Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time

[Mr. Deez]

There is that "intent" word again. From an insurance standpoint, it would seem that they intended to block the road, but didn't intend to hurt someone. It does seem as though they did not act prudently, and they were, therefore, negligent. If they have a liability policy, it would probably have to pay out assuming bodily injury to the child (which does not seem to be the case).

Yes, it would be a negligence action, and the carrier would certainly have a duty to defend and a duty to pay if the court rendered a final judgment against BLM that was upheld. However, I'm not sure they'd go that far. Let's put it this way. If they went to trial and lost, the carrier would probably appeal and ask the appellate courts to effectively derecognize the cause of action (a legal insufficiency the evidence ruling, a ruling that BLM had no duty to order is protestors not to stop traffic, etc.) before paying out.

However, I seriously doubt any company would insure BLM.

Lol. Can you blame them?

 

[Htown77]

This stupidity didn't happen 20 years ago or even 10 years because we didn't have this stinking hell of absurdity called Twitter.

The best are the people that associate Trump, a rich new yorker, with the confederate flag. That's my favorite stupid twitter association.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

And then you come across with idiotic articles like this discussing what's wrong with "all lives matter" - written by a white guy. To him, basically, if you use the phrase, you're either hostile to blacks, or at best, you're stupid.

I know there are plenty of good and well-meaning white liberals, but I also don't think I've ever seen a group of people more overcome with smugness and sanctimony in my life.

 

[theiioftx]

Yesterday, Shepherd Smith (biggest idiot on Fox) chastised Bobby Jindal for saying "All lives matter." He actually called it inflammatory rhetoric. The media is simply out of control at all levels.

 

[Horn6721]

Well This is a good start. The Congressional Black Caucus calls for peace and the targeting of police to stop, while the investigation is going on. I hope their message gets back to the black communities and to the BLM activists.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/congressional-black-caucus-stop-targeting-police/article/2596733

 

[mb227]

h

And this Trump is an anti-semite because they used a 6 pointed star for clip art in a tweet? How stupid are people today? Trump has a jewish grandchild - I can't say 100% that he's not racist against jewish people, but I'd say I'm 90% sure because of common sense. Are six-pointed stars offensive now? Trump is many disagreeable things. But as a grandfather of a jewish baby, he doesn't strike me as self-hating.

The other irony that they missed is that the six-pointed star is still used by many Sheriff's Departments...yet it only becomes anti-semitic when Trump staffers use it in a tweet. Mention the specific agencies that are found on the first page of a google search and the crickets chirp. I am unaware of ANY of those SJW's ragging on Trump having turned their claims towards law enforcement agencies...

 

[NJlonghorn]

The other irony that they missed is that the six-pointed star is still used by many Sheriff's Departments...yet it only becomes anti-semitic when Trump staffers use it in a tweet. Mention the specific agencies that are found on the first page of a google search and the crickets chirp. I am unaware of ANY of those SJW's ragging on Trump having turned their claims towards law enforcement agencies...

Those of you who are defending the original image (as opposed to Trump's retweet of the image) are naïve. The image came from a fringe, anti-Semitic website. It superimposes a Jewish star over a pile of cash and complains about corruption. This is a classic dog whistle, resonating clearly with those who think Jews are money-grubbing pigs, conspiring to control the financial world. The suggestion that the six-pointed star is a reference to a Sheriff's badge is somewhere between dubious and preposterous.

That said, Trump's retweet of the image appears to be completely innocent. I doubt that Trump or his staffer were aware of the image's anti-Semitic undertones, and I don't blame them for retweeting it. And, I think they did the right thing by taking it down promptly and replacing it with a similar tweet that removed the Star of David.

As I've said before, I don't worry that Trump himself is anti-Semitic. In fact, I'd be shocked if he is. I do worry, though, that Trump is giving anti-Semitic groups a vehicle to raise their profile and increase their influence. I see this as a perfect example of the phenomenon.

Trump appeals to people who preach hate. It is that simple.

 

[Horn6721]

NJ
Groups that preach hate like New Black Panthers BLM?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Those of you who are defending the original image (as opposed to Trump's retweet of the image) are naïve. The image came from a fringe, anti-Semitic website. It superimposes a Jewish star over a pile of cash and complains about corruption. This is a classic dog whistle, resonating clearly with those who think Jews are money-grubbing pigs, conspiring to control the financial world. The suggestion that the six-pointed star is a reference to a Sheriff's badge is somewhere between dubious and preposterous.

That said, Trump's retweet of the image appears to be completely innocent. I doubt that Trump or his staffer were aware of the image's anti-Semitic undertones, and I don't blame them for retweeting it. And, I think they did the right thing by taking it down promptly and replacing it with a similar tweet that removed the Star of David.

As I've said before, I don't worry that Trump himself is anti-Semitic. In fact, I'd be shocked if he is. I do worry, though, that Trump is giving anti-Semitic groups a vehicle to raise their profile and increase their influence. I see this as a perfect example of the phenomenon.

Trump appeals to people who preach hate. It is that simple.

From what I gathered, I don't know if this was actually a "retweet" or some random internet meme that an anti-Semite site also used. You can also argue that Hillary appeals to people who preach hate. That's probably an even easier connection to make.

But here's what I know. I wasted probably an hour of my life educating myself on this and hearing about it on the news because this stupidity was caused by social media. NJ, you, me and everyone else here are too smart to waste our time debating social media flamed controversies. Paul Ryan posted a selfie with probably 70+ Congressional interns - interns from both parties, and it was immediately attacked on social media as republican racism because most of the interns were white. Of course a handful of progressive representatives race baited by posting selfies with and thanking their two or three ethnic minority interns (which begs the question...the Ryan selfie was taken at a talk for all the interns of all the offices on the hill who applied for a ticket, why weren't these interns interested in going to the Speaker's event?). It's ridiculous we're talking about people getting upset over "selfies" at events they have no idea about.

We waste our time over some kind of social media war between Taylor Swift and future Presidential Candidate Kayne West.

The suggestion that the six-pointed star is a reference to a Sheriff's badge is somewhere between dubious and preposterous.

Maybe he thought nothing of it because anti-semitic symbology isn't really his hobby? I'll be honest with you, I didn't get it (wait is Hillary Jewish?) until someone pointed out all the connections...that money means jewish influence, etc., etc.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I wasted probably an hour of my life educating myself on this and hearing about it on the news because this stupidity was caused by social media. NJ, you, me and everyone else here are too smart to waste our time debating social media flamed controversies. Paul Ryan posted a selfie with probably 70+ Congressional interns - interns from both parties, and it was immediately attacked on social media as republican racism because most of the interns were white. Of course a handful of progressive representatives race baited by posting selfies with and thanking their two or three ethnic minority interns (which begs the question...the Ryan selfie was taken at a talk for all the interns of all the offices on the hill who applied for a ticket, why weren't these interns interested in going to the Speaker's event?). It's ridiculous we're talking about people getting upset over "selfies" at events they have no idea about.

We waste our time over some kind of social media war between Taylor Swift and future Presidential Candidate Kayne West.

I agree, by and large. Many of the complaints about social media, from both sides, are petty.

Maybe he thought nothing of it because anti-semitic symbology isn't really his hobby? I'll be honest with you, I didn't get it (wait is Hillary Jewish?) until someone pointed out all the connections...that money means jewish influence, etc., etc.

I'm not criticizing those who missed the symbolism. That's reasonable. I'm criticizing those who deny the symbolism after it is explained.

And no, Hillary isn't Jewish. She just conspires with us, apparently.

 

[iatrogenic]

Those of you who are defending the original image (as opposed to Trump's retweet of the image) are naïve. The image came from a fringe, anti-Semitic website. It superimposes a Jewish star over a pile of cash and complains about corruption. This is a classic dog whistle, resonating clearly with those who think Jews are money-grubbing pigs, conspiring to control the financial world. The suggestion that the six-pointed star is a reference to a Sheriff's badge is somewhere between dubious and preposterous.

That said, Trump's retweet of the image appears to be completely innocent. I doubt that Trump or his staffer were aware of the image's anti-Semitic undertones, and I don't blame them for retweeting it. And, I think they did the right thing by taking it down promptly and replacing it with a similar tweet that removed the Star of David.

As I've said before, I don't worry that Trump himself is anti-Semitic. In fact, I'd be shocked if he is. I do worry, though, that Trump is giving anti-Semitic groups a vehicle to raise their profile and increase their influence. I see this as a perfect example of the phenomenon.

Trump appeals to people who preach hate. It is that simple.

Preach hate of what?

 

[Statalyzer]

Milwaukee: A black criminal pointed a stolen firearm at a black police officer, and got shot by a black police officer, who was protecting a black neighborhood, and black residents responded by burning down their own black neighborhood because black lives matter.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Milwaukee: A black criminal pointed a stolen firearm at a black police officer, and got shot by a black police officer, who was protecting a black neighborhood, and black residents responded by burning down their own black neighborhood because black lives matter.

I think that for many of these folks, the political narrative is everything. The reasonableness of the officer's actions is irrelevant.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think that for many of these folks, the political narrative is everything.

I don't think it's even that well thought out. Some folks just want an excuse to loot and riot and tear stuff up. Doing it in the aftermath of a police shooting or an NBA championship gives them the best chance of facing no consequences.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think it's even that well thought out. Some folks just want an excuse to loot and riot and tear stuff up. Doing it in the aftermath of a police shooting or an NBA championship gives them the best chance of facing no consequences.

For the actual looters, you're probably right. In fact for some, they're just upset that they can't get their favorite ice cream.

 

[theiioftx]

The liberal narrative is that the race of the officer does not matter in this case. Police are now supposed to wait until they are shot at before shooting a felon with a firearm.

How do democrats get away with supporting criminals over police?

 

[Horn6721]

I see the sister of the thug is calling for the rioters to go destroy the Milwaukee suburbs.
That might not be such a good idea

 

[Clean]

A group from Chicago, the Communist Revolutionary Party, is busing its people to Milwaukee to help raise hell. Similar to what happened in Ferguson. Lots of the "protestors" were outside agitators with an agenda.

 

[Phil Elliott]

We are eventually going to have to authorize our police forces to put these people down with extreme prejudice before this will all stop. It's the same with ISIS et al - when will it get bad enough for us to nut up and do what needs to be done to stop it? It *can* be stopped, it will just be ugly.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This sort of thing is eventually going to reach a tipping point. Every major civil rights victory that blacks have enjoyed has come because white people aren't very tribal (at least relatively speaking), and that's true for the elimination of slavery, the passage of the Reconstruction amendments (13th - 15th Amendments), the ending of segregation, the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the enactment and tolerance for affirmative action, etc. The shift from involuntarily picking cotton for free to affirmative action would have not happened without a large number of white people being willing to put what they thought was morally right and just ahead of racial loyalty.

However, there has always been a limit to how much white people will tolerate, and that's true of white liberals as well. Keep in mind that most white liberals have never really advocated black empowerment and self-determination. They've advocated more of a benevolent plantation arrangement in which white liberals righteously take care of blacks and other minorities at a subsistence level, protect them from overtly hostile whites, and impose collective guilt on moderate whites to divert them from aligning with hostile whites in return for blacks helping white liberals gain and hold political power.

What happens when people who claim to represent blacks go ape **** or celebrate or condone people going ape **** like they are in Milwaukee and actually start attacking innocent people in a very public manner, it damages white liberals' credibility with white moderates who think it's wrong to physically assault and murder defenseless people, undermines white guilt, and encourages white tribalism. Frankly, that's dangerous to blacks in the long term, because whites are a majority, and when the majority gets tribal, it really sucks to be in the minority, particularly when that tribalism is combined with fear. That's why deep down I don't think relatively mainstream civil rights activists like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are particularly big fans of BLM. Obviously they have to be positive about them in public, but I'll bet that if they had their choice, BLM would go away.

 

[Htown77]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/15/opinions/milwaukee-shooting-police-implicit-bias-bailey/index.html

While we don't know exactly why that particular black police officer in Milwaukee shot Smith, who police say was armed and refused to drop his gun, we have enough data and research to know that the officer's skin color would not have inoculated him against the much-discussed implicit bias most often attributed to white officers. The truth is that nearly half of black people also harbor some level of implicit bias against fellow black people.

It turns out the problem is black people are racist against black people?

I think the real problem is this country is suffering from a leadership crisis. It is not limited to one group. The republicans currently cannot produce a leader as demonstrated by Trump, Ryan, McConnell, Boehner and the other bozos. The democrats cannot produce a good leader as demonstrated by Obama, Hillary and Pelosi (Hell Obama may be the best leader of any of those R or L named above and I do not think he is a good leader at all).

So should we be surprised that the current black civil rights movement cannot produce a good leader? MLK Jr. demonstrated good, successful leadership that advanced civil rights. BLM is doing everything MLK Jr. warned would cause more problems than solve. But, like i said, it is not just BLM missing an MLK Jr. The GOP and Dems are not producing anything close to the competency Truman, IKE, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan displayed no matter how good or bad/right or wrong you think these men were. Hell, I think the chances that W and Obama stack up well against either Trump or Hillary is pretty damn high... and sad. Simply put, there is a real lack of leadership, and you are seeing stupid, solution-less, mob mentality from a variety of groups and parties.

Yes, there is a problem with police violence. Yes, it disproportionately affects black people. Yes reform needs to happen. Rioting does not lead to reform. Protesting actual justified use or force does not lead to reform. Trying to justify riots against justified police force as "black cops are racist against black people" is just stupid and not productive.

Unless competent leaders can emerge for the reps, the dems, BLM, and others... we will not find solutions, at least not good solutions.

 

[Phil Elliott]

They've advocated more of a benevolent plantation arrangement in which white liberals righteously take care of blacks and other minorities at a subsistence level, protect them from overtly hostile whites, and impose collective guilt on moderate whites to divert them from aligning with hostile whites in return for blacks helping white liberals gain and hold political power.

That is the most coherent and well-thought-out description of the Democrat party's treatment of blacks over the past 50 years that I have ever read. Seriously.

Unless competent leaders can emerge for the reps, the dems, BLM, and others... we will not find solutions, at least not good solutions.

I don't think it's that such leaders do not exist, it's that they have been shouted out of existence by the MSM and the Democrats. Anything you or I might deem "common sense" in dealing with these thugs would be immediately denounced as racist and bigoted. Look what happened to Bill Cosby when he suggested that maybe blacks might ought to clean up their own act and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.

 

[mchammer]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ots-provide-unique-opportunity-reform-police/

 

[Hollandtx]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/e...-claimed-was-racist-185220311.html#mycomments

When a liberal open and out gay woman catches flak for a funny meme as being racist, perhaps we are near a tipping point.
My thoughts are just good gracious, when will we ever stop for searching with the magnifying glass for something to be offended by.
This really takes the cake, including some of the comments. "How dare you". :You are comparing him to your mule", etc. etc. Comments such as these diminish true racism.
Cry wolf, people. Continue to be offended by innocent things like this, and you will lose what support you have from people like myself. Situations that are truly racist--from people of all colors.
Bigotry is a better term in some cases. I have to shake my head at all the people (mostly women) griping about how anti-woman the Olympic commentary has been (ex: the swimmer who had a baby just a few months ago, and got back into shape. Why are they referring her as the swimming mom?!? Do they refer to Michael Phelps as the swimming dad? and other ridiculous comments) but as soon as a black woman wins a medal in swimming, let the "black woman wins first medal ever" headlines begin.
I don't think for an instant when Simone touched and saw she won gold, her mind went to race. I know mine didn't. At first it was, "way to go Texas American!". I did think that not many swimmers were black in passing.
I get it that it is the first, but when will we quit keeping score? If we want equality, the "first black___" needs to stop.

I just hate the double standard.

 

[Clean]

Heard Trump appealing to African-Americans in his Wisconsin speech yesterday. Paraphrasing, he said that that blacks have supported the Democrats for decades and what has it gotten them? Just poverty, welfare, and high crime. He suggested that they try the other side for a change. At least, if significant numbers of African-Americans did vote Republican, maybe the Dems would appreciate their vote more in the next election.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Paraphrasing, he said that that blacks have supported the Democrats for decades and what has it gotten them? Just poverty, welfare, and high crime.

That is good news, and something that should be said by EVERY Republican, but they are all too scared to touch it. I bet I won't read about this in the NYT except maybe with some comment attached about how racist DT is.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Here is just a snippet of his speech - please somebody tell me what is not correct or factual about this:

The main victims of these riots are law-abiding African-American citizens living in these neighborhoods. It is their jobs, their homes, their schools and communities which will suffer as a result.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration.

The narrative that has been pushed aggressively for years now by our current Administration, and pushed by my opponent Hillary Clinton, is a false one. The problem in our poorest communities is not that there are too many police, the problem is that there are not enough police.

It's about high time this be said by ANYONE in a position to actually do something about it.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Here is just a snippet of his speech - please somebody tell me what is not correct or factual about this:

The main victims of these riots are law-abiding African-American citizens living in these neighborhoods. It is their jobs, their homes, their schools and communities which will suffer as a result.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration.

These two statements are entirely factual. Both Clinton and Trump say these things often, and they are 100% right to do so.

The narrative that has been pushed aggressively for years now by our current Administration, and pushed by my opponent Hillary Clinton, is a false one. The problem in our poorest communities is not that there are too many police, the problem is that there are not enough police.

Here, Trump is rebutting a false premise. To the best of my knowledge, Hillary has never said that there are too many cops. She has repeatedly said that the police and the communities they serve need to do a better job of communicating and working together, and that cops need to be better trained, etc. But saying, or suggesting, that she is anti-cop is unfair.

Does she go far enough in the direction of being pro-cop? I don't think so, and I'm sure you don't either. But that point is far more nuanced than the ******** Trump is spewing.

It's about high time this be said by ANYONE in a position to actually do something about it.

You mean, someone like President Obama, who says these things regularly? Again, his policies are far from perfect (intentional understatement), but he talks more forcefully about thuggery than he does about police misconduct.

 

[I35]

You mean, someone like President Obama, who says these things regularly? Again, his policies are far from perfect (intentional understatement), but he talks more forcefully about thuggery than he does about police misconduct.

You're kidding right?