As American citizens, it our Constitutional right to assemble publicly to protest demonstrating over any issue that is concerning to it's citizens. Who are you or anybody else to say they can't? Seems to me you have a problem with a certain group of people speaking out against injustice in our society.
The idea of trying to change right away isn't the point if you know about history. Blacks did not achieve civil rights on the first march and protest they assembled. It was an ongoing commitment that finally lead to acquiring those rights. People are marching and protesting to voice their concerns about violent police treatment in the black community. Citizens are hoping one day to end the discrimination and violent treatment that is occurring in inner cities all across America. Our police is here to serve and protect, not to kill and maim. That is the point of the protesting, to make people aware, hoping one day it will stop.
The Right Wing media continues to push their propaganda telling us that Liberals hate "whites and cops" and President Obama and the "Liberal Media" incites them. A total lie, but that is what they spin.
The "Liberal Media" did not bother to show one ounce of coverage when the protests were peaceful. If the media was so "Liberal" and "anti white" and "anti police", don't you think the "Liberal Media" would be all over it to trash the white cops showing a clear bias for blacks and Liberals?
The only reason any media coverage was shown, is because a few people decided to turn the protest violent. Then every media outlet swarmed like ants to get in on the coverage to shows blacks in a negative fashion. Is that your "Liberal Media" bias? They sure are doing a terrible job of being biased aren't they?
From the first moment the coverage began, the mainstream media began to attack Liberals, President Obama, and black run communities. They started calling Gray a criminal and a thug, claiming he was the one who did damage to himself and not the police. Baltimore's NBC and ABC affiliate produced a video in favor of the white police trying to claim that Gray was fine until he was in the van and began to smash his head inside. That was broadcasted on Fox Propaganda.
Now, if the mainstream media is so "Liberal" being "anti white and police" the "Liberal Media" wouldn't attack Liberals, blacks, and President Obama showing black violence. Local ABC and NBC affiliates wouldn't try to produce videos to favor the white cops. Instead, they would look for ways to be biased against the cops showing favor for Gray. They would also praise President Obama instead of attacking him. They would refuse to show coverage of any violence at all. Just like they refused to show any coverage of the peaceful protests, but managed to show coverage of Tea Party protests when they gathered together to attack Democrats.
After you look at all of that, you can see that the media isn't so "Liberal". If that is what you call a "Liberal Media", right wingers should hope for a lot more of it. Just another nail in the coffin for the right wing "Liberal Media" myth, when it's really the conservative media attacking the Liberals each day.
http://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-are-retiring-2014-2
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-big-part-of-labor-participation-rate-decline
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/12/20/baby-boomers-approach-65-glumly/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-baby-boomers-retirement-means-for-the-u-s-economy/
:crackup:
You're off your rocker old man, dementia must be setting in. Go get a medical check up for your own sake. Here's your states, states, states rights that your right wingers love to push sponsored by who else? Your favorite Senate right wingers.
Senate Republican to push states' rights in response to healthcare law
A Republican senator is planning on introducing legislation this week that would allow
state officials to challenge federal regulations before they go into effect.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told The Hill that his
states'-rights bill is in large part a reaction to Democrats' healthcare reform law, which Republicans claim would create 159 "boards, commissions, bureaus, programs and offices of the federal government." That figure may be open to debate, but states have certainly raised concerns with the law, with 43 so far joining in legal challenges or taking other action to prevent certain provisions from taking effect.
"That's certainly a statute that invites a lot of regulatory overreach, which could be reviewed and challenged on an expedited basis with this legislation," Wicker told The Hill.
The proposed law could also be used to challenge other regulations, such as those from the Environmental Protection Agency, he added.
The legislation, called the 10th Amendment Regulatory Reform Act, mirrors a bill introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) on March 25, two days after the president signed healthcare reform into law. It would allow designated state officials to file a legal brief challenging the constitutionality of proposed regulations during the time when they're open for comment.
The head of the federal agency whose regulation is challenged would then have 15 days to certify that the regulation doesn't violate the 10th Amendment. That certification, and a link to the state's legal brief, would have to be displayed prominently on the agency's primary webpage within 15 days.
State officials could also challenge the regulation in district court and get expedited review at the appeals level. It would be up to a judge to decide whether to freeze the regulatory process as a challenge makes its way through the courts.
The Obama administration did not respond to queries about whether it would challenge the bill if it became law and how it could affect the regulatory process.
Wicker said the provision could save time and money.
"This would allow a challenge earlier, by governors, lieutenant governors, attorneys general or state legislative leaders, to go ahead and take the matter into federal court," he said. "And it requires the agency to engage quickly in response."
Wicker was one of the Republican senators up for reelection who was recently identified by the conservative blog Red State as a potential target for a Tea Party challenge in 2012. He said his support for the bill was influenced not by political considerations but by a genuine interest in legislation that's nevertheless likely to be popular in conservative Mississippi.
A spokesman for Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) said the governor is aware and supportive of the legislation. State officials could conceivably avail themselves of the new
states' rights in the legislation, said Dan Turner, depending on the regulations.
"We're obviously reviewing the [healthcare reform] legislation," Turner said, "and we'll be tracking [regulations] closely."
Wicker said he's looking for co-sponsors for his bill. He said he wanted to introduce it during the lame-duck session in order to draw early attention to it before picking it up again next year.
Wicker said he favors getting rid of the healthcare reform law and will push for a vote on repeal early next year, to get everyone on the record on the issue. But, he said, his bill is one potential way forward given that repeal isn't likely to pass in the Senate.
"I think it's going to take another election, and probably another president, to get this taken care of," he said. "But this is a step. It's a salvo."
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...h-states-rights-in-response-to-healthcare-law
Either that or electing politicians who say on the news that allowing people to destroy a city is permissible. I apologize in advance for expecting that these angry people are capable of being a catalyst of change in ways other than vandalism.