Liberal Protests

[Reality Check]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

He re-runs almost all of his material RC.

 

So feel free to do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

 

When will the DNC denounce BLM?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

WELL, THEY PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO SINCE THEY CONTROL THE CITIES AND THE PEOPLE BURNING THEM: 

 

Democrats are pretending the cities aren’t burning.

 

 

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

I think we might agree on the economy.  This whole thing is a house of cards built on credit.  And it’s a huge wealth transfer opportunity for people who can afford securities.  I have no idea what the solution is, but I know that it’s not firing up coal plants again. Unfortunately we wasted $2 trillion this year when we chose to buy time without having a plan to defeat the “hoax” of a virus.  Now we have nothing to show for that.  So the next round of stimulus has to result in something, e.g., green energy innovation, infrastructure, rural broadband, whatever.  We can’t light it on fire again. 

A primary driver of income inequality has been federal reserve monetary policy especially QE.  The Fed buys government and corporate debt from the primary banks and dealers then the banks need to do something with the money.  Other foreign central banks do this too.  They also buy stocks and ETFs.  The Bank of japan is the biggest holder of all ETFs on the Tokyo market.   The Bank of Switzerland is one of the biggest shareholders of Facebook.  The banks could buy more bonds and sell them to the Fed but with interest rates lower and lower there's not enough profit margin.  So they buy stocks and with that major indexes and share prices rise.  Who owns most of the equities?  People with a lot of assets, rich people, well-off baby boomers that benefit simply because of age and timing, major insiders and corporate officers with generous stock options selling into the uptrend.  It's all quite a nice little racket.  Welfare for the rich.  This happens whomever is in the White House. 

 

That's why you see a lot of 55+ guys driving around in new Corvettes and Porches all over town.  Meanwhile, I'm driving around town in a 13 year old vehicle, you have younger workers or those entering the workforce, or working poor that have no "extra" funds to invest in markets.  They're not benefiting at all from all the Fed monetizing of debt because none of it gets into the "real" economy.  And as an added kicker they get to pay for it all with hidden and ignored inflation in things they need to live which further erodes their living standards.  By the way the Fed denies any hand in all of this.  They're quite the con artists.

 

By the way, I consider myself a fiscal conservative.  I agree with my liberal friends that something is seriously wrong with income disparities and opportunity.  I just don't agree with them on how to solve the problem and what solutions should be implemented. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

When will the DNC denounce BLM?

 

 

 

...well the "BLM Bossman" said looting "is a form of reparations"....so AGAIN, BLM is a fraudulent ruse for "The Gimme Crowd"......exactly why the Dems' NON-response to riots and looting fits.....racial injustice my arse....how many BLACK OWNED BUSINESSES have been destroyed??...................

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

A primary driver of income inequality has been federal reserve monetary policy especially QE.  The Fed buys government and corporate debt from the primary banks and dealers then the banks need to do something with the money.  Other foreign central banks do this too.  They also buy stocks and ETFs.  The Bank of japan is the biggest holder of all ETFs on the Tokyo market.   The Bank of Switzerland is one of the biggest shareholders of Facebook.  The banks could buy more bonds and sell them to the Fed but with interest rates lower and lower there's not enough profit margin.  So they buy stocks and with that major indexes and share prices rise.  Who owns most of the equities?  People with a lot of assets, rich people, well-off baby boomers that benefit simply because of age and timing, major insiders and corporate officers with generous stock options selling into the uptrend.  It's all quite a nice little racket.  Welfare for the rich.  This happens whomever is in the White House. 

 

That's why you see a lot of 55+ guys driving around in new Corvettes and Porches all over town.  Meanwhile, I'm driving around town in a 13 year old vehicle, you have younger workers or those entering the workforce, or working poor that have no "extra" funds to invest in markets.  They're not benefiting at all from all the Fed monetizing of debt because none of it gets into the "real" economy.  And as an added kicker they get to pay for it all with hidden and ignored inflation in things they need to live which further erodes their living standards.  By the way the Fed denies any hand in all of this.  They're quite the con artists.

 

By the way, I consider myself a fiscal conservative.  I agree with my liberal friends that something is seriously wrong with income disparities and opportunity.  I just don't agree with them on how to solve the problem and what solutions should be implemented. 

 

I agree with most of this.  It’s a mess right now.  I think passive investing plays a part in it, too.  Many people I know don’t have savings accounts, they have a Vanguard S&P index.  So they money keeps on rolling in, stock values keep rising, and the disconnect between Main and Wall Street grows. If you’re in the market, things are dandy right now.  If you’re not, you’re screwed.  Huge wealth transfer in the last six months.  It’s ridiculous (and this is coming from a guy who made a killing based on timing and selection of stocks in early March). 

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

A primary driver of income inequality has been federal reserve monetary policy especially QE.  The Fed buys government and corporate debt from the primary banks and dealers then the banks need to do something with the money.  Other foreign central banks do this too.  They also buy stocks and ETFs.  The Bank of japan is the biggest holder of all ETFs on the Tokyo market.   The Bank of Switzerland is one of the biggest shareholders of Facebook.  The banks could buy more bonds and sell them to the Fed but with interest rates lower and lower there's not enough profit margin.  So they buy stocks and with that major indexes and share prices rise.  Who owns most of the equities?  People with a lot of assets, rich people, well-off baby boomers that benefit simply because of age and timing, major insiders and corporate officers with generous stock options selling into the uptrend.  It's all quite a nice little racket.  Welfare for the rich.  This happens whomever is in the White House. 

 

That's why you see a lot of 55+ guys driving around in new Corvettes and Porches all over town.  Meanwhile, I'm driving around town in a 13 year old vehicle, you have younger workers or those entering the workforce, or working poor that have no "extra" funds to invest in markets.  They're not benefiting at all from all the Fed monetizing of debt because none of it gets into the "real" economy.  And as an added kicker they get to pay for it all with hidden and ignored inflation in things they need to live which further erodes their living standards.  By the way the Fed denies any hand in all of this.  They're quite the con artists.

 

By the way, I consider myself a fiscal conservative.  I agree with my liberal friends that something is seriously wrong with income disparities and opportunity.  I just don't agree with them on how to solve the problem and what solutions should be implemented. 

 

Living below ones means is the first step.  The thing is, people don't want to do it.  If you spend all that you earn, much less more than you earn, you'll never get ahead.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Living below ones means is the first step.  The thing is, people don't want to do it.  If you spend all that you earn, much less more than you earn, you'll never get ahead.

 

....REGARDLESS of race, creed, color, ethnicity, et al, how many think the "American Way" is to live "paycheck to paycheck"??.....when do we get back to "Personal Responsibility" versus catering to "The Gimme Crowd"?....that gang is the Dems' bread and butter voting base......

[Tiberius]

Shot in the back, unarmed in front of his children 

[Sig1Hunter]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Shot in the back, unarmed in front of his children 

Unarmed? There are reports that he had a knife. Why don’t you wait for more info before making this proclamation?

[MiltonWaddams]

20 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Unarmed? There are reports that he had a knife. Why don’t you wait for more info before making this proclamation?

Why don’t you watch the video and see that he didn’t have a knife? Do we all just see and hear what we want to hear and see? Fox News would like it if you did. Do we think that being shot in the back seven times is sufficient when carrying a knife and walking away from police officers?

i’m not going to sit here and tell you that looting and rioting is the answer, because it’s not. However, the number of police killings of black men and women this year alone has got to create uproar in the black community. You cannot imagine how much fear you would live in unless you walk in their shoes. Despite the number of marches, protests and riots that have occurred the last three months, these cops continue to make life ending, and altering, decisions that cannot be solely attributed to the actions of the individuals being killed and seriously injured. There is either a fear or a complete lack of respect for black people among a far too sizeable portion of the police force. That has to stop.

Edited August 25, 2020 by MiltonWaddams

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Unarmed? There are reports that he had a knife. Why don’t you wait for more info before making this proclamation?

 

28 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Unarmed? There are reports that he had a knife. Why don’t you wait for more info before making this proclamation?

Unarmed, shot in the back right in front of his children 

9 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

Why don’t you watch the video and see that he didn’t have a knife? Do we all just see and hear what we want to hear and see? Fox News would like it if you did. Do we think that being shot in the back seven times is sufficient when carrying a knife and walking away from police officers?

i’m not going to sit here and tell you that looting and rioting is the answer, because it’s not. However, the number of police killings of black men and women this year alone has got to create uproar in the black community. You cannot imagine how much fear you would live in unless you walk in their shoes. Despite the number of marches, protests and riots that have occurred the last three months, these cops continue to make life ending, and altering, decisions that cannot be solely attributed to the actions of the individuals being killed and seriously injured. There is either a fear or a complete lack of respect for black people among a far too sizeable portion of the police force. That has to stop.

Seven times, wtf 

[Sig1Hunter]

7 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

Why don’t you watch the video and see that he didn’t have a knife? Do we all just see and hear what we want to hear and see? Fox News would like it if you did. Do we think that being shot in the back seven times is sufficient when carrying a knife and walking away from police officers?

i’m not going to sit here and tell you that looting and rioting is the answer, because it’s not. However, the number of police killings of black men and women this year alone has got to create uproar in the black community. You cannot imagine how much fear you would live in unless you walk in their shoes. Despite the number of marches, protests and riots that have occurred the last three months, these cops continue to make life ending, and altering, decisions that cannot be solely attributed to the actions of the individuals being killed and seriously injured. There is either a fear or a complete lack of respect for black people among a far too sizeable portion of the police force. That has to stop.

Ive watched the video. Ive also seen still shots from the video zoomed in that show something in his left hand that appears to be a knife. Add that up with the cops identifying that he has a knife, and I’m willing to wait for more information before coming to my own conclusion. If he did have a knife, and was in a close quarters struggle with the cops, after they gave him multiple verbal commands,  fought with him, and tased him, they are absolutely justified in shooting him - in the front, in the side, or in the back. Sorry to burst your bubble. 
 

Feel free to draw your conclusions before all the evidence is in. Thats your prerogative. Its idiotic, however.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Sig1Hunter]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Unarmed, shot in the back right in front of his children 

Seven times, wtf 

What if it comes out that he was attempting to take the kids without the consent of the mother, who had custody? What if thats the reason that the cops were there to begin with? And, what if it comes out that he had a knife in hand and and was preparing to flee with the kids (armed kidnapping)? Would that change your viewpoint at all? Just curious..

[Unforgiven]

1 hour ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Unarmed? There are reports that he had a knife. Why don’t you wait for more info before making this proclamation?

He can't. He's a grifter hoping to win the Joe Biden reparation lotto.

[Sig1Hunter]

7 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

He can't. He's a grifter hoping to win the Joe Biden reparation lotto.

It was mostly a rhetorical question anyway.

“The narrative must be protected at all costs!”

[MiltonWaddams]

39 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

What if it comes out that he was attempting to take the kids without the consent of the mother, who had custody? What if thats the reason that the cops were there to begin with? And, what if it comes out that he had a knife in hand and and was preparing to flee with the kids (armed kidnapping)? Would that change your viewpoint at all? Just curious..

And what if he was unarmed and had just broken up a domestic disturbance which has been reported as well? Would that change YOUR opinion?

[TH3]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Living below ones means is the first step.  The thing is, people don't want to do it.  If you spend all that you earn, much less more than you earn, you'll never get ahead.

Federal Government should set the example

44 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

What if it comes out that he was attempting to take the kids without the consent of the mother, who had custody? What if thats the reason that the cops were there to begin with? And, what if it comes out that he had a knife in hand and and was preparing to flee with the kids (armed kidnapping)? Would that change your viewpoint at all? Just curious..

Easy with that trigger finger bro!

[Sig1Hunter]

10 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

And what if he was unarmed and had just broken up a domestic disturbance which has been reported as well? Would that change YOUR opinion?

Did you not read what I wrote? I’m waiting for evidence to come out before I come to conclusions. You, however, have already appeared to make up your mind based on your predetermined narrative that cops love shooting unarmed black men in the back. See the difference? (That’s another rhetorical question, BTW)

 

And, who the hell let you out of the basement?

Edited August 25, 2020 by Sig1Hunter