Um, yeah. I'm sorry you are too dense to get the context. I'd explain it to you, but you are too stupid to understand.
Democrats today have NOTHING to do with Democrats of 150 years ago who supported slavery. Just like the Republicans of 150 years ago who abolished slavery have nothing to do with Republicans today who fly Confederate Flags and call Nazis protecting Confederate Statues "very fine people".
When you Republicans support teaching unvarnished history, treat flying a Confederate Flag like the hate crime it is, and take down every monument put up during Jim Crow, THEN I will take your mewling about "Democrats were slave owners" seriously...
It's just getting too difficult to catch up with your misinformation and hack narratives, so I'll go Cliffs Notes;
- Nobody said specifically people flying confederate flags and Nazis are "very fine people", you're reciting debunked leftist propaganda and disinformation. I feel sorry for you.
- "Unvarnished history" is a loaded, entirely subjective term, purposefully vague, to mean that anything attacking the USA as evil must be at the forefront, and any acknowledgement of context and positivity of the nation becomes somehow problematic. So, of course I caught that, and it means absolutely nothing.
- Flying a Confederate flag isn't a "hate" crime, not saying it can't be flown tastelessly. But it can also be flown in support of southern culture and for states rights... things radical leftists refuse to acknowledge. From what i can gather, leftist/BLM/CRT ideology says "SOUTH=RACIST" and "WHITE=SLAVERY".. that's the depth of the issue to them. Such shallowness is stupid, and you appear to well in this simplicity, again.. I feel sorry for you..
- IMO, the entire notion of a "hate crime" is to merely punish certain people more than others.. as a crime is a crime, regardless of who you commit it against.
Because the police themselves tolerate the exceptions.
Here in Chicago, we had a character named Jason van Dyke. Van Dyke put sixteen shots into a black teenager named Laquan McDonald. Most of them when he was already on the ground. Now, EVERY OTHER COP on that scene wrote a report claiming he lunged at Van Dyke with a knife. The FOP defended Van Dyke's actions in the press. The city of Chicago reached a quiet settlement with McDonald's family with an NDA. The State's Attorney refused to prosecute. The whole system treated this like it was a good shooting. Civilian witnesses were intimidated.
Until the video was released to the public a year later after the Cororner's office blew the whistle about the sixteen shots.
(Waiting for you response, which will be "fu fuh fuh.. Chicago is run by Democrats, fuh, fuh, fuh" )
Now, yeah, 99% of cops are good guys doing a difficult job. But they are WAY too tolerant of the exceptions. Van Dyke had 20 previous incidents where he violated people's civil rights, and still had a job. Chauvin had numerous previous incidents of using choke holds or shooting suspects. Loehmann (the guy who shot Tamir Rice for playing with a toy in a park) had been fired from a previous job for mental instability
Again, Cliffs notes, as you're just spewing misinformation:
- My FBI data stands, you've refused to refute it, and are now sprinting to the anecdotal, which is what defeated people do. You can't debate and justify the amount of fear, terrorization, and resources used on an issue that tragically effects 10-15 people per year. Until you address this, your few anecdotals mean near nothing... as it further proves how massively rare it occurs.
- And even in your anecdotals, you're purposefully spewing misinformation. Take Tamir Rice for example; you reveal yourself as a clear hack because you said he was just "Playing with a toy in a park"... what kind of toy? Was it a truck? An action figure? No, it was a toy gun. That makes things a bit different as far as the context and circumstances. I"m not saying it was a good or bad shoot, but the fact that you need to leave that out shows that you're not honest whatsoever in this issues, and thus cease to have any credibility.
Pretending a problem doesn't exist is far worse. WE ARE A RACIST SOCIETY. Period. Full stop. We need to fix that. The only thing that separated Trump from the other 16 bags of bad ideas in 2016 was that he was more open about his racism (Obama was born in Kenya, Mexicans are rapists, etc.)
Slow down, I know you like to barf out radical leftist talking points just to try to pad your "points", but let's clean up your misinformation.
- We aren't a "racist society", because if we were, our society's laws would point out different treatment for different races. You have to prove our entire society is racist, and you can't.. you're just mad at it, so you have throw things at it. Sorry that you're triggered by America, but it's arguably the least racist nation on earth. If you don't believe me, step outside of your gated community here in America and go to some 3rd world countries... see how "tolerant" they are.
- The whole "Obama was born in Kenya" was begun by Hillary Clinton the Democrat primaries in 2008, and while I won't say it's some factual statement, there were some odd circumstances surrounding Obama's citizenship that any honest observer would at least acknolwedge. Of course, we know you're not honest and have no credibility, so not only will you ignore that one of the Democrats you whole-heartedly supported (hillary) started the thing you're saying is so evil, but you'll write off that some of the paperwork and his lack of accessibly history was at least worth a look into.
- Of course, nobody said "Mexicans are rapists", that's a long-debunked left-wing Democrat talking point they lied about to attack Donald Trump. He didn't say that, so you have to connect dots and assume underlying evil motivations for your political opponent. What he said had some merit in who was coming into the country, as our problems at our border with drugs and human trafficking are well-documented, serious, and ignored by people like you and the MSM.
Nobody remembers the Civil Rights Acts of 57 and 60. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the big one, and Barry "Deep Down you Know He's Nuts" Goldwater opposed it. He also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. When you say "the Civil Rights Act" everyone knows you are talking about the one in 64. That is the one that put the Democrats firmly on the side of civil rights and drove Southern Conservatives into the hands of the Republicans.
If nobody remembers it, how did I talk about it? Again, looking into what portions of a multi-pronged bill someone accepts and what they reject is entirely healthy and honest. You refuse to do as such, ignore context and detail, and employ the common left-wing bumper sticker talking points.
No double standards at all. BLM was restrained given the level of provocation. They could have just gone out and killed every white person they encountered. They didn't. They peaceful protested. They damaged some property. (Or people took advantage of the chaos to damage property.) It could have been a violent revolution. Let's fix the problems before we actually have one of those.
If you give credit to a group and applaud them for the restraint of "not killing every white person they encountered", that's probably the lowest bar one could hold. Hey, if America is so "racist", they COULD just "kill every black person that lives here"... but they don't! Look at the restraint, tolerance, and peaceful nature! Do you see how stupid you sound saying things like that?
Meanwhile, you keep saying vague platitudes but fail to point out which laws are racist and how to solve supposed "problems". When challenged, you rabidly repeat mythical claims and sprint to anecdotals. Thus far, as it always happens when a BLM/leftist/CRT advocate is challenged, you've offered no identification of the problem by law, thus no solution. You've just squawked out claims of religious-zeal to have faith in the notion that the boogeyman of racism exists under every rock, around every corner.. and I'm not sure if you guys pray to it or not, but it wouldn't suprise me.
Actually, the NFL blackballed him. They admitted as much and settled with him for eight figures.
The former San Francisco 49ers teammates, who accused the league’s 32 teams of colluding to keep them out of the game, reached a deal last month that included a confidentiality agreement.
www.nytimes.com
Since he left the 49ers, no team has offered him a contract or brought him in for a tryout, even though quarterbacks with less impressive statistics were signed. In 2016, his last season in the league, Kaepernick earned $14.3 million. Through the grievance, he was seeking the compensation he might have earned had he been signed as a free agent in 2017. That theoretical amount, had he won the case, would have been doubled for damages.
The NFL has bowed to the woke like most mainstream sport leagues (and some have since changed because they realized it was a bad move)... But this line right here exposes that NYT writer and you as far as how out of your element you are;
"even though quarterbacks with less impressive statistics were signed."
So anyone who isn't a leftist political activist attempting to pretend to know what they're talking about here knows that there are players who have loads of talent that are avoided all the time due to baggage, drama, etc. Randy Moss, Tim Tebow, Terrell Owens, Baker Mayfield... all examples of players who had talent and stats of which they could say were better than others, but weren't worth the headache and either had to take gigs at far less pay and stature or not play at all. This is like elementary sports knowledge, and you clearly don't even know it. So, your points are funny if they weren't such proof of how successful leftist misinformation can latch on to the mainstream.
Yes, he was sprayed in the face with bear spray and beaten senseless by rioters (carrying thin blue line flags), but that had nothing to do with his death.
Looks like you've been reading more leftist sources of misinformation:
- CNN initially reported it was "bear spray", but that was corrected to be merely pepper spray. It's also a fact that Washington's chief medical examiner ruled that Sicknick had suffered strokes and
died of natural causes a day after the attack.
The Justice Department on Tuesday abandoned the idea that pro-Trump rioters had used bear spray against US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick during the January 6 riot, a major change after implying for weeks that bear spray, not pepper spray, had been deployed.
www.cnn.com
Now, I know the leftist MSM immediately lied and said he was "sprayed with bear spray in a chemical attack that killed officer Sicknick"... but they lied, it was quickly corrected, and now you're spreading misinformation. And nowhere does it say he was severely beaten, you probably either read that at another leftist misinformation source or made that up.
Actually, a black person is FAR more likely to be shot by cops than a white person is. Kenosha cops shot Jacob Blake in the back seven times because he MIGHT be reaching for a knife. Kyle Rittenhouse gunned down three people in the street, and walked right past Kenosha cops carrying an assault rifle and wasn't even stopped.
Tamir Rice was gunned down for playing with a toy in a park. Dylan Roof gunned down nine people, and the police not only didn't shoot him, they took him out for Burger King because the poor dear looked absolutely peckish running from the police.
Black people see this shit and THEY SHOULD be outraged.
Of course, nobody is talking about the statistic "who is more likely to be shot by cops". Such a stat brings in whether or not the other person were armed, were they violent, etc. So if you're going to sprint from the discussion because your point is too weak, go ahead.. but the entire BLM movement with George Floyd had to do with the supposed notion that unarmed innocent black men were just routinely being murdered by police, when they weren't so says FBI data. And here you go again, listing off a few anecdotals to prove how weak your case is.
Nope, my statement stands. Voter purges were meant to suppress the black vote.
How do you know what they were meant to do? You said only blacks were purged, and when I called you out you bailed. Now you're back pedaling into the vague, mythical racist boogeyman that you know exists but can't prove. If you can prove the purges were specifically performed to suppress black voters, go ahead. If not, you're spreading misinformation, and just more anger and being emotionally triggered on your part.
Uh, no one denied that SOME of the emails on the laptop were authentic. Just not the ones that purport criminal activity or the photopshopped pictures of him snorting coke off a Chinese hooker's ass.
I could care less about Hunter Biden being a drug addict and abusing women. The issue with the laptop is the exposed corruption of the Biden family by foreign powers.
Nope, he lost by 3 million votes. And the Russians tampered with the election. That's a flawed system where you can lose by 3 million votes and Russian shennigans in three swing states can put you into office.
- He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, he won the electoral college, thus the presidency. You're just having a prolonged temper tantrum over it. It's the same system that put all presidents in office.
- Russia "tampered" in the election? What does that even mean? I keep hearing a conveyer belt of terms.. Russia "meddled", Russia "interfered", Russia "tampered"... What did they do? They attempted to influence the election by posting Memes on facebook.. OH NO! But the USA tries all the time to influence foreign elections. Obama advocated against BREXIT.. did he "tamper", "interfered", or "meddle" in their elections?
Trump would be in prison right now awaiting execution for treason.
LMAO! Yes, he's THAT evil.. worse than the most ardent Nazi, murderer, terrorist... come on keep going.
In all seriousness.. I hope one day your temper tantrum will be over.
