What's the biggest reason for Blacks not advancing

[BigRedBuster]

LINK

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2014/06/18/armor-plated-military-truck-added-johnson-county-fleet/10814955/

Now, I am going to qualify my disgust with the article I posted.

I honestly can understand units like SWAT teams having these vehicles. I remember a day when I think a bank was robbed in Los Angles. The bank robbers were in armor and had M16s. A number of cops were killed because they weren't armed as heavily as the criminals. In an unbelievable moment, the family of the criminals in this case were upset when their "loved one" was shot and killed.

However, I don't see a reason why local police need grenade launchers.

I fully respect police and fully understand they have a tough job. The vast majority of officers on the streets today are doing a very good job. However, this mess in St. Louis is awful and handing people like that grenade launchers is so far out of reality in my book.

 

[LukeinNE]

LINK

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2014/06/18/armor-plated-military-truck-added-johnson-county-fleet/10814955/

I read a tweet from someone that said something like, "we could solve two big problems by taking the police's heavy equipment and giving it to the Kurds"

 

[Junior]

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." That quote comes from Battlestar Galactica's Commander Adama. He says it in the second episode of the first season of the series, "Water", written by Ron Moore. That episode is over 10 years old.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/14/6002211/battlestar-galactica-had-the-perfect-argument-for-keeping-police-and

 

[carlfense]

If this weren't so obviously a straw man I'd ask for examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum.

You....can't be serious.

The global warming thread is full of calls for government action to combat climate change.

The Obamacare thread....

The wealth inequality thread.

The Elizabeth Warren commandments for progressives thread.

Those are just the explicit examples from page one.

Well, then.

. . . anecdotes are a dumb way to make an argument. . . . I'm not going to, because I don't think that's an accurate narrative. A string of anecdotes can be used to say almost anything.

 

[LukeinNE]

Well, then.

. . . anecdotes are a dumb way to make an argument. . . . I'm not going to, because I don't think that's an accurate narrative. A string of anecdotes can be used to say almost anything.

I'd like to think you can tell the difference between building a national (300+ million people!) narrative of white on black oppression with individual stories, which is what I was criticizing, and responding to a challenge for "examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum" with (gasp) examples from this forum.

 

[knapplc]

If this weren't so obviously a straw man I'd ask for examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum.

You....can't be serious.

The global warming thread is full of calls for government action to combat climate change.

The Obamacare thread....

The wealth inequality thread.

The Elizabeth Warren commandments for progressives thread.

Those are just the explicit examples from page one.

Well, then.

. . . anecdotes are a dumb way to make an argument. . . . I'm not going to, because I don't think that's an accurate narrative. A string of anecdotes can be used to say almost anything.

Bravo.

And in none of those threads are there any statements by anyone saying we need MORE government. More EFFICIENT government is a frequently-heard thing, or at least, that's the way I understand it. Government that allocates its resources in different places, but is no larger, is another way I hear these thoughts being expressed.

But there's a want-to, where any time a conservative concept is disagreed with, the knee-jerk reaction is to label the disagreer as "liberal" and presume they simply want the government to be "bigger."

It's a catchphrase for the lazy. It's dismissive and counterproductive. It's also a complete lie from a conservative standpoint - conservatives in Washington don't want government to be smaller, they just want their pet projects funded more than the other guys' projects.

Neither conservative nor liberal in Washington wants or is working toward a smaller government. It's a talking point, nothing more.

 

[Conga3]

Congo...

I think you really are missing the point on this. Try putting down the left wing media conspiracy theory for a minute.

If a reporter is mistreated and the freedom of the press is threatened, THAT is a story in and of itself. Even clear back to the 1968 Democratic convention, media were ruffed up and that was a story.

Now, I have been very vocal on here about my distaste for the media. However, in the cases that have been shown here, I don't see how anyone can say the police are justified.

The police are in a position that THEY have to be the moral high ground. Simply arresting media people for sitting in a McDonalds is so far from that it's inconceivable that someone would defend it.

Again, the police need to be using the media and not abusing them. If you want media people to go against you....well.....they are writing the text book on that.

My comments were not based on any left-wing/right-wing conspiracy, but a comment on the overall decline of journalism and rise of newstainment. Both sides do this.

---

You are correct that if a reporter is hindered/mistreated by the police - that is a story, but it's not the story. In order to remain impartial, however, those accounts would need to remain a separate story than the one being covered in all but the most extreme cases.

By your own admission, you might have let a story about a reporter getting arrested in a McDonalds frame how you view the unfolding story about protesters and police in Ferguson.

---

Listen, I'm guessing most of these police are not the most professionally trained riot police out there. That is actually a comfort to me because it means this sort of thing rarely happens. I don't doubt they will make mistakes in judgement that deserve reprimands.

We (Americans) are not as practiced in both protesting and containing protests as some other parts of the world. Mistakes are going to happen on both sides.

---

I personally tend to favor the police in situations like these because I know they operate within incredibly thin boundaries between their safety and duty to provide safety which corresponds to a very thin boundary on how much force is appropriate and adequate to achieve both goals.

I view the protesters, in general, as uneducated self-serving masses trying to push the limits on what they can get away with and the presence of the reporters (or anyone there with a camera) gives them some assurance that they can push further without consequence.

It's a terribly complicated balancing act and what we are able to see through the reports is only a small fraction of the reality and often a very limited perspective.

 

[Junior]

I view the protesters, in general, as uneducated self-serving masses trying to push the limits on what they can get away with and the presence of the reporters (or anyone there with a camera) gives them some assurance that they can push further without consequence.

Wow.

 

[Conga3]

However, I don't see a reason why local police need grenade launchers.

Maybe someone with more military/police experience than me can chime in, but when I read that I assumed the "grenade launchers" are meant to launch smoke/tear gas...not high explosive grenades.

I think the article title in an excellent example of "newstainment" over "journalism" because the title is meant to have the reader conclude the grenade launchers will be outfitted with high explosives...and not the more reasonable non-lethal ammunition like smoke and tear gas.

I think you're a smart guy, but I'm afraid (and I truly hope I'm right about this) your assumption is incorrect and you were misled by an unfortunate title written by someone more interested in getting links/hits to their article than providing an accurate perspective.

 

[LukeinNE]

And in none of those threads are there any statements by anyone saying we need MORE government. More EFFICIENT government is a frequently-heard thing, or at least, that's the way I understand it. Government that allocates its resources in different places, but is no larger, is another way I hear these thoughts being expressed.

I'll say it again: you can't be serious. Just as an example, Obamacare requires people and employers to buy insurance, or they will be punished by the government. That's an obvious expansion of government power. Or from the Elizabeth Warren thread: "1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." Again, this is a proposal that obviously would be an expansion of government power. Nobody that I would classify as liberal on this forum spoke against it.

But there's a want-to, where any time a conservative concept is disagreed with, the knee-jerk reaction is to label the disagreer as "liberal" and presume they simply want the government to be "bigger."

If there's something the folks on this board who overwhelmingly agree with the policies advanced by what is commonly known as "modern American liberalism" would rather be called, I would be happy to accommodate them.

It's also a complete lie from a conservative standpoint - conservatives in Washington don't want government to be smaller, they just want their pet projects funded more than the other guys' projects. Neither conservative nor liberal in Washington wants or is working toward a smaller government. It's a talking point, nothing more.

I am not a conservative in Washington, nor do I approve of them. I suppose I could be wrong, but I doubt I've said anything nice about them on this forum.

 

[knapplc]

And in none of those threads are there any statements by anyone saying we need MORE government. More EFFICIENT government is a frequently-heard thing, or at least, that's the way I understand it. Government that allocates its resources in different places, but is no larger, is another way I hear these thoughts being expressed.

I'll say it again: you can't be serious. Just as an example, Obamacare requires people and employers to buy insurance, or they will be punished by the government. That's an obvious expansion of government power. Or from the Elizabeth Warren thread: "1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." Again, this is a proposal that obviously would be an expansion of government power. Nobody that I would classify as liberal on this forum spoke against it.

But there's a want-to, where any time a conservative concept is disagreed with, the knee-jerk reaction is to label the disagreer as "liberal" and presume they simply want the government to be "bigger."

If there's something the folks on this board who overwhelmingly agree with the policies advanced by what is commonly known as "modern American liberalism" would rather be called, I would be happy to accommodate them.

It's also a complete lie from a conservative standpoint - conservatives in Washington don't want government to be smaller, they just want their pet projects funded more than the other guys' projects. Neither conservative nor liberal in Washington wants or is working toward a smaller government. It's a talking point, nothing more.

I am not a conservative in Washington, nor do I approve of them. I suppose I could be wrong, but I doubt I've said anything nice about them on this forum.

A perfect, amazing example of reading one thing and understanding another. Truly - bravo.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The funniest thing is talking about an efficient government, which probably exists in the same realm as a Bo Pelini coached team without 4 losses.

 

[LukeinNE]

A perfect, amazing example of reading one thing and understanding another. Truly - bravo.

Could you elaborate? Assuming you're not just yanking my chain, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Congo...

I think you really are missing the point on this. Try putting down the left wing media conspiracy theory for a minute.

If a reporter is mistreated and the freedom of the press is threatened, THAT is a story in and of itself. Even clear back to the 1968 Democratic convention, media were ruffed up and that was a story.

Now, I have been very vocal on here about my distaste for the media. However, in the cases that have been shown here, I don't see how anyone can say the police are justified.

The police are in a position that THEY have to be the moral high ground. Simply arresting media people for sitting in a McDonalds is so far from that it's inconceivable that someone would defend it.

Again, the police need to be using the media and not abusing them. If you want media people to go against you....well.....they are writing the text book on that.

My comments were not based on any left-wing/right-wing conspiracy, but a comment on the overall decline of journalism and rise of newstainment. Both sides do this.​This we can both agree on. We can both agree on this point. News has turned into a combination of entertainment and a mouth piece for one political side or the other. It's disgusting and I see this as a much bigger threat to America than anything anyone can do in Washington.

---

You are correct that if a reporter is hindered/mistreated by the police - that is a story, but it's not the story. In order to remain impartial, however, those accounts would need to remain a separate story than the one being covered in all but the most extreme cases.

By your own admission, you might have let a story about a reporter getting arrested in a McDonalds frame how you view the unfolding story about protesters and police in Ferguson.This is where we differ. I don't see the reporters that were arrested at McDonalds sensationalizing their story for their own glory or to make them look bad. The story here is police over stepping their power and making things worse by doing so. With this in mind, reporters being arrested while sitting and doing nothing more than writing a story or having tear gas lobbed at them while filming a story is a part of the story. It's that way because it was caught on tape and shows even more how far the out of control police are going.

​I guess I haven't seen where all of a sudden the story went away from the protests in the streets and the police reactions to nothing more than reporters being arrested.

I also tend to side with police until evidence points me in the other direction. At this point, I fail to see how I can support the police in Ferguson.

 

[Mierin]

Is anyone . . . anyone at all . . . saying that they support looting and vandalizing? That they think it's acceptable?

Serious question because I might have missed it.

If you're looking for a difference that'd be a good place to start.

I don't know if this counts but on page one, ZRod said: At least it's in response to someone being killed and not a sports team winning or losing.
Moiraine said this: I imagine when the system itself fails and you feel like this crap happens all the time, you start to want to do things that aren't legal because the legal stuff did nothing for you

And then it turned into a whole thing. I don't think anyone "supports" it, but justifying it isn't right either.

I wasn't justifying it. I was empathizing with the people doing it, although I like to think I'd never do it.