Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 72,880
- 63,384
- 3,615
That's blatantly untrue.These demands are based on stereotypes, not on actual facts.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's blatantly untrue.These demands are based on stereotypes, not on actual facts.
The only thing I regularly report is racist remarks. That was just a friendly reminder.Thems the rules of the house. Link or lock.nice link. everyone now totally knows what you are whining about.
Do you really need a link to comprehend what I'm saying? Can you not do your own research? I might be gay, but I'm not into that whole hand-holding thing.
If you think I broke the rules, why didn't you simply report my post instead of making a spectacle out of it?
you lame ass ask hypothetical questions about what the reaction would be if a black person introduced the same bill as Scott.Karen Bass has introduced a bill. In her opinion, a much better bill.What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?
If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?
Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?
THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.
Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.
No, you won't.
You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.
They did not like the act he submitted , is all, it was not due to the color of his skin.
I beg to differ. What if Tim Scott had been a Democrat introducing the same bill?
Congressional Black Caucus
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has been committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the...cbc.house.gov
"In her opinion"
Not yours. Speaks volumes man.
no need for that, son.
A black person already weeks ago introduced a bill, which addressed more problems with policing. Democrats already took the lead.
As initially posted, you neither comprehend the situation nor present it honestly.
you are only interested in whining about race cards while playing the race card.
grow up, get a job.
That's blatantly untrue.These demands are based on stereotypes, not on actual facts.
Both, actually.It doesn't do anything to address the problems. It's just an attempt to be able to say they "did something" when they didn't.
Have you even read the bill? Or were you convinced it would do nothing before it was drafted?
Why would we work with those racist, tRump supporting, criminals? They haven't even attempted to work with us.Let me give you a lesson... Democrats control the house... Best way to pass a bill is for the Democrats to write the bill consult with the GOP (especially Senate), amend, and pass it... OR GOP do same visa versa but they are more interested in the Democratic Congress...
The problem, professor, is that the Democrats didn't bother to consult Republicans on the construction of their bill. Republicans offered to work with Democrats to reach a compromise on the Justice Act, and Democrats refused to allow debate. Debate allows for amendments and changes, on a bipartisan level. Still Democrats refused.
It’s a rational concern, but if you’re for any limits, that puts you more in line with Dems than the GOP.It doesn’t need to be eliminated, but limited. How can police have any accountability with the way it is now?Nonsense. Dems have made qualified immunity a core of their reform proposals.Because the bill doesn’t do as much as Dems want.
No, nothing they introduce will. What does that say about our legislative process?
And how would the police do their jobs effectively if qualified immunity was eliminated? I agree with eliminating no-knock warrants.
See that's the thing, I am not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. I am concerned with how much of a limiter democrats want to place on it.
Don't be stupider than you have to be, Son.That's blatantly untrue.These demands are based on stereotypes, not on actual facts.
Okay, prove it untrue. Cite the facts.
There are 800,000 police in America. Prove to me that they all employ targeted systemic racism and profiling against African Americans.
Because it goes against your bias. It would, after all, mean I'm better informed than you and you just can't handle that no matter how true it is.Both, actually.It doesn't do anything to address the problems. It's just an attempt to be able to say they "did something" when they didn't.
Have you even read the bill? Or were you convinced it would do nothing before it was drafted?
Why do I get the feeling you're lying?
Scott said it was 70/80 % of what the Progs wanted. If the Progs win in November, they can complete it. What's the big deal? The Progs are winning, but it is not enough it seems.Because the bill doesn’t do as much as Dems want.What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?
If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?
Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two weeks ago, said that "if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands?" Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?
THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.
Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.
No, you won't.
You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.
A key component of Dems demands for reform is limiting qualified immunity which Scott’s bill seems to ignore. Additionally, Dems want more DoJ oversight of police and more teeth. Scott’s bill doesn’t make mandates but try’s to use money to compel change. Not exactly a bill with a lot of teeth.
See here for further explanation:
Senate Democrats say the Republican police reform bill is "not salvageable"
They’re now poised to sink the legislation during a vote on Wednesday.www.vox.com
Is it any surprise the GOP bill would be watered down?
Why would we work with those racist, tRump supporting, criminals? They haven't even attempted to work with us.Let me give you a lesson... Democrats control the house... Best way to pass a bill is for the Democrats to write the bill consult with the GOP (especially Senate), amend, and pass it... OR GOP do same visa versa but they are more interested in the Democratic Congress...
The problem, professor, is that the Democrats didn't bother to consult Republicans on the construction of their bill. Republicans offered to work with Democrats to reach a compromise on the Justice Act, and Democrats refused to allow debate. Debate allows for amendments and changes, on a bipartisan level. Still Democrats refused.
E
Because it goes against your bias. It would, after all, mean I'm better informed than you and you just can't handle that no matter how true it is.Both, actually.It doesn't do anything to address the problems. It's just an attempt to be able to say they "did something" when they didn't.
Have you even read the bill? Or were you convinced it would do nothing before it was drafted?
Why do I get the feeling you're lying?
Any more silly questions?
Why would we work with those racist, tRump supporting, criminals? They haven't even attempted to work with us.Let me give you a lesson... Democrats control the house... Best way to pass a bill is for the Democrats to write the bill consult with the GOP (especially Senate), amend, and pass it... OR GOP do same visa versa but they are more interested in the Democratic Congress...
The problem, professor, is that the Democrats didn't bother to consult Republicans on the construction of their bill. Republicans offered to work with Democrats to reach a compromise on the Justice Act, and Democrats refused to allow debate. Debate allows for amendments and changes, on a bipartisan level. Still Democrats refused.
i am addressing the topic. maybe you should read your whiny lame lying OP again.you lame ass ask hypothetical questions about what the reaction would be if a black person introduced the same bill as Scott.Karen Bass has introduced a bill. In her opinion, a much better bill.What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?
If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?
Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?
THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.
Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.
No, you won't.
You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.
They did not like the act he submitted , is all, it was not due to the color of his skin.
I beg to differ. What if Tim Scott had been a Democrat introducing the same bill?
Congressional Black Caucus
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has been committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the...cbc.house.gov
"In her opinion"
Not yours. Speaks volumes man.
no need for that, son.
A black person already weeks ago introduced a bill, which addressed more problems with policing. Democrats already took the lead.
As initially posted, you neither comprehend the situation nor present it honestly.
you are only interested in whining about race cards while playing the race card.
grow up, get a job.
Look at you evading the topic, again.
You only favor a bill that severely limits the ability of the police to police effectively.
Please, we all know what you want.
And if they don’t win in November they’ve missed a huge opportunity to do the right thing now.Scott said it was 70/80 % of what the Progs wanted. If the Progs win in November, they can complete it. What's the big deal? The Progs are winning, but it is not enough it seems.Because the bill doesn’t do as much as Dems want.What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?
If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?
Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two weeks ago, said that "if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands?" Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?
THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.
Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.
No, you won't.
You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.
A key component of Dems demands for reform is limiting qualified immunity which Scott’s bill seems to ignore. Additionally, Dems want more DoJ oversight of police and more teeth. Scott’s bill doesn’t make mandates but try’s to use money to compel change. Not exactly a bill with a lot of teeth.
See here for further explanation:
Senate Democrats say the Republican police reform bill is "not salvageable"
They’re now poised to sink the legislation during a vote on Wednesday.www.vox.com
Is it any surprise the GOP bill would be watered down?
Don't be stupider than you have to be, Son.That's blatantly untrue.These demands are based on stereotypes, not on actual facts.
Okay, prove it untrue. Cite the facts.
There are 800,000 police in America. Prove to me that they all employ targeted systemic racism and profiling against African Americans.
I'm not playing the straw man game with you.
i am addressing the topic. maybe you should read your whiny lame lying OP again.you lame ass ask hypothetical questions about what the reaction would be if a black person introduced the same bill as Scott.Karen Bass has introduced a bill. In her opinion, a much better bill.What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?
If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?
Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?
THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.
Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.
No, you won't.
You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.
They did not like the act he submitted , is all, it was not due to the color of his skin.
I beg to differ. What if Tim Scott had been a Democrat introducing the same bill?
Congressional Black Caucus
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has been committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the...cbc.house.gov
"In her opinion"
Not yours. Speaks volumes man.
no need for that, son.
A black person already weeks ago introduced a bill, which addressed more problems with policing. Democrats already took the lead.
As initially posted, you neither comprehend the situation nor present it honestly.
you are only interested in whining about race cards while playing the race card.
grow up, get a job.
Look at you evading the topic, again.
You only favor a bill that severely limits the ability of the police to police effectively.
Please, we all know what you want.
yeah, you should get a job. i can tell you that while addressing the topic.i am addressing the topic. maybe you should read your whiny lame lying OP again.you lame ass ask hypothetical questions about what the reaction would be if a black person introduced the same bill as Scott.Karen Bass has introduced a bill. In her opinion, a much better bill.What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?
If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?
Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?
THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.
Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.
No, you won't.
You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.
They did not like the act he submitted , is all, it was not due to the color of his skin.
I beg to differ. What if Tim Scott had been a Democrat introducing the same bill?
Congressional Black Caucus
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has been committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the...cbc.house.gov
"In her opinion"
Not yours. Speaks volumes man.
no need for that, son.
A black person already weeks ago introduced a bill, which addressed more problems with policing. Democrats already took the lead.
As initially posted, you neither comprehend the situation nor present it honestly.
you are only interested in whining about race cards while playing the race card.
grow up, get a job.
Look at you evading the topic, again.
You only favor a bill that severely limits the ability of the police to police effectively.
Please, we all know what you want.
Nah, you want me to get a job. You are in the least bit concerned about the topic.
Move along.
It’s a rational concern, but if you’re for any limits, that puts you more in line with Dems than the GOP.It doesn’t need to be eliminated, but limited. How can police have any accountability with the way it is now?Nonsense. Dems have made qualified immunity a core of their reform proposals.Because the bill doesn’t do as much as Dems want.
No, nothing they introduce will. What does that say about our legislative process?
And how would the police do their jobs effectively if qualified immunity was eliminated? I agree with eliminating no-knock warrants.
See that's the thing, I am not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. I am concerned with how much of a limiter democrats want to place on it.
yeah, you should get a job. i can tell you that while addressing the topic.
why are you not addressing the topic?
it does not address the problems....The bill is a stunt. Instead of taking it to the committee where both parties could have worked out the details and presented a bipartisin bill, he took it directly to the floor where he knew it would fail. He didn't present a bill. He presented what would become talking points. A political stunt.
How is it a stunt when it has 80% of what Democrats want in it? Are you really that butthurt about qualified immunity?
-choke holds
-no knock warrants
-shooting suspects in the back, running away
McConnell had no intention for the bill to pass... it should have followed the normal procedure for legislation.... the Committee develops the legislation within a bipartisan committee with responsibility.... they vote within the committee on the bill, adding to and taking out, to make a strong bill, then that is presented to the floor, to amend and vote on.
Mitch is playing games....
Allowing debate on the bill would have allowed for amendments and changes. No. Your argument is invalid. They didn't even want to discuss the topic.
That is political gamesmanship, Care4.