Englebert

I half-way agree, and obviously half-way disagree. I agree that part of the "honor" should go to Hillary and her baggage, but the more significant contribution should be laid at the feet of the mainstream media that unfairly demonized Bush and unfairly patronized Obama. The American voter was finally motivated to say enough is enough.

Wow, a lot of big font words...but you still didn't answer the question. Can you be fired for refusing to wear clothes at work? Can you be fired for bringing a gun to work? Can you be fired for cursing your boss? Can you be fired for making disparaging remarks about the company you work for? I think even you should be able to understand this simple point. Can your boss fire you for breaking company rules? Let's see how many unrelated topics you can list instead of answering the question.

The American voter has the ability to throw out "bought and paid for" politicians. The American people can then vote in people that can root out and prosecute "bought and paid for" politicians. If bankers and corporations control this country, it is because the voters have allowed them to. The government takeover of the Healthcare system is an attempt to control the people, all of the people, not just benefit the medical industry. And what am I supposed to "see". You know nothing about me or my family or what we've been through, so I am not enamored with your profiling attempts. If you want a civil discussion, leave personal attacks out of the conversation. I have no problem resorting to that Liberal tactic and will respond in kind.

I am under the impression, which has been expressed by many, many people, that the Trump election is a direct result from people being fed up with the way Bush was unfairly criticized and demonized, and were frustrated that he did not fight back against the unfair treatment. These same people, me included, witnessed this pathetic treatment, then watched for eight years as Obama became the most coddled president in American history. Many voters wanted someone who would fight back, and Trump fit the bill with his crass and "politically incorrect" speech. In my opinion, shared by many, Trump's election win was a direct result of the Left's selective unfair treatment of Bush and coddling of Obama. So the Left has no one to blame but themselves. And when you say "you believe that Trump will say and do anything to anybody to further his agenda, and everything he does will benefit people like himself"...I believe that statement is more aptly applied to Obama. Obama was/is an ideologue that will practice deception and engage in unscrupulous behavior to further the Liberal agenda. That is documented. Trump has no allegiance to any party or belief system, and is attempting to do what he feels is right for the American people, thus drawing scorn from the Left and the Right. The Left propaganda machine is in full force, and the Right does not have his back. And this is coming from someone that is not a fan of his.

I asked rolltides these questions, but he did not answer. Since you absolutely agree with his post, you should be able to answer them. So here goes. Can you give some examples of how these bankers, corporations and weapons manufacturers control this country? And what are the solutions? And if we throw out the old regime, how can we guarantee that the new regime won't follow in the same footprints? Is more government the answer? If so, how do we throw out the current bums and replace them with future bums?

What about it? Are you in possession of some unbiased intelligence on the subject that you would like to share?

Was that quote worth your time? Better yet, do you feel the other board members should have to waste their time reading that comment? Do you feel this type of comment is exactly why many of the regular board posters no longer participate, or do you feel that the Conservative members are the source of their departure?

Can you point to precisely where the Constitution grants this "right"? And will you please answer my questions: Can your boss fire you if you refuse to wear clothing at work? Can your boss ban you from bringing a gun to his workplace?

Who came up with the notion that if you work hard you would get rich? Do you purposely misinterpret posts for political reasons, or are you just willfully stupid?

You made the claim. If you are adamant about this notion you should have some supporting evidence as to why you reached this conclusion. And while you are producing the evidence, please include the answers to the rest of my questions.

Can you give some examples of how these bankers, corporations and weapons manufacturers control this country? And what are the solutions? And if we throw out the old regime, how can we guarantee that the new regime won't follow in the same footprints? Is more government the answer? If so, how do we throw out the current bums and replace them with future bums?

Can you please point to one time Trump has given even the slightest inclination that he would do away with the "pre-existing" clause? If you can, I applaud you. If you can't, please explain where this notion came from. And please, please, please answer stevenash's questions. I would love to hear what your mental gymnastics can muster for a reply. History has shown you will not reply, but simply deflect and/or run. Let's see.

This report can be completely wrong but still contains more evidence than the Trump/Russia collusion story that the Liberals bought hook, line and sinker. That is what deserves the extended (and condescending) LOL. Why haven't the Liberals insisted and profoundly demanded that the "17" intelligence agencies give one shred of evidence of the Trump/Russia collusion tin foil theory? The Liberals are in full need of the extended LOL slapdown. And I'm sure you understand why I put the "17" in quotes. If not, please do a simple Bing search to understand how the Liberal media pushed the false narrative of 17 intelligence agencies confirming the Trump/Russia narrative.

I'm sure we can expect the "tin foil hats" comments or the "not a reliable source" comments. We might even be treated to the "you have no evidence" comments. And of course any forthcoming comment will be accompanied with the "but Trump lies" deflection. This is assuming that we get any comments at all from the Liberals. This information has been trickling out for the last few months to a year, but the Liberal media will not dare give it any credence, though they might just have to acknowledge it now. And I wouldn't worry about the current absence of Liberals on this site. As soon as the first Republican gets in hot water the Liberals will return in full force.

What you are saying is something that Captain Obvious would respond to with "Well Duh!" I don't like speaking for the rest of the board, but I'm fairly highly confident that not one single board member thinks that anothers life experiences are somehow the same as theirs. Not one single person would say all races are treated the same, and not one single person would say that people within a race are treated the same. For you to somehow put yourself on a pedestal and decree that it is so is a little obnoxious, and frankly insulting. Then to top it off, you make an emphatic statement that each should admit the obvious, which can only serve to divide. And you are sounding more and more like a typical racist that thinks Black people are incapable of achieving the moral and intellectual level of a White person. Are you seriously stating that a Black man is incapable of distinguishing between the attitude of Whites 50+ years ago and the attitude of Whites today? Do you feel that White kids today have a moral responsibility of shunning the beliefs of their (great) grandpas, but find no fault with (and even condone) Black youths harboring and emulating beliefs of their (great) grandpas? That sounds highly condescending and insulting to Blacks...strike that...everyone. And one more thing, you have not made a "very reasonable argument" on any level. You basically said that Whites don't understand Blacks and Whites should admit that. That is nowhere near a reasonable argument in any sense of the word. If you did make a reasonable argument, please restate it because I definitely missed it. And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question as to why Blacks feel a distrust towards Black cops. I'm pretty sure I know the reason you avoided answering that question, but am still anxious to hear your wording.

So you feel that something that happened in the past can be used as an excuse to inject emotionality into a topic of discussion. Do you really think answers to problems can be discussed rationally and solutions found when you continue to push the division angle? It is painfully clear who is advocating for division. Do you really think a large number of people in the Black community look at Black cops as oppressive due to slavery?

I don't think anyone is denying or needs to admit that everybody has different experiences. That's almost like soliciting an admittance that 1+1=2. I can admit that I have personally been negatively impacted by Affirmative Action. Do you think that I need an affirmation from all minorities in order to discuss the topic with an open mind? Does my experiences give credence to any unrealistic or false narratives or different viewpoints I might harbor? Does my experiences excuse any unfounded hypothesis I might argue? And if you say yes to any of these things, are you not setting a lower standard for me than for everyone else?

I interpreted your remarks as that I should admit that Blacks have different experiences when dealing with cops, and these differences are stemmed from racism. If that assumption is wrong, please explain what you want me to admit to.

Who made the argument that there were no legitimate cases of injustices against Blacks? I must have missed that one. And who made the claim that statistics don't show any significant differences in ticketing and arrest rates for Blacks. There is a huge difference between the races. The point I made was that if stops/tickets/arrests are motivated by racism, then the race of the cop should show significant differences. That is, if a White cop is racist, he would logically stop/ticket/arrest Blacks at a higher rate than a Black cop who is not racially motivated to stop/ticket/arrest Blacks. Let's see if I can give a clearer example. If a White cop has a total of 100 stops in a period, and of these stops 75 of them where to Blacks and 25 of them where to Whites, then a point can be raised that maybe the cop is using skin color as a factor to stop people. If you replace that White cop with a Black cop (all other factors being the same), and that Black cop stops 75 Black people and 25 White people, then evidence of racism no longer exists. And that's what statistics have shown, that Black cops stop Black people at the same rate that White cops stop Black people. So the idea that Black people are stopped at a higher rate than White people because of racism is not supported. But somehow you want me/us to admit that is really the case. Finding common ground is a totally different angle than telling someone to admit something.

Like I said in my last sentence, my tone was not meant to be confrontational. Secondly, and this is confrontational, where exactly in my post (or tone) did you imagine that I don't believe there are instances where Black people get treated differently than White people by police. In fact, I pretty much laid out a plethora of (but very few) factors that mitigate a stop. Why won't you admit that you don't know what factors are involved, and that skin color might be a major factor or it might be a very minor factor or not a factor at all. You want me to admit something I do not know to be true, and you want me to admit it because you think it is true. That is why I brought of the statistics of Black cops versus White cops. If skin color of the person is a major factor, you would think that White cops would stop/ticket/arrest Blacks at a higher rate if racism is the underlining issue. But Black cops stop/ticket/arrest Black people at the same rate as White cops. That flies in the face of "White cops stopping Black people just because they are Black" as being racially motivated. Thirdly, in your third paragraph you chose to use a lecturing tone by telling me "if you read closely", then proceeded to describe basically the same thing I said. I'm curious as to why you prefaced that paragraph with "if you read closely" when I clearly outlined the same thing. Is that the confrontational tone you are using to chastise me and the rest of the board. And fourthly, I'm just mesmerized and extremely perplexed that you would have to audacity to somehow pull out of thin air some foreign concept that I'm opposed to stopping acts of injustice. What is this notion rooted in? And it sounds to me that you want everyone to admit that instances of injustice only apply to Black people? Why won't you admit that instances of injustice also happen to people of all colors? And why won't you admit that it is hard, if not impossible, to have a logical debate when you are being lectured to.

I agree with you here. Using an inflammatory or disgusting or shocking method can be the most powerful and effective way to draw attention to a topic, but you must be able to pivot the focus from that initial shock to the real topic. PETA, along with some others, have been very successful over the years of doing just that. If you can't pivot, and the focus of discussion continues to be the shock value, then you've pretty much lost, and in fact, can have the opposite effect, or the Streisand Effect.

Your asking both sides to admit what exactly? And why can't progress be made until both admit this unknown point you are trying to make? Why do you feel a Black person will be treated differently than a White person? Studies have shown that the rate of tickets/traffic stops/arrests are basically no different between Black cops and White cops. So what exactly are your trying to say or point to that signifies that Blacks will be treated differently than Whites? And what is this double standard that you allude to? I'm baffled by this statement. Are you saying that a Black person is more prone to harsher treatment than a White person when stopped by a cop? Does this apply when the officer is Black? If so, why? Do you feel that a Black cop will treat a Black person harsher than a White cop will treat a White person? Please explain, and please give supporting evidence. And now let's talk about "driving while Black". Is this "theory" still applicable when the officer is Black? What do the stats say? Do Black people know what it is like to be "driving while White"? Does the officer's skin color make a difference? Does the tone/attitude of the person stopped play a factor? And does this tone/attitude play a factor in regards to the race of the officer? Is the culture of one race a factor? Is time of day a factor? Is the area stopped a factor, especially if the person stopped is of a different race than the race of the majority in the surrounding neighborhood? Is clothing a factor? Is sex a factor? Is age a factor (both of the officer and the person stopped)? My point is that we know nothing about why Blacks have a higher incarceration/ticketed/stopped rate than Whites. And to say that one side has to admit anything before we know the slightest causation is absolutely the wrong path...and potentially harmful to advancement on the subject. But I would love to hear some answers to the above questions. And I'm not trying to bash you here. I was getting set to unleash these set of questions on 2wedge, but he chose to run. I probably inadvertently used the tone reserved for him.

I was just watching a rerun of "Dirty Harry". A line in the movie was the police chief responding to a question of if he will pay a ransom. The response was "The City of San Francisco does not pay criminals not to commit crimes. Instead, we pay a police department." Maybe someone should play that clip to the Sacramento citizens right before the next city council election.

Name one! And let's hear your backing evidence to support that claim so we can all get a big laugh. Such unmitigated foolishness that's so embarrassing that normal people would have a tough time recovering, but I suspect that you will just keep spouting your same lies without an ounce of moral dignity.

Name one person that doesn't believe there are wackos from every race. You Liberal leaders are making you look more foolish that you already are.