Freddie Gray Protests

[YawataNoKami]

So in a predominantly black city, with a black mayor, a majority black city council (with a black council president), and a black chief of police there is STILL the claim that this was a case of racism. It's clear the left and their race baiters have no other recourse than to continue to spout the same tired lies to excuse rioting and other acts of violence. The left will never let real world facts get in the way of their agenda of hate and intolerance. I wonder how many of the cops involved in this are also black?

Freddy Gray had a pre-existing spinal and neck injury and had severe damage and scar tissue from an accident that Allstate Insurance was paying him a large structured settlement. Freddy had several unsuccessful spinal fusion surgeries, the most recent spinal/cervical operation was a week and a half before he was arrested. Freddy should have been at home in bed resting and recovering from recent major operation instead of manufacturing and distributing drugs on the streets and resisting arrest.

I don't understand these violent protestors. I am willing to bet that most don't work and some are high school/college age. Do they protest and destroy, then go home and sleep all day and tell their friends "I can't wait to see you tomorrow night so we can do it all over again!"

Ever notice that Democrat controlled cities and states have issues like this while conservative cities and states do not? Liberal states have serious economic issues and conservative states have booming economies! Go figure people!

If you want to live the thug life and be a criminal, then it'll eventually catch up with you.

Would there be any protesting if he were shot dead by a fellow gang member?

 

[Tenacity]

Jaylan,

It amazes me, that once again, you focus only on the cops over detaining the person (which I agree with) but say nothing, absolutely nothing, about the criminal.

I'm really trying to get you Pro Black/Liberals to see the other side of these cases. When you have these particular black men who have very long criminal histories, I don't know how they can be used as good examples to support your cause.

The cops are over-detaining the criminals, that I 100% agree with. But can someone please post a link to the black guy with no criminal history, college educated, minding his own business, and the Cops shoot him for no reason? He's not resisting arrest, doesn't have 5 pending criminal cases against him, doesn't have almost 25 total criminal cases by the time he's 25, none of that.......he's just minding his own business and the Cops shoot him/tase him/do something else foul to him.

Can you guys please show me a case like this?

Let's just go with the notion that Walter Scott and now Freddie Gray were both over-detained by the Cops and the Cops went too far in the detainment. Why do you care? They are criminals. You only care because they are black? If that's the case, that you care only because they are black, then black-on-black crime should be causing a lot more riots right? And you can't say that black-on-black crimes are always resolved with someone going to jail over them, because you and I both know there's a no snitching rule and most of those thugs get away because the people in that area are afraid to speak up about who did it.

 

[Embers84]

So in a predominantly black city, with a black mayor, a majority black city council (with a black council president), and a black chief of police there is STILL the claim that this was a case of racism. It's clear the left and their race baiters have no other recourse than to continue to spout the same tired lies to excuse rioting and other acts of violence. The left will never let real world facts get in the way of their agenda of hate and intolerance. I wonder how many of the cops involved in this are also black?

More right wing propaganda being spread around here. I guess you watched Lou Dobbs last night parroting the same crap he talked about with his right wing guest. There is no hate, when it's the white cops who are targeting blacks in the city. That is the racism right there, white officials are supposed to serve and protect it's citizens, not kill and maim.

I don't understand these violent protestors. I am willing to bet that most don't work and some are high school/college age. Do they protest and destroy, then go home and sleep all day and tell their friends "I can't wait to see you tomorrow night so we can do it all over again!"

There were only a few violent protesters compared to the peaceful protesters that received zero coverage in the conservative media. It wasn't until it turned violent, that every news organization swarmed like flies to broadcast the coverage to criticize blacks and Democrats as a whole in a negative fashion like you're doing as well.

Ever notice that Democrat controlled cities and states have issues like this while conservative cities and states do not? Liberal states have serious economic issues and conservative states have booming economies! Go figure people!

Another right winger that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Southern Conservative States are the poorest States in the country having the most poverty and welfare. 10 Conservative States are ranked the highest among all states with poverty that are totally controlled by Conservatives. Make sure you know what the hell you're talking about first before you post your propaganda.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-the-50-us-state-economies-2014-8?op=1

http://www.answerbit.com/why-are-th...n-the-us-all-republican-20121025190925AAdFQsR




Why do 'red states' have more poverty?!


http://www.allvoices.com/article/14108704

Americans do not have to guess what the country would be like if the small-government, conservative economic agenda were implemented on a national scale.

Many Republican-controlled, predominantly Southern “red states” already have. The result is not an abundance of prosperity from under taxed “job creators,” as often touted in sound bites and on the conservative candidate campaign trail. Instead, according to the numbers, it’s quite the opposite.

Smaller government austerity policies in red states have created macroeconomic societies with high poverty and low education rates. Low-paying jobs and lack of health care also dominate states that have implemented the smaller government theories of conservative ideology.

In Texas, for example, decades of Republican control, from the governor’s office down to state and local legislatures, has kept the Tea Party ideological model in place. And it has the highest poverty rate of “any large industrial state,” according to Texas Politics data.

The data showed similar high poverty rate numbers for other red states, including Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Lack of health care is also a bigger problem in states following the conservative Republican ideological view of less funding for government assistance programs.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott recently acknowledged the serious economic problems associated with having more than 21 percent of the population without health insurance. The costs for hospitals treating the uninsured is so high, Scott surrendered to pressure from Florida health care providers and accepted the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare.

Hunger is also a bigger problem among states where Republicans have had their way with local budgets. And while southern red states do not have a lock on growing US poverty rates, they still lead with the worse numbers. More than 24 percent of the people in Mississippi suffer from food deficiencies, with Alabama coming in second at nearly 23 percent.

Red States also top the charts for populations with lower education levels. The top 10 include Oklahoma, Tennessee, Indiana, Nevada, Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia, according toFox Business.

There is a disturbing correlation between Republicans and high poverty rates. CNN reports that the 10 poorest states in America tend to elect Republicans. Is this because they haven’t made the connection between conservative government policy and the need for the social safety net? Or have they simply been convinced by right-wing political rhetoric to vote against their own best interests?

In addition to the disconnect between conservative policies and economic security, it has been demonstrated in states completely controlled by Republicans that consolidated power can lead to loss of personal freedom and the most fundamental elements of democracy.

In the 2012 elections, the people of Michigan voted by a 53 to 47 percent margin to repeal the state’s power to replace their local elected representatives with appointed emergency managers, in areas with struggling budget issues. “The law was intended to help municipalities avoid bankruptcy or default, but it has been criticized for infringing on the rights of local governments,” according to the New York Times.

Rather than listening to the voice of voters who repealed the law at the ballot box, Michigan legislators have ignored court orders to remove “emergency managers” and reinstated the legislation, this time adding a clause that blocks any further attempts by the public to make it a ballot initiative in the future.

Republican-controlled legislatures have also used their power to strip unions workers of their rights to collective bargaining, as Gov. Scott Walker did in Wisconsin.

So not only are Republican’s changing the fundamental economic structure of America, they are using scare tactics and misleading campaign ads to try to gain monopoly-control of as many branches of government as they can.

 

[( . )( . )]

Another right winger that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.

No he's right. We've been through this many times haven't we embers?

Sh!tlib states left to their own sh!tlib policies always end up as toilets, it's just the nature of the beast, and your red state "facts" are a tired joke. White sh!tlibs don't white flight to the same blue states they just wrecked you imbecile. Statistically they move to red states repeating the whole process.

As you were already shown the vast majority of welfare parasites living in red states are leftoid obammy voters.

But as solid as the statistics Krugman provided might seem, we’re left with one glaring problem: States aren’t people. Could it be possible that liberals within conservative states are the ones taking the welfare dollars?
A survey by the Maxwell Poll on the political affiliation of those receiving government aid showed this to be the case.

Public Housing :Rep 12% Dem 81%

Medicaid :Rep 16% Dem 74%

Food Stamps :Rep 20% Dem 67%

Unemployment Compensation :Rep 21% Dem 66%

Disability (from Govt.) :Rep 25% Dem 64%

Welfare/Public Assistance :Rep 22% Dem 63%

http://rare.us/story/exploding-the-lefts-red-state-myths/

Try again.

 

[Embers84]

Like I said we haven't had a legitimate conservative media for at least 40 years.

Kirby Wilbur, chairman of the Washington state Republican Party and a longtime radio personality on Fisher station KVI, said a conservative bent could build loyalty among viewers who want their news through a right-leaning lens.

“If they think the numbers tell them that a news station on TV that is a little more slanted to the right would make it more profitable, then they should do that,” he said. “It’s their TV station. We live in a new media world, and TV stations have to innovate to survive.”

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/sinclair-known-for-conservative-political-tilt/




Sinclair Broadcast Group


Sinclair Broadcast Group operates the largest number of local television stations in the United States. . Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, it owns or operates a total of 154 stations across the country (165 after all currently proposed sales are approved) in nearly 80 markets.

Sinclair had experimented with using a centralized news organization called News Central that provided prepackaged news segments for distribution to several of the group's stations. These segments were integrated into programming during local news broadcasts. Mark E. Hyman, a high-ranking executive at Sinclair, also created conservative editorial segments called "The Point" that were broadcast on all of the group's stations with news departments.

Political programming

Sinclair has been known for making several politically motivated programming decisions across its stations, some of which have proven controversial.

In April 2004, Sinclair's ABC affiliates refused to air an episode of Nightline that featured a reading of the names of soldiers killed in the2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. In response, Sinclair argued that the broadcast "[appeared] to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." ABC responded, saying that the program was meant to be "an expression of respect which seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country." Afterward, the company's political slant was scrutinized by critics when it was publicized that nearly all of Sinclair's recent campaign contributions were to the Republican Party. In particular, the Center for Public Integrity showed concern that the Republican slant of Sinclair's news programming, along with Mark Hyman's past history of government lobbying (particularly calling on the FCC to loosen rules regarding concentration of media ownership), made its stations provide "anything but fair and balanced news programming." Hyman disputed these allegations by stating that its newscasts were "pretty balanced" and that "the reason why some on the left have characterized us as conservative is that we run stories that others in the media spike."

Later in October 2004, just two weeks prior to the 2004 presidential election, it was reported that all 62 of Sinclair's stations would preempt prime time programming to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a documentary critical of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism. The film was produced by Carlton Sherwood, a former associate of Tom Ridge, and accuses John Kerry of prolonging the Vietnam War because of his anti-war activism. The organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry organization whose name become well known in the 2004 election year, was cross-promoting the film as part of a $1.4 million advertising campaign. In response, the Democratic National Committee filed a legal motion with the Federal Election Commission stating that it is inappropriate for the media organization to air "partisan propaganda" in the last 10 days of an election campaign. Following the incident, Sinclair fired its Washington bureau chief Jon Lieberman for publicly criticizing the film in The Baltimore Sun as "biased political propaganda."

In November 2010, it was reported that five Fox affiliates and one ABC affiliate owned by Sinclair broadcast an infomercial critical of President Barack Obama, Breaking Point: 25 Minutes that will Change America, which was sponsored by the National Republican Trust Political Action Group. The infomercial painted Obama as an extremist, and claimed that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, he received some campaign money from the Hamas terrorist group, and that Obama said in a speech, "You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies." The special also discusses Obama advisers Van Jones and John Holdren, as well as Obama staff Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Carol Browner, and Cass Sunstein—all in an unflattering light; in one case, the special claimed that Holdren said that trees should be permitted to sue humans in court. The infomercial aired at various times during the weekend of October 30 on Sinclair-owned stations in Madison, Wisconsin; Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Lexington, Kentucky; Pittsburgh;Des Moines; and Winston-Salem—all in swing states vital to the 2010 elections.

On November 5, 2012, six Sinclair stations in swing states aired a special focusing on issues surrounding the presidential election occurring the next day, such as the Libyan civil war and Health care reform; the special consisted of a series of segments which were presented by the local anchors at each station. While scheduling of the special was at the discretion of each station, WSYX pre-empted both ABC World News and Nightline to air it. The special was met with controversy for showing a bias against Barack Obama and focusing little on Republican candidate Mitt Romney, as opposed to showcasing both candidates equally. In particular, a writer for the political websiteTalking Points Memo felt that the special "sounded more like Fox News than local news." A Sinclair staff member disputed these claims, stating that "no one is disputing the facts of the stories that aired in the special", and that its decision on which markets to air the special was influenced by their "news value" and resonation with the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group



Report: Conservative radio, TV host to run WEYI NBC25

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2013/03/report_conservative_columnist.html

Conservative Media Broadcast Groups


Portfolio: Fox owns 28 full-power stations in 18 markets — 18 Fox affiliates.

21st Century Fox recently expanded into the San Francisco market, broadening their reach to 37 percent of U.S. television homes.



Portfolio: Sinclair owns or manages 154 stations across the country (165 after all currently proposed sales are approved) in nearly 80 markets.

Sinclair now operates or owns 29 ABC, 26 CBS, and 17 NBC local affiliated stations in addition to 41 Fox and 54 other affiliated stations.

Sinclair stations can be received by 30 percent of American households.




Portfolio: Gannett owns 46 full-power stations in 19 markets

Gannett owns or services through shared service agreements or other similar agreements 46 television stations. Excluding owner-operators, Gannett is the No. 1 NBC affiliate group; No. 1 CBS affiliate group; and the No. 4 ABC affiliate group. These stations cover 30% of the U.S. population in markets with nearly 35 million households



Portfolio: Raycom owns or manages 53 stations (51 full-power and two low-power) in 36 markets - 15 NBC, 11 CBS, 7 ABC, 13 Fox, 2 CW.

Portfolio: Tribune owns 23 full-power TV stations in 19 markets - 7 Fox, 13 CW, 1 ABC.

Portfolio: Cox owns and manages 14 full-power TV stations in nine markets - 3 Fox, 3 ABC, 3 CBS, 1 NBC.

Portfolio: Local TV LLC and FoxCo. Acquisition LLC own 21 full-power stations in 16 markets - 7 Fox, 5 CBS, 2 NBC, 2 ABC, 3 CW.

Portfolio: LIN Media owns or manages 43 stations (40 full-power and 3 low-power stations) in 23 markets - 11 CBS, 10 Fox; 7 NBC, 8 CW, 5 ABC

Portfolio: Scripps owns and manages 19 stations (14 full-powers and five low-powers) in 13 markets - 10 ABC, 3 NBC, 5 Azteca.

Portfolio: Nexstar owns or manages 72 TV stations (68 full-power and four low-power) in 41 markets - 16 NBC, 17 ABC, 12 CBS, 13 Fox, 6 CW (one is digital multicast), 1 Telemundo.

Portfolio: Media General owns or manages 19 full-power stations in 17 markets - 9 NBC; 8 CBS, 1 ABC, 1 CW.

Portfolio: Gray owns and manages 41 TV stations (35 full-powers and 6 low-powers) in 30 markets - 20 CBS, 10 NBC, 9 ABC; 5 Fox, 8 CW.

Portfolio: Post-Newsweek owns six full-power stations in six markets -2 NBC, 2 ABC, 1 CBS

Portfolio: Meredith owns or manages 13 stations (12 full-power and one low-power) in 10 markets - 6 CBS, 3 Fox, 1 NBC.

Portfolio: Journal Broadcast Group owns or manages 15 TV stations (13 full-powers and two low-powers) - 4 ABC, 3 Fox, 3 NBC, 2 CBS, 1 CW.

Portfolio: Hubbard owns seven full-power stations in six markets - 3 ABC, 3 NBC.

Portfolio: Schurz owns or manages 10 full-power TV stations in six markets - 3 CBS, 3 NBC, 1 ABC, 2 CW, 1 Univision.

Portfolio: Dispatch Broadcast owns two full-power TV stations - 1 NBC, 1 CBS

No Conservative Media you say? The facts show there is. Even the head of the Washington State Republican Party says the news is slanted to the right for profits since Liberal News doesn't sell.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/67641/sinclair-hops-from-sixth-to-third-in-top-30/page/1

 

[Embers84]

No he's right. We've been through this many times haven't we embers?

Sh!tlib states left to their own sh!tlib policies always end up as toilets, it's just the nature of the beast, and your red state "facts" are a tired joke. White sh!tlibs don't white flight to the same blue states they just wrecked you imbecile. Statistically they move to red states repeating the whole process.

As you were already shown the vast majority of welfare parasites living in red states are leftoid obammy voters.



http://rare.us/story/exploding-the-lefts-red-state-myths/

Try again.

You're a true idiot disproving him and agreeing with me posting your stats. That's how stupid you are. He is not right and you proved him wrong. :crackup:

Democratic States are more wealthy and less dependent on the Federal Government.

Republican States have poor economies being more dependent of the Federal Government taking in welfare.

You proved yourself wrong again proving me right.



2015’s States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government


http://d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.ne...-the-federal-government-blue-vs-red-image.jpg

Blue States are LESS Dependent on The Federal Government

REPUBLICAN 33.2

DEMOCRAT 18.2

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/


WalletHub, an independent research company, debunks your fake survey. We've gone over thos many times, but you keep reposting your fake survey.




http://www.khou.com/story/money/per...-sheet-states-with-most-food-stamps/21877399/

KHOU.com, Houston, Texas

A Gannett Company

States with the most people on food stamps


With grocery bills priced as high as $1,300 per month as of late, some American workers simply cannot afford all of their groceries on top of everything else they already have to buy. This is why the government offers food stamps.

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reports that as of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual food stamp recipients (22.7 million households) receiving an average benefit of $123.74 each (around $257 per household).

To be eligible, a household has to earn a gross income amount that's less than 130% of the poverty level, or a net income amount (gross income minus deductions) that's less than 100% of the poverty level for their family size.

This means, a single person can be eligible for food stamps if his or her gross monthly income is under $1,265 ($15,180 per year), and a family of four can be eligible if they gross less than $2,584 per month ($31,008 per year). The applicant also can't be a wealthy person who simply doesn't have a steady income source. So, if the applicant has thousands of dollars sitting in the bank, for instance, they won't apply as cash assets are considered as well.

So overall, the program makes perfect sense on paper. It sounds completely reasonable: If you earn too little money, you can temporarily receive a card for your groceries for a while. Food stamps help millions of individuals and families, but the corresponding billions of dollars that the program costs make some taxpayers critical of it.

A taxpayer's view of the welfare system depends on many factors — his or her upbringing, personal experiences, and even where he or she lives. In some areas of the country, food stamp use is more common than in others.

We've created a list of the states that have the most food stamp recipients per capita. To determine the states on this list, we used the USDA Food Nutrition Service's most recent state-by-state data, coupled with population data from the Census Bureau. States with the highest number of food stamp participants relative to population ranked highest. We've also included a state-by-state breakdown of food stamp use in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

States with the most people on food stamps:

7. Louisiana

• Number of food stamp recipients: 868,192

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 18.67%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state): Around $107.4 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $23.10


6. Tennessee

• Number of food stamp recipients: Just over 1.28 million

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.58%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $158.7 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.23


5. Oregon

• Number of food stamp recipients: 791,222

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.93%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $98 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.66 per person


4. West Virginia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 369,249

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.96%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $45.7 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.69 per person


3. New Mexico

• Number of food stamp recipients: 448,328

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.5%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $55.5 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.60 per person


2. Mississippi

• Number of food stamp recipients: 650,911

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.74%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $80.5 million

• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.90 per person


1. District of Columbia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 144,768

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.97%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $18 million

• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $27.19 per person




Red State Socialism

FACTS:

of the 32 States which receive more than they contribute, 27 States (84%) are REPUBLICAN

of the 18 States which contribute more than they receive, 14 States (78%) are DEMOCRATIC

Source of Tax data is: taxfoundatiom.org/research/show266.html based on 2005 data

Election data is from CNN.com based on 2004 Presidential election.

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/red-state-socialism.jpg


False propaganda based on faulty statistics that you keep reposting. This has been debunked in at least 3 other threads. We've already been over this and you are too ignorant to understand. Conservative Red States are the poorest states with the worst economies and they rely heavily on welfare.

If the Red States were so fiscally conservative as they claim, there would be zero welfare given out at all. The fact they give out one dollar of welfare is very hypocritical when they rail against it. If they were conservative, NO welfare would be given out at all. Hungry Republicans get just as hungry as hungry Democrats to get assistance. The poorest counties are rural counties where white republicans live who are on the dole. Blacks live in the inner cities, not in poor rural counties that use welfare. If you were starving for weeks, you would get the "bad old welfare" too if you needed something to eat.

 

[( . )( . )]

The poorest counties are rural counties where white republicans live

Then maybe sh!tlibs should stop crying out for MO MONEY FO DEM PROGRAMS? :crazy:

Did you even read the survey of who's leeching the most welfare?

 

[Tictac]

False propaganda based on faulty statistics that you keep reposting. This has been debunked in at least 3 other threads. We've already been over this and you are too ignorant to understand. Conservative Red States are the poorest states with the worst economies and they rely heavily on welfare.

If the Red States were so fiscally conservative as they claim, there would be zero welfare given out at all. The fact they give out one dollar of welfare is very hypocritical when they rail against it. If they were conservative, NO welfare would be given out at all. Hungry Republicans get just as hungry as hungry Democrats to get assistance. The poorest counties are rural counties where white republicans live who are on the dole. Blacks live in the inner cities, not in poor rural counties that use welfare. If you were starving for weeks, you would get the "bad old welfare" too if you needed something to eat.

______

Yes, "we've been over this". You typing does not make something true or accurate. Something typed about in "at least three other threads" doesn't mean a thing except in the empty head of a drooling, empty-headed, parrot proglib like yourself embers. Your pedantry is classic lefty drool - the Lewis Carrol school 'what I tell you three times is true'. And it's laughable anywhere people have actual thought instead of knee-jerk, proglib pap which you demonstrate over and over and over is all you can manage.

The referenced poll is from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs. That you cannot read it (without your lips moving) or understand it (because your brain left your head long ago) is your problem.

'Three other threads' - what a moron.

 

[speed dawg]

None of this is racial. Said no one ever.

 

[Maximus Rex]

Deflecting the Argument

I usually stay out of these threads because I view them as literally a waste of my f*cking time. I can post facts, numbers, statistics, cite history and every other incontrovertible piece of evidence I can find, but the white supremacist who seemed to overly obsessed with this sh*t will find my sources faulty and biased. However, I will chime on this.

So in a predominantly black city, with a black mayor, a majority black city council (with a black council president), and a black chief of police there is STILL the claim that this was a case of racism.

Just because blacks run a city government doesn't mean that the police department isn't brutal and corrupt. Blacks in Baltimore, (as in the rest of America,) have no economic or political leverage to enact some sort of retribution when things like this happens. The police department view the black community as the enemy and themselves as an occupying force. Sense there is no one holding them accountable for their brutal and corrupt ways, abuse goes unchecked and they act with impunity.

It's clear the left and their race baiters have no other recourse than to continue to spout the same tired lies to excuse rioting and other acts of violence.

When your needs fall upon deaf ears of your local politicians what are you suppose to do? What needs to be addressed to the systemic racism that exists in not only this, but in police departments across America and for whites to admit that it exists.

The left will never let real world facts get in the way of their agenda of hate and intolerance. I wonder how many of the cops involved in this are also black?

What facts? Like these are economically deprived areas that are void of jobs and opportunities? That every time an attempt is made to improve conditions in these areas white supremacists cry about affirmation action. It's the white supremacists that are are full hate and intolerance. These people wish to return to the days of segregation.

Freddy Gray had a pre-existing spinal and neck injury and had severe damage and scar tissue from an accident that Allstate Insurance was paying him a large structured settlement. Freddy had several unsuccessful spinal fusion surgeries, the most recent spinal/cervical operation was a week and a half before he was arrested. Freddy should have been at home in bed resting and recovering from recent major operation instead of manufacturing and distributing drugs on the streets and resisting arrest.

What does that have to do with him dying in police custody? Why are you deflecting shifting blame to the victim as opposed to where it lies, and that's with a racist, brutal, and corrupt police department.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdD7hH39e4

This white family gets into a out-and-out brawl with the police, but only one them manages to get shot only after one of the family members supposedly reaches for the cops gun. However, unarmed black men are routinely summarily executed on what seems to be a weekly bias, and how do we know he was resisting arrest? Are we suppose to take the cops word for it?

I don't understand these violent protestors. I am willing to bet that most don't work and some are high school/college age. Do they protest and destroy, then go home and sleep all day and tell their friends "I can't wait to see you tomorrow night so we can do it all over again!"

The lazy n*gga narrative. Miss me with that bullsh*t. This civil unrest is due to the actions of racist, white supremacist police officers who act with impunity. People are tired of harassed, assaulted, and killed by the police.

Ever notice that Democrat controlled cities and states have issues like this while conservative cities and states do not? Liberal states have serious economic issues and conservative states have booming economies! Go figure people!

Explain this potna.

White People Rioting for No Reason http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html

Kentucky Students Took Their Undefeated Team's Final Four Loss Terribly
http://www.businessinsider.com/kentucky-riot-photos-2015-4

Arizona Students Riot After Losing to Wisconsin in NCAA Tournament, 15 People Arrested http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...-riots-break-loss-wisconsin-article-1.1739398

WVU Students Warned After Riots http://espn.go.com/college-football...k-following-west-virginia-moutaineers-victory

Black people take to streets are a miscarriage of justice, white people take to the street after their favorite team loses a championship game.

If you want to live the thug life and be a criminal, then it'll eventually catch up with you.

Would there be any protesting if he were shot dead by a fellow gang member?

What does that have to do with killed while in police custody?

Jaylan,

It amazes me, that once again, you focus only on the cops over detaining the person (which I agree with) but say nothing, absolutely nothing, about the criminal.

The Eighth Amendment is quite plain when it states that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional, and this clearly a case of cruel and usual punishment being administered. If dude was criminal, you arrest him and take him to jail, not do something do savagely extreme that his spine becomes separated from his back. The white supremacist will always point to a person's criminal history as a justification for police brutality and corruption, instead off asking the real question of why the police are so violently homicide with another group of people that they've historically had a bad relationship with.

When you have these particular black men who have very long criminal histories, I don't know how they can be used as good examples to support your cause.

So basically you're saying that black men deserved to be summarily executed in the street for merely being suspected in a crime?

But can someone please post a link to the black guy with no criminal history, college educated, minding his own business, and the Cops shoot him for no reason?

Officer Charged in Akai Gurley Case Debated Reporting Gunshot, Officials Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/nyregion/akai-gurley-shooting-death-arraignment.html

By J. DAVID GOODMAN and VIVIAN YEE. 11, 2015

For four minutes, a New York City police officer who had just fired his gun into a darkened housing project stairwell argued with his partner over whether to tell their superiors about the shot.

“I’m going to be fired,” said the officer who pulled the trigger, Peter Liang, according to prosecutors’ account. Down a flight of stairs, the bullet from his gun had ricocheted off a wall and into a man’s chest, mortally wounding him.

The man, Akai Gurley, had done nothing more than enter the stairwell in the Louis H. Pink Houses, a housing project in East New York, Brooklyn.

On Wednesday, Officer Liang was charged in Mr. Gurley’s death after a grand jury handed up a six-count indictment against him. In laying out the allegations against the officer, including a charge of second-degree manslaughter, the Brooklyn district attorney, Kenneth P. Thompson, provided the most detailed account yet of what investigators believe happened inside 2724 Linden Boulevard on the night of Nov. 20.

Adam Davis, on Tuesday, outside the Louis H. Pink Houses in East New York, Brooklyn, where Akai Gurley was fatally shot by a police officer last fall in a stairwell.Residents of Brooklyn Housing Project Stay Wary After Officer Is IndictedFEB. 11, 2015

Akai GurleyNew York City Police Officer Is Said to Be Indicted in Shooting Death of Akai GurleyFEB. 10, 2015

While Mr. Thompson, in his remarks, never went so far as to say that the officer deliberately fired the weapon into the stairwell, he also took pains not to characterize the discharge as an accident, as the police commissioner, William J. Bratton, had hours after the shooting.

“We don’t believe that Officer Liang intended to kill Mr. Gurley,” he said. “But he had his finger on the trigger, and he fired the gun.” Officer Liang fired, Mr. Thompson added, “when there was no threat.”

 

[Maximus Rex]

Deflecting the Argument Pt. II

It’s Tamir Rice’s Fault

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/02/its-tamir-rices-fault/

As if the November 2014 Cleveland police shooting of Tamir Rice wasn’t bad enough. The Post’s Wesley Lowery reports that the city of Cleveland is blaming the 12-year-old who was playing with a toy gun in a park near his home for his own death. In response to the federal lawsuit filed by Tamir’s family, city officials accuse Tamir of “failure…to exercise due care to avoid injury.”

Right. It’s Tamir’s fault that the 911 caller’s admonition that the gun he was playing with was “probably fake” never made it to the officers.

It’s Tamir’s fault that he was shot and killed by police officer Timothy Loehmann just “1½ to 2 seconds” after his car arrived on the scene.

It’s Tamir’s fault that Loehmann quit his previous police job before he was dismissed for “deficiencies” only to be hired by a police department now under federal investigation for “allegations that CPD officers use excessive force, including unreasonable deadly force.”

It’s Tamir’s fault that first aid was administered, not by Loehmann or his partner, but by an FBI agent who happened to be in the area — four minutes after Tamir was shot.

And it’s Tamir’s fault that he was not seen as a child. “Shots fired, male down, um, black male, maybe 20,” one of the officers said when calling in the shooting. Or as Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association president Steve Loomis told Politico magazine, “He’s menacing. He’s 5-feet-7, 191 pounds. He wasn’t that little kid you’re seeing in pictures. He’s a 12-year-old in an adult body.” Given everything we know now about his case, the rest of Loomis’s quote is literally and figuratively unbelievable.

That black children don’t get to be children, as Stacey Patton reminded in an op-ed for The Post last November, is as enraging as it is heartbreaking. The Cleveland response to the Rice family lawsuit is but further proof that African American men and boys must live their lives beyond reproach, devoid of mistakes and bad choices at any age, if they are to avoid being blamed for their own death.

Officers in Bronx Fire 41 Shots, And an Unarmed Man Is Killed

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/05/n...re-41-shots-and-an-unarmed-man-is-killed.html

Let's just go with the notion that Walter Scott and now Freddie Gray were both over-detained by the Cops and the Cops went too far in the detainment. Why do you care? They are criminals.

In the case of Walter Scott, he had a warrant for non payment of child support. So you agree that men should have to pay child support for child they had no so in wanting to have? And if so, does it warranted being shot in the back by corrupt, murderous, and racist cop?

In Freddie Gray's case, myself or anybody I know could have been him. The police target the black males and are at war with us. They see us as a vehicle to reach their monthly quotas.

You only care because they are black?

You're damn right I care black they're black. Naming because these punk ass cops don't make a separation between the law biding citizens going about their daily business and the criminal element that's among us. Also add into that the police are the military wing of the white supremacist social structure, I have to constantly aware that whenever I come into with them that my freedom is in question and my life is in jeopardy.

 

[speed dawg]

Just because blacks run a city government doesn't mean that the police department isn't brutal and corrupt. Blacks in Baltimore, (as in the rest of America,) have no economic or political leverage to enact some sort of retribution when things like this happens. The police department view the black community as the enemy and themselves as an occupying force. Sense there is no one holding them accountable for their brutal and corrupt ways, abuse goes unchecked and they act with impunity.

When your needs fall upon deaf ears of your local politicians what are you suppose to do? What needs to be addressed to the systemic racism that exists in not only this, but in police departments across America and for whites to admit that it exists.

So, you want me to admit that blacks are racist against blacks? Who is holding them back? The blacks that they elected?

This civil unrest is due to the actions of racist, white supremacist police officers who act with impunity.

Wait, but black people run the cops in Baltimore. Get your story straight you entitled moron. Are you blaming whitey or are you blaming those in charge? Again, those elected by the black community.

Your story does not stand. You are the b*tch-ass, not Tenacity. The black community could attempt to not commit crimes. Just a thought.

 

[Tenacity]

Maximus,

The Eighth Amendment is quite plain when it states that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional, and this clearly a case of cruel and usual punishment being administered. If dude was criminal, you arrest him and take him to jail, not do something do savagely extreme that his spine becomes separated from his back. The white supremacist will always point to a person's criminal history as a justification for police brutality and corruption, instead off asking the real question of why the police are so violently homicide with another group of people that they've historically had a bad relationship with.

................So basically you're saying that black men deserved to be summarily executed in the street for merely being suspected in a crime?

I can post you countless of cases where the Cops are over-detainining white trash men as well. This is an issue that is mainly occurring in the black ghetto and white trash areas of the country where the CRIME RATE is very high. As I have stated before, you have two elements here and you and Jaylan ONLY want to discuss one side of the issue.

One Side: An out of control lower/working class of people that are mostly of lower income status, either white trash or black ghetto.

The Other Side: Cops that are going above and beyond to detain them because they are number one already afraid of them, secondly they believe that they are dangerous from the get go, and the individuals usually have some sort of criminal past which makes the Cops QUICKER to jump to using extreme detainment.

All you want to discuss are the Cops and White Supremacy. What about the out of control and animalistic people in the area? What do you think would create change faster, changing the community of people to where the bad behavior and crime significantly decreases....or just changing the police force and requiring the police go to softer on them at all times?

It's a freaking JUNGLE in these areas man, I grew up in Flint, MI so I know what I'm talking about.

You and Jaylan don't hold black ghetto people responsible for anything. You claim they are only black and ghetto because of White Supremacy, and that when they are acting out of line with Cops that the Cops should go soft on them while they act like a damn fool.

Lol, Walt Disney couldn't make this shyt up man, this would be so funny if 85% of black people didn't think like this.

The two cases that you posted aren't really good examples. One is the cop randomly shooting and then with the kid with the toy gun, that's a tricky one because again the cops came and the kid was waving the shyt around and they didn't know what it was.

Those are two ACCIDENTS. Even when the cop shot the guy at the gas station reaching back for his license, that's an ACCIDENT. And in those cases the Cops are dealt with.

What I want as an example from you and Jaylan, are in relation to a deliberate police beat-down or killing of a black person that's just sitting there minding their own business. No prior criminal activity, no resisting arrest, nothing. And the police deliberately come up and start beating them down JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK.

Because that's your narrative, your narrative is not that these are criminals and the criminal behavior is causing the Police issues, you are saying being BLACK PERIOD is causing it. So you need to show me cases where a cleancut black guy is just minding his own business and out of the blue, he's fvcked up deliberately by the Cops.

I'll be waiting on that link, but I know I will never get it because it doesn't exist today.

In the case of Walter Scott, he had a warrant for non payment of child support. So you agree that men should have to pay child support for child they had no so in wanting to have? And if so, does it warranted being shot in the back by corrupt, murderous, and racist cop?

If you get a chick pregnant and it's yours, yes you have to pay for supporting the child, I'm not sure why that's even a question lol. I believe that the child support laws should have a limit to them, but I'm in total support that if you get a chick pregnant and she doesn't kill it, then you have to support it. If you don't want that, then use a condom or do like me and get a V done so you can't get them pregnant.

And Walter Scott wasn't shot down for not paying child support man. The guy got out of the car and was running from the Cop, then was wrestling with the Cop trying to take his taser.

See Max just be honest here man. I have no agendas here. I'm really trying to understand YOUR SIDE of the equation and if you can just PLEASE keep it 100% honest, real and with no damn "smoke" that would be great. You know damn well that man wasn't shot just because he didn't pay child support.

You're damn right I care black they're black.

So if a white guy went out and marched for "white rights" is he racist or is he just keeping it real for his people in general like you are? I'm not saying either is wrong, just asking you a question.

Naming because these punk ass cops don't make a separation between the law biding citizens going about their daily business and the criminal element that's among us.

Then why haven't I been shot yet? I have been pulled over by the Cops at least 20 times since the age of 16 when I was first allowed to operate a vehicle. I even got a DUI when I was 22, crashed and fvcked up some shyt when I did it. I didn't get beat down, choked, shot, or anything because even while drunk off my a.ss, I was respectable and professional with the Cops.

I want you to post me the links that I requested, I want you to show me the law abiding black men that are just RANDOMLY and for no REASON beatdown, shotdown by the cops because they are BLACK MEN.

Show it to me.

Also add into that the police are the military wing of the white supremacist social structure, I have to constantly aware that whenever I come into with them that my freedom is in question and my life is in jeopardy.

Do you have pending criminal cases? Do you have drugs on you? Unregistered weapons? Expired car tags? Suspended license? Warrant for your arrest? Do you act professional with the Cops or do you mouth off? WHY do you think your life is on the line when a Cop pulls you over for a routine speeding ticket? Please explain this to me.......

......white supremacist social structure.....

Final question for you sir. So you believe that America is ruled by White Supremacy, which is defined as a group of White Men who created the laws, manage the monetary system, manage the political system, run the major corporations, and basically RUN the country, and they want to keep it White-Controlled and use tactics and procedures to keep Minorities from taking their spot. That's what white supremacy is, correct?

Now, assuming the answer is yes, if you have an issue with this and believe your people aren't being treated fairly, why don't you just LEAVE the country and go setup your own country with:

- Your own laws, your own monetary system, your own political system, your own free market system, your own corporations, etc.

That way you will now have Black Supremacy, and any other ethnic groups that come onto your land will have to operate under your Black Supremacy structure.

Why don't you do this?

 

[Stagger Lee]

That is well said Tenacity. This whole narrative of police victimizing blacks is ridiculous. But in away it's not, it's a scheme. It's based in black racism and supremacy. They want to take over the justice system and institute affirmative action for black criminality. Then what happens? Everyone suffers from higher crime, most of all blacks. Most of the violence blacks experience is at the hands of other blacks. Like you said Tenacity, if anyone wants to live under black rule, there's most of a huge continent they could go and do so. Many whites left S. Africa after they were pressured to give up autonomy and suffered. Many can't leave because no countries will allow them to emigrate, not even the European countries they descended from. A white person doesn't have a friend in this world. So much for white supremacy.

 

[speed dawg]

That is well said Tenacity. This whole narrative of police victimizing blacks is ridiculous. But in away it's not, it's a scheme. It's based in black racism and supremacy. They want to take over the justice system and institute affirmative action for black criminality. Then what happens? Everyone suffers from higher crime, most of all blacks. Most of the violence blacks experience is at the hands of other blacks. Like you said Tenacity, if anyone wants to live under black rule, there's most of a huge continent they could go and do so.

This is exactly what I don't understand. Same with the liberals. Yes, I know WHY they are pushing these agendas (jealousy), but it blows my mind that they haven't thought it through enough to see the outcome. Blacks are MUCH harder on other blacks from a police-civilian standpoint. Just look at any city that has had majority black rule for a significant number of time. Like Baltimore.

A white person doesn't have a friend in this world.

Except for his guns. I would say each other but we all know we don't have that.

 

[Tictac]

If you're going to quote the WaPo, may as well quote Page 1, Column 1 -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

"Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document says"

 

[Stagger Lee]

This is exactly what I don't understand. Same with the liberals. Yes, I know WHY they are pushing these agendas (jealousy), but it blows my mind that they haven't thought it through enough to see the outcome. Blacks are MUCH harder on other blacks from a police-civilian standpoint. Just look at any city that has had majority black rule for a significant number of time. Like Baltimore.

Because operating under jealousy makes them more motivated to see adversity and suffering of the object of their jealousy than for themselves to prosper more and see the object of their jealousy to do better too. "This agenda xyz might make things a little worse for me, but as long as it's worse for you, then it's all gooood!".

For example, white elites throwing white cops under the bus, and increasing crime in middle and lower class areas is no problem. Being a cop is a career choice only middle and lower class whites would want. Elites aren't going to be cops, live in a middle or lower class dieverse/higher crime areas, or shake up the police force in their low crime exclusive lilly white neighborhoods. Sure there will be some minor spill over on the elites maybe eventually, but that's nothing compared to the destruction their schemes cause to the objects of their jealousy (primarily white males).

Now if say blacks take over a city, the blacks will suffer a little more at their own hands, but the whites there will suffer greatly more. That's a win when you're operating under jealousy.

You don't have to be an elite. The real fools are the majority middle class who either support the same stuff or don't care because they're jealous too. The still for now majority is enabling it to a large degree.

I would say each other but we all know we don't have that.

That's just it. We don't have each other. We're not only disunited but divided against each other. That said, the dieversity is even more against us and used as a tool against us.

 

[speed dawg]

You don't have to be an elite. The real fools are the majority middle class who either support the same stuff or don't care because they're jealous too. The still for now majority is enabling it to a large degree.

And to add, these guys vote for people who hurt them, and they THINK they are hurting the elite (and helping themselves) by voting that way (Democrat). Talk about a mind-f*ck.

Take a look at all the majority white states that went blue for Obama in the past two elections. Of course, that also goes to show that they are have no idea what it's like to live among a majority of blacks. Everybody has to learn the hard way I suppose. The diversity isn't coming to the south anymore, that's what they don't realize. We are already diversified. Immigrants are being shipped to Iowa and Wisconsin and Minnesota - blue states. They will figure it out one day but it will be too late.

 

[Maximus Rex]

I Figured This Sh*t Was Going to Happened

I can post you countless of cases where the Cops are over-detainining white trash men as well.

What does ^^^^ have to do with black men being summarily executed by racist, brutal, and corrupt police officers?

This is an issue that is mainly occurring in the black ghetto and white trash areas of the country where the CRIME RATE is very high.

The issue is systemic white supremacy and the fact that the police are abusing and killing black people with impunity.

As I have stated before, you have two elements here and you and Jaylan ONLY want to discuss one side of the issue.

You're trying to make it two issues when it's only one.

One Side: An out of control lower/working class of people that are mostly of lower income status, either white trash or black ghetto.

Poor whites aren't being abused and killed by the police in the same rates blacks are.

The Other Side: Cops that are going above and beyond to detain them because they are number one already afraid of them, secondly they believe that they are dangerous from the get go, and the individuals usually have some sort of criminal past which makes the Cops QUICKER to jump to using extreme detainment.

1) Why are they cops if they're so scary?

2) The mindset of how a police officer deals with a white suspect is totally different from the way he deals with a black one. The cop already believes that we're danger due to prejudices and biases that he already has.

All you want to discuss are the Cops and White Supremacy.

Okay let's deal with people like yourself, unwilling to deal with systematic white supremacy, brutality and corruption on the part of the police.

What about the out of control and animalistic people in the area?

What about the police that created the situation? So black people are animals? What do you call white college students who riot after their basketball or football team loses?

What do you think would create change faster, changing the community of people to where the bad behavior and crime significantly decreases....or just changing the police force and requiring the police go to softer on them at all times?

Holding people responsible for when they treat you unfairly by creating an economic hardship.

It's a freaking JUNGLE in these areas man, I grew up in Flint, MI so I know what I'm talking about.

Nice quaint college towns aren't jungles. So why are those people rioting.

You and Jaylan don't hold black ghetto people responsible for anything.

You don't hold white supremacy and brutal and corrupt police departments for creating a social condition where people feel that civil unrest is their only viable way of having issues affecting their community addressed. Everything something happens with a cop killing somebody all I see is excuse after excuse about how an unarmed victim is the blame in his own demise.

And for the record black people hold each other responsible for deleterious behavior, however, I yet to see white people hold white supremacists responsible for the current state of race relations in America or police departments that are running amuck.

You claim they are only black and ghetto because of White Supremacy,

When did I say that.

and that when they are acting out of line with Cops that the Cops should go soft on them while they act like a damn fool.

If the police wouldn't act like the 21st Century of the Gestapo then people wouldn't riot.

The two cases that you posted aren't really good examples. One is the cop randomly shooting and then with the kid with the toy gun, that's a tricky one because again the cops came and the kid was waving the shyt around and they didn't know what it was.

Really bruh? You said provide an example of people minding their own business getting shot and I just that. What more of a example guy minding his own business when he's shot by a cop for simply being in a stairwell.

Amadou Dillalo was shot while standing vestibule of his building. There was no reason for the police to even approach the man, but these are bad examples, seriously. Yet instill you say black people never accept responsibility for the things and why isn't that black people as a group have to accept responsibility for the actions of a few. Why aren't you accepting responsibility for the racist cops that shot a kid playing in the park or two guys minding their own business? Also, which Tamir Rice, that cop won't have shot a white kid.

Those are two ACCIDENTS. Even when the cop shot the guy at the gas station reaching back for his license, that's an ACCIDENT. And in those cases the Cops are dealt with.

So you're making excuses for how the police have black men viewed as potential threat? Too many black men have been the victim of these "accidents." Also, considering that the victim is dead and can't give his version of events, why are you so quick to believe the cops' side?

What I want as an example from you and Jaylan, are in relation to a deliberate police beat-down or killing of a black person that's just sitting there minding their own business. No prior criminal activity, no resisting arrest, nothing. And the police deliberately come up and start beating them down JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK.

Do I did that, now you want to change the criteria.

Because that's your narrative, your narrative is not that these are criminals and the criminal behavior is causing the Police issues, you are saying being BLACK PERIOD is causing it. So you need to show me cases where a cleancut black guy is just minding his own business and out of the blue, he's fvcked up deliberately by the Cops.

I'm saying white supremacy is causing it.

I'll be waiting on that link, but I know I will never get it because it doesn't exist today.

I gave it to you.

If you get a chick pregnant and it's yours, yes you have to pay for supporting the child, I'm not sure why that's even a question lol. I believe that the child support laws should have a limit to them, but I'm in total support that if you get a chick pregnant and she doesn't kill it, then you have to support it. If you don't want that, then use a condom or do like me and get a V done so you can't get them pregnant.

So why shouldn't a man have the same options of as a woman concerning children? If she wants to have a kid, then she should have to bear the financial responsibility of providing for that child.

And Walter Scott wasn't shot down for not paying child support man. The guy got out of the car and was running from the Cop, then was wrestling with the Cop trying to take his taser.

Even if you believe that sh*t, the threat was ended. When Slager drew his weapon he wasn't engaged in a life or death struggle with Scott. The only people saying this taser bullsh*t are white supremacist bloggers that are reaching to justify the murder of black man by a racist cop.

See Max just be honest here man. I have no agendas here. I'm really trying to understand YOUR SIDE of the equation and if you can just PLEASE keep it 100% honest, real and with no damn "smoke" that would be great. You know damn well that man wasn't shot just because he didn't pay child support.

He was shot because he was black and Slager thought he was going to get away with it.

So if a white guy went out and marched for "white rights" is he racist or is he just keeping it real for his people in general like you are? I'm not saying either is wrong, just asking you a question.

What rights don't white people have? It would be kinda silly for him to do so considering that white people are the dominate society in America.

Then why haven't I been shot yet? I have been pulled over by the Cops at least 20 times since the age of 16 when I was first allowed to operate a vehicle. I even got a DUI when I was 22, crashed and fvcked up some shyt when I did it. I didn't get beat down, choked, shot, or anything because even while drunk off my a.ss, I was respectable and professional with the Cops.

The police don't view you as a threat.

 

[Maximus Rex]

Figured This Would Happen Pt. II

I want you to post me the links that I requested, I want you to show me the law abiding black men that are just RANDOMLY and for no REASON beatdown, shotdown by the cops because they are BLACK MEN.

Show it to me.

This is what you initially said thinking that nobody would be able to do it.

But can someone please post a link to the black guy with no criminal history, college educated, minding his own business, and the Cops shoot him for no reason?

Now that I made you look like a dumb ass by showing three examples of black men being shoot minding their own business being killed by the. Then you change the f*cking question by saying "Oh they were abused or they were killed because they were black." Are you f*cking serious? It's evident that face plays a factor in these cases because the common denominator in cases the most of the victims are play.

Do you have pending criminal cases? Do you have drugs on you? Unregistered weapons? Expired car tags? Suspended license? Warrant for your arrest? Do you act professional with the Cops or do you mouth off?

So having or doing these things justifies the police abusing me or taking my life?

WHY do you think your life is on the line when a Cop pulls you over for a routine speeding ticket? Please explain this to me.......

Why does the cop view me as a threat?

Now, assuming the answer is yes, if you have an issue with this and believe your people aren't being treated fairly, why don't you just LEAVE the country and go setup your own country with:

America isn't the problem, it white supremacists who are hellbent on keeping minorities disenfranchised that's the problem.

- Your own laws, your own monetary system, your own political system, your own free market system, your own corporations, etc.

That way you will now have Black Supremacy, and any other ethnic groups that come onto your land will have to operate under your Black Supremacy structure.

I don't want black supremacy, I want people to be treated fairly and with that last question you really exposed yourself.