Reply With Quote
sounds like the liberal shills
Is "bombing in the name of Allah is bad" something that really needs to be said? I thought we were all of a decent enough intelligence level to know it's understood it's something we all agree on.
The types of threads I post are usually based on American politics, society and education. Things that directly affect us here.
We've got a load of nut job Christians that are in high positions of influence and power that implement backwards laws that holds our society back.
I'd much rather discuss that than to discuss overseas Muslim extremist terrorist activity that we all agree is horrendous but that neither you nor I have direct input on solving.
But sgain, I really don't give a about you and you can take the above post any way you want. I'm here for my own entertainment and edification.
sounds like the liberal shills
50%
But we have to define what "knows" means.
"Knows" does not mean approves of or condones in any way. A lot of Muslims living in the US really like it here. They may have gotten good jobs, are eating well, like the educational system and some even root for the Spurs. They would say any with terrorist ideas are nutts to try to do damage.
Back to who do they know. I'll bet they can with very reasonable accuracy say which have UnIslamic violent tendencies.
And you'll waterboard the info out of them if you have to
There's nothing racist about that statement. More importantly, I didn't make it.
There are more pro-PC people than anti-PC. If there weren't, being PC wouldn't be an issue.
And only one side for Michael Brown being killed? Must be nice living in a world where everything is cut and tried and the villains wear black hats so we can all see who they are.
I agree with the idea that the country is adapting and all that. But the country adapts because of the people in it. So those resisting the flow aren't just obstructing. They are trying to change the flow itself.
I think it misses the point to say, "You can say anything you want ... as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences." We know that. The problem isn't that the government is forcing people to be PC. It's that our culture is doing so, and the only way to fight it is to speak out. Is PC all bad? No. But there are cases where it limits the free transmission of information. We've seen this with clock boy, Trayvon and Brown recently where there are two different sides to the story depending on what news source you go to. That really just shouldn't be the case, especially not about potential facts or context.
Like did clock kid just keep plugging in his project despite being told by a string of teachers to stop doing so? Some sources suggest that, but the main ones don't. Are those other sources just making it up, or at the main-stream outlets just unwilling to say anything that could be construed as "victim-blaming"? We don't know, and that is a tangible issue with our nation's epistemological trajectory. We live in a nation that's too integrated and has information too easily available for us to be this ignorant of information outside of our viewpoints.
And as I've said, being PC about not "blaming victims" prevents people from giving practical advice on how to keep yourself safe in an unfair world. Too many people focused on their dreams and not enough focused on their lives.
Lots of HATE from you white men
The dark side of Guardian comments
As part of a series on the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ushpmg00000003
Wtf Michael Brown?
Ahmed brought a clock to school. Showed his clock to his teacher. Got arrested.
Michael Brown broke the law and resisted arrest.
You're an idiot.
And released with no charges.
And was killed.Michael Brown broke the law and resisted arrest.
You're the one who seems unable to understand a three-dimensional situation.You're an idiot.
Dutch oven.
Good Morning. I hope those of you who live in the San Antonio area didn't suffer any loss in last nights storm. It was a doozie.
Missed my house.
Now here is some irresponsible journalism.
Belgium releases Paris attacks suspects without charge
Three people arrested in Brussels in connection with the November Paris attacks have been released without charge, Belgian prosecutors said on Wednesday."Within the case opened in the wake of the Paris attacks of November 13th 2015, the three persons that were arrested for questioning yesterday... have been released by the investigating judge," said Eric Van der Sypt, a spokesman for Belgium's federal prosecutors.
"They have not been charged," he added.
On Tuesday, Belgian police arrested the three people in the Brussels district of Uccle during a raid linked to the investigation into the Paris attacks, which left 130 people dead and hundreds wounded.>
The inference is that they had good reason to hold them and just let them go. Should have given more info.
Were they wrongly i.d.'d?
Did Blake and FromWayDowtown pay for their release and/or get them off on some technicality?
What happened. Article leaves it hanging.
Unless you live in urban Portland or spend a lot of time on Tumblr, I'm not sure how you could say this is the case.
Don't you think if the majority of people were against the Redskins or Indians names, those would have been changed by now?
Was the Gap ad in the news cycle before Gap apologized, or after they apologized?
Is it news when a kid prays at school, or is it news when a kid is sent home for praying at school?
The vocally PC people are certainly loud, but the vocally anti-PC people outnumber them, and that's why the media looks to them to drive ratings and readership. And they rely on that audience thinking that somehow they're the oppressed minority, which is frankly ridiculous.
I do live in Austin Proper, so it could distort my view.
No. Those are private businesses, and their names aren't subject to a public vote. I'm pretty sure if you did a poll, most people would be against it.Don't you think if the majority of people were against the Redskins or Indians names, those would have been changed by now?
No idea. I saw it after, but I'm not a great person to ask about fashion or business news.Was the Gap ad in the news cycle before Gap apologized, or after they apologized?
Are kids sent home for praying in school? Is that not allowed anymore?Is it news when a kid prays at school, or is it news when a kid is sent home for praying at school?
Yeah, that's not true at all. Simply put, being PC has its power in siding with the majority. Now, I agree that not everyone who is PC is militant about it. But the fact remains that PC is dominating the public discussion much more than anti-PC is. This is why Trump's anti-PC tactics are creating a groundswell of new support rather than just consolidating the old.The vocally PC people are certainly loud, but the vocally anti-PC people outnumber them, and that's why the media looks to them to drive ratings and readership.
And they rely on that audience thinking that somehow they're the oppressed minority, which is frankly ridiculous.
Really don't get the point of your contention. You're claiming that the media catering to anti-PC folks (which isn't true on the whole) proves that they are the majority, even though the coverage is aimed at making it seem like they are the minority?
I put cops at a higher standard for recognizing a bomb vs a clock than that.
How long do you want to hold them for without any evidence of wrong doing?
Michael Brown was wrong, the cop wasn't in that case.
Armed did nothing wrong, the cops and the school district were wrong by going overboard and having him arrested.
You're trying to compare these two instances. There's nothing to compare.
You're playing a pseudo intellectual card here, pot.
You assume. How do you know there was not any evidence?
And maybe there was not. I do not assume either way. Point being...
If the article would simply have added "there was not any evidence so they were let go" okay.
But it just states they were arrested and let go.
He won't stop plugging in the clock! Arrest him!
If they have evidence, they press charges. If they don't, they let them go free.
It's pretty simple.
I think killing someone who's resisting arrest when you were supposed to have backup with you was going pretty overboard and definitely seems to be considered quite wrong by many people.
Arresting a kid and releasing him after he brought a non-sanctioned item to school and kept plugging it up despite being told repeatedly not to and then clamming up when the police and administrators were questioning him ("It's a clock", is an asshole, unhelpful answer, even if it's factual) definitely wasn't handled the right way, but on its face, it wasn't illegal. The interrogation was illegal, and I have never defended it.
There's a ton to compare, mainly what I was talking about -- the division in the factual evidence presented by the media. But it's not surprising to see that nuance miss you, as you're constantly trying to argue that world is flat.You're trying to compare these two instances. There's nothing to compare.
He won't let me arrest him. Kill him!
Can't seem to get enough of the skin-deep reasoning.
It wasn't considered wrong or overboard by the department of justice and I see no reason to disagree with their assessment. Are you saying otherwise? Be clear about your own opinion. Don't hang it on some vague "many people" assertion.
The DOJ is still assessing the situation in Irving.
There's no comparison here. But keep trying, pot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
