The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

unions were better when all they did was essentially act as mediator between workers and management, helping to hammer out a contract that both parties could live with

nowadays the main problem with unions is that they became far too entrenched in the political field and thus those in union jobs nowadays tend to be enslaved to the political whims of the union fat cats

A bit like the Church and God really..........

[garhkal]

depends - were the victims born 'blue'?

Doesn't matter. If me, a white guy shooting a black is a hate crime, then someone black Willfully targeting cops should also be a hate crime.

Please, shoot them.
Fair dinkum is an expression of honesty, not agreement, so please, send them to that place "upstate"

If i ever get to see them, i will pass on your comment..

I complain about the right more, not because the left is not stupid, but that the right is frakking stupid. It's a level above stupid, it's self destructively moronic.

So you would rather the left, with all their lies and such be in charge?

If you need proof of that, look at the current "happy destruction" of the establishment right by people who FINALLY realised that the party they voted for, for decades was screwing them.

IMO that distruction is more cause the dunces in office, would rather throw hissy fits cause THEIR pick didn't win, so are trying to screw us, the voters over..

Tough, you bought the crap, pay for it.
Of course, you don't actually pay for it, it's the nice scape goats like blacks and Latino's you have set up to pay for it who do, so you still maintain a nice little "buffer"

Come again?? So i support the concept of the NRA< but not some of their 'execution' of decisions, and that makes me "Pay for it'??

Err, What?

You mentioned there are some groups already tacking the inner city crime/black on black stuff, so i asked "what orgs, ones like big brothers?"

If I put a freeze on you buying a gun for 2 weeks, you can still get your gun after those 2 weeks.
If I put a freeze on you getting an abortion for 2 weeks, and it now becomes illegal, you can no longer legally get an abortion.
How the HELL do you compare the two??

Maybe its cause what i see the abortion laws being put in place doing, is MAKING it safer for all involved, not 'holding it off so its no longer an option'..
Let me ask you this.. Do you agree or disagree with the doctor providing the abortion service(s), having the requirement that he be able to admit patients to a proper hospital if he screws up or not??

So what?
If the gun means so much to you, you will find a way to get the money.

The 'so what' is that it is an end run around the constitution, which makes CLEAR in its wording "shall not be infringed".

No, it's not.
Again, if you see them as the same, you are an idiot.

So, when libs whine that Voter ID laws disenfranchize minorities cause 'they cost, and thus minorities which are generally poor, won't be able to get them', to YOU its not the same as "lets jack up the price on ammo for guns, which means more minorities won't be able to GET guns, and so we are disenfranchizing them"???
And you call ME an idiot?

"Sin tax" is not a cover for "a sin", it is taxing someone for their choices that are not needed.
No private citizen -NEEDS- a gun, but it is given to be a "right" by the right.
ALL citizens -NEED- education, but the right considers it a privilege.

Can you not see how mind numbingly DUMB that is?

Then let their parents PAY for that education, not EVERYONE including those who don't even have kids..
And who are YOU to tell everyone else what they should get taxed on more, cause they 'don't really need it, thus we are jacking up the rates cause its a sin"??
By that logic, anyone who wants more than just a single 32" tv screen (since really that's big enough for everyone to watch), should pay a sin tax on any screen LARGER than that, or more than 1 tv..
Or pay a sin tax for going out to the movies. Or for getting a sports car etc..

In other words, they are afraid.
ALL of them.
So their fear has the -right- to trump anyone elses right to life, liberty or freedom.
(sorry, that's the D.O.I., not the constitution)

So cause someone's scared of XYZ, lets not allow them to do anything about it, just suck it the **** up? Are you for ****ting me dude? For a while i seriously considered blocking your ass, then you lightened up it seems. Now you are getting back to being bat **** crazy it seems.

I asked for people who were not racist to begin with, all of these are.

No, you asked [I have not really looked into it. What I have heard is people being invited to speak, someone having a whinge and the invitation getting pulled. That's something I disagree with on principle. Can you point me in the direction of some of these events? ]
which is what i gave you links for.

[SoulReaver]

btw

Doesn't matter

convenient isn't it: those born black on the same level as those who chose to be blue

I doubt you understood what I meant.
Well, the fact that the US does not operate under any sort of feudal system, the

correct it doesn't, in theory

term Commoner is simply not applicable. You might as well be talking about Elven racism in the US...it makes no sense. Since, you know, there are no elves.

correct there are no elves

But that's not how it is used in the US to describe a group of people, not at all. Commoner on the other hand is not used in the US to describe anyone.

alrite now US standards here but like I said everyone in this thread understands even the most conservative hardliners ain't that disingenuous - one of them even admitted to being a "commoner" how about that (he did use apostrophes so maybe you'd prefer if apostrophes were used in which case I'm just too lazy so you'll have to do without)

So unions are mafias involved in egregious levels of jury tampering? Wow...and I thought Garhkal and Annoyed were a little out of it when it came to unions.

unions? lol be honest for one where did I criticize unions in general?
ordinary unions have little power

So once again, not answering questions. Terrorism is less common in the US than violent crimes, even less common when you through sex crimes into the mix. The number of terrorists in the population is statistically negligible.

well yeah kind of my point (I could've mentioned murder or robbery or even crime in general)

I am not one to run around like Chicken Little saying that the sky is falling and then demanding the end of civil liberties/rights in the name of safety. Your questions are based on a strawman. I for one don't want legislation taking away our rights in the name of safety in such rash terms. It doesn't take much radio chatter, or planing to run over a mob of people with a truck. I even question the efficacy of TSA. Sure they'll keep guns off planes and possibly knifes/daggers...but the level of security needed for that is much less of what they are doing.

all good & true but who's dodging now?

I'm still waiting for the answers I want to my questions.

fixed

You tell me. Who made the decision(s)?

what decision? not to indict the killers? the DA. not to punish the DA? there was no decision

Prosecutorial immunity doesn't apply in your hypothetical scenario.

hoho! and that's because...?
you didn't notice the word "absolute" in "absolute immunity"?

It's not a class issue, it's a cultural issue.

also a cultural issue (americans tend to be the submissive type)

[Falcon Horus]

Is there something wrong with a citizen including a candidate's religious views into their list of attributes they want to evaluate a candidates with?

Technically speaking, religion has no place in politics unless you live in a theocracy.

If me, a white guy shooting a black is a hate crime, then someone black Willfully targeting cops should also be a hate crime.

Note on the cop-shooting: he killed a black cop.

However, shooting cops is not classified as a hate crime, not in the current definition of what constitutes a hate crime anyway.

From the Department of Justice:

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations.

Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at-risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery is hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates. Businesses and residents abandon these neighborhoods, leaving empty buildings to attract crime, and the quality of schools decline due to the loss of tax revenue. A municipality may have no choice but to cut services or raise taxes or leave the area in its post-riot condition until market forces of supply and demand rebuild the area.

From numbers collected in 1996 (20 years ago):

Among the known perpetrators, 66 percent were white, and 20 percent were black. Some perpetrators commit hate crimes with their peers as a "thrill" or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol; some as a reaction against a perceived threat or to preserve their "turf'; and some who out of resentment over the growing economic power of a particular racial or ethnic group engage in scapegoating

From number collected in 2014 by the FBI:

By race:

5,192 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders:
52% White
23.2% Black or African American
6.9% Groups made up of individuals of various races (group of multiple races)
1.1% (58 offenders) American Indian or Alaska Native
0.8% (39 offenders) Asian
Less than 0.1 percent (2 offenders) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

You mentioned there are some groups already tacking the inner city crime/black on black stuff, so i asked "what orgs, ones like big brothers?"

The National Conference on Preventing Crime in the Black Community grew out of a partnership between Florida Office of the Attorney General and the Florida Consortium of Urban Leagues Affiliates in 1986 to address Black-on-Black crime. This partnership was the predecessor of the Black-on-Black and Youth Crime Prevention and Intervention grant programs administered today by Florida’s seven Urban League Affiliates and Derrick Brooks Charities. The conference is housed in the Division of Victim Services and Criminal Justice Programs and functions as part of the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute (FCPTI).

National Urban League
The National Urban League is a historic civil rights organization dedicated to economic empowerment in order to elevate the standard of living in historically underserved urban communities. Founded in 1910 and headquartered in New York City, the National Urban League spearheads the efforts of its local affiliates through the development of programs, public policy research and advocacy. Today, the National Urban League has 88 affiliates serving 300 communities, in 36 states and the District of Columbia, providing direct services that impact and improve the lives of more than 2 million people nationwide.

And for your information:

5 Facts That Shatter the Myth of ‘Black-on-Black’ Crime
The next time you hear someone say “black-on-black crime”, show them this.

[...] “black-on-black crime” is a loaded term meant to enable racists, cementing the idea in people’s heads that the real problem isn’t the judicial system and law enforcement disproportionately targeting black people for arrest/incarceration/lethal force, but black people killing each other. It affirms the erroneous viewpoint that everyone has equal opportunity in society, and that the only reason black people are so disenfranchised is due to their own behavior.

The big lie: African-Americans don't care about black-on-black crime

Here's a ridiculous claim: African-Americans don't care about black-on-black crime.

Yet we've all heard it repeatedly since protests began over the shooting death of black teenager Laquan McDonald by a white Chicago police officer.

This is a lie that has slowly crept into Chicago's psyche, a baseless commentary whose purpose is to shift the blame for the city's unbridled shootings onto the backs of African-Americans.

[Coco Pops]

I think Edrogan (or whatever his name is) is just doing this for a nice power grab.

I think the coup was staged

[Gatefan1976]

If i ever get to see them, i will pass on your comment..

Please do, and sentence them to eating a full jar of Vegemite as well!!!

So you would rather the left, with all their lies and such be in charge?

I would rather a liar in a field of liars over a selfish, self centred arsehole, YES, and twice on Sundays.
You still think this is "left v right", it's not. It's liar (Hillary) Vs Ignorant douchebag.
I'll swallow my puke and take the liar over someone who will wreck your nation, and the western world while he is at it because he is to ******* DUMB to know how the world works outside of a reality show.

IMO that distruction is more cause the dunces in office, would rather throw hissy fits cause THEIR pick didn't win, so are trying to screw us, the voters over..

You collectively voted those dunces into power!!
Who is more the fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?
Jesus Christ man, accept some responsibility, that's your big thing isn't it, personal responsibility?

Come again?? So i support the concept of the NRA< but not some of their 'execution' of decisions, and that makes me "Pay for it'??

Why not, you think all BLM supporters agree with everything they do.

You mentioned there are some groups already tacking the inner city crime/black on black stuff, so i asked "what orgs, ones like big brothers?"

If you mean mentor groups, yes.

Maybe its cause what i see the abortion laws being put in place doing, is MAKING it safer for all involved, not 'holding it off so its no longer an option'..

Abortion laws, affecting one person or two people is safe to expand, gun laws affecting anyone in contact with guns is draconian?
Right..............

Let me ask you this.. Do you agree or disagree with the doctor providing the abortion service(s), having the requirement that he be able to admit patients to a proper hospital if he screws up or not??

Sure, he does not however require hospital standards in his practice however.

The 'so what' is that it is an end run around the constitution, which makes CLEAR in its wording "shall not be infringed".

Being taxed is not an infringement of your rights, it's the cost of being part of society.

So, when libs whine that Voter ID laws disenfranchize minorities cause 'they cost, and thus minorities which are generally poor, won't be able to get them', to YOU its not the same as "lets jack up the price on ammo for guns, which means more minorities won't be able to GET guns, and so we are disenfranchizing them"???
And you call ME an idiot?

They are looking to take part in the political process, which should cost nothing, not have a legally allowed perk.
Or do you consider voting a perk?

Then let their parents PAY for that education, not EVERYONE including those who don't even have kids..

When you need surgery, I insist the doctor ask if you paid for their education, after all, why should parents pay for your medical care?

And who are YOU to tell everyone else what they should get taxed on more, cause they 'don't really need it, thus we are jacking up the rates cause its a sin"??

No one, I just have the ability to look beyond myself, and my own self interest.

By that logic, anyone who wants more than just a single 32" tv screen (since really that's big enough for everyone to watch), should pay a sin tax on any screen LARGER than that, or more than 1 tv..
Or pay a sin tax for going out to the movies. Or for getting a sports car etc..

They all do, unless you think popcorn is worth 10 bucks a bowl, or sports cars are worth what you pay for them.

So cause someone's scared of XYZ, lets not allow them to do anything about it, just suck it the **** up? Are you for ****ting me dude? For a while i seriously considered blocking your ass, then you lightened up it seems. Now you are getting back to being bat **** crazy it seems.

If fear is your motivator, you will accept anything.
But sure, block me.

No, you asked [I have not really looked into it. What I have heard is people being invited to speak, someone having a whinge and the invitation getting pulled. That's something I disagree with on principle. Can you point me in the direction of some of these events? ]
which is what i gave you links for.

Yes, and none covered my previous point.
Now I have looked into it, and your links just look even worse.

[Annoyed]

Technically speaking, religion has no place in politics unless you live in a theocracy.

The government has no business using religious doctrine as a matter of law or government policy.
But there is nothing wrong with a citizen using a candidate's religion as one of the criteria he chooses whom to vote for by.

A candidate's religion can tell you something about that candidate. It's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[Falcon Horus]

A candidate's religion can tell you something about that candidate. It's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Mike Pence is a christian first, republican later.

However, he uses his religion to form his political opinions - that's theocratical, not secular. That's problematic.

Addendum: Religion has no place on the workfloor unless you are a priest, imam, holy leader in a church, mosque or temple.

[aretood2]

I asked for people who were not racist to begin with, all of these are.
Gratz, the speaker in your first 3 articles took the university to court based on "unfair affirmative action" on the basis she lost her position in the university because of the "20 bonus points for minorities" based under the point system for admission. She may have had a case, EXCEPT for the FACT that the University in question -did not adopt such a system- until 3 YEARS after she was rejected.
Whoops................
As for the last guy, He is known for being connected to white supremecists, Considers American history "the history of white MEN" and has problems with Harriet Tubman being on the 20 dollar bill because of it.

These are not people with a point to make, they are racist, self important pricks, and calling them out on it is not intolerant, but a statement of FACT. If kids don't want to listen to butthurt white people, that's not "ebil liberalism", it's "you are full of crap, and I will treat you as such."
Or, are you willing to say that being passed over for a non existent system is the same as the being passed over for centuries because you are black?

Are you saying that Star Parker is an Uncle, or Aunt, Tom? That's a reach. Then there's David Horowitz...a former friend of the black panthers...and yet he is a mixed bag I would label him as self important. Feder is delusional at best and at worst everything you said. I doubt Parker can realistically be compared to Feder in even the most warped sense. Daniel Pipes, while we can disagree with him in several areas, still is a far cry from being anything like Coulter or Feder and a lot more like Parker...that is other than race because Parker is black...oh and a woman. So other than race and gender.

While his links are questionable and so are some of his examples, I do have to agree with garhkal on this one. Just because someone like Star Parker has views you disagree with, that's no reason to shut them down like that. For example, the New York City police commissioner who couldn't get out two words when speaking trying to speak at Brown University. Bill Maher likes to say when talking about racists vs white liberals "There has to be some middle ground between the PC police and the Baltimore Police."

There's a reason why comedians from Larry the Cable Guy, to Seinfeld, to Chris Rock don't like preforming at colleges. It's not that these non-liberal speakers (and at times even liberal speakers that aren't liberal enough) are spewing hate. It has more to do with how pampered and shielded and entitled kids are becoming. The need for "trigger warnings" and over emphasizing "microagressions" (Which is just a fancy way of saying bad manners. Fun fact, my spell check says it should be spelled "nonaggression"). Don't get me started on these rich minorities that like to claim to be victims of the worst kinds of racism...yeah...it must be hard getting stared at while you're golfing in your private golf course!

The fine line between what I see and what Annoyed sees is prevalence and how that impacts education. In general, most professors simply teach you the subject they are experts in and that's it. It's those places where you have to preface each paragraph with some trigger warning and play some weird mind games to avoid microagressing people. They need to get over themselves.

My point is, even Obama agrees that things have gone too far. That's two liberals of the top of my head. Bill Maher and President Obama. It's a case of garhkal finding a nut even though he's blind have the time on this particular issue.

[Falcon Horus]

It's a case of garhkal finding a nut even though he's blind have the time on this particular issue.

Opportune moment to post this:

[pookey]

Ok, thanks FH, and sorry Garhkal, but from now on, that ^ is how i will see you

[garhkal]

convenient isn't it: those born black on the same level as those who chose to be blue

You're not understanding me. If i shoot you, and its a hate crime cause of me being white and you being black (lets say), then you shooting ME should also be a hate crime cause you are black and i am white... That's what i am saying

Technically speaking, religion has no place in politics unless you live in a theocracy.

That's true, but if that's the case, then why is it an atheist/agnostic presidential hopeful usually has no chance in hell of winning an election?

Note on the cop-shooting: he killed a black cop.

However, shooting cops is not classified as a hate crime, not in the current definition of what constitutes a hate crime anyway.

And how is targeting a cop just cause he IS a cop not in that definition? Is that not the height of being intolerant?

The National Conference on Preventing Crime in the Black Community grew out of a partnership between Florida Office of the Attorney General and the Florida Consortium of Urban Leagues Affiliates in 1986 to address Black-on-Black crime.
National Urban League
The National Urban League is a historic civil rights organization dedicated to economic empowerment in order to elevate the standard of living in historically underserved urban communities.

Thanks for posting those 2 Falcon...

And for your information:

5 Facts That Shatter the Myth of ‘Black-on-Black’ Crime
The next time you hear someone say “black-on-black crime”, show them this.

And i counter with
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...k-black-crime/

I would rather a liar in a field of liars over a selfish, self centred arsehole, YES, and twice on Sundays.
You still think this is "left v right", it's not. It's liar (Hillary) Vs Ignorant douchebag.

And what of all her scandals? Do those not matter? Or is her rank incompetence, and WILLFUL ignoring of the rules/laws, not an issue??

You collectively voted those dunces into power!!
Who is more the fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?

If we keep Voting them in, then yes its ON us.. BUT the same applies to liberals.
Which are the top 10 worst cities/towns for violence? Liberal ones. Who keeps voting in those liberals? MORE liberals!!!

Why not, you think all BLM supporters agree with everything they do.

Well, when we see riots/protests where most OF those BLM ranters, are chanting "What do we want, DEAD cops, when do we want it, NOW", posting videos praising the cop killers and the like, what ARE we to think of the rest of BLM? That they love peace and law???

Abortion laws, affecting one person or two people is safe to expand, gun laws affecting anyone in contact with guns is draconian?
Right..............

When one is a codified right via the BILL of rights, and clearly states in that write up, "No law to abridge", while the other is only seen as a right cause of the Sierra charlie romeo oscar tango uniform mike Court's decision, yes they are NOT equal..

Sure, he does not however require hospital standards in his practice however.

So he shouldn't have the same sort of medical cleanliness standards where he's doing an operation, as other places that do operations??

Being taxed is not an infringement of your rights, it's the cost of being part of society.

It is an infringement when its being done only cause these turds can't get guns banned.

They are looking to take part in the political process, which should cost nothing, not have a legally allowed perk.
Or do you consider voting a perk?

Voting is a right. BUT so is gun ownership. If to practice one (owning a gun) you need to prove who you are, then why shouldn't you have to do the same to vote? Hence the need for ID laws.

When you need surgery, I insist the doctor ask if you paid for their education, after all, why should parents pay for your medical care?

Not the same analogy dude. Me getting a service from someone who should have been educate on their own dime (or their families) is not the same as punishing (in essence) all single folk out there, via high ass property taxes etc, to pa for everyone ELSE'S kid getting educated.

Now I have looked into it, and your links just look even worse.

So i guess i won't bother posting any more links as it seems you will just ignore them too..
Great way to prove my point of the intolerance of the left.. They won't recognize anything wrote by a NON left wing site as being valid...

[garhkal]

Are you saying that Star Parker is an Uncle, or Aunt, Tom? That's a reach. Then there's David Horowitz...a former friend of the black panthers...and yet he is a mixed bag I would label him as self important. Feder is delusional at best and at worst everything you said. I doubt Parker can realistically be compared to Feder in even the most warped sense. Daniel Pipes, while we can disagree with him in several areas, still is a far cry from being anything like Coulter or Feder and a lot more like Parker...that is other than race because Parker is black...oh and a woman. So other than race and gender.

While his links are questionable and so are some of his examples, I do have to agree with garhkal on this one. Just because someone like Star Parker has views you disagree with, that's no reason to shut them down like that. For example, the New York City police commissioner who couldn't get out two words when speaking trying to speak at Brown University. Bill Maher likes to say when talking about racists vs white liberals "There has to be some middle ground between the PC police and the Baltimore Police."

Thanks for the back up Artoo.

There's a reason why comedians from Larry the Cable Guy, to Seinfeld, to Chris Rock don't like preforming at colleges. It's not that these non-liberal speakers (and at times even liberal speakers that aren't liberal enough) are spewing hate. It has more to do with how pampered and shielded and entitled kids are becoming.

And what gets me more about it. A lot of times it is some of the students On the campus asking for these conservative speakers to show up, and the REST of the campus raises bloody murder about it, then show hate TO those who asked them to come...

My point is, even Obama agrees that things have gone too far. That's two liberals of the top of my head. Bill Maher and President Obama. It's a case of garhkal finding a nut even though he's blind have the time on this particular issue.

Opportune moment to post this:

So i am scrat?
ok..

[Falcon Horus]

Ok, thanks FH, and sorry Garhkal, but from now on, that ^ is how i will see you

He needs an avatar.

So i am scrat?
ok..

For the record, Scrat is an awesome character.
You should set him as your avatar. I can easily make it smaller so it fits GW's size for you if you like.

[aretood2]

You're not understanding me. If i shoot you, and its a hate crime cause of me being white and you being black (lets say), then you shooting ME should also be a hate crime cause you are black and i am white... That's what i am saying

I'm confused...are you asking for it to be a hate crime because a shooter who isn't white is targeting white people? Or because a shooter who isn't white is targeting cops? Because cops does not equal white people. If the former, there's no reason to not call it a hate crime. If it's the latter, read my comment below.

That's true, but if that's the case, then why is it an atheist/agnostic presidential hopeful usually has no chance in hell of winning an election?

Well...you do have Trump.

And how is targeting a cop just cause he IS a cop not in that definition? Is that not the height of being intolerant?

Race is a protected group, as some would call it. Occupation not so much. The Dallas shooter qualifies because he was out to kill white people, that would be a hate crime. If he limited it to just cops, it wouldn't be a hate crime...unless he was going after white cops only.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...k-black-crime/

Was it you who didn't like the NAACP's concentrating on issues involving the black community or annoyed? This is why you need an avatar (It's more significant than a sig which Annoyed does have bu it doesn't help much). Anyway, I ask because my follow up question is name one activist group dedicated to helping black people that you approve of. Why? Because it seems to me that people (mainly white conservatives) almost always are out against any black organization set out to help out black people. Annoyed's generation didn't like MLK Jr.'s movement because it was "radical" and "Communist" and was making a big deal "about nothing" and causing "trouble"...sound familiar?

If you are honest about so called "black on black" crime then you would support some group that has taken upon itself to solve that problem.

And here is another one. What groups or initiatives do conservatives back to help resolve that problem? And if we are being bleeding hearts, what about similar problems in other minority groups? What laws or initiatives are being debated? How is the GOP plank being formatted for this goal? The problem with conservatives is that you are not offering a viable alternative. You (Conservatives, not garhkal in particular...for those who do not know how to use context to figure out if the pronoun in use is second person singular or second person plural) are not saying "Hay, the Democrats are useless, let us tell you how we can solve these problems" all you're saying is "It's not true! Why don't you solve these other problems you actually have!" and then turn around and say "We ain't wasting no tax money on this" or "How come there aint no NAACP scholarships for us whitefolk?" and "Why aint there no NAAWP?"

Well, when we see riots/protests where most OF those BLM ranters, are chanting "What do we want, DEAD cops, when do we want it, NOW", posting videos praising the cop killers and the like, what ARE we to think of the rest of BLM? That they love peace and law???

Do you have the stats to back that up or are we going down the Soulreaver route of blind assertions?

Voting is a right. BUT so is gun ownership. If to practice one (owning a gun) you need to prove who you are, then why shouldn't you have to do the same to vote? Hence the need for ID laws.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Are voter ID laws right or wrong? If they aren't, then your argument falls apart. It matters not what GF says. Your POV has to have internal consistency first before you point out any inconsistency in others' POV.

So i guess i won't bother posting any more links as it seems you will just ignore them too..
Great way to prove my point of the intolerance of the left.. They won't recognize anything wrote by a NON left wing site as being valid...

I see a lot of that from hard line conservatives too.

He needs an avatar.



For the record, Scrat is an awesome character.
You should set him as your avatar. I can easily make it smaller so it fits GW's size for you if you like.

Please say yes! You need an avatar like yesterday. And Scrat is a fan favorite...