102 arrested, 27 officers injured in 94 shutdown


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

But that's not what this is about. You can't take a personal issue and make it a national one. You can't overturn society over a few anecdotal scenarios. What I'd really like to know is why BLM and the like only care about black lives when they're killed by white cops and they seem to ignore black lives killed by other blacks. Especially when cops don't even kill more blacks than they do whites (even accounting for population distribution).

The point is, they are appealing to emotion rather than bringing a real argument or issue to the table in an effort to assert control rather than bring about any meaningful change. They are driving a wedge between blacks, whites and cops because they can. Not because it's necessary.

It's not about overturning society, it's about getting change. Yes tragedy is often hijacked by people, in this case BLM but the LA riots should tell you that violence, and we may not like it, does get results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Depicus said:

It's not about overturning society, it's about getting change. Yes tragedy is often hijacked by people, in this case BLM but the LA riots should tell you that violence, and we may not like it, does get results. 

Results over something that's a non issue, in this case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gary7 said:

Hard to take Fox seriously but it does say in the article you quoted "The study found that police officers were more likely to use some type of force or draw their weapon against a black suspect compared to a white suspect." Now I have no idea who is right but there does seem to be some confusion.

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

Results over something that's a non issue, in this case.

I cannot comprehend how you think killing somebody is a non issue. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Depicus said:

I cannot comprehend how you think killing somebody is a non issue. 

The death of one person, or even a handful of people over time is not enough to change a society of hundreds of millions. It would take 500 years for half a percent of the Black population of the United States to die from cops. Statistically, it is a literal non-issue for policy in the US. However, each case should be taken seriously individually but groups like Black Lives Matter do not have an argument. There is no rampant violence and murder of Blacks by cops. It's just not real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Has nothing to do with the topic and is just plain BS.  Article is a from a blog and very lacking in any real information.  Have you even bothered to watch his speeches?   And constantly using Fox Entertainment for a source is questionable.  And this Trinity, TX Police Chief Steve Jones and his 5 officers are hardly experts when dealing with protests in their city of 2721 people.  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

Has nothing to do with the topic and is just plain BS.  Article is a from a blog and very lacking in any real information.  Have you even bothered to watch his speeches?   And constantly using Fox Entertainment for a source is questionable.  And this Trinity, TX Police Chief Steve Jones and his 5 officers are hardly experts when dealing with protests in their city of 2721 people.  :rolleyes:

Listen to and watch the video, the source does not matter. Yes I have and without teleprompters he is not that good. FYI Fox News Is Number one in the nation for a reason.. It is not a BLOG. It also is not Fox Entertainment???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gary7 said:

Listen to and watch the video, the source does not matter.

I did.  Why would you assume (as you often do) that I didn't?  And the source does matter, maybe not to you as long as it fits your position, the veracity of the source is important.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Raze said:

I did.  Why would you assume (as you often do) that I didn't?  And the source does matter, maybe not to you as long as it fits your position, the veracity of the source is important.

Because your response did not make any sense. The source is not a Blog and it is not Fox Entertainment. It matters not what the source is it is the content. If you do not like it that is your opinion but do not condemn a source with inaccurate information.  Then Raze ignore me if you want I do not really care at this point. You are just wrong about the source. Look up the ratings for yourself. Not everyone in this nation is conservative so others are also watching it. FNC is a credible source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Because your response did not make any sense. The source is not a Blog and it is not Fox Entertainment. It matters not what the source is it is the content. If you do not like it that is your opinion but do not condemn a source with inaccurate information.  Then Raze ignore me if you want I do not really care at this point. You are just wrong about the source. Look up the ratings for yourself. Not everyone in this nation is conservative so others are also watching it. FNC is a credible source.

The source is a blog and, as usual, you don't pay attention to the sources you're posting.  And when confronted you won't admit your error.  And the repeated statement of yours, "I do not really care at this point," is an overused remark and tiresome.  The source and content are important, just not to you, they only have to match your position to satisfy you low standards of credibility. 

 

See this image, clearly shows "blog".  An opinion piece and a shallow one to boot.  Come on, Gary, you're much better than the constant hate on Obama.

 

LrsAmnM.jpg

Edited by Raze
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Raze said:

The source is a blog and, as usual, you don't pay attention to the sources you're posting.  And when confronted you won't admit your error.  And the repeated statement of yours, "I do not really care at this point," is an overused remark and tiresome.  The source and content are important, just not to you, they only have to match your position to satisfy you low standards of credibility. 

 

See this image, clearly shows "blog".  An opinion piece and a shallow one to boot.  Come on, Gary, you're much better than the constant hate on Obama.

 

LrsAmnM.jpg

 

LrsAmnM.jpg

 

 

It is still a part of Fox News and I do not Hate Obama I just think that he is the worse President we have ever had. I have a right to my opinion as do you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Raze said:

The source is a blog and, as usual, you don't pay attention to the sources you're posting.  And when confronted you won't admit your error.  And the repeated statement of yours, "I do not really care at this point," is an overused remark and tiresome.  The source and content are important, just not to you, they only have to match your position to satisfy you low standards of credibility. 

 

See this image, clearly shows "blog".  An opinion piece and a shallow one to boot.  Come on, Gary, you're much better than the constant hate on Obama.

oh ... look there.  Fox News taking one clip from a small city police chief (Trinity has less than 3000 people) ... and turning it into their headline.  It fits Fox's agenda of course.

 

Better headline would have been:  Boston Police Commissioner: "We shouldn't focus on the President's lack of clarity.  We need to focus on getting better and moving forward."  That would have gone against Fox's none stop attack on President Obama that has been waged before him became President.

 

Fox is terrible.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jjkusaf said:

Fox is terrible.  

Then why pray tell is it the number one new source in the country? They do not make up the news like NBC and CBS and they are not as biased as Chris Mathews on MSNBC. So why are they number one in the ratings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

 

LrsAmnM.jpg

Thanks for making my point, you just can't admit when your wrong.  Your remark, "The source is not a Blog and it is not Fox Entertainment."

 

Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox.

from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

Thanks for making my point, you just can't admit when your wrong.  Your remark, "The source is not a Blog and it is not Fox Entertainment."

 

Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox.

from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

It is NBC News  is owned by

Quote

NBC News is a division of the American broadcast network NBC. The division operates under NBCUniversal News Group, a subsidiary of NBCUniversal, all owned by Comcast. Wikipedia

The owner is not relevant.  FNC's enetertainment division brought you shows like Married with Children. FNC happens to be the News division.  If you say I was wrong OK I was wrong as you never are.:) Now how about we get back on topic??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Then why pray tell is it the number one new source in the country? They do not make up the news like NBC and CBS and they are not as biased as Chris Mathews on MSNBC. So why are they number one in the ratings?

I don't care if they are "number 1".  Being "number 1" doesn't make it a trustworthy news source...because it really isn't.  LMAO.  I prefer The Wall Street Journal and BBC.

 

Anyway, this is going off topic ... not surprised since you just have to post something against President Obama ... as news.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Then why pray tell is it the number one new source in the country? They do not make up the news like NBC and CBS and they are not as biased as Chris Mathews on MSNBC. So why are they number one in the ratings?

Ratings do not equal quality or factual reporting.  Now I am not claiming that Fox News is always wrong, but their opinion pieces are notoriously slanted. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Raze said:

Ratings does not equal quality or factual reporting.  Now I am not claiming that Fox News is always wrong, but their opinion pieces are notoriously slanted. 

As are CNN's and MSNBC's

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gary7 said:

As are CNN's and MSNBC's

No one brought them up or made any claims about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

I just did as a comparison now please move on.

Please stop telling other people to move on when it was you who decided to take the thread off-topic as you so often do.  This tactic of yours is tiring and you have done it many times in many other threads.

Edited by Raze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

I don't care if they are "number 1".  Being "number 1" doesn't make it a trustworthy news source...because it really isn't.  LMAO.  I prefer The Wall Street Journal and BBC.

 

Anyway, this is going off topic ... not surprised since you just have to post something against President Obama ... as news.

Sorry JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

The death of one person, or even a handful of people over time is not enough to change a society of hundreds of millions. It would take 500 years for half a percent of the Black population of the United States to die from cops. Statistically, it is a literal non-issue for policy in the US. However, each case should be taken seriously individually but groups like Black Lives Matter do not have an argument. There is no rampant violence and murder of Blacks by cops. It's just not real.

So 9/11 which killed 3k is a non-issue as well as it's only 3 years of police deaths - or has it fashioned everything the US does and will do for decades to come ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Depicus said:

So 9/11 which killed 3k is a non-issue as well as it's only 3 years of police deaths - or has it fashioned everything the US does and will do for decades to come ?

Except 9/11 wasn't multiple incidents. It was thousands of people being killed in a single, coordinated attack. I don't see how you can possibly compare someone being killed by a cop to 9/11. They aren't even remotely the same scenario. Lets not forget that one was a deliberate terrorist attack, and others are unfortunate accidents. This would be akin to comparing dropping bombs on Hiroshima to the number of deaths from car accidents. There is literally no point in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.