bmdrocks21

Okay, but is it a bad policy that harms them more than it helps?

So it harms them, rather than helps them?

who exactly has to apologize for you to consider "the media" as apologizing? You know there are alot of people in that group right?

That is exactly my point. they found out he hadn't done what he was accused of and they stopped. 

the difference is there was evidence that nick was a racist. It was later proven to be inaccurate, but there was grounds to think that. (media should have checked more before attacking, i'm not defending that)

But greta hasn't done anything but call for people to fight climate change, which we all know is happening. Engaging in juvenile and personal attacks on her for that shows that the right doesn't care about morality, they just want an enemy to point at to distract people. 

I totally agree. But I haven't seen anyone attack the substance of her point. I have seen people attack her intelligence, her looks, her maturity, her "anger problems" etc. 

Even if her motives were bad (which there is no evidence for), she is advocating for fighting something that most people understand is a real threat, climate change. We are already starting to feel it's effects and it is only getting worse. 

-It enables smarter people to marry more people, and as a result, they can produce smarter kids, making a better society not just from genetics, but because smarter people raise smarter kids by teaching them how to become smart.

-It can solve the STD epidemic in the US if we require polygamous people to get their STDs treated before they go polygamous.  From there, if it greatly reduces STDs, then there would be less STDs as well as a huge creation of jobs because people would be treating the STDs.

So... policies that harm blacks more than help them?

At a BLM rally in response to "Black lives matter"? Yeah. A stupid thing to do.

Just like going to a KKK meeting and saying "Black likes matter" would be a stupid thing to do

No, other people having opinions you disagree with is not the same as you not being allowed to speak.

I would not agree. Israel is a friendly nation who gives us valuable  counter terrorist intelligence

What is an ethno state?

Iraq was not their war. You're reaching. 

The anger at historical events

Nah bro, it's HISTORICAL SLAVERY. and the lack of reparations. Get your story straight.

"social circle where you are not even allowed to speak if you claim being straight while having white skin and a penis."

Detroit has been in a free territory and later was in a free state with no legal slavery. How could you possibly imagine legalized slavery in other areas of the country caused Detroit to become the shithole it is today compared to other far more significant local factors?

I didn't say what happened to nick was right. it wasn't. But when the left wing media realized their mistake they stopped. That at least shows some level morality. Right wing media knows Greta has done nothing wrong and they are attacking her. That shows 0 morality. 

I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard. 

And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act. 

I thought they only had a pistol on them or were searching for a pistol, which I don't think even NY banned.  It's certainly not worth getting shot over.

Of course, this begs the question of how this award is in any way meaningful if you don't have to accomplish anything to get it. I'm guessing the answer is that it's not meaningful at all.

I know the history of Israel. And I know the contexts of those incidents.

I don't know what war America has ever fought for Israel

And I'm way more OK with the millions we give to Israel than the millions we've given to undemocratic, terrorist states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia.

I'm beginning to think your issue might be the Semitic part of the equation.

So virtually all climate scientists agree. All the models say pretty much the same things. They aren't fear mongering. They are warning the world what is coming. We are already feeling it and it is getting worse. It is going to continue unless we change course drastically and very soon. 

The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that.

The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking. 

What a huge coincidence that the very poor neighborhoods happen to be black hispanic right? There are a number of reasons why those groups are proportionately poor and therefore disproportionately likely to turn to crime. Many of them also have to do with systemic racism. 

The underlying principle was flawed. Stop and frisk didn't work. They essentially stopped and frisked every black man in new york. But the crime rate went down at the same rate as most other cities. The policy was a failure. And it seriously undermined the credibility of the police. They weren't there to protect and serve if you were black and hispanic. 

Because black communities are disproportionately poorer than white communities. And the reasons for that, while complicated, also include racism. So white people are helping keep them poor, they turn to crime as a result, then white people blame them for being violent and start harassing them taking away their rights. 

we are the ones robbing them. White people just found a way to do it legally. Black people had to turn to an illegal method since they didn't get to design the system. 

The whole quid pro quo is a right wing talking point. The problem isn't giving something and getting something. The circumstances matter. Biden used his office to get Ukraine to fight corruption in a way that didn't benefit himself or his family at all. Trump used his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political rival, by name. Not only was there no evidence his rival had committed a crime, he stood to personally profit (via an election) from doing so. There is a massive difference. 

agreed. this is the swampy kind of corruption that exists all over the place in Washington. Sadly it isn't illegal though. And I mean that genuinely, I want that to be illegal.

I agree this kind of thing is shitty. But sadly both democrats and republicans (including trump and McConnell) do this stuff all the time. 

Biden pushed for his firing because he wasn't investigating things. That triggered a new investigation of Burisma. But since hunter did work at burisma during the time the alleged crimes had been committed, there was literally no way he could be implicated. Therefore biden had nothing to gain.

It's also worth noting, pushing to have him fired wasn't Biden's idea either. People who also had nothing to personally gain also wanted the prosecutor fired. Biden was just the guy who got sent to carry it out. So pretending like it was this corrupt plan he hatched is all bullshit. 

What was made up? The trump campaign said they had no contact with any russians. We now know they had over 100 contacts with russians including meetings in trump tower and giving the russians polling data. There was collusion with russians. There doesn't appear to be evidence of a crime related to that collusion. But investigating those contacts that trump claimed never happened was a legitimate investigation. If they hadn't obstructed it and lied about it repeatedly maybe it wouldn't have had to become such a big thing. 

And by projected, I assume you mean that legitimate concerns shouldn't be investigated. 

lol he specifically asked them to investigate Biden, by name. That is not Ukraine's jurisdiction. That is the FBI's jurisdiction. When he asked ukraine to do it, he committed a crime. 

extorting a foreign country to smear your political rivals is "bringing the truth to light"? If there were truth to the accusations he would have sent it to the FBI, as he should have. He extorted Ukraine to do it because he knew there was no evidence Biden had done anything wrong. All he cared about was that press conference and getting the president of Ukraine to suggest Biden was corrupt. He could then run an election campaign pretending Biden is corrupt. It would have been a great strategy if he hadn't gotten caught committing crimes. 

ok. he is irrelevant to this discussion. He didn't do anything. Video made it look like he did. 

The problem is that most of the criticism is stupid. The right can't really refute the arguments she makes, so they attack her personally. 

I agree that the criticism Nick got turned out to be unwarranted. I do not condone that. But you are using 1 injustice done to nick to justify a different injustice done to Greta. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you actually thought attacking them was wrong you wouldn't be ok with the personal attacks on Greta. 

That doesn't really make it any better. They created a policy to harass innocent people without cause and then only applied it in black or Hispanic neighborhoods while ignoring white neighborhoods. That might actually make it more racist honestly. 

I think if the policy had been used only when they actually had reasonable grounds to suspect they were armed, it wouldn't have been an issue. And the policy says that is what they were going to do. But since the policy had a massive fail rate, we know they didn't do that. They used it indiscriminately whenever they felt like it. That, mixed with the fact that police command didn't care that this was being done created an environment where minority groups actively saw the police as enemies even if they weren't criminals. I'm not criminal but if i was constantly being hassled by cops for no reason I would see them as an enemy too. This actually undermines the effectiveness of the police. 

But all of that to loop back around. Police thought black people were more suspicious, so they used their tool to target black people. White people didn't have to suffer at the hands of this policy, that is white privilege.

ok so we know for a fact that they targeted ethnic minorities. You are arguing that because those groups have a higher crime rate, it is totally fine to discriminate against them. But we know that 93% of the stops found no weapons and the vast majority found no crimes at all. So we also know that they were abusing this by targetting people that showed no signs of being guilty of anything. 

so to summarize, we know they were targeting based on ethnicity and we know they were not waiting for any reasonably reason to search them, they were doing it at random. Do you want to argue that isnt a racist policy?

and again, white people were presumed innocent, black people were presumed guilty. That is an excellent example of white privilege. 

Whites from shithole countries still have a really hard time migrating here legally.

Says who? We have no idea how much money he was making before he took office. We have no idea how much money he is making now. So you are just making that up. And personal gain doesn't only have to be monetary. Assistance in winning an election is personal gain. 

If he had asked about corruption in general this wouldn't be an issue. He didn't. He only asked about 1 person, Biden. It was never about corruption, it was about smearing Biden. And if it had been about corruption, he would have gone to law enforcement. Trying to get a foreign government to do caused him to commit crimes. 

What exactly do you think Biden did that was illegal? I have never seen any evidence he committed any crimes. 

I don't think corruption should be covered up. If Biden is corrupt, that should be reported. But we know Trump is corrupt and the news outlets you watch are actively working to cover it up. 

So abusing the power of your office in order to steal an election isn't impeachable? I mean what worse things could you do in office than abuse it to undermine democracy? 

This is a fantasy. America has had left ideas for a long time. public roads, public schools, anti-trust laws etc. People realized a long time ago the uncontrolled capitalism is a catastrophe. The problem is that people started to forget the evils it caused because left wing ideas solved the problems.

When no one was burning to death because the company locked all the doors, people stopped thinking it was as important to keep those companies under control. As it became less of a priority for the public those companies started bribing politicians into letting them get away with terrible things again. So Reagan, and then virtually all politicians since then have basically full on sold out to the rich creating the train wreck of an economy we have now where the rich control everything and the poor can barely survive. People are now remembering why left wing policies were needed as the problems are all coming back. That is why the left is resurgent among young people. 

The right wing is gaining ground, largely, because of xenophobia and fear. The idea that muslims, or mexicans, or gay couples or the EU are going to come and take things away from you. And like all fear campaigns, they are based on a grain of truth to give some credibility, then they add on tons and tons of lies to fuel it. 

Lol the top 10 countries in the world in military spending includes 4 members of NATO (US, France, Germany, UK) and 2 other american allies (Japan, South Korea). The idea that america is somehow protecting the free world by spending INSANE amounts of money on it's military is a lie. America could cut military spending by half and still be the #1 spender by a wide margin. You don't need to spend 100's of billions per year in order to protect your country. The US needs to do that because the military industrial complex wants to get paid and politicians are corrupt. 

Are you also proud of you multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and secular society?

In your eyes, do the people that inhabited the land now known as the U.S.A. prior to Northern European and other settlement and who obviously still do inhabit that said land make a valid cultural contribution to U.S. society?

And are you suggesting that you feel strong national solidarity with the ethnically diverse peoples of the Southern U.S. whom you regard as similar to you?

And are you also suggesting that you think that your fellow U.S. citizens of Central American origin that inhabit the Southern U.S. are more culturally similar to you, or more culturally similar to their Central American cousins?

The other is just some guy who got into a confrontation at a political demonstration.

So what makes you proud?

Yep it is thought that "Native Americans" might have descended from North East Asia. Nonetheless they still have a valid culture that predates yours.

And everyone that I met and spoke to were all very pleasant and welcoming. As I'm sure you would have been too.

As I said. I found peoples across the Southern U.S. to be ethnically and culturally diverse.

If you're truly proud of what you are, just be honest and say it.

And from your very roundabout way of getting your message across, it would seem that despite your purported convictions you are nonetheless  a tad embarrassed to come right out with it.

Well I suppose it's quite obvious what sort of person you are.

But that won't alter the fact that other than the original inhabitants of the land now known as the U.S.A. you are as much an immigrant descendant as every one else is.

And consequently, your specific bit of culture is only relevant to your specific little bubble.

I recently travelled the breadth of The Southern U.S.A. from California to Georgia and the ethnic mix of people that I came across was far more diverse than I was expecting and it would have to be said that in those regions people of Northern European descent did not make up the majority.

I would therefore suggest that you might find, not just the World but also the U.S.A. outside of your bubble to be quite a scary place to live.

One World, One People.