|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go.
So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist?
We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down.
|
On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 10:31 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 10:15 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2016 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I've always been taught that apologies had the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" in them?
I think she doesn't see the sense in apologizing in an instance where a term was not meant in the way people are talking about. I think she sees how it comes across and would not say it again because it did not come across as she intended. So she didn't apologize like people have been claiming? It's not the generic "she called all black people superpredators" that I'm even discussing. I'm talking about for calling victimized black youth gang members "superpredators" which is exactly what she was doing. Overreacting over her word choices then Overreacting over her word choices now Haters gonna hate no matter what she says It's cute really, like a child yelling at a wall It's not an overreaction then, it's not an overreaction now. She either apologized or she didn't. Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie. Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change. Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change. Their supporters are the same. Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it. Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them. Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is. She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told. Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it.
Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize".
I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry.
On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down.
No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down?
|
NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, which has barred more than half a dozen news organizations from attending events, won’t be able to similarly restrict press access when the candidate accepts his party’s nomination in July.
“If a Trump employee told me that I had to credential or had to blacklist someone, I would not listen,” Robert Zatkowski, director of the House Periodical Press Gallery, told The Huffington Post.
For over a century, the congressional press galleries have facilitated the credentialing process for Republican and Democratic conventions alike.
“The parties have designated the galleries to credential the media because we’re an impartial arbitrator,” Zatkowski said. “This is what we do on Capitol Hill.”
Zatkowski said no one from the Trump campaign, or any other, has urged the galleries to deny credentials for July’s Republican National Convention.
That should come as a relief to some of the news organizations that have been barred from Trump’s rallies and speeches. The Trump campaign’s severe restrictions on the media have been unprecedented, including denying press credentials, at times, to The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, Fusion, Univision, The Des Moines Register, National Review and Mother Jones.
Trump’s team has also targeted individual journalists, as when it ejected a New York Times reporter who’d written an article critical of the candidate’s Iowa field operation. Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, once threatened to blacklist a CNN reporter for leaving the campaign’s designated “press pen.” In another instance, Lewandowski grabbed reporter Michelle Fields, then of Breitbart, as she was trying to ask Trump a question.
Source
|
Banning those organizations is a net positive if anything tbh. They're pretty bad. And lol at the Michelle fields reference at the end. I can't believe a few in this thread attempted to defend her. Especially after Trump was clearly a victim of battery after she grabbed his arm! Corey was a hero after she had just battered his candidate and he very politely moved past her.
|
On May 14 2016 12:32 SK.Testie wrote:
Banning those organizations is a net positive if anything tbh. They're pretty bad. And lol at the Michelle fields reference at the end. I can't believe a few in this thread attempted to defend her. Especially after Trump was clearly a victim of battery after she grabbed his arm! Corey was a hero after she had just battered his candidate and he very politely moved past her.
You're clearly trolling in this post, but I can't tell if your support for Trump is also a case of trolling or not.
|
Well I made two statements. I have an idea that you assume the first one is trolling because banning press isn't necessarily acceptable. But is Buzzfeed really press? Is it really? They have a news section.. but is it really News? Huffington Post... like.. are you trolling by asking me if I'm trolling? + Show Spoiler + They might as well have just posted this on their website instead whenever Trump won a primary and it would have made more sense. + Show Spoiler +
But perhaps you were really convinced by Michelle Fields and I really need to debunk her story with multiple views of video evidence that really show that maybe.. just maybe it wasn't "the worst incident in her life since the death of her father."
|
On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 10:31 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 10:15 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I think she doesn't see the sense in apologizing in an instance where a term was not meant in the way people are talking about. I think she sees how it comes across and would not say it again because it did not come across as she intended.
So she didn't apologize like people have been claiming? It's not the generic "she called all black people superpredators" that I'm even discussing. I'm talking about for calling victimized black youth gang members "superpredators" which is exactly what she was doing. Overreacting over her word choices then Overreacting over her word choices now Haters gonna hate no matter what she says It's cute really, like a child yelling at a wall It's not an overreaction then, it's not an overreaction now. She either apologized or she didn't. Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie. Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change. Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change. Their supporters are the same. Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it. Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them. Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is. She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told. Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down?
But you're the only one upset.
The victims of crime agreed with her.
Most of her supporters agree with her.
And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change.
You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping.
So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty.
I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down.
|
On May 14 2016 12:32 SK.Testie wrote:
Banning those organizations is a net positive if anything tbh. They're pretty bad. And lol at the Michelle fields reference at the end. I can't believe a few in this thread attempted to defend her. Especially after Trump was clearly a victim of battery after she grabbed his arm! Corey was a hero after she had just battered his candidate and he very politely moved past her.
Anti Muslim anti press anti trans. I can definitely see why you care about Trump 
|
Anti-Muslim? Vehemently so. Of course. Any chance I get of course I'll challenge it. I think it's irresponsible and cowardly not to. + Show Spoiler +
Anti-press? Definitely not. But can you see where every presses loyalties lie very blatantly? Yes. Is that a problem? Well that actually needs quite a bit of debate because usually it goes down the sad road of.. 'well the press is run by people.. and either through their own greed or their own personal biases you're just going to have to deal with how they report'
Anti-trans? Literally not remotely caring if Trans people are my friends as I play video games with them day in and out for years is anti-trans now? It's a non-issue. If everyone were like me there'd be 0% trans-bullying in the world.
See this is why people vote for Trump. You labelled me as two things I'm clearly not for whatever reason you thought was a good idea and it's the second time it's been done in this thread. Might as well have gone for the whole trifecta and called me anti-woman because I called out Michelle Fields on her bullshit.
|
On May 14 2016 13:26 SK.Testie wrote:Anti-Muslim? Vehemently so. Of course. Any chance I get of course I'll challenge it. I think it's irresponsible and cowardly not to. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEcBzxoMB8 Anti-press? Definitely not. But can you see where every presses loyalties lie very blatantly? Yes. Is that a problem? Well that actually needs quite a bit of debate because usually it goes down the sad road of.. 'well the press is run by people.. and either through their own greed or their own personal biases you're just going to have to deal with how they report' Anti-trans? Literally not remotely caring if Trans people are my friends as I play video games with them day in and out for years is anti-trans now? It's a non-issue. If everyone were like me there'd be 0% trans-bullying in the world. See this is why people vote for Trump. You labelled me as two things I'm clearly not for whatever reason you thought was a good idea and it's the second time it's been done in this thread. Might as well have gone for the whole trifecta and called me anti-woman because I called out Michelle Fields on her bullshit.
Back pedaling on your hate now? Not only are you a bigot, but a cowardly one at that. No fun to poke at all.
|
No, you're seeing ghosts where there are none and making up claims to someone you've clearly demonized in your mind.
|
Testie, are you anti-Vaccine too?
|
Of course not. I think that it's irresponsible.
Nah TMagpie has me pegged.
Anti-woman
Anti-semite
Anti-gay
Anti-hispanic
Anti-asian
Anti-black
Anti-vax
Anti-love
Anti-peace
Anti-tolerance
Anti-handicapped
Anti-medicine
Anti-shelter
Anti-environment
Anti-language (why use language when you can use violence?!)
Pro-war
Pro-hate
Pro-death
Pro-annihilation by any means necessary
Pro-Stalin because I think he was a worse guy than Hitler and if we're going all out, we're going Stalin baby
Pro-Trump-pac-alypse because can't wait til he has his finger on the button and starts melting people who aren't American enough
The jig is up. You got me. An entire lifetime that says different from his assumptions but he really got me deep down it was all a secret racist dog whistle. Was hoping you normal people couldn't hear it. But TMagpie was too smart and now I'll disappear into the hole I crawled out of.
|
On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 10:31 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So she didn't apologize like people have been claiming?
It's not the generic "she called all black people superpredators" that I'm even discussing. I'm talking about for calling victimized black youth gang members "superpredators" which is exactly what she was doing.
Overreacting over her word choices then Overreacting over her word choices now Haters gonna hate no matter what she says It's cute really, like a child yelling at a wall It's not an overreaction then, it's not an overreaction now. She either apologized or she didn't. Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie. Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change. Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change. Their supporters are the same. Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it. Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them. Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is. She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told. Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down.
Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it.
Some did some didn't.
Of course they do.
It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time.
Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way too smart to try to sincerely make that argument.
I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession.
You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness.
|
On May 14 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 10:31 TMagpie wrote:
[quote]
Overreacting over her word choices then
Overreacting over her word choices now
Haters gonna hate no matter what she says
It's cute really, like a child yelling at a wall It's not an overreaction then, it's not an overreaction now. She either apologized or she didn't. Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie. Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change. Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change. Their supporters are the same. Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it. Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them. Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is. She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told. Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down. Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it. Some did some didn't. Of course they do. It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way to smart to try to sincerely make that argument. I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession. You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness.
Heres what I don't get then. If her choice of words is not an issue with you, why does her talking about wanting to reduce violence in black communities offend you? What is it about her listening to black communities asking for that bill offend you? What makes a white person in power listening to people of color and providing them with they asked for something you find terrible? I mean, if word choice doesn't matter to you, and only her intention mattered to you--what is it about her agreeing with people of color under siege from the spike in crime in their area so terrible?
Because, much like Bernie was trying to say something positive but used words that sound bad when taken out of context, so did Hilary. She knew what she was saying back then, much like the people of color who supported the bill knew what she was saying, and she's not going to change or deny her message just because some people get hung up on word choice. But she understands that if people care so much about word choice that she's willing to not use it--because the fact that she used the word super predator was not the point of the speech. So she's not going to double back and change what she meant back then to fit the narrative her opponents want it to be.
|
On May 14 2016 14:03 SK.Testie wrote:
Of course not. I think that it's irresponsible.
Nah TMagpie has me pegged.
Anti-woman
Anti-semite
Anti-gay
Anti-hispanic
Anti-asian
Anti-black
Anti-vax
Anti-love
Anti-peace
Anti-tolerance
Anti-handicapped
Anti-medicine
Anti-shelter
Anti-environment
Anti-language (why use language when you can use violence?!)
Pro-war
Pro-hate
Pro-death
Pro-annihilation by any means necessary
Pro-Stalin because I think he was a worse guy than Hitler and if we're going all out, we're going Stalin baby
Pro-Trump-pac-alypse because can't wait til he has his finger on the button and starts melting people who aren't American enough
The jig is up. You got me. An entire lifetime that says different from his assumptions but he really got me deep down it was all a secret racist dog whistle. Was hoping you normal people couldn't hear it. But TMagpie was too smart and now I'll disappear into the hole I crawled out of.
Now you're going too far. I never said you were anti handicap.
I mean, trump is, so most likely you are--I just haven't said it yet. I guess until now--oh well.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 14 2016 14:03 SK.Testie wrote:\
Pro-Stalin because I think he was a worse guy than Hitler and if we're going all out, we're going Stalin baby
Pro-Trump-pac-alypse because can't wait til he has his finger on the button and starts melting people who aren't American enough.
These two are inconsistent. Since you're going all out, you gotta go Cruz. What's a deportation or two compared to wanting all life to be extinguished so that Jesus may return?
|
|
|
On May 14 2016 14:24 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's not an overreaction then, it's not an overreaction now. She either apologized or she didn't.
Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie. Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change. Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change. Their supporters are the same. Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it. Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them. Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is. She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told. Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down. Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it. Some did some didn't. Of course they do. It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way to smart to try to sincerely make that argument. I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession. You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness. Heres what I don't get then. If her choice of words is not an issue with you, why does her talking about wanting to reduce violence in black communities offend you? What is it about her listening to black communities asking for that bill offend you? What makes a white person in power listening to people of color and providing them with they asked for something you find terrible? I mean, if word choice doesn't matter to you, and only her intention mattered to you--what is it about her agreeing with people of color under siege from the spike in crime in their area so terrible? Because, much like Bernie was trying to say something positive but used words that sound bad when taken out of context, so did Hilary. She knew what she was saying back then, much like the people of color who supported the bill knew what she was saying, and she's not going to change or deny her message just because some people get hung up on word choice. But she understands that if people care so much about word choice that she's willing to not use it--because the fact that she used the word super predator was not the point of the speech. So she's not going to double back and change what she meant back then to fit the narrative her opponents want it to be.
You quoted my post but it's like you didn't read it.
Me: It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. ...not just about "word choice"
TMag: If her choice of words is not an issue with you.
I know you're too smart for that to be unintentional, so I have to presume you're trolling at this point and I'm not going to engage with that.
|
This whole John Miller/Barron thing is a fun little look into the mind of a megalomaniac. Speech experts are already starting to verify it's him. Even without that, when "Miller" says stuff like "I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes” and “I’m going to do this a little, part time, and then, yeah, go on with my life,” it's self evident.
Also, it would be historic to have our first President with imaginary friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-shot-Huffington-Post-620x552.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2b/78/f2/2b78f2e25f06ed43f7dfe89c0ae9b1bf.jpg)
