Get Paid For
Using Social Sites!

Stay Hard as Steel!!!

Want a bigger penis?
Enlarge it At Home
Using Just Your Hands!

Tired of ads
on this site?

Black lives matter or do All lives matter...༼☯﹏☯༽

Discussion Forum on Show It Off

Page #25

Pages:  #1... #20   #21   #22   #23   #24   #25   #26   #27   #28   #29   ...#42

Started by tecsan [Ignore] 09,Oct,20 04:17  other posts
Just looking for opinions...Please no fights...༼☯﹏☯༽

New Comment       Rating: -9  


Comments:
By phart [Ignore] 29,Nov,21 14:24 other posts 
This blm shit storm is starting to dwindle down to what it really is, lies and bullshit.
only registered users can see external links
By tecsan [Ignore] 30,Nov,21 02:12 other posts 
I agree with you totally...
By #610414 01,Dec,21 13:07
Just love how you put a false spin on something that you don’t like. Both of you are so full of shit. Why don’t you start your own movement? Call it the Black Shit Brothers or THE BSB’s?
By phart [Ignore] 01,Dec,21 13:23 other posts 
I don't see blm doing a damn thing productive the funds they generate do not go to the victims familys who's tragedy's they profit from.They buy houses and shit,for themselves!.
By #610414 01,Dec,21 17:40
Why should it? They are collecting to change the system, not help the victims except if there’s a genuine need that can’t be met in another way. You have the wrong idea about the BLM. And that last sentence, where did you read that?
By phart [Ignore] 01,Dec,21 18:40 other posts 
It was in the news about 3-4 months ago that the lady that founded the blm,bought a house valued in the millions with the funds from the blm.So how is that changing anything for anyone except her?
here is a quick google search result
only registered users can see external links
By #610414 01,Dec,21 19:01
That is still in question and she resigned from BLM due to criticism over her lavish life style


By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 03,Nov,21 10:09 other posts 
A guy explaining why Critical Race Theory is bad:
only registered users can see external links
By tecsan [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 02:29 other posts 
Not going to watch any of your bullshit...You and I both know it is bad...Let us hear why CRT is beneficial...
--------------------------------------- added after 65 seconds

Oops you cannot, bet you cannot explain it either...Another oops on your part...
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 06:11 other posts 
CRT (Critical Race Theory) is an academic study subject, like sociology.
It's not taught in elementary school, middle school or high school.
It's not bad, because there is NOTHING.
If there are teachers spreading woke ideas, than that's NOT CRT, it's woke teachers.

We can have a debate on the ideas and then I might agree with some of yours.
But first get your facts in order.
By phart [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 10:04 other posts 
why not let the parents ,that pay the taxes to support the schools, decide if they want this controversial crap drilled into their children's heads?
I am all for privatizing education so that parents can get the education they want for their kids, not what a liberal village wants to bombard their young vulnerable minds with.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 10:17 other posts 
It's not taught in elementary school, middle school or high school!!!
ACADEMIC STUDENTS who want to study CRT can choose to, no one else gets it.

CRT is not forced on anyone. It's just the latest Republican bullshit culture war.
They only want conservative, capitalist propaganda in schools and if some teachers are getting too woke (not CRT, just not ignorant), they want to eliminate that.

How stupid is your party, when they are hysterical about Dr Seuss, Mr Potato-head, Pepé Le Pew, young children indoctrinated with a complex subject for academic students and the FUCKING MUPPETS. This shit is causing brain damage! Your brain!
By phart [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 12:51 other posts 
UH, All the conservitives I know are NOT in any way hysterical about Dr Seuss and Mr Potato head and such. We are scratching our heads wondering what the fuck the liberals wanted to change it all for.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 13,Nov,21 09:05 other posts 
Republican politicians are talking about it and Fox News can't shut up about it. And you are believing what they say, because you say liberals wanted to change those things. No liberal politician or liberal media ever asked for any books to be cancelled or names of children's toys changed.
You're confusing progressive ideology with woke-washing of companies. It's just companies deciding they can sell more products and make more profit, with stupid virtue signaling to get their products in the news. They only do it when they think they can expand their young, woke consumer base and don't have too many conservative customers to piss-off. If it hurt their brand, they wouldn't do it.
Conservatives are playing right into their hands. They get the culture war going, creating a response from wokesters, thinking that's a brand that cares about their issues. But they don't care, because conservatives like being distracted from real world problems.
By phart [Ignore] 13,Nov,21 09:18 other posts 
if there were no conservatives, there would be no hasbro to make the tater head in the first place.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 13,Nov,21 14:18 other posts 
Because liberals and progressives can't invent toys?
By phart [Ignore] 13,Nov,21 17:29 other posts 
Because private enterprise investing and making a profit is against their ideals.They would rather the government invent toys.
Check out bidens nominee for Comptroller of the Currency (OCC
Does this look like liberals or democrats like private ANYTHING? Read what she wants to do with Americans bank accounts.
only registered users can see external links
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 13,Nov,21 18:51 other posts 
Of course not. You are creating a strawman and than attacking that strawman. That's a popular right-wing tactic.

Except for a tiny group of left wing extremists, liberals and progressives think that capitalism is fine. However, we think there are limits on what companies are allowed to do, to maximize their profits. And we think that some services and products, vital to the survival and development of people, should be even more limited in making profits from. It's only thinks like healthcare, childcare, education, social security, justice and maybe even some vital financial services. People in those industries should be allowed to make a good living, but not to get very wealthy from it. We are also against monopolies, because they are exploitative on the supply chain and consumers.

Any product that is not specifically vital to survival should be left to the free market. It just should be taxed and well regulated, to protect the supply chain, employees, consumers and nature.

I found that article very obscure. Took me some time to understand what the quintessential A------ Industry meant. When it clicked that she said asshole,
I totally agreed. There are real scumbags in banking. There might only be worse people in the insurance industry and military industrial complex. They need to be regulated severely or they will gamble all our money, take the wins and let the taxpayer compensate the losses. Maybe even you understand how big of a risk they are to the economy and people's livelihoods. (2008!)
By phart [Ignore] 13,Nov,21 21:14 other posts 
Qoute, "People in those industries should be allowed to make a good living, but not to get very wealthy from it"

Just what incentive is there for anyone to invest in the education,and to invest in a company if their wealth is going to be regulated? Damn dude, you are saying it s ok for Burger king burger flippers to get rich but DON'T even think about trying to be wealthy if you invest in a education to work in the pharmaceuticals.
Granted, There is issues in health care, but not all of it is in salary's of those that take risk, take responsibility and so on.A heart surgeon might drive a Maserati to work, but when he opens your chest up,your life is in his hands.He is risking malpractice.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 14,Nov,21 10:50 other posts 
"Just what incentive is there for anyone to invest in the education,and to invest in a company if their wealth is going to be regulated?"

You don't think people need an incentive to work. They should just work or starve. You don't think the same for the wealthy.

You think society needs to do anything to please the wealthy or they won't invest their money. Why don't they have an incentive to invest?
How about this for an incentive; tax their wealth so they NEED to invest.

Are the rich going to just put their money in the bank? Have you seen the interest rates? Your argument is complete nonsense.

Did I say "it's ok for Burger king burger flippers to get rich"? STRAWMAN!

Do you even understand the difference between income groups?
Many people can't support their existence from one full-time salary.
They need help from family, friends AND THE GOVERNMENT or they would be homeless.
Than their is a middle class that can support and develop themselves.
But that group has been declining the past decades. Than there are rich people. My definition is everyone that can stop working at any point and still live in luxury for the rest of their lives. Up to that point, I see no problem, even though your principle of people needing an incentive to work doesn't apply to them. I want those important people like that heart surgeon to make just a bit less than that, because the still need to want to work. We need to reward them, but we don't want them to stop being useful.

Then you have the wealthy. That's my definition for people who don't have to work, but there's still more money flowing in than they can ever spend. That's problematic.

Than there are the very wealthy. Those are people with more wealth than many countries. Those very wealthy people are a danger to society.
Those very wealthy people corrupt politics and they have the power to dictate the lives of everyone else. They obtained their wealth by crushing competition and exploiting employees and consumers. They are the reason that other people don't make enough money to survive on and for the middle class dwindling. Those very wealthy people are just parasites to society. And the cure is to tax them back to just wealthy people. Read my definition, before you start to feel sorry for them. And remember they don't give a shit about you.
By phart [Ignore] 14,Nov,21 12:52 other posts 
Help me out with 1 detail, just what do you call wealthy?
By bella! [Ignore] 14,Nov,21 17:10 other posts 
Wealth/wealthy is a subjective term. I Google'd Donald Trump's net worth and Google states Trump is estimated to have a networth of 2.5 billion USD. Is Trump richer than me, is he richer than many people? Hecky, yeah! Is he richer than Bill Gates? Heck, no! Bill Gates' net worth is estimated to be, 137.9 billion USD.
I defined 'wealthy' as 'people who don't have to work, but there's still more money flowing in than they can ever spend'

Starting at several tens of millions of dollars in shares, you will never have to work again, but you and your children can live in royal luxury for ever, from the dividend alone. Society used to call that wealthy. Nowadays, many people have hundreds and even thousands of times more than that.

The extremely wealthy of the past had a huge castle with a hundred rooms many servants and huge piece of the country with farms and factories on it. Commoners lived, worked and died on their land and provided the income for the wealthy family. People revolted over that system, because they wanted to live in freedom. They didn't want to live under the rule and whims of some rich family.
Nowadays the wealthy have a thousand times more money, ownership and influence than the rich of the past. They decide the fate of tens of thousands, to millions of people, working for their companies and supply chain and have the influence on politics to shape the country to their wishes. When their greed out-ways their morality, they are allowed to cause many deaths all over the world and devastating destruction to natural resources. They can be more destructive than the emperors of the notorious empires in history.

Your country wrote The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and The Amendments, because the people desired FREEDOM. However, you allowed the rich to rewrite the rules in their favor, corrupt your government and your media and make your democracy meaningless. Now the lower and middle class are just serfs to the lords. If you have value to the lords, they allow you some luxury, but if it takes too much to make you benefit them, they let you fall to mid-evil levels of poverty. But they are much smarter
in making you think you are free and distracting you with cultural conflicts, because modern technology makes propaganda that much easier.
By phart [Ignore] 14,Nov,21 16:54 other posts 
qoute," I want those important people like that heart surgeon to make just a bit less than that, because the still need to want to work. We need to reward them, but we don't want them to stop being useful."

Oh so now people are "useful" . Doesn't that go back to Lenin when he was talking about idiots?
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 25,Nov,21 07:20 other posts 
Ever heard of the term 'useful idiots'?

We are all part of society. Everyone is important for progress and prosperity. You think unrestricted capitalism will bring the most progress
and prosperity, I think it doesn't.

Heart surgeons are important, like all other highly educated specialists. Their demand determines their reward. UNLESS, a system of shortage is created artificially. That is what's being done, by letting pharmaceutical companies, medical service providers and insurance companies decide their own prices, unrestrained by any law or judgment. The only limit on the price is then what people are able and 'willing' to pay, to save their life.

Unrestricted capitalism makes poor people make useless or even harmful products, that hurt society and natural resources, with the only purpose of making a few very wealthy people even wealthier.

Capitalism by itself is not the problem, it has shown to be an effective system of creating progress and prosperity. It just has to be controlled or it will be taken advantage off. That is the same for any system. If you don't balance the power of the rich, with democracy, greed will overcome any other morality and the powerless suffer.
By #610414 01,Dec,21 13:14
But, Phart in a society people have to be useful or they become wards of the state. If I recall that’s something you are very against.
By phart [Ignore] 01,Dec,21 13:20 other posts 
Well I am aware of that,I was just pointing out that someone that not long ago made it seem they didn't think everyone should have to be useful was reverting back to people being useful .Well anyhow,
By #610414 01,Dec,21 13:10
Phart, a LIBERAL VILLAGE has the right, the duty even, to educate it’s children with a liberal leaning. Why should they bring up anti-social members of the community?
By phart [Ignore] 01,Dec,21 13:22 other posts 
Why does everyone have to be social in hives and huddles?
By tecsan [Ignore] 15,Nov,21 03:29 other posts 
Like I said you cannot explain it..."It's not bad, because there is NOTHING"...I agree with the last statement, with one exception, there are some that do...including the ones being taught...It is might right to disagree with any theory taught...Including BS that keeps racism and controversy stirred up...YOU know that...
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 25,Nov,21 08:00 other posts 
There is a cultural shift happening, I'm not denying that. But you can't stop it by eliminating the discussion about it in schools. The majority of people don't want politics or religion meddling in their personality and sex life. Most people also think
sex education is important, because they don't want their children go through teen pregnancies, venereal diseases or be vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

Also most people agree with you that racism isn't OK and that people of different backgrounds should be able to live and work together. That however doesn't just happen by itself. Human nature can be ugly. Children do not turn into ethical people by themselves. They have to be taught that you don't bully other kids, just because they are different. Teachers used to do that by smacking them in the head, when they are being little cunts. That's not allowed anymore. Teachers have invented courses and programs to teach children to be decent to each other. Off course stupidly woke teachers make stupidly woke material. You fear that will damage their pliable little brains and they will grow up to hate their race or their gender or make them change their sexual attraction. I think you are exaggerating the power of education. They mostly adopt what they see their parents do and say. Some school administered antidote for stupid parents is fine by me.

When schools stopped forcing kids to write with their right hand, the distribution of
left handed children rose to 10%, which is the biologically predicted distribution.
Teachers might have become much more sensitive to left handed children, excessively asking children to try their left hand too, but the distribution of left handed children has been stable at exactly 10% for decades. It will be the same if teachers are informing children about any of the LGBTQQIP2SAA-whatever. Some kids will be just happy they can be 'left-handed', other kids will just be 'right-handed'. Maybe they will try the other hand once or twice. If you fear that is enough to turn them, you might have some insecurities about repressed tendencies, dying to be released.

Ricky Gervais - Being Fat is NOT Like Being Gay
only registered users can see external links


By leopoldij [Ignore] 24,Nov,21 19:53 other posts 
Black lives don't seem to matter for some:

only registered users can see external links


By Dev01 [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 09:50 other posts 
11d ago Dev01:

11d ago Sir-Skittles:

11d ago Sir-Skittles: 31,Oct,21 04:00 tecsan: You know admin has made it impossible for people like you and me to get back in good standing whatever the fuck that is...You and I could never overcome all the blacklisters...Just a thought...The count is backwards if you ask me...But hey I am just a member like you in a in a cesspool...Our opinions do not count...Probably better that way...Keeps you and I at odds...You know entertainment for the others...I do not mind, do you???
--------------------------------------- added after 86 seconds

Tecsan at his flea moment. Always caught out, begging Skitz to get along. Softcock small too
By dgraff [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 11:39 other posts 
He was trying to be some what respectful to me this morning also
By Dev01 [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 15:51 other posts 
Cause he knows the cunts are watching.
By dgraff [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 23:28 other posts 
Absolutely


By Dev01 [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 08:22 other posts 
Tecsan the closets life don't matter
By dgraff [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 11:54 other posts 
The closet is a dark place he should come out of the closet and go to the light


By Dev01 [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 08:29 other posts 
༼☯﹏☯༽༼☯﹏☯༽ have a cry child
By dgraff [Ignore] 12,Nov,21 11:42 other posts 
Is that what those purple things mean blow job in process


By phart [Ignore] 31,Oct,21 19:36 other posts 
only registered users can see external links


By phart [Ignore] 31,Oct,21 18:34 other posts 
defund the police, eh,
only registered users can see external links
By sherryann [Ignore] 31,Oct,21 18:58 other posts 
defund the police=crime skyrocketing, couple that with forcing unvaccinated police officers to get the shot=less police on the job=out of control skyrocketing crime


By phart [Ignore] 12,Oct,21 10:17 other posts 
Defund the police?
I hope this is not going to be typical of what minority's do when you give them money.She set out to arm the enemy's of the people,and the police.
only registered users can see external links
By #610414 12,Oct,21 13:24
What does this horrible story have to do with that stupid conservative notion that the police will be defunded?
By phart [Ignore] 12,Oct,21 13:58 other posts 
She was given almost 5 million dollars because her son was shot by a policeman and the lawyers somehow made them look bad. She proceeds to arm the GANGS and a 14 year old boy. TO what end? To do harm to other people. And WHO are we supposed to call to protect us instead being armed ourselves legally? The police. So this type thing is dangerous for everyone. Citizen and police
By #610414 12,Oct,21 14:07
So, what do you want? Do you want to arm yourself legally? What’s stopping you? Did that deny you a permit to own a Sherman tank?
--------------------------------------- added after 17 hours

I don’t know who’s worse, the gangs overrunning our cities, illegal aliens coming in through our Southern border, Black Lives Matter members, women who get abortions, or the Democrats. Why, I’m so scared, I’m staying home under my bed.
By phart [Ignore] 12,Oct,21 16:05 other posts 
best I can tell I can own a tank but they won't give me no ammo,that is like having a condom with a softie.
By sherryann [Ignore] 12,Oct,21 17:28 other posts 
Phart this is a very common occurrence in the gang culture especially in cities swarming with gangs...difference is some cities won't hold those responsible accountable. Thanks for posting & good on them for enforcing the law!
First you start creating less criminals, then you can defund the police.
One way to create less criminals is decriminalizing things that don't hurt people.
Another way is to make working more worthwhile. Give people a good alternative
and they won't be a criminal, because being a criminal sucks (except white-collar crime; low risk, high reward).

You've already tried to fight crime with more police. It's very expensive, it hurts
normal people and it is not very effective (especially on white-collar crime).
By phart [Ignore] 16,Oct,21 09:54 other posts 
If a action has been determined to be a criminal act by a intelligent group of people in years past, how can you justify suddenly "decriminalizing" it?

Smoking dope can get people hurt or killed, and it almost never the dumb sumbitch that is doing it that suffers. I can't see condoning decriminalization of dope of any kind.
Theft is a crime, it hurts people financially and emotional depending on what is stolen. Why would you want to decriminalize it?
What crimes are you thinking are suitable to condone?
By phart [Ignore] 16,Oct,21 10:10 other posts 
Here is a prime example of trying decriminalize theft to "reduce" crime.
IT aint working people!
only registered users can see external links
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 17,Oct,21 12:55 other posts 
How is that related with decriminalizing? Off course you don't decriminalize shoplifting or anything else that directly effects other people in a negative way.

You legalize, tax and regulate soft drugs and prostitution and it will lower crime. It also lowers addiction if you legalize, tax and regulate soft drugs and it lowers exploitation of women and spreading of STDs if you legalize, tax and regulate prostitution.

The USA has much much bigger problems with soft drugs and prostitution and you have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Obviously your way isn't working.

only registered users can see external links
By phart [Ignore] 17,Oct,21 12:11 other posts 
only registered users can see external links
500,000 dollars in damage, police essentially could do NOTHING to stop it because of liberal lawyers financed by the likes of george soros i am willing to bet.
The government is decriminalizing acts and it is costing SOMEONE money. YOU in higher insurance rates maby? No because insurance does not cover vandalism. So who is paying for the damages these low lifes inflict on the population?
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 17,Oct,21 13:01 other posts 
George Soros again? He must be richer than Bezos, Musk and Gates combined,
to fund all of that. People are just fed up with their government, that still has done absolutely nothing on their demands. Why would people stop protesting, if their government hasn't listened? You can't put this cat back in the bag.
By phart [Ignore] 17,Oct,21 18:48 other posts 
It is not how rich someone is, it is how they use what resources they have.
You still didn't answer my question in the least. Dodging it because there is no sensible answer? Because when you don't hold the guilty accountable, the innocent have to pay.
When demands are unreasonable, the government has to do what is best for the MAJORITY, and minority's, well are NOT the majority.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 18,Oct,21 08:13 other posts 
This question: "If a action has been determined to be a criminal act by a intelligent group of people in years past, how can you justify suddenly "decriminalizing" it?"?

Soft drugs were not determined to be a criminal act by an intelligent group of people. Records, that were disclosed decades later, showed they made the use of soft drugs illegal with the INTENT of incarcerating black people. They understood that black people liked weed and they could use it against them. They considered that when a black man is put in jail for decades, he will have less chance to have children.
They criminalized weed use, with the intent of ethnic cleansing.
If your argument is "some white people use weed too"; sure, but they also considered that they could just make the police search the people for weed who you want to incarcerate. That's why the police only searches black people, poor people and political enemies for weed and never search rich white people, who love cocaine.

There has been much more suffering from the criminalization of weed, than the use of weed will ever do. And the little suffering that was ever caused by the use of weed will never be diminished by criminalization of weed, only aggravated.

So it should have never been a crime and that's why I don't need to justify 'suddenly' decriminalizing it, but you need to justify why you want to preserve this piece of systemic racism.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Oct,21 14:28 other posts 
BUNK, you must live under a rock,weed ruins lives. It is a entry level drug that only leads to worse.
Arrest and jail actually will help save some.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 19,Oct,21 02:39 other posts 
Just saying BUNK does not discredit anything I said. It is in government archives how they intended to use weed criminalization to incarcerate young black men.

"Arrest and jail actually will help save some"
Weed ruins lives, when people are thrown in jail over it. But that was the INTENT.

You know what is an entry level drug? Opioids!
But those are sold by pharma companies, so that's legal.
only registered users can see external links

Actually, it's not just an entry level drug, it's just hard drugs itself.
More people overdose on legal opioids, than on any illegal drugs.
only registered users can see external links
Overdosing on weed is almost impossible.

Weed is also a very effective painkiller and helps many people in many ways.
But, it hurts the bottom line of pharma companies, so they are funding against
the legalization effort. That's all of the propaganda you are repeating to me.

only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
By the way, for any, one left-leaning financier like George Soros, there are thousands of hard core right-wingers funding action committees, politicians directly, schools, churches, charities, investments and trade organizations, to enact all kinds of horrible self-serving policies. At least George Soros is not just funding his own self-serving needs.

George Soros is the founder and chair of 'Open Society Foundations'.
Wow, that sounds diabolical!

"The Open Society Foundations support individuals and organizations across the globe fighting for freedom of expression, accountable government, and societies that promote justice and equality.".

- freedom of expression
- accountable government
- justice
- equality
You've definitely demonstrated many times that you hate all of that!
By phart [Ignore] 19,Oct,21 09:37 other posts 
You are just finding the sugar coated story.Dig a bit deeper and get back to me.
His money was funneled into the riots thru organizations that are not directly linked to him.
You are smart enough to know a crook is not going to leave you a yellow brick road of evidence.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 20,Oct,21 03:10 other posts 
I wouldn't be surprised if he directly funded BLM. But where you see riots, I see black people standing up for their rights, which is exactly in line with his goals;
- freedom of expression
- accountable government
- justice
- equality

And if I go searching for George Soros funding stuff, I will just end up in the
right-wing conspiracy rabbit hole, where the biggest lies are presented as facts.
By phart [Ignore] 20,Oct,21 10:03 other posts 
So when you see those black people "standing up",you don't see the 10's of millions in damage they are doing to the city's? You don't see the citizens of those citys that have lost their lively hoods, jobs?
Damn you must be wearing blinders.
And sadly ,some of the business's were BLACK OWNED! They hurt their own kind.
IN case you were under a rock last year,
I can't believe you don't find this to be at least deplorable.

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 20,Oct,21 12:22 other posts 
True, I don't have much insight on all the damage and misery the protests might have costed. I'm surprised that it's getting to 1 billion dollars.

But what I'm also surprised about is the other page, about BLM driving change in policing policies. Just something in New York by Mayor Bill de Blasio and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan. Is that it?
only registered users can see external links

That's even more pathetic than I could ever imagine. Is nothing done on a national scale?
The way you handle policing in the US is sick! People are right to protest. It's not like we heard of these problems first when George Floyd was killed, this has been going on for decades. Nothing has been done and people don't take it anymore. If the government and police then still don't act, than don't be surprised that people continue protesting and the protests become vengeful. I'm sure they take these tiny steps in just two cities as an affront to their demands and I agree with them.

I don't like violence and this goes too far, but your government could have prevented all or most of it, by actually making structural, significant changes. Black people are constantly facing injustice and injustice calls for action. I still don't think the collateral damage is worse than the damage of the injustice. The disregard for black lives and the disrespect to their continuous, legitimate pleas is just abhorrent.

When it doesn't concern your country, but it does conform with your values, you are very accepting of collateral damage, even when the justification for that damage proved illegitimate. Here we have a legitimate cause, from people who are demanding justice, equality and respect, but get confronted with indifference and scorn. Under other circumstances you would accept the collateral damage of their fight. So I think you're just biassed.
By phart [Ignore] 20,Oct,21 14:22 other posts 
OH my,tear gas.
HOW do you propose to control a unruly crowd of people? throw candy at them? When people don't respect the law of the land or law enforcement officers,the officers have to have SOMETHING on their side to regain control.
Knowing that tear gas burns your eyes, should be a deterrent to acting in such a way as to get it sprayed on you.
A world without deterrents of any kind for wrong doing is a dangerous place.


New Comment   Go to top

Pages:  #1... #20   #21   #22   #23   #24   #25   #26   #27   #28   #29   ...#42



Show It Off