Topic: Black Lives What???
msharmony's photo
Sat 08/15/15 03:01 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sat 08/15/15 03:02 PM

your environment doesn't FORCE but it has GREAT INFLUENCE,, we are born innocent, we LEARN from the examples around us and from our environment

a child raised where people are cursing and getting high is much more likely to consider that therefore what is 'normal' and to repeat that behavior ,, and pass down that 'normal' to their kids,, etc,,etc,,


that's right... that's why parent are supposed teach their kids right from wrong. Which is sorely lacking in the black community, thus their social issues. Because frankly, the parents are doing wrong in the first place.

But your words are consistent with your agenda.




my words are consistent with logical debate, its fine if you disagree

this isnt about agenda,

this is about REALITY



back to the point though

parents also learned from their parents at one time

why do we bother with handicapped parking spaces? certainly nothing stops the handicapped from doing the EXTRA work their situation calls for..right?

yet, HUMANE individuals tend to take the details of others situations into consideration

its fine those who are so staunchly opposed to accomodating peoples obstacles, thats their 'agenda' I suppose



however, I understand it takes a community to raise a child into the adult they hope to live amongst,,,


the community, which includes influence from PARENTs, and Friends, and the neighborhood, and the system , and those in authority, and media

there is plenty of responsibility to go around, I am not denying any of it,, but others can refuse to see any of it other than whats in their 'agenda'


no photo
Sat 08/15/15 03:14 PM
I do disagree with your mindset. Because in my opinion it is set on one color... black. And one perspective... black

And in my opinion, that is your only agenda. And it is not the first time you have heard this...you have heard it from many.


msharmony's photo
Sat 08/15/15 03:15 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sat 08/15/15 03:15 PM

I do disagree with your mindset. Because in my opinion it is set on one color... black. And one perspective... black

And in my opinion, that is your only agenda. And it is not the first time you have heard this...you have heard it from many.




well the thread(which I didnt start by the way) is about black lives,, isnt it?

and most of your statements have been specifically mentioning blacks,, havent they?

not sure why my RESPONSES are equivalent to an agenda, and yours arent,,,shrugs

germanchoclate1981's photo
Sat 08/15/15 11:28 PM


I do disagree with your mindset. Because in my opinion it is set on one color... black. And one perspective... black

And in my opinion, that is your only agenda. And it is not the first time you have heard this...you have heard it from many.




well the thread(which I didnt start by the way) is about black lives,, isnt it?

and most of your statements have been specifically mentioning blacks,, havent they?

not sure why my RESPONSES are equivalent to an agenda, and yours arent,,,shrugs

HB 311.666 The black agenda must be accompanied by a non black opinion. If at any point the black agenda is called into question it shall be henceforth and forthwith be validated by a biased opinionation given the circumstance that the opinionatory party be personally opposed to the agenda and/or the party whom the assumed agenda is projected upon. In happenstance such that said black projected agenda (bpa) be of interest to blacks, about black issues, be projected on blacks or those assumed to be blacks, the calling into question shouldn't be questioned but will instantly validate said bpa as 'internet official' retroactive to the connection of internet service by the opinionator. The bpa is non defensible once a majority vote of one is tallied or taken as general lee accepted by 'others'.

no photo
Sun 08/16/15 12:44 AM



I do disagree with your mindset. Because in my opinion it is set on one color... black. And one perspective... black

And in my opinion, that is your only agenda. And it is not the first time you have heard this...you have heard it from many.




well the thread(which I didnt start by the way) is about black lives,, isnt it?

and most of your statements have been specifically mentioning blacks,, havent they?

not sure why my RESPONSES are equivalent to an agenda, and yours arent,,,shrugs

HB 311.666 The black agenda must be accompanied by a non black opinion. If at any point the black agenda is called into question it shall be henceforth and forthwith be validated by a biased opinionation given the circumstance that the opinionatory party be personally opposed to the agenda and/or the party whom the assumed agenda is projected upon. In happenstance such that said black projected agenda (bpa) be of interest to blacks, about black issues, be projected on blacks or those assumed to be blacks, the calling into question shouldn't be questioned but will instantly validate said bpa as 'internet official' retroactive to the connection of internet service by the opinionator. The bpa is non defensible once a majority vote of one is tallied or taken as general lee accepted by 'others'.



And this would mean what to... anyone

P.S. Is that a type-o or did General Lee have his hand in this ;)


germanchoclate1981's photo
Sun 08/16/15 02:50 AM




I do disagree with your mindset. Because in my opinion it is set on one color... black. And one perspective... black

And in my opinion, that is your only agenda. And it is not the first time you have heard this...you have heard it from many.




well the thread(which I didnt start by the way) is about black lives,, isnt it?

and most of your statements have been specifically mentioning blacks,, havent they?

not sure why my RESPONSES are equivalent to an agenda, and yours arent,,,shrugs

HB 311.666 The black agenda must be accompanied by a non black opinion. If at any point the black agenda is called into question it shall be henceforth and forthwith be validated by a biased opinionation given the circumstance that the opinionatory party be personally opposed to the agenda and/or the party whom the assumed agenda is projected upon. In happenstance such that said black projected agenda (bpa) be of interest to blacks, about black issues, be projected on blacks or those assumed to be blacks, the calling into question shouldn't be questioned but will instantly validate said bpa as 'internet official' retroactive to the connection of internet service by the opinionator. The bpa is non defensible once a majority vote of one is tallied or taken as general lee accepted by 'others'.



And this would mean what to... anyone

P.S. Is that a type-o or did General Lee have his hand in this ;)



No, type o-
It's pretty clear given the trail of quotes. If you understand laws you should be able to grasp this.

no photo
Sun 08/16/15 02:59 AM
o.k..... sounds good

msharmony's photo
Sun 08/16/15 11:34 AM



I do disagree with your mindset. Because in my opinion it is set on one color... black. And one perspective... black

And in my opinion, that is your only agenda. And it is not the first time you have heard this...you have heard it from many.




well the thread(which I didnt start by the way) is about black lives,, isnt it?

and most of your statements have been specifically mentioning blacks,, havent they?

not sure why my RESPONSES are equivalent to an agenda, and yours arent,,,shrugs

HB 311.666 The black agenda must be accompanied by a non black opinion. If at any point the black agenda is called into question it shall be henceforth and forthwith be validated by a biased opinionation given the circumstance that the opinionatory party be personally opposed to the agenda and/or the party whom the assumed agenda is projected upon. In happenstance such that said black projected agenda (bpa) be of interest to blacks, about black issues, be projected on blacks or those assumed to be blacks, the calling into question shouldn't be questioned but will instantly validate said bpa as 'internet official' retroactive to the connection of internet service by the opinionator. The bpa is non defensible once a majority vote of one is tallied or taken as general lee accepted by 'others'.



(referencing the infamous Jerry McGuire scene)

you had me at 'non black opinion'


you had me at 'non black opinion',,,,, laugh laugh laugh laugh

Rock's photo
Sun 08/16/15 12:08 PM


Legalities...

"White people should be killed", is a matter of opinion.

I've never seen a statute, that outlaws an opinion.

Now, if she had said, "you should go kill whitey"... she might be guilty of inciting murder.

Had she said, "I'm gonna kill yo' white @ss".'... yeah, that's an actionable threat, and can be charged as such.




Sorry gnome, "White people should be killed." is not an opinion, it's STUPID.
I don't know who this girl was or if she knew or was related to Michael Brown, it may have been an emotional outburst which happen when teens are killed by police gang members terrorists... People say things they don't understand the scope of under circumstances such as this.
Even IF Brown had a weapon, which he didn't, you have to admit that the forensic details (number and placement of the shots) are pretty difficult to justify for an unarmed suspect.
Police have to protect themselves, that doesn't mean shooting someone who has their arms up at distance or continued fire when no weapon is drawn and the suspect is 'charging' or putting more than one round in the suspects head. That was also STUPID. Brown's crime was STUPID, but there was nothing that would indicate that he was armed.
We still hold citizens who 'have authority over other citizens' and an arsenal of non lethal and lethal weapons to A HIGHER STANDARD than 18 year old cigar thieves, and we should. We pay them lots of money.


"Stupid", doesn't negate the fact, that under the letter and intent of the law,
"White people should be killed", is an opinion.

People in general, voice lots of stupid opinions. Especially, when emotions are running high.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Sun 08/16/15 12:50 PM



Legalities...

"White people should be killed", is a matter of opinion.

I've never seen a statute, that outlaws an opinion.

Now, if she had said, "you should go kill whitey"... she might be guilty of inciting murder.

Had she said, "I'm gonna kill yo' white @ss".'... yeah, that's an actionable threat, and can be charged as such.




Sorry gnome, "White people should be killed." is not an opinion, it's STUPID.
I don't know who this girl was or if she knew or was related to Michael Brown, it may have been an emotional outburst which happen when teens are killed by police gang members terrorists... People say things they don't understand the scope of under circumstances such as this.
Even IF Brown had a weapon, which he didn't, you have to admit that the forensic details (number and placement of the shots) are pretty difficult to justify for an unarmed suspect.
Police have to protect themselves, that doesn't mean shooting someone who has their arms up at distance or continued fire when no weapon is drawn and the suspect is 'charging' or putting more than one round in the suspects head. That was also STUPID. Brown's crime was STUPID, but there was nothing that would indicate that he was armed.
We still hold citizens who 'have authority over other citizens' and an arsenal of non lethal and lethal wea
pons to A HIGHER STANDARD than 18 year old cigar thieves, and we should. We pay them lots of money.


"Stupid", doesn't negate the fact, that under the letter and intent of the law,
"White people should be killed", is an opinion.

People in general, voice lots of stupid opinions. Especially, when emotions are running high.


Large numbers of people also say I didn't mean that when they come to their senses. Spur of the moment. Displaced anger...

no photo
Sun 08/16/15 03:24 PM

This poster responded to a article regarding the crime in central park N.Y.. a favorite stomping ground for the 90% committing the crimes in NYC

It is refreshing to see that some in the black community do not have tunnel vision... really is.

My Two Cents 1 hour ago

I'm 59, black, and have five siblings. My father left the family when I was seven, my mother had a massive stroke when I was nine, and we were sent to live in an orphanage. We were taught by our mother to get the best education possible, work hard, and don't bring any children into the world we couldn't afford, or didn't intend to take care of. Those same teachings were continued by the house parents at the orphanage. The Christian orphanage was a very large working farm where I learned to milk cows, bale hay, work gardens, slop hogs, ride horses, etc. Many blacks use the excuse of not having a man around to teach them as to why they're thugs. Knock it off! I was raised primarily by women. Many blacks use the race card whenever they're being held accountable, or told NO. Knock it off! Many black expect to go to jail or prison at some point in their lives. The primary reason many blacks go to prison today is because they're breaking the law. Kit it off! I'm happy to say that I have a good career, hold a Masters degree, and make a good living. I try my best to help young blacks, but many are unreachable. If black communities across America don't get it together there won't be any hope; and the window of opportunity is closing fast. There are many opportunities for black people, but because ignorance and laziness continues to be rampant in many black communities, many young blacks will continue to go to jail/prison, and many will continue to have children they can't afford.




no photo
Sun 08/16/15 04:38 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/16/four-florida-teens-accused-in-carjacking-kidnapping-federal-agent/

Here 4 more " misguided youth" a product of society.. not their families.

They too a victim of history and their surroundings.. not their own decisions.

msharmony's photo
Sun 08/16/15 07:28 PM
can we address the 'agenda' here, and rename the thread 'inferior character of black lives'.....lol


yes, MANY are criminals, just as MANY whites are,,,that isnt the debate

but there are too many who ARENT criminals who are still treated with the same disrespect and suspicion as if they are

and still too many that ARE criminals who arent given the same treatment as other non black criminals,,


that is the debate,,

germanchoclate1981's photo
Sun 08/16/15 08:51 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/16/four-florida-teens-accused-in-carjacking-kidnapping-federal-agent/

Here 4 more " misguided youth" a product of society.. not their families.

They too a victim of history and their surroundings.. not their own decisions.

Jim Jones, David Koresh (not his real name btw), John Wayne Gacy, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, BTK, Susan Smith, Jeffrey Dahmer there are many more but these are considered some of the worst most evil most violent, most inhuman criminals in the U.S.

These are (or were for the deceased) SOME white people. They ARE NOT a representative sample sufficient to PROJECT their criminal nature behaviors or thoughts onto OTHER UNRELATED white people. SOME are serial killers rapists pedophiles child killers terrorists false prophets bent on mass suicide cultists thieves and cannibals who eat their human victims.

Those who are black or assumed to be black don't run around calling all whites pedophiles cannibals rapists terrorists false prophets baby killers and serial killers.

Judgement BEFORE an act is unjust. It's prejudice, unfounded prejudice.
Prejudice based on race or assumed race is unjust.
Capital punishment doled out by police BEFORE arrest charging, trial and sentencing
when there is NO IMMINENT DEADLY THREAT to the PUBLIC, THE SUSPECT or the officer as the CONSTITUTION and other U.S. and STATE LAWS

[major emphasis on this]
WERE WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING THEIR RIGHTS INFRINGED UPON OR REMOVED BY THE GOVERNMENT - the way the English did, the whole reason for the convention of the Continental Congress and the founding of the United States as a Nation.

The interest in the protection of those rights to ALL is not a black agenda. It's an AMERICAN AGENDA that quite a few black people have taken an interest in. What blacks have not taken an interest in, in a RELEVANT and REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, is infringement devaluation or removal of white or any other race of citizens rights.


no photo
Sun 08/16/15 09:15 PM


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/16/four-florida-teens-accused-in-carjacking-kidnapping-federal-agent/

Here 4 more " misguided youth" a product of society.. not their families.

They too a victim of history and their surroundings.. not their own decisions.

Jim Jones, David Koresh (not his real name btw), John Wayne Gacy, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, BTK, Susan Smith, Jeffrey Dahmer there are many more but these are considered some of the worst most evil most violent, most inhuman criminals in the U.S.

These are (or were for the deceased) SOME white people. They ARE NOT a representative sample sufficient to PROJECT their criminal nature behaviors or thoughts onto OTHER UNRELATED white people. SOME are serial killers rapists pedophiles child killers terrorists false prophets bent on mass suicide cultists thieves and cannibals who eat their human victims.

Those who are black or assumed to be black don't run around calling all whites pedophiles cannibals rapists terrorists false prophets baby killers and serial killers.

Judgement BEFORE an act is unjust. It's prejudice, unfounded prejudice.
Prejudice based on race or assumed race is unjust.
Capital punishment doled out by police BEFORE arrest charging, trial and sentencing
when there is NO IMMINENT DEADLY THREAT to the PUBLIC, THE SUSPECT or the officer as the CONSTITUTION and other U.S. and STATE LAWS

[major emphasis on this]
WERE WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING THEIR RIGHTS INFRINGED UPON OR REMOVED BY THE GOVERNMENT - the way the English did, the whole reason for the convention of the Continental Congress and the founding of the United States as a Nation.

The interest in the protection of those rights to ALL is not a black agenda. It's an AMERICAN AGENDA that quite a few black people have taken an interest in. What blacks have not taken an interest in, in a RELEVANT and REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, is infringement devaluation or removal of white or any other race of citizens rights.




good job.... I don't think anyone is really reading your posts anymore ( you kind of blew it with the Tyrone Harris thing).. but by all means continue.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Sun 08/16/15 09:21 PM
Edited by germanchoclate1981 on Sun 08/16/15 09:32 PM
Here's a story...
Once upon a time, an UNARMED group of people outraged by UNJUST ABUSE of power gathered on a street and faced of against their OPPRESSORS. They were angry, belligerent, many of them were intoxicated. Words were exchanged tempers flared despite the cold temperature and snow on the ground. Snowballs and rocks were thrown at the armed men sent by the governor. One of those men raised his rifle and pulled the trigger killing an UNARMED INNOCENT BLACK MAN, Crispus Attucks. HIS LIFE MATTERED to WHITE people, businessmen, soldiers, politicians, tavern owners and drunks. A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE of colonial society thought HIS LIFE and its UNJUST MURDER mattered so much that they CAME TOGETHER and devised a plan to STAND TOGETHER AS MEN AND A NATION and cut ties with England(arguably one of the most powerful and far reaching military empires of its time) and its UNJUST RULE AND TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States are NOT a black agenda, that agenda is 100% AMERICAN.

This was not the only reason for the war or the founding of OUR NATION, it was the straw that broke the camels back. He was the 1st casualty of the war and the 1st person to die for AMERICA. The shot that took his life has been called "the shot heard 'round the world" for well over 200 years, and rightfully so.

Lpdon's photo
Sun 08/16/15 09:40 PM
Blue Lives Matter!

mightymoe's photo
Sun 08/16/15 10:02 PM

I just enjoy the fact that I am the only 'black' person in this thread .. xD


no, your like 3 or 4... unless the others just aren't black enough for ya...

2469nascar's photo
Sun 08/16/15 10:05 PM

I just enjoy the fact that I am the only 'black' person in this thread .. xD
looks around and says WTF dude,need to read this thread from the start,there has been many post from black ppl,,HELLO!

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 08/17/15 01:43 AM
^Idk.
Anyhow, dd, you brought up Tyrone Harris. He has been accused and charged with a gun related crime. There's a reason for being vague. At the time I was asking questions based on what little snippets of crap that was released on the news >as the story develops<. He's been charged.

Dylan Roof was also charged with a gun related crime. In Roof's case there was 1 gun, 1 shooter, 9 victims who died. Roof was apprehended without any shots exchanged even though a black officer was one of the arresting officers who knew who he was arresting. Roof didn't have any gunshot wounds or anything to suggest that he lost control of the gun before all 9 had been killed. If Roof was skilled or quick enough with his gun to kill 9 people inside a building in close proximity, he COULD very likely be even more dangerous given space to manuever. It was also broad daylight when Roof was captured making conditions for accurately targeting officers civilians cars etc, optimal. That is a serious threat that was handled calmly and properly. Perhaps not what many would have liked to happen to Dylan Roof at that time, BUT that is why everyone is not given the duty and responsibility that comes with the badge.

Harris's case is literally a lot messier. Not just with his blood either. Has ANYONE seen or heard anything about the FIRST shooter? I haven't. There were 3 separate shooting incidents reported that night, one seen on surveillance video, 0 body cams 0 dashcams of all the police that were literally camped out in lines in riot gear all over what is reportedly 2 different crime scenes and a possible 3rd since we knew there were 3 separate shooting incedents. If it is Harris seen in the video, which even having seen longer clips of it does squat for the picture quality, he didn't draw the gun from his waist until people were already hitting the deck and scrambling for cover meaning He Wasn't The First Shooter. He then leaves that crime scene and encountered four detectives inside an undercover van who all reportedly fired at Harris from inside that van after he is said to have fired on them first. No police were reported injured.

Anyone who has fired at moving target KNOWS that it is much less mechanically demanding to hit a stationary target. Let's cut the range from indefinite to 40 yards or less which is well within the effective range of modern pistols. There is an added degree of difficulty when the shooter is moving. At any rate, carrying a holstered weapon and having one in hand gives the advantage to the moving shooter with pistol in hand. There is also a degree of difficulty drawing a holstered weapon inside a van. Add to that there are 3 friendlies inside the SAME van. ALL 4 fired on a MOVING target from INSIDE the SAME van. It is highly unlikely that the detectives weapons were holstered.
When someone shoots at you and you draw, return fire, then take off running someone yelling at you WILL spike your adrenaline and invoke a fight or flight INSTINCT. Harris was running, perhaps out of ammo, perhaps a misfeed, a jam, something converted his commission of the act of returning fire (fight), to running (flight) away from where he or someone else at the scene was fired upon. After the encounter at the 2nd
scene with the 4 detectives, his immediate startle response, since it happened seconds later, would be to lift the gun or dive for cover. Im not denying there was any wrong done by Harris but there are at the very least 5 guns and 5 KNOWN shooters. Too much of what should be on video is missing, there's at the very least 1 shooter missing, and possibly another crime scene missing when police were literally lining the streets. I am sure more details will have to surface for a trial to even occur, but from what is actually seen or reported by police chiefs in charge of the protest, one actually being interviewed across the street from the first crime scene at the time of the shooting... There is GROSS NEGLIGENCE across the board by all enforcement agencies involved.

Roof and Harris are both criminals. Considering the FACT of a gubernatorial state of emergency being declared and the deployment of 3 or more enforcement agencies to PROTECT THE PUBLIC on the night in question there are far too many moving and MISSING pieces that the POLICE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. I'd say 3 law enforcement agencies strategically placed in riot gear during a protest that has national attention there should be at least a few seconds of bodycam footage from 1 officer somewhere before or after the shooting(s). And yes, we should hold our law enforcement to a higher standard than the criminals they release and recapture for sport. People do serve sentences for felonies don't they? People do have conditions to their releases and probations when they commit multiple felonies don't they? Why was Harris out again? Who was his judge, p.o.? How long ago was he arrested for these felonies?