Will the CNN Demobait be good, awful, stupid or what?

[michigancat]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/black-lives-matter-loury-mcwhorter/409117/

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't have a problem with the BLM movement in theory, although it should be more appropriately named "Black Lives Also Matter." But you're deluding yourself if you really think BLM is putting as much emphasis on black on black crime as they are on perceived police abuses. Black on black crime is a far bigger problem, but that's not where the BLM protestors focus, and you know it. Another massive problem for black lives is the near extinction of the nuclear black family (and please, don't even try to blame that on "mass incarceration"). BLM doesn't seem to care about this at all.

As for abortion, it's not "racist" to point out that black people are perpetrating a virtual genocide upon themselves. But I guess those lives don't matter.

Again, you are deluding yourself if you really think that BLM isn't myopically focused on perceived police misconduct. Follow the protests.

Criminals committing "black on black crime" aren't government institutions funded by taxpayers. That seems like it should be an obvious distinction, but you seem to fail to grasp it.

It is an irrelevant distinction as it pertains to the theoretical purpose of Black Lives Matter. The purpose of BLM - in theory - is as MIR describes above. It is to raise awareness that black lives have been devalued, both by government and black people themselves. That is a highly valid point. Unfortunately, BLM has only focused on perceived police misconduct, so it has not served its theoretical purpose.

[star seed 7]

The jury is still out on this police misconduct thing for ksuw

[michigancat]

I don't have a problem with the BLM movement in theory, although it should be more appropriately named "Black Lives Also Matter." But you're deluding yourself if you really think BLM is putting as much emphasis on black on black crime as they are on perceived police abuses. Black on black crime is a far bigger problem, but that's not where the BLM protestors focus, and you know it. Another massive problem for black lives is the near extinction of the nuclear black family (and please, don't even try to blame that on "mass incarceration"). BLM doesn't seem to care about this at all.

As for abortion, it's not "racist" to point out that black people are perpetrating a virtual genocide upon themselves. But I guess those lives don't matter.

Again, you are deluding yourself if you really think that BLM isn't myopically focused on perceived police misconduct. Follow the protests.

Criminals committing "black on black crime" aren't government institutions funded by taxpayers. That seems like it should be an obvious distinction, but you seem to fail to grasp it.

It is an irrelevant distinction as it pertains to the theoretical purpose of Black Lives Matter. The purpose of BLM - in theory - is as MIR describes above. It is to raise awareness that black lives have been devalued, both by government and black people themselves. That is a highly valid point. Unfortunately, BLM has only focused on perceived police misconduct, so it has not served its theoretical purpose.

Police brutality is a great place to start trying to influence change, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's rough ridin' absurd that an organization dedicated to ending police brutality of a race is so widely criticized.

[Tobias]

The jury is still out on this police misconduct thing for ksuw

the BLM people lay it on too thick at the perceived murder scenes and I've never ONCE seen one at braedyn's PTA meeting

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The jury is still out on this police misconduct thing for ksuw

In many cases, the jury is in - metaphorically speaking - and has concluded that no brutality occurred. See, for example, the Michael Brown case that helped give rise to BLM. That's not to say police never use excessive force - they certainly sometimes do, regardless of race.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't have a problem with the BLM movement in theory, although it should be more appropriately named "Black Lives Also Matter." But you're deluding yourself if you really think BLM is putting as much emphasis on black on black crime as they are on perceived police abuses. Black on black crime is a far bigger problem, but that's not where the BLM protestors focus, and you know it. Another massive problem for black lives is the near extinction of the nuclear black family (and please, don't even try to blame that on "mass incarceration"). BLM doesn't seem to care about this at all.

As for abortion, it's not "racist" to point out that black people are perpetrating a virtual genocide upon themselves. But I guess those lives don't matter.

Again, you are deluding yourself if you really think that BLM isn't myopically focused on perceived police misconduct. Follow the protests.

Criminals committing "black on black crime" aren't government institutions funded by taxpayers. That seems like it should be an obvious distinction, but you seem to fail to grasp it.

It is an irrelevant distinction as it pertains to the theoretical purpose of Black Lives Matter. The purpose of BLM - in theory - is as MIR describes above. It is to raise awareness that black lives have been devalued, both by government and black people themselves. That is a highly valid point. Unfortunately, BLM has only focused on perceived police misconduct, so it has not served its theoretical purpose.

Police brutality is a great place to start trying to influence change, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's rough ridin' absurd that an organization dedicated to ending police brutality of a race is so widely criticized.

And yet it is such a relatively small and rare example of devaluing black lives, compared to black on black crime, black abortion rates, and the disintegration of the black family.

[michigancat]

I don't have a problem with the BLM movement in theory, although it should be more appropriately named "Black Lives Also Matter." But you're deluding yourself if you really think BLM is putting as much emphasis on black on black crime as they are on perceived police abuses. Black on black crime is a far bigger problem, but that's not where the BLM protestors focus, and you know it. Another massive problem for black lives is the near extinction of the nuclear black family (and please, don't even try to blame that on "mass incarceration"). BLM doesn't seem to care about this at all.

As for abortion, it's not "racist" to point out that black people are perpetrating a virtual genocide upon themselves. But I guess those lives don't matter.

Again, you are deluding yourself if you really think that BLM isn't myopically focused on perceived police misconduct. Follow the protests.

Criminals committing "black on black crime" aren't government institutions funded by taxpayers. That seems like it should be an obvious distinction, but you seem to fail to grasp it.

It is an irrelevant distinction as it pertains to the theoretical purpose of Black Lives Matter. The purpose of BLM - in theory - is as MIR describes above. It is to raise awareness that black lives have been devalued, both by government and black people themselves. That is a highly valid point. Unfortunately, BLM has only focused on perceived police misconduct, so it has not served its theoretical purpose.

Police brutality is a great place to start trying to influence change, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's rough ridin' absurd that an organization dedicated to ending police brutality of a race is so widely criticized.

And yet it is such a relatively small and rare example of devaluing black lives, compared to black on black crime, black abortion rates, and the disintegration of the black family.

good grief you're a dense one

[star seed 7]

The jury is still out on this police misconduct thing for ksuw

In many cases, the jury is in - metaphorically speaking - and has concluded that no brutality occurred. See, for example, the Michael Brown case that helped give rise to BLM. That's not to say police never use excessive force - they certainly sometimes do, regardless of race.

You mean the court system and internal police investigations systemically let perceived police misconduct slide? Well that's all the proof I need that blm are just racist agitators

[SdK]

Why is black on black crime ever brought up?

Well if your movement is called "Black Lives Matter" you would you think it might focus on the biggest non-natural causes of black deaths: black on black crime and abortion.

Ok.

[SdK]

Why is black on black crime ever brought up?

Well if your movement is called "Black Lives Matter" you would you think it might focus on the biggest non-natural causes of black deaths: black on black crime and abortion.

Ok.

It just seems to me like a veiled (thinly) way of accusing a group of savagery. Like they need to be civilized. Etc. And based on your commentary in the abortion thread about it being barbaric, I am only furthered in thinking that.

That makes me sad.

[Asteriskhead]

I don't have a problem with the BLM movement in theory, although it should be more appropriately named "Black Lives Also Matter." But you're deluding yourself if you really think BLM is putting as much emphasis on black on black crime as they are on perceived police abuses. Black on black crime is a far bigger problem, but that's not where the BLM protestors focus, and you know it. Another massive problem for black lives is the near extinction of the nuclear black family (and please, don't even try to blame that on "mass incarceration"). BLM doesn't seem to care about this at all.

As for abortion, it's not "racist" to point out that black people are perpetrating a virtual genocide upon themselves. But I guess those lives don't matter.

Again, you are deluding yourself if you really think that BLM isn't myopically focused on perceived police misconduct. Follow the protests.

Criminals committing "black on black crime" aren't government institutions funded by taxpayers. That seems like it should be an obvious distinction, but you seem to fail to grasp it.

It is an irrelevant distinction as it pertains to the theoretical purpose of Black Lives Matter. The purpose of BLM - in theory - is as MIR describes above. It is to raise awareness that black lives have been devalued, both by government and black people themselves. That is a highly valid point. Unfortunately, BLM has only focused on perceived police misconduct, so it has not served its theoretical purpose.

Police brutality is a great place to start trying to influence change, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's rough ridin' absurd that an organization dedicated to ending police brutality of a race is so widely criticized.

And yet it is such a relatively small and rare example of devaluing black lives, compared to black on black crime, black abortion rates, and the disintegration of the black family.

you are the worst.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Why is black on black crime ever brought up?

Well if your movement is called "Black Lives Matter" you would you think it might focus on the biggest non-natural causes of black deaths: black on black crime and abortion.

Ok.

It just seems to me like a veiled (thinly) way of accusing a group of savagery. Like they need to be civilized. Etc. And based on your commentary in the abortion thread about it being barbaric, I am only furthered in thinking that.

That makes me sad.

Well, abortion is savagery, but that's not really my point. We're talking about devaluing lives. Not sure why you have to take that in a racist direction.

[sys]

Not sure why you have to take that in a racist direction.

the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[MakeItRain]

Only dumb people don't realize they want Joe to run because they are afraid of Hillary's legal trouble.

Hillary doesn't have legal trouble, unless you think the Republicans in Congress know something that the justice department doesn't.

It is a fact that Hillary had hundreds of emails containing classified information on her private server. Again, this is a fact. How do we know this? Because the State Department has now gone back and redacted those emails because they contain classified information.

Hillary has offered two defenses: (1) the emails weren't marked as classified, and (2) she therefore didn't know they were classified. In this way, she hopes to avoid felony charges.

It is an extremely weak defense. First, whether the emails were marked as classified is both irrelevant and dishonest. Irrelevant because high level information is classified the moment it comes into existence regardless of marking. Dishonest because the emails couldn't possibly have been marked as classified because they were hidden in her private server!

As for her feigned ignorance that the information was classified, this is a ludicrous claim. She was sending emails containing DoD satellite photos. She was sending emails to other world leaders discussing countries like North Korea (contents now redacted).

She is in a boatload of legal trouble. It remains to be seen whether she can pull some strings behind the scenes to avoid indictment, but I don't think she can. The case is just too obvious.

I'm not defending what she did or her rationale, what I'm telling you is none of what you described will end up in charges, therefore she doesn't have "legal trouble."

[MakeItRain]

Abortion isn't a black issue, there is also the matter of the debate of what constitutes life. There are absolutely people within the black lives matter movement who have differing opinions on abortion.

Now as far as what the emphasis is or should be, who cares? Police brutality, black on black crime, mass incarceration, educational funding inequities, etc. are all symptoms of the disease. It's more convenient for you and others like you to focus on the symptoms when the focus of the disease needs to be the cure.

Finally please don't tell me what the focus of the movement is, trust me, I know more about this than whatever representation of us you may see in the media. You seeing signs at protests when a cop kills someone isn't close to the totality of what this movement means. If you are sincere about knowing about this heed what I'm telling you because I'm a much better source than whatever else you're reading.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The fact of the matter is that poor peoples' lives do not matter.  As evidenced by how societies all over the world have dealt with poor people forever. I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention. Also, Santa isn't real.

You can pretend it's a race thing. It's not. It's a poor thing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Webb just announced he's dropping out. Could this be the major break Lincoln Chaffee has been waiting for?

[star seed 7]

Not gEing here, you have a really weird obsession with Lincoln Chaffee

[mocat]

the Ryan + Colin comparo was absolutely perfect. that's all Chaffee is to me

[sonofdaxjones]

Just a little newsflash for some of you hardcore Hillary apologists:  DHS/FBI doesn't investigate political posturing.   

Now maybe the politicians at Justice posing as our nations chief (politically appointed) law enforcement officers engage in partisan politics and a la carte social justice.   But the actual investigators, not so much.

It's hilarious to think that Dems are now using the "This investigation costs too much money" shtick.   

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Not gEing here, you have a really weird obsession with Lincoln Chaffee

Did I mention the Dem field is so thin that Lincoln Chaffee was one of only five candidates on stage? It's literally Hillary Or Bust (unless Uncle Joe gets in).

[star seed 7]

I'm sure the democrats wouldn't have much of a problem throwing 10 more <1% no-names out there, but apparently 2 is enough for them

[Rage Against the McKee]

Not gEing here, you have a really weird obsession with Lincoln Chaffee

Did I mention the Dem field is so thin that Lincoln Chaffee was one of only five candidates on stage? It's literally Hillary Or Bust (unless Uncle Joe gets in).

Chaffee is no worse than Huckabee.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Darn. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/23/chafee-ends-democratic-bid-for-president/

Ok Democrats, you're now down to three choices: (1) an ancient crank self-proclaimed socialist, (2) a former governor of Maryland, and (3) a congenital liar and horrible person who exposed state secrets to hackers in order to avoid FOIA requests.