Baltimore Is A Democrat Mess They're Trying To Blame On The Cops

[paulitician]

Been awhile

So you don't actually know what you're talking about. Great, now shut the fuck up.

and i won't be returning.

Then it does not concern you. Go about your business.

Ok.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm explaining the logic of the discussion.

Not accurately methinks. We'd have to have word from the street to make such a conclusion but everything I've heard points to police overreach being the impetus. And IIRC three of the officers charged by the DA are black.

No, the impetus is race. They aren't protesting cops profiling and allegedly abusing whites. So these riots are about blackness while the sports riots are done mostly by people who happen to be white and not in the name of whiteness. Kinda like a Charlie the Tuna misinterpretation.
As for three cops being black, that will be problematic for the demagogues in office who foment and perpetuate the race problem.

Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.

Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Try harder man. Roshawn is pretending that a riot is ok as long as its not about race.

Roshawn: "Hey, why are you burning that car? Is it yours?"

Rioter: "Bro, my team lost and no this isnt my car"

Roshawn: "Whew, I thought this was about black people. No problem, carry on"

I never excused any riot regardless of its motivation. I live next door to and have had to deal with the riots and the school that fashioned the trend.
You are a poor debater.

 

[Pogo]

Trillions have been poured into places like inner-city Baltimore and we've got Freddy Gray to show for it. If that's not defeat of liberal doctrine I can't imagine what could be.

"Trillions millions have been poured into places like inner-city Baltimore and we've got Freddy Gray to show for it. If that's not defeat of somehow related to liberal doctrine I can't imagine what how it could be.

--- nor can I define it. But I'll keep on crowing the meme as long as my handlers tell me to."

All fixed.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not accurately methinks. We'd have to have word from the street to make such a conclusion but everything I've heard points to police overreach being the impetus. And IIRC three of the officers charged by the DA are black.

No, the impetus is race. They aren't protesting cops profiling and allegedly abusing whites. So these riots are about blackness while the sports riots are done mostly by people who happen to be white and not in the name of whiteness. Kinda like a Charlie the Tuna misinterpretation.
As for three cops being black, that will be problematic for the demagogues in office who foment and perpetuate the race problem.

Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.

Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Try harder man. Roshawn is pretending that a riot is ok as long as its not about race.

Roshawn: "Hey, why are you burning that car? Is it yours?"

Rioter: "Bro, my team lost and no this isnt my car"

Roshawn: "Whew, I thought this was about black people. No problem, carry on"

I never excused any riot regardless of its motivation. I live next door to and have had to deal with the riots and the school that fashioned the trend.
You are a poor debater.

Well its hard to debate someone who changes the meaning of riot to mean "being about race" and calls riots by whites "celebrations" even when they riot after losing

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, the impetus is race. They aren't protesting cops profiling and allegedly abusing whites. So these riots are about blackness while the sports riots are done mostly by people who happen to be white and not in the name of whiteness. Kinda like a Charlie the Tuna misinterpretation.
As for three cops being black, that will be problematic for the demagogues in office who foment and perpetuate the race problem.

Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.

Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Try harder man. Roshawn is pretending that a riot is ok as long as its not about race.

Roshawn: "Hey, why are you burning that car? Is it yours?"

Rioter: "Bro, my team lost and no this isnt my car"

Roshawn: "Whew, I thought this was about black people. No problem, carry on"

I never excused any riot regardless of its motivation. I live next door to and have had to deal with the riots and the school that fashioned the trend.
You are a poor debater.

Well its hard to debate someone who changes the meaning of riot to mean "being about race" and calls riots by whites "celebrations" even when they riot after losing

No, that's you twisting words to fit a defeated attempted argument.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, the impetus is race. They aren't protesting cops profiling and allegedly abusing whites. So these riots are about blackness while the sports riots are done mostly by people who happen to be white and not in the name of whiteness. Kinda like a Charlie the Tuna misinterpretation.
As for three cops being black, that will be problematic for the demagogues in office who foment and perpetuate the race problem.

Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.

Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Where do you see that?
Considering half the instigating police are themselves black, that doesn't add up. No, the targets are black. The police were long ago integrated.

The "targets" that you refer to are CRIMINALS! If the Baltimore Police were targeting blacks then you'd be inferring that the black Police Chief and those black Police officers were complicit in racism. They didn't target someone because he was black...they targeted him because he was in a high crime area...they knew him to have a long history of drug related crimes...and when they showed up he took off running.

"Targets" means in the active perception. Try reading the context first -- the tangent was about what the impetus for the riots is. To get at that we have to get inside the rioters' collective head. "Targets" is how they see themselves. What the police's perspective is is irrelevant to that.

Did you purposely try to make that post as incomprehensible as you could, Pogo? Let me guess...you're one of those people that believes if they use flowery phrases...they can hide the fact that they've failed to respond with a credible argument?

 

[Oldstyle]

Where's the link that supports your Bullshit argument that cops are saying otherwise?

The account is provided in charging documents filed in District Court, where officer Garrett Miller wrote that Gray was stopped because he "fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence." When Gray, 25, was stopped, they found a knife clipped to the inside of his front pants pocket and placed him under arrest.

"The defendant was arrested without force or incident," Miller wrote. "During transport to Western District via wagon transport the defendant suffered a medical emergency and was immediately transported to Shock Trauma via medic."

Freddie Gray repeatedly asked for medical care police said at Monday conference - Baltimore Sun

now who do you believe and why?

Explain to me why they had to drag his ass to the van.

First, why do you keep saying he resisted arrest when its not true?

Dude, when you run from the Police it's the epitome of "resisting arrest".

Take it up with the cops...you should let them know they were wrong

Are you still claiming that running from the Police isn't a crime? I'm sorry but you're the one who's wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm still waiting to hear Pogo explain why liberal Democratic politicians vote against funding Charter Schools and school vouchers. He DEMANDED to be provided with a difference between how Democrats and Republicans govern...I provided one...and he declared it to be a "straw man" and ran away from answering it. Now he's back crowing about how nobody can answer his question. And why does he KNOW that it's a "straw man"? Because he knows a teacher "intimately"! Seriously...that was his response!

 

[Pogo]

I'm still waiting to hear Pogo explain why liberal Democratic politicians vote against funding Charter Schools and school vouchers. He DEMANDED to be provided with a difference between how Democrats and Republicans govern...I provided one...and he declared it to be a "straw man" and ran away from answering it. Now he's back crowing about how nobody can answer his question. And why does he KNOW that it's a "straw man"? Because he knows a teacher "intimately"! Seriously...that was his response!

I did no such thing.
We are not talking about charter schools. We have never been talking about charter schools. Charter schools (or any other brand) have nothing to do with civil unrest or how some entity affiliated with political party X or Y governs a city. And no, my reference to a teacher was related to some slobbering drivel you posted about "unions". Which is also irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.

Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Where do you see that?
Considering half the instigating police are themselves black, that doesn't add up. No, the targets are black. The police were long ago integrated.

The "targets" that you refer to are CRIMINALS! If the Baltimore Police were targeting blacks then you'd be inferring that the black Police Chief and those black Police officers were complicit in racism. They didn't target someone because he was black...they targeted him because he was in a high crime area...they knew him to have a long history of drug related crimes...and when they showed up he took off running.

"Targets" means in the active perception. Try reading the context first -- the tangent was about what the impetus for the riots is. To get at that we have to get inside the rioters' collective head. "Targets" is how they see themselves. What the police's perspective is is irrelevant to that.

Did you purposely try to make that post as incomprehensible as you could, Pogo? Let me guess...you're one of those people that believes if they use flowery phrases...they can hide the fact that they've failed to respond with a credible argument?

It's not "incomprehensible" at all. Is the word "context" beyond your ken?

Or did you mean "inconvenient"?

 

[peach174]

I'm still waiting to hear Pogo explain why liberal Democratic politicians vote against funding Charter Schools and school vouchers. He DEMANDED to be provided with a difference between how Democrats and Republicans govern...I provided one...and he declared it to be a "straw man" and ran away from answering it. Now he's back crowing about how nobody can answer his question. And why does he KNOW that it's a "straw man"? Because he knows a teacher "intimately"! Seriously...that was his response!

I did no such thing.
We are not talking about charter schools. We have never been talking about charter schools. Charter schools (or any other brand) have nothing to do with civil unrest or how some entity affiliated with political party X or Y governs a city. And no, my reference to a teacher was related to some slobbering drivel you posted about "unions". Which is also irrelevant.

It has everything to do with the many problems that have them in this vicious cycle that they are in.
Get them on welfare, break up the family, no father role.
Unions who have created the teacher system so that it's impossible to get them fired. They are then moved to the poorer district schools. Then the kids drop out.
Then they were put into housing projects that made things even worse.
Crime moved in (gangs) City bans guns so they can't get the gangs out of their neighborhoods.
No good jobs for them because they don't have a high school education.
Businesses move out because of the crime.
Police are then ordered by the city to start writing misdemeanor tickets to pay for their department because the people that live there don't pay taxes.
It just escalates and goes on and on and It's because of Democrat policies that they have passed.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm still waiting to hear Pogo explain why liberal Democratic politicians vote against funding Charter Schools and school vouchers. He DEMANDED to be provided with a difference between how Democrats and Republicans govern...I provided one...and he declared it to be a "straw man" and ran away from answering it. Now he's back crowing about how nobody can answer his question. And why does he KNOW that it's a "straw man"? Because he knows a teacher "intimately"! Seriously...that was his response!

I did no such thing.
We are not talking about charter schools. We have never been talking about charter schools. Charter schools (or any other brand) have nothing to do with civil unrest or how some entity affiliated with political party X or Y governs a city. And no, my reference to a teacher was related to some slobbering drivel you posted about "unions". Which is also irrelevant.

I KNOW you're not talking about Charter Schools, Pogo! You demanded to know how liberal Democrats differ from GOP conservatives in how they govern and I provided Charter schools as an example of how they differ. You've RUN from that ever since!

So once again...explain why it is that liberal Democrats don't support Charter Schools!

 

[Oldstyle]

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Where do you see that?
Considering half the instigating police are themselves black, that doesn't add up. No, the targets are black. The police were long ago integrated.

The "targets" that you refer to are CRIMINALS! If the Baltimore Police were targeting blacks then you'd be inferring that the black Police Chief and those black Police officers were complicit in racism. They didn't target someone because he was black...they targeted him because he was in a high crime area...they knew him to have a long history of drug related crimes...and when they showed up he took off running.

"Targets" means in the active perception. Try reading the context first -- the tangent was about what the impetus for the riots is. To get at that we have to get inside the rioters' collective head. "Targets" is how they see themselves. What the police's perspective is is irrelevant to that.

Did you purposely try to make that post as incomprehensible as you could, Pogo? Let me guess...you're one of those people that believes if they use flowery phrases...they can hide the fact that they've failed to respond with a credible argument?

It's not "incomprehensible" at all. Is the word "context" beyond your ken?

Or did you mean "inconvenient"?

No, I meant incomprehensible. ""Targets" means in the active perception."? What does that sentence mean, Pogo? It's incomprehensible gibberish.

 

[paulitician]

Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.

Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.

The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.

Where do you see that?
Considering half the instigating police are themselves black, that doesn't add up. No, the targets are black. The police were long ago integrated.

The "targets" that you refer to are CRIMINALS! If the Baltimore Police were targeting blacks then you'd be inferring that the black Police Chief and those black Police officers were complicit in racism. They didn't target someone because he was black...they targeted him because he was in a high crime area...they knew him to have a long history of drug related crimes...and when they showed up he took off running.

"Targets" means in the active perception. Try reading the context first -- the tangent was about what the impetus for the riots is. To get at that we have to get inside the rioters' collective head. "Targets" is how they see themselves. What the police's perspective is is irrelevant to that.

Did you purposely try to make that post as incomprehensible as you could, Pogo? Let me guess...you're one of those people that believes if they use flowery phrases...they can hide the fact that they've failed to respond with a credible argument?

Ha, he or she is one of those nutters who insults and spews convoluted incoherent gibberish to convince themself they've won a debate. Most just laugh at em or ignore em. He or she is pretty boring and irrelevant.

 

[whitehall]

They would be demonstrating in front of the White House and rioting in the streets of Washington D.C. and blaming the president but whoops, the president is a radical leftie himself and half Black to boot. So with the cooperation of the liberal media they blame republicans and White Cops for the poverty in a democrat controlled city.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So with the cooperation of the liberal media they blame republicans and White Cops for the poverty in a democrat controlled city.

Anyone who says that anyone else blames the cops for poverty is a dumbass

 

[Oldstyle]

So with the cooperation of the liberal media they blame republicans and White Cops for the poverty in a democrat controlled city.

Anyone who says that anyone else blames the cops for poverty is a dumbass

Who IS being blamed for the poverty in cities like Baltimore? Republicans haven't run that city in SIXTY YEARS! Good luck blaming the GOP for that city's ills!

Of course the liberal media isn't going to blame progressive policy for what's happened. Oh, no...that won't happen! So what's left? The cops of course. So even though the Mayor of Baltimore is black...the Chief of Police is black and 3 of the six arresting officers are black...the liberal media has decided that poverty in Baltimore and all the problems that the black community faces...are the fault of an overzealous Police force.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So with the cooperation of the liberal media they blame republicans and White Cops for the poverty in a democrat controlled city.

Anyone who says that anyone else blames the cops for poverty is a dumbass

Who IS being blamed for the poverty in cities like Baltimore? Republicans haven't run that city in SIXTY YEARS! Good luck blaming the GOP for that city's ills!

Its not the cops so stop saying that like a dickhead

 

[Oldstyle]

So with the cooperation of the liberal media they blame republicans and White Cops for the poverty in a democrat controlled city.

Anyone who says that anyone else blames the cops for poverty is a dumbass

Who IS being blamed for the poverty in cities like Baltimore? Republicans haven't run that city in SIXTY YEARS! Good luck blaming the GOP for that city's ills!

Its not the cops so stop saying that like a dickhead

I KNOW it's not the Police! That's obvious. So did you want to discuss what HAS turned Baltimore into the city it is today?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So with the cooperation of the liberal media they blame republicans and White Cops for the poverty in a democrat controlled city.

Anyone who says that anyone else blames the cops for poverty is a dumbass

Who IS being blamed for the poverty in cities like Baltimore? Republicans haven't run that city in SIXTY YEARS! Good luck blaming the GOP for that city's ills!

Its not the cops so stop saying that like a dickhead

I KNOW it's not the Police! That's obvious. So did you want to discuss what HAS turned Baltimore into the city it is today?

Shipping jobs overseas