Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The claim by the black community is that the police is "massacring" black youth. The numbers clearly show that it's not the case.
    The claim is part of the larger claim that police treat armed white males differently than black males as well. I've already pointed out an example that proves my point.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    While blacks are 13% of the population, the FBI's crime stats indicate that they are responsible for more than the 13%, hence the fact that they represent 32% of those killed by police. While greater than their population, there is a reason.
    And the reason is what exactly?

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And certainly 132 demonstrates that there is no war on black males by the police.
    See first response.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Income has nothing to do with the data.
    Of the stupidest things you have said over the years, this one is in the top five.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If you want to blame that, fine, but at the end of day that's nothing but an excuse.
    Please tell us about your harsh upbringing. I'm betting you're one of those conservatives who likes to tell everyone you were born in a log cabin you built with your own two hands. Let me get my violin.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    This post makes no sense. Which, coming from you, doesn't surprise me in the least. Given the number of blacks that are living in poverty, how do their numbers stack up compared to any other ethnic group (including whites) in the same income bracket?
    The claim by the black community is that the police is "massacring" black youth. The numbers clearly show that it's not the case.

    While blacks are 13% of the population, the FBI's crime stats indicate that they are responsible for more than the 13%, hence the fact that they represent 32% of those killed by police. While greater than their population, there is a reason.

    And certainly 132 demonstrates that there is no war on black males by the police.

    Income has nothing to do with the data.

    If you want to blame that, fine, but at the end of day that's nothing but an excuse.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Really? Last year 132 blacks were killed by police out of a total of more than 600. Or, if you prefer percentages, 32% were black. if you believe the FBI statistics that shows that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to population that number is about right. Guess you awarded no points.
    This post makes no sense. Which, coming from you, doesn't surprise me in the least. Given the number of blacks that are living in poverty, how do their numbers stack up compared to any other ethnic group (including whites) in the same income bracket?

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Only if you deny the treatment of armed blacks by law enforcement isn't any different than armed whites not engaging in hostile or threatening activity.

    Prove that.


    Population is probably the better determining factor.

    Population is not the determining factor in this case. the demographics are.


    Again, you must believe that treatment of blacks by law enforcement (particularly in the South) is the same as the way white people are treated. History doesn't show this to be the case. Especially recent history.
    Really? Last year 132 blacks were killed by police out of a total of more than 600. Or, if you prefer percentages, 32% were black. if you believe the FBI statistics that shows that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to population that number is about right. Guess you awarded no points.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So you deny that there is a historical perspective that affects this?
    Only if you deny the treatment of armed blacks by law enforcement isn't any different than armed whites not engaging in hostile or threatening activity.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Again, statistically I could probably show you that, at least in this area, law enforcement is more likely to come in contact with an armed black male vs. an armed white male.
    Would love to see it.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    There are far more shootings and shots fired incidents in Shreveport than Bossier City. Shreveport has a much higher black population. Are you saying that is simply a coincidence?
    Population is probably the better determining factor.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You want to make it look like I'm turning this into a black vs. white bias. It's not. It's simply a historical perspective on black compared to white.
    Again, you must believe that treatment of blacks by law enforcement (particularly in the South) is the same as the way white people are treated. History doesn't show this to be the case. Especially recent history.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    I totally agree with you that the actions of the Black Panthers were not a group of individuals engaging in non-hostile rhetoric. My point all along has been there is a different reaction to armed ethnic individuals and armed white people.
    So you deny that there is a historical perspective that affects this?

    Again, statistically I could probably show you that, at least in this area, law enforcement is more likely to come in contact with an armed black male vs. an armed white male.

    There are far more shootings and shots fired incidents in Shreveport than Bossier City. Shreveport has a much higher black population. Are you saying that is simply a coincidence?

    You want to make it look like I'm turning this into a black vs. white bias. It's not. It's simply a historical perspective on black compared to white.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    I'm not aware of any. There likely aren't any. But that doesn't change the truth about the Panthers and the numerous repeated threats of violence made by them. Plus the whole "two wrongs don't make a right thing". Imagine if we just concentrated on right being right and wrong being wrong instead of always making the other guy wrong. Now that would be a beautiful thing to see and experience. Sadly I don't see it happening. There is way too much fear and ignorance out there and our current political system thrives on it. They like to keep us at each other's throats over relative non-issues while they royally screw up everything.
    I totally agree with you that the actions of the Black Panthers were not a group of individuals engaging in non-hostile rhetoric. My point all along has been there is a different reaction to armed ethnic individuals and armed white people.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Can you point to similar laws passed when white supremacists spout violent rhetoric or commit violent acts?
    I'm not aware of any. There likely aren't any. But that doesn't change the truth about the Panthers and the numerous repeated threats of violence made by them. Plus the whole "two wrongs don't make a right thing". Imagine if we just concentrated on right being right and wrong being wrong instead of always making the other guy wrong. Now that would be a beautiful thing to see and experience. Sadly I don't see it happening. There is way too much fear and ignorance out there and our current political system thrives on it. They like to keep us at each other's throats over relative non-issues while they royally screw up everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    White folks had good reason to be scared of armed Black Panthers, considering what was being said and done at the time by members of that group.
    Can you point to similar laws passed when white supremacists spout violent rhetoric or commit violent acts?

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    White folks had good reason to be scared of armed Black Panthers, considering what was being said and done at the time by members of that group.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Part of the equation is always going to be how likely the person with the gun is to actually use it.

    Quite simply, there is a very little history of shots being fired in any of these armed standoffs. There is quite a bit of history of the kid in the hood actually shooting the weapon at the officers.

    And yes, that factors into it.
    Thank you Mr. Mind Reader. So law enforcement bases their reaction to a weapon being pointed at them by the historical use of whether or not an individual is likely to pull the trigger? You only reinforce my point over the double standard of force application. Can you point me to the LEO procedure that supports you? I'm betting you pulled this out of your posterior. Like most of your idiot ramblings.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You support the right of a group of protesters taking over a busy street and shutting it down, disrupting everybody else's life for their little tantrum.
    Nope. Said no such thing. The point is the double standard of force depending on the color of skin. We've got a great example right here in CA. Back in the 60's the Black Panthers had a peaceful protest where they walked around our state capitol carrying firearms. The GOP governor at the time immediately signed the Mulford Act (authored by a GOP legislator) that prohibited the carrying of loaded firearms. That governor was then Gov. Ronald Reagan. There was no violence or even threat of violence by the group. Just the reaction of scared white folks like yourself.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    A peaceful takeover of some BLM land in the middle of nowhere ...... Likely far less disruptive to society. Surround them and starve them out.
    Only a complete fool believes this takeover was peaceful. They came armed and threatened a use of force if confronted.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And yes, I do rant about government, especially when I work for my money and so many get government money without working.
    Your money that is paid you is derived from the taxation of others. I bet most if not all taxpayers would not pay the taxes to fund your position if given the opportunity. Especially the anti-government zealots like yourself. If you can show where I'm wrong please post a link.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Part of the equation is always going to be how likely the person with the gun is to actually use it.

    Quite simply, there is a very little history of shots being fired in any of these armed standoffs. There is quite a bit of history of the kid in the hood actually shooting the weapon at the officers.

    And yes, that factors into it.
    There's a first time for everything. How should law enforcement know when it's coming? It's not fair of us to expect them to read the minds of people pointing weapons at them. Nor is it reasonable. Nor is it even possible. If you point a gun at a cop that cop is justified in shooting you. I don't know what the intent was of the man on the overpass. But he is clearly a coward or a phony. At least the kid in the hood that shoots at a cop has the balls to engage. He knows he might get hit. The guy on the bridge never really believed it would happen to him IMO.

    I just looked at the above picture again. I mean, who's the woman next to him? The one with her head well above the protection of the barrier? It's a freakin joke all around. Next time leave the gun home. It is clear he had no intention of engaging. He's a jerkoff.
    Last edited by captnjak; 03-14-2016, 05:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    There were individuals on this board supporting this guy. Hint: one of them is from Louisiana. He rants about government and taxes but lives off the government and taxes of others.
    You support the right of a group of protesters taking over a busy street and shutting it down, disrupting everybody else's life for their little tantrum.

    A peaceful takeover of some BLM land in the middle of nowhere ...... Likely far less disruptive to society. Surround them and starve them out.

    And yes, I do rant about government, especially when I work for my money and so many get government money without working.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    I stand corrected. Although I was thinking more about your typical street crimes and the resulting interaction with law enforcement.

    If a black gang member did from an urban rooftop what the man pictured did from a highway overpass, all Holy Hell would have broke out. And rightly so. Yet Fox News and the like were ready to make guys like this into man of the year.
    Part of the equation is always going to be how likely the person with the gun is to actually use it.

    Quite simply, there is a very little history of shots being fired in any of these armed standoffs. There is quite a bit of history of the kid in the hood actually shooting the weapon at the officers.

    And yes, that factors into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    I stand corrected. Although I was thinking more about your typical street crimes and the resulting interaction with law enforcement.

    If a black gang member did from an urban rooftop what the man pictured did from a highway overpass, all Holy Hell would have broke out. And rightly so. Yet Fox News and the like were ready to make guys like this into man of the year.
    There were individuals on this board supporting this guy. Hint: one of them is from Louisiana. He rants about government and taxes but lives off the government and taxes of others.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X