Is the Democrat party going to embrace this "trivial nonsense" language too as it applies to our flag and our anthem? Or is it just you and a few of your fringe lunatic buddies? Surely this has to be too far even for the Democrats. It does, doesn't it? Then again, the Democrat left regards the US Constitution as trivial nonsense, so I guess really should not be surprised if elected and potential Democrat congressmen and Senators do openly start disrespecting our flag, our anthem and our country right out in the open on national television for all to see, and routinely, as a matter of course. Of course that will be put into campaign ads to. Maybe even by Superpac led by Steve Bannon or Karl Rove. Keep it up. This and the identity politics and the continued violent imposition of the left's "politically correct" speech and thought codes. Maybe that will be a winner for you.
Identity politics? Who's the one who distingishes between 'American' vs 'unAmerican' based on the bending of a knee? It's just as absurd as me telling you that you aren't as patriotic as me because you choose a POG/fobbit MOS.
This is very much a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type of response....but I'm not surprised by it. When it comes to unequal sentences, that largely has to do with a wealth disparity, when you are poor, you are more likely to have the book thrown at you. A higher percentage of black people are poor than white people, so you'd expect that. Of course, you could just chalk it up to racism if that's the narrative you want to push, but it isn't really accurate. Also, the narrative was always about dead black people in the streets, and the numbers on that show no racial bias. In short, there's no legitimate cause to protest. It asserts that he started doing it as a direct response to that event, meaning that he must have thought that what happened in that event was an example of something wrong that he needed to protest. So my question is, what is it he thought was wrong in that case? Also, when you talk about data points, the data shows that black people are not more likely to be shot by police than a person of a different race in the same situation.....so again, false narrative. When it comes to profiling, I certainly think it happens. It's just human nature. When you know that something like 52% of murders in this country are committed by right around 7% of the population (black men) you are more likely to be cautious when you have to deal with incidents involving segment of the population especially when violence is possible as a result of you being there because you want to make it home safely. Despite that, the numbers show that black men are not more likely to be shot by police than anyone else in a similar situation. So while, yes, there is natural profiling that goes on, it's not racism. Also, my problem with the protest is that if you want to protest something, you have to have something you want to change.....well what is it they hope to change with their protest? In the 60's it was clear what they wanted, they wanted equal rights legislation which is a completely legitimate thing to want.....well what is it these highly privileged kneelers want? Do they want less black men shot by police? Well given that it's REALLY hard to find a unjustified police shooting, how would you do that? Change the laws to where cops have to be shot first before they can do anything? Since there isn't a cohesive message that they are sending about what they want and how that could even be accomplished, it seems like this is protesting for the sake of protesting which isn't productive or legitimate.
That's a pretty big inference that you assume "largely" explains the phenomena on the study, but if you had read thoroughly, you'd have seen this sentence in the article. Of course, "background" could mean many different things, it doesn't have to involve wealth. That said, seeing as how your assertion could have "largely" invalidated the conclusion of a study in which multiple people spent years working on, someone who had any interest in being right would have done more research on the study's methodology. If you had done that, you would have found out that the study adjusted for prior work experience of the felons studied. http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/how-we-did-it/ Your pathetic explanation has already been debunked. You have no interest in facts (never have) or being correct and are only good at bullsh!tting your way through subject matter that impacts people's lives. Millions of Americans share your same sentiment but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't yet been educated with the research. You on the other hand, have had the facts provided to you and yet you still misinterpret, misunderstand, and reject them. That's what makes you way worse than those other Americans.
Well you just said it yourself, "background" which generally means criminal history, doesn't mean that they had the same level of wealth, so it's not accounting for that factor. This also can't be used as a control for wealth because 2 people can work the same job and have drastically different levels of wealth. Again, I know you REALLY are hoping to find a smoking gun that will lead people to ignore the factors that matter and blame everything on racism, but you are not going to succeed. I do like how you claim victory after failing to do what you set out to do. The fact remains that this explains the differences in sentencing a LOT better than any "racism" boogie man.
Another thought on this, about political protest at your job. If we were doing the national anthem at my job for some reason, I could choose to kneel or sit and my employer would not say one word of reproach to me. I work for a company where human capital is somewhat important (though not so much as pro sports!), so they try to maintain a positive work environment where people don't quit. Now, I would probably get a visit from HR if I went proactively agitating for some political cause, holding BLM talks in the conference room or something. But protesting the anthem is reactive; it is, in fact, declining to participate in the political speech of standing and singing the anthem. And HR wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole. And the oddness of thinking about the hypothetical dynamic in my office highlights the oddness of it in actuality in sporting events. Athletes have to put up with a work environment that puts enormous pressure on them to engage every game in a corporate-dictated form of political speech. It would strike me as totally inappropriate to have my company assemble all the employees for a round of the Star Spangled Banner each morning. It'd be akin to making everyone join the corporate prayer group. Why should the employees of these entertainment companies even be asked to participate? If the NFL is the wrong place for political speech, they need to drop the anthem.
Conservative lunatics have been wrapping themselves in the flag since Vietnam. If you hate stupid wars you hate America, if you protest brutality you hate America, blah blah blah. They're trying to hijack patriotism and what it is to be American. They think they own the concept. Losers.
in a roundabout way, you've conceded your claim about NFL demonstrators were Dems was wrong. stay on course, the debate is on the NFL demonstration of unity. after i've poked holes in ur convenient claim, about the NFL protesters being Dems, u now want to change the topic to NBA !
So what you're saying now, is that among people who got busted for drugs and had similar job histories, white people were wealthier (but you never told me how much wealthier), and that yet to be quantified wealth difference, explains why white people get sentenced to half the amount of time for the same offenses? That graph is meaningless because it's not referencing the subset of people that the study is, you'd need to find me a graph of income by race among people who were busted for drugs in Florida, AND had similar prior work experiences. I don't have that graph handy either, but I wouldn't doubt that white people have greater wealth than black people in that graph. The question is how much wealthier and whether that difference in wealth can explain study's findings. When you put it that way, your your explanation is more far-fetched than my explanation. Exactly what wealth difference would you say can explain away a 50% lower sentence from judges? $20k? $30k? $100k? And then how likely is it that the white person with the same job history has $20/30/100k more wealth than a black person. Remember I am pretty sure that all of these cases are for black and white people of lower income. Rich people don't get busted for drugs.
The murder is okay, but kneeling for the anthem is over the line. _____ Remove the Ray Lewis statue in front of Ravens stadium I want the Ray Lewis statue at Ravens Stadium removed because of his refusal to stand during the National Anthem. That song honors our country and our veterans who fought for it. To kneel during it is disrespectful, regardless of what you are protesting. I will not stand for that kind of disrespect towards our country, especially from a legend such as Ray Lewis. You stand for the National Anthem as a salute to those who can't stand because they fought for this land. https://www.change.org/p/baltimore-ravens-remove-the-ray-lewis-statue-in-front-of-ravens-stadium
Well that's okay that you don't follow along, but that really isn't the fault of the argument, the failure is your own. If you can't see how a group with far greater wealth would fare better in court battles on average than a group with next to no wealth then I can't help you. When you can afford to hire better legal counsel, you get better outcomes even with the same background and charged with the same crimes. Shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. Guy A gets a DUI and can afford the best lawyer and gets the case dismissed Guy B gets a DUI and gets a cheap lawyer and gets the book thrown at him. That's just how the system works.
Prove that the white people in this experimental group had far greater wealth. The only failure is yours so far.
Because that's all that's going on right now. The right has absolutely no baggage. The right has done nothing wrong. The right doesn't have any groups on it's extreme fringe that are made up of just bad f***ing people. All the bad is on the left. The ads against the right are so easy that they might be too obvious.
So white people have 10x more wealth than black and Hispanic people even when they have the same job history? I'm sorry I thought your chart showed wealth overall, not among people with similar job histories, you know, the group of people we've been talking about all along.
SMH, if you take a sample from group A and a sample out of group B, if those in group A have on average 10x more wealth than those in group B, you are incredibly likely to end up having the sample from group A have considerably more wealth than the sample from group B. So yes, even if they have the same job history, if you have a sample of white people they are likely to have on average considerably more wealth than black people. I know, it blows your mind. Like I said before, i don't expect to you accept rational explanations, I know that to a person like you the ONLY possible explanation for inequality of outcome has to be some form of bigotry.....so don't worry about it. I'm not expecting any better from you.
