"Police racism may have compromised 3000 San Francisco cases, officials say"

[Embers84]

btw while I'm here and just to piss you off:

It doesn't piss me off at all. It makes me laugh my ass off at your ignorance. You're the one making yourself look bad being ignorant.

Wow...just wow.

Wow, just wow.

100% - 62.80 = 37.2% eh Anaconda?

In a leaked memo to clients, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of Americans out of work at an astronomic 37.2 percent, as opposed to the 6.7 percent claimed by the Federal Reserve.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said.

“Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work,” he and colleague Megan Russell reveal in their client report, which was leaked to the Washington Examiner.

Taken from "Exposing The Right Wing Lie On Obama's Economic Record"


By M. Embers


The unemployment rate for April 2015, was at 5.4 percent, and has been falling steadily under six percent since September 2014. But the right wingers, disregard that number from The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and with their absurd math, they shoot for an astronomical unemployment rate of 37.2%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

Again, right wingers will hit the airwaves and go on the net ranting about a 37.3% unemployment rate under Obama. The gullible sheep listening will sit like zombies eating it up without knowing how they arrived at those absurd statistics. But it must be true, since every right wing talker and hack is repeating that right? Wrong, it is a made up fictional statistic only to discredit the President, and sadly the suckers fall for it every time.

So, how does the right come up with their now fake 37.2% unemployment rate? Easy, they take the number 100 and subtract it from the current 62.80% Labor Participation Rate, thus arriving at 37.2%.

Anybody with common sense knows that there will never be a 100% Labor Participation Rate in the United States due to a large bulk of the population that are unable to work. That includes children, the mentally disabled, retirees, people with health conditions, and the normal unemployment rate. But the right doesn't care about that, they only want to put out misinformation and get as many people as possible to believe their "Big Lie".

If we were to believe the right wing lie about unemployment being 37.3% under Obama, then the unemployment rate still would have been 36.9% for 65 years dating back to Harry S. Truman with their absurd calculations.

Furthermore, looking at the false 37.3% unemployment rate the right hangs on Obama comparing it with the false 36.9% average, that would mean unemployment only had a up tick of 0.4% even with the bulk of the population retiring today. Which means that even with the right's phony calculations, Obama is doing one hell of a great job.

Welfare recipients now at an all time high.

usgovernmentspending.com.
in 2000 when George W Bush took office welfare spending was $178 billion
in 2009 when George W Bush left office welfare spending was $415 billion
-------------------------------------------------------------...
in 2009 when Obama took office welfare spending was $415 billion
in 2012 under Obama welfare spending is $456 billion
Bush increased it by $236 billion
Obama increased it by $41 billion

Welfare spending cut in half since reform

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)


Today's welfare program is nothing like what it used to be.

In the 16 years since President Clinton and Congress overhauled the nation's welfare system, the number of people receiving cash assistance has fallen by two-thirds. And public spending on the program has dropped by more than half.


Conservative lawmakers and policy analysts have celebrated the reform, saying it has helped put people on the road to self-sufficiency rather than government dependence.

But advocates for low-income people contend that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is what welfare turned into in 1996, does not adequately support the poor, particularly in tough economic times.

The cash assistance portion of TANF has fallen to $9.6 billion in 2011, down from $20.4 billion in what were mostly cash benefits in 1996, according to an analysis by CLASP, a low-income advocacy group. The average number of people receiving payments per month is 4.6 million, down from 12.6 million.

"Very few poor families are served," said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It's really not a very broad program right now."

The hot button topic of welfare reform returned to the spotlight this week as Mitt Romney unveiled a presidential campaign ad accusing President Obama of dismantling the work requirement that was central to the overhaul.

Related: Getting off government assistance

But the program at the heart of the current storm is only a shadow of the former welfare system. Previously, most of the government dollars in the welfare program, which was then known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was distributed as cash. Now, only about one-third is.

The rest of the TANF funds are used for a variety of purposes, including child care, work subsidies, transportation, mental health services and family initiatives.

The federal funding portion, which is distributed to states as a block grant so it does not increase even if more people become eligible, has been set at about $16 billion since TANF was created. States also kick in money, bringing the total to about $33.3 billion in 2011.

Also, each state sets its own eligibility rules, with some southern states restricting it to people earning around 20% to 30% of the poverty level. The maximum time recipients can receive benefits is five years under federal rules.

Some states also establish additional criteria, such as requiring TANF applicants to search for jobs for a month before applying.

As a result, TANF assisted 28 families for every 100 in poverty in 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That ratio was 75 families for every 100 under welfare in 1995.

"It's really hard to get on," said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, senior policy analyst at CLASP. "You have to jump through lots of hoops."

TANF is also dwarfed by the granddaddies of the federal safety net programs, Medicaid and food stamps, which have 52.6 million and 46.5 million participants, respectively.

To be sure, TANF isn't the only government aid that low-income Americans receive. There are 69 federal programs that provide help in areas ranging from housing to social services to education to poor Americans, according to the Heritage Foundation. The federal government will spend about $695 billion on this assistance in fiscal 2011.

But TANF is one of the few income-based safety net programs that requires participants hold down jobs or train to join the workforce.

"Welfare reform turned "welfare" into "workfare," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at Heritage.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/

Even the right wing Heritage Foundation is pleased with the results. Can't be that bad since welfare is cut in half since the reform thanks to President Bill Clinton and right wingers all agree it is good.

 

[Jaylan]

8 cases were already dismissed because of these racist cops.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-08-16-52-27

 

[Stagger Lee]

8 cases were already dismissed because of these racist cops.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-08-16-52-27

Doesn't mean they should've been dismissed or that they were really dismissed for actions of those "racist" cops.

 

[Embers84]

8 cases were already dismissed because of these racist cops.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-08-16-52-27

It doesn't surprise me at all with the right wing courts we have acting like police brutality is ok. Most cases never get prosecuted so they go ahead and do it. These S.O.B. cops even attack and beat up the handicapped getting off the hook. Who can condone this type of behavior letting it slide?

Cop who Beat Down a Wheelchair Bound Man Found Not Guilty on All Charges


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-beat-wheelchair-bound-man-guilty-charges/

Back in 2012 Richard Jouppi was booking 50-year old, wheelchair bound, Anthony Jon Jackson in the detoxification center. Jouppi was clearly causing pain and hurting Jackson, at which point Jackson reached up with his arm to defend himself, and told Jouppi, “you can’t do that.”

Jouppi then stooped to particularly low level and began to pummel Jackson to the point of knocking him backwards out of the wheelchair and then getting on top of his paralyzed body.

Jackson was booked for felony assault. The charges were later dropped.

Jouppi, 36, faced fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct charges after the aggressive incident. This past November, Jouppi was found not guilty on all charges.

Even Duluth Police Chief Gordon Ramsay, was upset with the outcome and posted the following statement to his Facebook page,

“While I respect the judicial process I am very disappointed by the verdict in the Richard Jouppi case. His actions on September 21, 2012 were not consistent with department training or policy, bringing discredit to our department and detracting from the excellent work our women and men do on a daily basis. As I said previously, we will do everything we can legally to ensure he never works for our department again.”

It should come as no surprise that Jouppi was found not guilty. Cops can murder, beat, humiliate, rape and sodomize and keep their positions.

As he defended himself on the stand he even proclaimed the “unofficial” police oath, “It’s a tough position to be in as a police officer because I have to go home. I have my wife and kids at home.”

The bright side to this story, if there is one, is that Police Chief Ramsay has said his department has done everything in its power to ensure that Jouppi never works on the force again.

Record deficits under Bush!

Hilarious Embers.

Keep 'em comin'

Bush Administration Projects Record '09 Deficit

Deficit For Next Year To Hit $482 Billion Amid Sagging Economy

7/28/2008


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25884806/...tration-projects-record-deficit/#.VVAbvSttGaw

WASHINGTON — The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released Monday.

The administration said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. But the numbers could go even higher if the economy performs worse than the White House predicts.

The budget office predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and will rebound to a 2.2 percent growth rate next year. That’s a half percentage point more than predicted by the widely cited “blue chip” consensus of leading economists. The administration also sees inflation averaging 3.8 percent this year, but easing to 2.3 percent next year — better than the 3.0 percent seen by the blue chip panel.

“The nation’s economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient,” said the budget office report.

A $482 billion deficit, however, would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.

The deficit numbers for 2008 and 2009 represent about 3 percent of the size of the economy, which is the measure seen as most relevant by economists. By that measure, the 2008 and 2009 deficits would be smaller than the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, when Congress and earlier administrations cobbled together politically painful deficit-reduction packages.

The administration actually underestimates the deficit, however, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition — and in violation of new mandates from Congress — the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

The White House in February had forecast that next year’s deficit would be $407 billion, which puts the increase in the projections at $72 billion.

Figures for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30 will actually drop from an earlier projection of $410 billion to $389 billion, the report said.

The White House still projects that the budget will reach a surplus by 2012, helped by revenues boosted by optimistic economic projections of economic growth.

Still, the new figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that it may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to it with expensive spending programs or new tax cuts. In fact, pressure may build to allow some tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010, with Congress also feeling pressure to curb spending growth.

John McCain used the news to slam both the Bush White House for its “profligate spending” and Democratic rival Barack Obama for saying he would not try to balance the budget.

“I have an unmatched record in fighting wasteful earmarks and unnecessary spending in the U.S. Senate and I have the determination and experience to do the same as President,” McCain said in a statement.

Obama’s campaign used the new numbers to attack McCain for embracing Bush’s tax cuts. Obama, said campaign policy director Jason Furman, “will restore balance and fairness to our economy by cutting wasteful spending, shutting corporate loopholes and tax havens, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while making health care affordable and putting a middle class tax cut in the pocket of 95 percent of workers and their families.”

The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.

That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country’s finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.

In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.

However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the new deficit figure confirms “the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history.

What do you say about that old timer? Your memory is cloudy parroting your right wing propaganda. Bush racked up record deficits under his watch and handed it off to Obama. Even if McCain was President, he would have had Bush's record deficits to contend with. This article was from July of 2008, the deficit was much worse than predicted when Obama took over. Notice in the red about the war deficit. Bush did not include the war deficit into the national debt total. Obama had to include that debt into the National debt which increased the debt including the Stimulus Package that was need to jump start the economy. That debt was expected. Obama was NOT responsible for the highest increasing amount of debt during his first 9 months in office since that is accumulated from the outgoing President and when our country was in the worst shape. Right Wingers don't tell you that and you eat it up parroting more lies.

 

[Tictac]

Well embers, sh*t for brains logic like yours is tough to deal with. But try this -

By your own words Bush was responsible for every dollar of spending and debt from his eight years in office. But somehow when Obama takes office not only is Bush responsible for every dollar of the debt and spending of his Administration but Obama's spending and debt that accompanied it as well.

Only a child thinks like you do. And it is hilarious that you type it out here and stamp your feet like an 8-year old to make a complete fool of yourself with your 'logic'.

Either a President is responsible for the debt issued under his Administration or he is not. It does not magically change from one to the other when a democrat takes office. Or if prior Presidents are responsible for the deficits and debt from predecessors, then Bush inherited the trillion dollar increase in debt that Clinton left him and the mythical surplus dims like to talk about.

And just so we're clear, while Clinton may claim credit for two (maybe three) balanced budgets, he (nor Congress) never acheived a fiscal surplus - it was a budgeted surplus for federal fiscal year 2001 a fiscal year that began on October 1, 2001 - Bush's first year in office and 30 days after 09/11/01. So your 'logic' requires this to be called a Bush surplus. Your 'logic' also requires that the events of 09/11/01 have no implications for federal spending whatever.

Choose a consistent way to look at this or admit that you are a retarded monkey at a keyboard. If Bush is responsible for all the spending and debt incurred during his Presidency, then so is Obama for all of the spending and debt incurred during his Presidency.

 

[Embers84]

Well embers, sh*t for brains logic like yours is tough to deal with. But try this -

By your own words Bush was responsible for every dollar of spending and debt from his eight years in office. But somehow when Obama takes office not only is Bush responsible for every dollar of Obama's spending but the debt that accompanied it.

Either a President is responsible for the debt issued under his Administration or he is not. It does not magically change from one to the other when a democrat takes office.

Choose a consistent way to look at this or admit that you are a retarded monkey at a keyboard. If Bush is responsible for all the spending and debt incurred during his Presidency, then so is Obama for all of the spending and debt incurred during his Presidency.

Clinton handed Bush a robust economy with a surplus that right wingers try to take credit for. Bush handed Obama a sh1t economy with record deficits and a near Great Depression that right wingers try to blame Obama for. So, the GOP both take the credit and shift the blame pretending Bush's disaster didn't exist and Obama made the debt. That is a lie that has been exposed by factcheck.org but not reported by our conservative media.

Bush's sh1t carried over to Obama when the economy was in a severe downturn. Bush did not calculate his war debt into the deficit that went into the total debt you right wingers attack Obama on. Bush's failed policies still were in effect under Obama, Medicare drug program, tax cuts, wars, and the Stimulus all adding to the debt. Those were NOT Obama's policies, those were Bush carry overs. You are wrong again old timer.

Does Obama have the ‘worst’ record of any president on the national debt?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/

Sean Spicer, the RNC’s communication director, defended Priebus’s statement by pointing out that “in terms of dollars, Obama has added more debt (based on either total national debt or debt held by the public) than any of his predecessors.” Citing the U.S. Treasury “debt to the penny” Web site, Spicer noted that the gross national debt, which includes bonds held by Social Security and the other government trust funds, stood at $10.627 trillion on Jan. 20 and reached $17.994 trillion on Dec. 3 — an increase of about 70 percent. In terms of debt held by the public, the number has doubled from $6.307 trillion to $12.932 trillion in the same period.

Case closed? Nope. The biggest problem with this kind of calculation is that every president inherits a debt from the previous one, making it virtually certain that the pile of debt is going to grow. So raw numbers don’t tell you much; what’s importnumbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama. But even he was a piker compared with wartime presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

There are other ways one can try to measure a president’s effect on the debt, which we have explored in the past. Debt as a share of gross domestic product, for instance, is very useful for examining whether the nation is able to pay for the debt over time.

But measuring percentage changes in the debt/GDP ratio over time can be misleading because the GDP number is affected by the state of the economy, especially if the president suffers through a recession at the start of their term. Most recent presidents experienced robust annual GDP growth rates, compared with the flat line of Obama’s first years, which means the numerator in their calculation of GDP percentage grew much faster than the one used for Obama.

Thus Priebus’s statement has elements of fact but lacks important context. He earns Two Pinocchios.

A Texas-size Whopper


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/a-texas-size-whopper/

Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, at a nationally televised meeting of House Republicans in Baltimore, accused President Obama to his face of running up deficits a dozen times greater than the GOP’s. The president said,

"That’s factually just not true, and you know it’s not true," and he invited "any independent fact-checker out there" to assess which man got the facts right.

OK, we will.

We have to score this one for Obama. Hensarling told a Texas-size whopper — and then tried to claim Republican credit for Blll Clinton’s budget surpluses.

Let’s look at exactly what was said, and what the facts show.

Hensarling said that under Obama, "what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats."

Hensarling, Jan. 29: [A] year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent.

It’s true that deficits have grown under Obama, but not even close to as much as Hensarling claimed.

The simple fact is that Obama inherited a federal deficit of $1.2 trillion on the day he was sworn in last year. Barely two weeks earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular "Budget and Economic Outlook" document, stating:

CBO, Jan. 2009: The federal fiscal situation in 2009 will be dramatically worse than it was in 2008. Under the assumption that current laws and policies remain in place (that is, not accounting for any new legislation), CBO estimates that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, more than two and a half times the size of last year’s.

That $1.2 trillion projected deficit — the result of bills signed by Republican President George W. Bush — grew substantially after Obama signed his stimulus bill and submitted his own budget. But even so, by the time the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, CBO said.

CBO, Nov. 6, 2009: The federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2008.

At the time Hensarling made his claim, CBO was projecting that the deficit for the year would be lower — about $1.3 trillion. Later, on Feb. 1, Obama unveiled a new budget that would push the current year’s deficit to a record $1.55 trillion, by his administration’s estimates. But Hensarling’s claim is untrue even comparing that higher figure to any of the eight fiscal years for which Bush signed the tax and spending bills. The new deficit figure comes out to an average of just under $130 billion per month. Bush’s lowest annual deficit was just under $158 billion in fiscal 2002.

It reached nearly $459 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008, and, as we mentioned, was on track to reach $1.2 trillion by the time Obama took office.

So how could Hensarling possibly justify his claim? By claiming credit for budget surpluses that occurred under a Democratic president and avoiding responsibility for the biggest deficits run up under Bush, that’s how.

He issued a news release the same day, stating that the average deficit was only $104 billion "in the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House." Republicans controlled the House during the last six years of President Bill Clinton’s administration (regularly voting against his budget bills). During that time, the U.S. was in the longest sustained economic boom in its history, and the federal government ran budget surpluses in fiscal 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001(the last year for which Clinton signed the spending and tax legislation). Hensarling’s accounting also avoids GOP responsibility for the last two years of Bush’s deficits, on grounds that Democrats took control of the House in January 2007.ant is the percentage change in the time period being measured.

What do you have to say about this old timer? More GOP lies exposed. Stop listening to your right wing media. They are liars.

 

[Tictac]

So you confirm that you are indeed a monkey behind a keyboard embers.

When a democrat is President, Congress is responsible for spending and debt. When a Republican is President, the President is responsible for spending and debt.

LOL

You just typed it.

 

[Tenacity]

This is a nice discussion, I wanted to chime in here.

I think US Presidents take way too much of the credit and way too much of the blame for macroeconomic measures such as Unemployment Numbers. The President is the Commander in Chief and the only real true measurement of his/her "job" should be in terms of the military and did they keep us save for 4 or 8 years, or not. When it comes to Unemployment and other major macroeconomic measures, people really should be debating the decisions of:

- The Federal Reserve

- Congress

- The Fortune 500

- Wallstreet/Investors

- Small Business Owners/Entrepreneurs

And in THAT order as well. These five groups determine if we are in a good economy or bad one, a growing economy or stale one, or if we are in a totally changing/shifting economy which is where we are right now.

We are moving from the Industrial Age into a full fledged Specialized Skill economy based on IT, Robotics, and Engineered products coming from and being sold to individuals/entities across the globe. This situation is being caused by the supply/demands of The Fortune 500, Wallstreet, Entrepreneurs, the consumers they serve, as well as the trade laws passed by Congress that allowed for massive globalization.

Then, in combination with this, you have the Federal Reserve manipulating the monetary supply creating the booms and busts, the "high returns" of the stock market and the low returns of the stock market, the high savings rates and the low savings rates, as well as inflation and deflationary periods.

The President really has little to nothing to do with this, but unfortunately, the average voter doesn't know anything about this as your mainstream media outlets do NOT educate them properly, and that includes Fox News. You never hear discussions about the Federal Reserve, the new Specialized Skill economy, nor Globalization. These are the three things that are affecting Unemployment right now.

 

[Tictac]

The FBI says far more law enforcement officers were killed in 2014 than in 2013


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rs-were-killed-in-2014-than-in-2013/?hpid=z10

 

[backbeat]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/08/san-francisco-police-racism-text-messages

Well i'll be damned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ages-throw-3000-criminal-cases-into-question/

The quotes in this article are very telling.


Good ole white power racist on a police force. I wonder how many lives hes fvked up because of his prejudice.

Black success had this guy really butthurt. The next few years are gonna be big for law enforcement reform as more cops and PDs get caught up in these messes. In the technological age you cant hide this sh!t anymore.

Anything can be caught on video, and anything you put through the internet or phone network will exist forever.

Anyways, I'll let the apologists have at this one. Enjoy.

racism exists n this just proves jus that man. ppl need to capture all this sh@t on video bro or u wont have a fu@kin chance in hell to prove u were f@cked up by these racist cops. get all this sh@t on video n show them for who they are n maybe this sh@t will stop after enough ppl get pissed off enough.

 

[( . )( . )]

racism exists n this just proves jus that man. ppl need to capture all this sh@t on video bro or u wont have a fu@kin chance in hell to prove u were f@cked up by these racist cops. get all this sh@t on video n show them for who they are n maybe this sh@t will stop after enough ppl get pissed off enough.

:crackup: You honestly want oblivious weak whyte obammy voting sh!tlibs raised on digital synagogue black worship watching the full extent of dindu shenanigans in real time?

I don't think you've thought this one through swallowman.

 

[backbeat]

:crackup: You honestly want oblivious weak whyte obammy voting sh!tlibs raised on digital synagogue black worship watching the full extent of dindu shenanigans in real time?

I don't think you've thought this one through swallowman.

self hatin race troll who is swallowin sumthin i dont wanna no bout. bum is unemployed who posts racist sh@t to feel better bout himself. that is worse than a black dude with no job cuz u hatin on blacks n sh@t n u aint got no job urself. y dont get a job as a cop u would have fun beatin ppl up since u love to hate on ppl n here makin racist posts to me when i post.

 

[dex44]

By this definition, one can argue the Native Americans were racist and ethnocentric.

Did they still not deserve a homeland of their own? Does their desire for a homeland for their people make them a "Native American Supremacist"?

Words have meanings, and wanting a homeland for your people is NOT the definition of supremacism.

you suck, jaylan sucks too