TakeYouToTasker

You're right. In the context you used it, where it has colloquial understanding as a racial pejorative, it is very self explanatory. And it comes as no surprise you're taking the coward's route. Your kind always does.

Go to the WGR web site, and contact the program director. Inform him that you'll no longer be supporting his station if he allows the stations brand to be used as a platform for baseless charges of racism and hate.

If you want to stand in for him here, you'll die on this one.

Who cares, and I wasn't responding to you, as you weren't the person who threw out the term "cuck" in this particular context which has colloquial understanding. I'm asking the person who said it to elaborate, and unless you really want to die on this particular hill, I'd let him speak for himself.

Come talk to me after you've torn down the legacies of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.

Tyrod a class act as always.

I would imagine it's harder to staff an all volunteer military when you are perpetually at war.

It's not that the story challenges people's political leanings, it's that the media have been caught unapologetically pushing agendas to the point of lying and actually manufacturing what they are reporting themselves, and people don't trust them to not be doing that in this instance, and have tuned them out. It's the classic "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

The problem is that the people telling the story have a horrible credibility problem, which they brought on to themselves, so under what used to be normal circumstances I think most people would be inclined to agree with you; now, however, people don't believe the media are above ruining someone with baseless accusations for political reasons.

I'm willing to wager having him around was a net gain for her vote total. Definitely won her more than he cost her.

You're talking to a liberal who is being honest about the current state of affairs in the media, and the impact the growing obviousness of their malfeasance is having on public discourse.

The same study as you, though I misstated the findings. I meant to type that "only roughly 60% of black males graduate from high school (59%)", not "60% drop out of high school". That was my error. Thank you for pointing it out so I could correct it.

One side is in a hurry to forego presumed innocence, the other is not unhappy with the exuberance of the other so long as the taint doesn't rub off on them.

There are legacy effects, but not immediate impacts, and they do not account for the overwhelming majority of todays struggles.

You don't believe that the political left would find an advantage in painting their opponents as child molesters, and that the political right would find political advantage in not being associated with child molesters? OK... I mean, not in any way convincing as an argument, but OK... For clarification, I don't have a dog in this fight. As a libertarian I find his moralizing-as-public policy to be completely unpalatable.

In this instance the left is seizing on the opportunity to paint Republicans as child molesters, and Republicans clearly understand this, and are seeking a resolution in which the problem simply goes away because it's the most politically expedient thing for them to do. That's all this is.

I'm sorry, but I won't join you in your lynch mob. Feel free to give the pitchfork you had earmarked for me to someone else who lacks the discretion to avoid destroying someone over allegations. As I mentioned earlier, it's political suicide to tie yourself to anyone accused of molesting children, so why would they? It's political expedience and CYA behavior to protect their own power and brand.

They're calling for him to step down because it makes zero political sense to do anything to tie yourself to a person being accused of being a child diddler. It's easier for them if he simply goes away.

Your case is that at some point, constantly approaching infinity, I would be priced out of attending a live event? bra-!@#$ing-vo My point is that prices only increase to the point that someone is willing to pay them, and as long as a venue/franchise can sell tickets in the nosebleeds for $100, then those tickets are worth $100. Maybe not to you, but they aren't your tickets to sell.

This is shifting the goal posts. First the conversation was complaints about how black Americans are the subject of a disproportionate amount of policing, but once crime data was injected to explain the disproportionate amount of policing, it became about excusing the disproportionate amount crime black Americans commit because of slavery. That's a bull **** argument built on the soft-racism of low expectations and fallacious reasoning. Some of what black Americans deal with today is certainly a result of the legacy of slavery; but largely black Americans suffer due to cultural problems in their communities, almost all of which are tied directly to the destruction of the black family, which was a direct result of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty which marginalized the importance of the role of the black man in the household, and provided a monetary incentive to replace his paycheck. This led to generations of black boys with no male role models to guide them, and has culminated in a stunning nearly 75% of all black children being born out of wedlock, which happens to be the leading indicator of inter-generational poverty. This is hugely problematic for several reasons: 1) handouts can't solve a problem already exacerbated by handouts, 2) handouts don't lead to wealth creation, but rather towards more handouts as a direct replacement for accumulated wealth and don't work to solve the long term problem, 3) it is neither moral nor productive to punish people who did not create the problem for the existence of the problem, 4) there is no "white privilege" there is monetary privilege, 5) public education cannot replace a steady and secure home life and caring parents, and doesn't work to serve a community whose culture doesn't place a premium on education (only roughly 60% of all black males graduate from high school). The truth is, that this isn't a problem white people can solve for black people. This isn't even a problem that black people can solve for black people. It's a problem that individuals, black or white or yellow, or brown, need to solve for themselves. Individuals need to make the responsible life choices necessary to break the cycle of poverty, and that's not asking too much.

I did answer your question in an even more complete way than you asked it, though I suppose it's possible you didn't realize I was speaking to my personal experiences, so I'll answer again: It depends on the event. I've shelled out $2400 for two tickets to see Van Morrison in a small local theater. I've shelled out $450 for nosebleeds at Gillette Stadium to watch the Bills play. Similarly, I've declined to purchase much cheaper tickets to see other events because I valued my money more than watching live.

It's where we are as a society because we're past the point of shared values and trusting each other's motives. There isn't anything left which binds us together. It used to be that people were less quick to demonize others, and were willing to admit that we (largely) wanted the same things, but believed in different ways of achieving the results. That isn't the case anymore. We no longer want, or believe in the same things; and certain loud sub-groups dominate and pollute the narrative, personally disparaging anyone who disagrees with them politically. It's well past the time where being bound together as a single nation serves anyone anymore.

It's a leftist creation, which I described as illiberal, which seeks to undo traditional liberal legal protections granted by the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven.