TakeYouToTasker

You're making a pretty strong case that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in the Amber Alert system, assuming your right about the lack of real impacts from a shut down. Really, it's an argument that everything that was shut down is wasted dollars that the Federal Government shouldn't be spending, because shutting those things down didn't matter. Is that the argument you're making? You absolutely can, and should characterize the Klan based on what it is now, when what it is now is having the actual impact. Nearly everyone whom the Klan of the 1950s and prior impacted is dead today. That Klan is irrelevant to the conversation. Which is fine, because it's the only relevant comparison. Both organizations are racist at their core. Anything beyond that is an acknowledgment that you find one group's racism acceptable.

The Klu Klux Klan is not a paramilitary group today, it's just a vile hate group. BLM is very similar to the Klan as it exists today. You aren't arguing that the Klan, as it exists today, is acceptable, and the only issue with it is it's history, are you?

... they had a time machine and used it to go back for a do-over in Week 2.

It's probably a fantastic time to buy up land on the impacted islands right now.

I've changed my mind. REMOVE THAT FLAG!!!!

The first two are not because of racism. The first point, we don't all start off equally, applies to every person on the planet. It's simply reality. Some people are born smarter, or with better over all genetics. Some are born the child of Bill Gates. None of that is due in any way to racism. The second point, black Americans have a higher likelihood of starting off further behind because of prior injustices from decades past and because of perverse incentives created by the welfare state, is due to racism from the past by people who are mostly dead now, and because of a system that rewards poor behavior with money for the purpose of creating a permanent underclass as a voting block. Summed up very succinctly by Lyndon B. Johnson: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."; soft-slavery is perpetual multi-generational dependance, which serves to hold a group of people in a perpetual underclass by making their chains fit softly upon their wrists. It started off with the desruction of the black family, but is no longer isolated to minorities. It is the marginalization of the black male (now all males). It is the handout that replaced that paycheck which made the marginalization of men possible. It is the incentivization of these same behaviors, generation after generation, which normalizes, and removes the shame. But most importantly, it is the slave masters, using these humans for nothing more than their votes, much like the Southern farmer in his field. Again, this was started along racial lines, but now extends into all racial groups. The third is in no way racial. It is hard truths. These truths apply to all races. Black two parent families have much better odds of being in the middle class than single white parents. The fourth breaks down on racial lines, but is not racist. There are no white racists out there forcing black people to have children out of wedlock, nor are there white racists forcing black men out of high school. This is a major cultural problem that black Americans have to solve for themselves. It cannot be done for them. The fifth and final point is absolutely not placing an undue burden on black people. In a free society we are all required to own our decision making. The freedom to make a good decision is also the freedom to make a bad decision, and there is nothing inherent to having more melanin that makes blacks less capable of good decision making. They are just as smart and as capable as their white counterparts, and they have agency. Again, much of this is due to a cultural problem with an upside-down value system as relates to being successful and escaping intergenerational poverty.

President Obama having Black Lives Matter leaders to the White House would be the rough equivalent of President Trump inviting Richard Spencer. There is nothing to like about the former President extending that invitation.

Again, you're strawmanning my argument. My argument is that: 1) we don't all start off equally 2) black Americans have a higher likelihood of starting off further behind because of prior injustices from decades pat and because of perverse incentives created by the welfare state 3) the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor for not living in poverty if you don't have children out of wedlock, graduate from high school, and get and keep any job. this transcends race. 4) black children are 72% likely to be born out of wedlock, and black males only graduate high school at a rate of 41%. 5) the further behind you start, the more important the decisions are that you make

It doesn't look to the individuals in those situations. How an individual behaves during their interaction with police will largely dictate how the police handle that interaction. If a culture has an undercurrent of distrust for law enforcement, and this leads to a display of body language or external expression which an officer finds consistent with suspicious or threatening behavior, he is well within his authority to act on it. This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy situation, which is unfortunate, but not unreasonable. Look at the Eric Garner situation as an example of this. Will that account for 100% of the discrepancy? I'm sure it won't, as I'm certain that there are individual racists willing to act on their inclinations in every profession, but they don't account for larger part of that discrepancy, as there just aren't that many actual racists out there seeking to do harm to others simply because of their race.

I'll take your lead in as a rejection of the olive branch and my offer of a return to civility? To your second paragraph: I don't remember mentioning George Wallace. I think you're the first to bring him up. Is it your assertion that someone espousing his views would be welcomed as a representative of the Republican Party? My assertion is that the narrative of a migration of racists into the Republican Party over civil rights is historically inaccurate.

Yes, it is. If you'd like a history lesson, I can give you one.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399 Roland G Fryer Jr., the study's author, who is black has called his findings "the most surprising result of my career" in a NY Times interview.

Actually, that's revisionism.

But that's just it: they are given the same treatment under the law. They have equal access, and a system which does not discriminate against them because of their race. But here's the rub: equal access does not mean equality. Equality is unachievable, because every individual has different starting points. A person who is born to a single mother, in poverty starts the race ahead of an orphan who is born addicted to crack. Both start off worse than someone born into a two parent working class family with parents who don't have a good handle on household budgets and savings; who starts off worse than a child from an upper class family who puts a major emphasis on the importance of good grades and strong work ethic. All of them start off in a worse place than Malia Obama. As it stands today, black Americans are more likely to start the race further behind because of the legacy of their prior inequality under the law, and because of cultural degradation in their communities brought on by the perverse incentives offered by the welfare state; but that's not the fault of current racism.

The owners really didn't have a choice regardless of the players' reactions. The President used threatening language related to their perfectly legal private business dealings, interjecting himself in a hostile way.

The two situations are not comparable. Kemp encountered actual racism and discrimination. Today's protesters deal with nothing of the sort.

Inequality =/ inequity If you're talking specifically about equality under the law, yes that's a vital issue in a free society, but we already have equality under the law.

I'm way better looking than Spacey, and I'm sure you're no Brad Pitt; but that was a great scene, so I can live with that. Anything further?

Strange, then, that you would posit the argument I quoted as a counter to my argument that institutional racism does not exist. Typically when someone agrees with someone's position, they don't argue against it. However, I'll offer you a way out here, and accept that perhaps you were just riled up and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, or that you honestly misunderstood, or that I honestly misunderstood whatever point you were trying to make. With that spirit in mind, I'll also extend an olive branch, assuming you'd rather argue honestly and drop the ad hominem stuff.

The curious thing about message boards is that they archive all of the things you type into them. Like this argument you made for the existence of institutional racism. Any more lies you'd like to be caught in today? Or perhaps you're admitting that my counter argument persuaded you, and that you've "evolved" from your prior position, and are asking mea culpa?

Back story: his friend worked for the government, which is why he should have reported him to the government (his employer). It's also what makes the incident of racism especially troublesome: he was using the government as a tool to discriminate. Not seeing this as the proper course of action seems incredibly problematic for someone with Kelly the Dog's beliefs as relates to institutional racism.

I'll open this up to other posters: Do the rest of you tend to surround yourselves with racists? Or when someone you associate with outs themselves as an actual racist seeking to use their position of power to harm minorities, would you continue to associate with them, or would having such an ugly mark against their character lead you to rejecting them from your circle of friends? For me this isn't a very hard call, but apparently for Kelly the Dog it's perfectly normal and acceptable to count such people amongst his friends. Where do others stand on this?

This is nothing more than projecting. You're assuming that because you're a bad person that everyone else must also be.

You're straying awfully far from colloquial meaning in your hilarious efforts to not be painted as a total piece of **** by your own words. Keep twisting and dancing. You're still a piece of **** who enabled an actual admitted racist who used his job with the government to discriminate against black people trying to access Federal programs, denying them equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

As much as you'd like to be, you aren't "in my life". You're just some anonymous piece of **** on the internet. What is hilarious to me, because it speaks volumes about who you really are as a person if anyone is to take you at face value, is that you are beyond stunned, completely incredulous actually, that decent people actually reject ****ty people from the circle of people that they associate with. You are the company you keep.