Anthem Tantrum: Trump Disinvites Eagles From White House

[Lewdog]

Likewise, they have the right to tell you to buzz off.

Again, why in the world would it matter what their opinion about politics was...it's your pipes that are (or should be) important?

Because politics can be very offensive, that's why. Let me ask: how would you feel about conservative players kneeling in protest of gay marriages or gay adoption? If a gay person has an appliance repair man at his or her home, and he spouts off about how immoral gay marriages are, they should be free to express their thoughts as long as your dishwasher gets fixed?

Yes. Not sure why anyone would worry otherwise. I eat at Chik film A, will shop at Hobby Lobby if I need something they sell, loved Boss when it was on, etc.... Never worried about the politics of the store or the star of the show. If it bothers you...okay. Stop being a snowflake

Having a political stance is different than kneeling in disrespect of our country.

Let me fix this for you:

"Having a political stance I agree with is different than kneeling for one I don't, so I view it as disrespecting the country."

There you go!

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

 

[candycorn]

Statistics only tell a small part of the story. If you have more blacks per capita in prison than whites, it's not because laws or treatment are different with blacks, it's because blacks commit more crime. Leftists refuse to believe that. They'd rather make up stories in their heads.

I suggest you study the statistics associated with sentences as well as jury make up—Duke university had a great series on it

Sentencing works the same way. All they show you is the results of sentencing instead of the characteristics of each.

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

It’s not even close

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because politics can be very offensive, that's why. Let me ask: how would you feel about conservative players kneeling in protest of gay marriages or gay adoption? If a gay person has an appliance repair man at his or her home, and he spouts off about how immoral gay marriages are, they should be free to express their thoughts as long as your dishwasher gets fixed?

Yes. Not sure why anyone would worry otherwise. I eat at Chik film A, will shop at Hobby Lobby if I need something they sell, loved Boss when it was on, etc.... Never worried about the politics of the store or the star of the show. If it bothers you...okay. Stop being a snowflake

Having a political stance is different than kneeling in disrespect of our country.

Let me fix this for you:

"Having a political stance I agree with is different than kneeling for one I don't, so I view it as disrespecting the country."

There you go!

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

WTF did I do that? Are you from another country or something? You seem not to be able to understand what you're reading.

 

[Lewdog]

Yes. Not sure why anyone would worry otherwise. I eat at Chik film A, will shop at Hobby Lobby if I need something they sell, loved Boss when it was on, etc.... Never worried about the politics of the store or the star of the show. If it bothers you...okay. Stop being a snowflake

Having a political stance is different than kneeling in disrespect of our country.

Let me fix this for you:

"Having a political stance I agree with is different than kneeling for one I don't, so I view it as disrespecting the country."

There you go!

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

WTF did I do that? Are you from another country or something? You seem not to be able to understand what you're reading.

Go back and read your own post #344 numbnuts. You are ok with someone kneeling for a reason you approve of, but you don't when they aren't.

All police, military, and other types are not equal, nor do they deserve the same level of respect.

Just like any other group in society, there are those that are good and those that are bad.

The BTK killer was an animal control officer. Did he deserve the same respect as a firefighter that died trying to save lives from the Twin Towers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Statistics only tell a small part of the story. If you have more blacks per capita in prison than whites, it's not because laws or treatment are different with blacks, it's because blacks commit more crime. Leftists refuse to believe that. They'd rather make up stories in their heads.

I suggest you study the statistics associated with sentences as well as jury make up—Duke university had a great series on it

Sentencing works the same way. All they show you is the results of sentencing instead of the characteristics of each.

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

 

[Lewdog]

I suggest you study the statistics associated with sentences as well as jury make up—Duke university had a great series on it

Sentencing works the same way. All they show you is the results of sentencing instead of the characteristics of each.

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

I didn't read anything you said after the line: "More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine."

That is an absolutely absurd statement. Do you realize that the disparity in sentencing for the "Black" drug crack was 100:1 compared to the "White" drug powdered cocaine? Even after the Fair sentencing act in 2010, it is still a ratio of 18:1.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sentencing works the same way. All they show you is the results of sentencing instead of the characteristics of each.

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

I didn't read anything you said after the line: "More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine."

That is an absolutely absurd statement. Do you realize that the disparity in sentencing for the "Black" drug crack was 100:1 compared to the "White" drug powdered cocaine? Even after the Fair sentencing act in 2010, it is still a ratio of 18:1.

Of course you didn't read past that line. That's how one stays ignorant. If you live in your own little bubble, then what's inside that bubble is all you know. You have no use for the truth.

 

[jc456]

If my mechanic, plumber or electrician came to my house boasting how they hate Trump and Obama was the greatest, I can fire them no questions asked. I didn't pay them for their political opinion; they are welcome to have that off the job. I pay them to do work that I need to be done. If I complain to their employer, and he tells his workers to keep their politics to themselves, and they disobey his orders, the employer has the right to fire them.

Likewise, they have the right to tell you to buzz off.

Again, why in the world would it matter what their opinion about politics was...it's your pipes that are (or should be) important?

Because politics can be very offensive, that's why. Let me ask: how would you feel about conservative players kneeling in protest of gay marriages or gay adoption? If a gay person has an appliance repair man at his or her home, and he spouts off about how immoral gay marriages are, they should be free to express their thoughts as long as your dishwasher gets fixed?

Yes. Not sure why anyone would worry otherwise. I eat at Chik film A, will shop at Hobby Lobby if I need something they sell, loved Boss when it was on, etc.... Never worried about the politics of the store or the star of the show. If it bothers you...okay. Stop being a snowflake

Having a political stance is different than kneeling in disrespect of our country.

Kneeling is a political statement. Again it does nothing against you. Man up

It dishonors americans. All day everyday

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Having a political stance is different than kneeling in disrespect of our country.

Let me fix this for you:

"Having a political stance I agree with is different than kneeling for one I don't, so I view it as disrespecting the country."

There you go!

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

WTF did I do that? Are you from another country or something? You seem not to be able to understand what you're reading.

Go back and read your own post #344 numbnuts. You are ok with someone kneeling for a reason you approve of, but you don't when they aren't.

All police, military, and other types are not equal, nor do they deserve the same level of respect.

Just like any other group in society, there are those that are good and those that are bad.

The BTK killer was an animal control officer. Did he deserve the same respect as a firefighter that died trying to save lives from the Twin Towers?

Here is what I said in post 344:

I guess you don't understand the difference between protesting our police officers and praying to God?

It's not the kneeling that's offensive, it's why you kneel that is.

Praying to God is not protesting. Praying to God is not disrespecting our flag nor Anthem. It's paying homage to both. He kneeled out of respect--not disrespect.

 

[jc456]

I suggest you study the statistics associated with sentences as well as jury make up—Duke university had a great series on it

Sentencing works the same way. All they show you is the results of sentencing instead of the characteristics of each.

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

Ray, the dude has no idea of America

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

I didn't read anything you said after the line: "More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine."

That is an absolutely absurd statement. Do you realize that the disparity in sentencing for the "Black" drug crack was 100:1 compared to the "White" drug powdered cocaine? Even after the Fair sentencing act in 2010, it is still a ratio of 18:1.

Of course you didn't read past that line. That's how one stays ignorant. If you live in your own little bubble, then what's inside that bubble is all you know. You have no use for the truth.

No, it's because I know your modus operandi. You will never admit that there is any type of bias against Blacks, you will always argue anything they get they deserve it, and you always seem to think an event you see in your life is how it is every where in the world.

There is quite a bit of irony in your last statement.

 

[Lewdog]

Let me fix this for you:

"Having a political stance I agree with is different than kneeling for one I don't, so I view it as disrespecting the country."

There you go!

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

WTF did I do that? Are you from another country or something? You seem not to be able to understand what you're reading.

Go back and read your own post #344 numbnuts. You are ok with someone kneeling for a reason you approve of, but you don't when they aren't.

All police, military, and other types are not equal, nor do they deserve the same level of respect.

Just like any other group in society, there are those that are good and those that are bad.

The BTK killer was an animal control officer. Did he deserve the same respect as a firefighter that died trying to save lives from the Twin Towers?

Here is what I said in post 344:

I guess you don't understand the difference between protesting our police officers and praying to God?

It's not the kneeling that's offensive, it's why you kneel that is.

Praying to God is not protesting. Praying to God is not disrespecting our flag nor Anthem. It's paying homage to both. He kneeled out of respect--not disrespect.

First, Tebow didn't kneel during the anthem to protest abortion, but you didn't even bother to look it up to see if it were true. You did however jump to the conclusion it was okay for him to do it because of WHY he would be kneeling, and that you agree with Pro-Life views, and to the opposite you don't think there is a disparity in the criminal justice system against Blacks... so therefor they are just disrespecting the flag.

That's called being a hypocrite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

I didn't read anything you said after the line: "More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine."

That is an absolutely absurd statement. Do you realize that the disparity in sentencing for the "Black" drug crack was 100:1 compared to the "White" drug powdered cocaine? Even after the Fair sentencing act in 2010, it is still a ratio of 18:1.

Of course you didn't read past that line. That's how one stays ignorant. If you live in your own little bubble, then what's inside that bubble is all you know. You have no use for the truth.

No, it's because I know your modus operandi. You will never admit that there is any type of bias against Blacks, you will always argue anything they get they deserve it, and you always seem to think an event you see in your life is how it is every where in the world.

There is quite a bit of irony in your last statement.

What irony? I read everything I respond to unless it's something I read in the past. If I disagree with what was written, I'm prepared to debate my side. After all, debate is why we come here, isn't it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

WTF did I do that? Are you from another country or something? You seem not to be able to understand what you're reading.

Go back and read your own post #344 numbnuts. You are ok with someone kneeling for a reason you approve of, but you don't when they aren't.

All police, military, and other types are not equal, nor do they deserve the same level of respect.

Just like any other group in society, there are those that are good and those that are bad.

The BTK killer was an animal control officer. Did he deserve the same respect as a firefighter that died trying to save lives from the Twin Towers?

Here is what I said in post 344:

I guess you don't understand the difference between protesting our police officers and praying to God?

It's not the kneeling that's offensive, it's why you kneel that is.

Praying to God is not protesting. Praying to God is not disrespecting our flag nor Anthem. It's paying homage to both. He kneeled out of respect--not disrespect.

First, Tebow didn't kneel during the anthem to protest abortion, but you didn't even bother to look it up to see if it were true. You did however jump to the conclusion it was okay for him to do it because of WHY he would be kneeling, and that you agree with Pro-Life views, and to the opposite you don't think there is a disparity in the criminal justice system against Blacks... so therefor they are just disrespecting the flag.

That's called being a hypocrite.

I guess the word "if" confused you. Your comprehension skills need a ton of work. Try reading a little slower.

No, Tebow didn't kneel because of abortion, Tebow kneeled to give thanks and praise to God. He did it in front of our flag as a sign of mutual RESPECT. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between respect and disrespect. I'm sorry you don't understand why millions are offended by protesting our police officers and not praise to God. But the last thing it is is hypocritical.

 

[Lewdog]

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

I didn't read anything you said after the line: "More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine."

That is an absolutely absurd statement. Do you realize that the disparity in sentencing for the "Black" drug crack was 100:1 compared to the "White" drug powdered cocaine? Even after the Fair sentencing act in 2010, it is still a ratio of 18:1.

Of course you didn't read past that line. That's how one stays ignorant. If you live in your own little bubble, then what's inside that bubble is all you know. You have no use for the truth.

No, it's because I know your modus operandi. You will never admit that there is any type of bias against Blacks, you will always argue anything they get they deserve it, and you always seem to think an event you see in your life is how it is every where in the world.

There is quite a bit of irony in your last statement.

What irony? I read everything I respond to unless it's something I read in the past. If I disagree with what was written, I'm prepared to debate my side. After all, debate is why we come here, isn't it?

The irony is, any time there is an argument like this one, instead of using references and facts to back your posts, you always talk about things you've seen only in your life... then you go on to say I live inside my own bubble. All your posts are an example of someone actually living in their own bubble.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sentencing works the same way. All they show you is the results of sentencing instead of the characteristics of each.

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

Ray, the dude has no idea of America

Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.

What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.

If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.

I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?

On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

I didn't read anything you said after the line: "More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine."

That is an absolutely absurd statement. Do you realize that the disparity in sentencing for the "Black" drug crack was 100:1 compared to the "White" drug powdered cocaine? Even after the Fair sentencing act in 2010, it is still a ratio of 18:1.

Of course you didn't read past that line. That's how one stays ignorant. If you live in your own little bubble, then what's inside that bubble is all you know. You have no use for the truth.

No, it's because I know your modus operandi. You will never admit that there is any type of bias against Blacks, you will always argue anything they get they deserve it, and you always seem to think an event you see in your life is how it is every where in the world.

There is quite a bit of irony in your last statement.

What irony? I read everything I respond to unless it's something I read in the past. If I disagree with what was written, I'm prepared to debate my side. After all, debate is why we come here, isn't it?

The irony is, any time there is an argument like this one, instead of using references and facts to back your posts, you always talk about things you've seen only in your life... then you go on to say I live inside my own bubble. All your posts are an example of someone actually living in their own bubble.

What facts would you like? Would you like me to post links to how and why these protests are taking place? Would you like me to post links on why Tebow kneeled? I'll be glad to do that if that's your challenge.

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong. You have no idea just how ignorant that statement is. That statement is like calling the Grand Canyon a pot hole. Your example is the perfect reason why people do need a college education. If you think criminal sentencing is the same for all races, you've hit an all new low.

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

Ray, the dude has no idea of America

Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.

What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.

If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.

I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?

On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.

First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.

Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.

Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.

 

[jc456]

Let me fix this for you:

"Having a political stance I agree with is different than kneeling for one I don't, so I view it as disrespecting the country."

There you go!

The American flag does represent the country. You disrespect our flag, then you disrespect the country.

You just stepped on your own dick. You admitted it was ok to protest as long as their message was something you thought was just.

WTF did I do that? Are you from another country or something? You seem not to be able to understand what you're reading.

Go back and read your own post #344 numbnuts. You are ok with someone kneeling for a reason you approve of, but you don't when they aren't.

All police, military, and other types are not equal, nor do they deserve the same level of respect.

Just like any other group in society, there are those that are good and those that are bad.

The BTK killer was an animal control officer. Did he deserve the same respect as a firefighter that died trying to save lives from the Twin Towers?

Here is what I said in post 344:

I guess you don't understand the difference between protesting our police officers and praying to God?

It's not the kneeling that's offensive, it's why you kneel that is.

Praying to God is not protesting. Praying to God is not disrespecting our flag nor Anthem. It's paying homage to both. He kneeled out of respect--not disrespect.

Hilarious they don’t even know praying. These leftists are truly fking stupid

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's quite amusing when somebody with such limited reading comprehension skills talks about others needing an advanced education.

You think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.

I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.

More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?

But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.

What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.

I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.

But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?

A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.

Ray, the dude has no idea of America

Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.

What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.

If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.

I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?

On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.

First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.

Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.

Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.

First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.

Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.

There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.