime. Is waterboarding torture a crime? Is extraordinary rendition a crime? Is spying on vast sections of society with no criminal history a crime? Is having sizeable income and paying no taxes a crime? Is racial profiling a crime? Is denying infrastructure investment to marginalized communities a crime? Is turning off the water to attract outsourced utility investment in Detroit a crime? Is selling public assets and equity to private interests without approval of citizens a crime? Is bailing out private financial institutions with public money without first putting it to a vote a crime? Is putting kids in debt for higher education a crime?

If any of these are crimes whites commit the greatest number of crimes hands down.

You're right. I agree with you. Whites and black most likely do commit a similar number of crimes.

Let me rephrase my comment. Do black people on average commit more crimes that would have them interact with a cop?

White people are commiting these crimes (ps you're assuming they're white) aren't really going to have them interacting with police. "Oh the military is water boarding? Send in the beat cops." My point being the crimes you cited don't have them interacting with the police because it's not things they would handle.

It's a fact that black people on average commit more crimes that would have them interacting with police. It's not even debatable. It is completely logical that more black people are shot by police because they negatively interact with them more.

What I think needs to be the discussed is why black people interact with cops more than other races? Black people have been **** and have a lot less opportunity than white people to prosper. So to a certain extent some young black males are herded down a wrong path because society hasn't left them many other options. This is what needs to be changed.

The cops are just doing their job, and it's a hard job, they're a victim of society **** black people too. They're fighting against crime when the system is almost set up for people to commit crimes.

[ontnut]

It depends on how one defines crime. Is waterboarding torture a crime? Is extraordinary rendition a crime? Is spying on vast sections of society with no criminal history a crime? Is having sizeable income and paying no taxes a crime? Is racial profiling a crime? Is denying infrastructure investment to marginalized communities a crime? Is turning off the water to attract outsourced utility investment in Detroit a crime? Is selling public assets and equity to private interests without approval of citizens a crime? Is bailing out private financial institutions with public money without first putting it to a vote a crime? Is putting kids in debt for higher education a crime?

If any of these are crimes whites commit the greatest number of crimes hands down.

You're right. I agree with you. Whites and black most likely do commit a similar number of crimes.

Let me rephrase my comment. Do black people on average commit more crimes that would have them interact with a cop?

White people are commiting these crimes (ps you're assuming they're white) aren't really going to have them interacting with police. "Oh the military is water boarding? Send in the beat cops." My point being the crimes you cited don't have them interacting with the police because it's not things they would handle.

It's a fact that black people on average commit more crimes that would have them interacting with police. It's not even debatable. It is completely logical that more black people are shot by police because they negatively interact with them more.

What I think needs to be the discussed is why black people interact with cops more than other races? Black people have been **** and have a lot less opportunity than white people to prosper. So to a certain extent some young black males are herded down a wrong path because society hasn't left them many other options. This is what needs to be changed.

The cops are just doing their job, and it's a hard job, they're a victim of society **** black people too. They're fighting against crime when the system is almost set up for people to commit crimes.

I typed out a long response yesterday before my internet cut out and I lost it.

Remember too that cops don't usually patrol gated neighbourhoods. They tend to focus their attention in poorer, more "at-risk" neighbourhoods, which unfortunately does have a higher proportion of black citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_rate_statistics

This is a good read too. It does show that police killings of black people may not be out of line with the crime/arrest statistics; however it does show that perhaps the crime/arrest statistics for black people are out of line with the expected rates. This could be due to many, many factors, which are delved into in depth in the article. It's not JUST a problem of black people vs. police, but it is the most visible part of the issue, because when it boils over, someone usually ends up dead. : http://www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/

[JonnyFive5]

It depends on how one defines crime. Is waterboarding torture a crime? Is extraordinary rendition a crime? Is spying on vast sections of society with no criminal history a crime? Is having sizeable income and paying no taxes a crime? Is racial profiling a crime? Is denying infrastructure investment to marginalized communities a crime? Is turning off the water to attract outsourced utility investment in Detroit a crime? Is selling public assets and equity to private interests without approval of citizens a crime? Is bailing out private financial institutions with public money without first putting it to a vote a crime? Is putting kids in debt for higher education a crime?

If any of these are crimes whites commit the greatest number of crimes hands down.

You're right. I agree with you. Whites and black most likely do commit a similar number of crimes.

Let me rephrase my comment. Do black people on average commit more crimes that would have them interact with a cop?

White people are commiting these crimes (ps you're assuming they're white) aren't really going to have them interacting with police. "Oh the military is water boarding? Send in the beat cops." My point being the crimes you cited don't have them interacting with the police because it's not things they would handle.

It's a fact that black people on average commit more crimes that would have them interacting with police. It's not even debatable. It is completely logical that more black people are shot by police because they negatively interact with them more.

What I think needs to be the discussed is why black people interact with cops more than other races? Black people have been **** and have a lot less opportunity than white people to prosper. So to a certain extent some young black males are herded down a wrong path because society hasn't left them many other options. This is what needs to be changed.

The cops are just doing their job, and it's a hard job, they're a victim of society **** black people too. They're fighting against crime when the system is almost set up for people to commit crimes.

I typed out a long response yesterday before my internet cut out and I lost it.

Remember too that cops don't usually patrol gated neighbourhoods. They tend to focus their attention in poorer, more "at-risk" neighbourhoods, which unfortunately does have a higher proportion of black citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_rate_statistics

This is a good read too. It does show that police killings of black people may not be out of line with the crime/arrest statistics; however it does show that perhaps the crime/arrest statistics for black people are out of line with the expected rates. This could be due to many, many factors, which are delved into in depth in the article. It's not JUST a problem of black people vs. police, but it is the most visible part of the issue, because when it boils over, someone usually ends up dead. : http://www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/

Thanks you for the links. There's a lot of information there so it will take me awhile to get through lol. Appreciate the discussion.