|
|
starbucks hates black people:
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced Sunday that he plans to hire up to 10,000 refugees over the course of the next ten years. The announcement comes after the CEO released a letter to his employees expressing anxiety over President Trump’s executive order to temporarily ban migrants from seven Muslim countries. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389102)
I don't think there are that many Black Africans getting killed by police is such numbers in the USA that it constitutes the label genocide.
They're also not Africans. They're African Americans. Not the same thing. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389562)
starbucks hates black people:
|
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1389570)
I see you've met Mr. Strawman and Mr. Non Sequitor.
|
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1389581)
Those are his two best friends, don't you know?
I need to go to bed. Also, I think I need a temp ban from this subforum since I keep getting sucked in here when I'm procrastinating on doing work... |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1389567)
Except one form of this violence is protected and carried out by the state and the other is not.
Again: There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015. By contrast, only 258 blacks were killed by police gunfire that year. That number also only represents about 25% of the total killings by police of all of races. https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/...M-1024x542.png in 80% of all these cases, the individual was reported to as armed: https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/...M-1024x310.png If anyone is performing genocide in this country it is blacks. The black on black murder rate has always been ~90%, since like forever. Police are NOT perform genocide on blacks. Blacks just happen to get shot while they are armed and committing crimes. If the democrats didn't work so hard to destroy the black family structure, stop promoting out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and stop keeping them as slaves -- giving them enough free shit so they can get by and continue to vote democrat, both the police killing rate and black on black murder rate would decrease. But we don't want to actually solve a problem, we want to point the finger at the "evil" state -- but ONLY when the state is doing something you disapprove, otherwise you'll continue to champion the state to do things like rob from producers, limit freedoms, basically make everyone's lives shitty so everyone is equally poor. They're also not Africans. They're African Americans. Not the same thing. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...437c18b7dd.png It clearly refers to Black-Africans. Not White-Africans, not African-Americans. BLACK (a skin color) AFRICANS (a continent/place). So yeah, not the same fucking thing. We are talking about black people from African countries while in America. |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1389570)
I see you've met Mr. Strawman and Mr. Non Sequitor.
but way to go ignoring my actual position and addressing it head on... what do you call that? :idea: |
|
Also, how did they decided on these 7 countries? The executive order mentions 9/11 and the terrorissts involed several times, but none of them were from the 7 countries involved, and there have been no deaths in the US from any terrorists in those 7 countries since at least 1975 (I don't have data further back than that). The reason it is being called a Muslim ban is because that was trumps campaign and one of the people who helped write the order has been quoted as saying that Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally. The bigges issue with the EO that I have though, is that it is poorly written, poorly exicuted, those that needed to be informed on how to execute and handle it were not, and it was basically just sprung on everyone. I don't know if all those are due to incompitance or design. |
Um. I don't think you can actually commit a genocide against yourself. Again, there's a difference between violence committed by members of the public and that committed by the state.
The police's bias plays out in this scenario and there's little to no accountability for their actions. The opposite is true for african americans that commit murder. I have no clue what that flyer is from, but I'm sure that you can keep digging ad infinitum for random shit that idiots on both sides of the aisle are pushing if you want to use outliers to fuel your sense of outrage. There's no end to it, but it's low hanging fruit. Makes for great sensationalism without really saying anything of importance. Re: not wanting to solve a problem. There's plenty of evidence that there was a bipartisan effort to screw african americans, from the policies of the FHA to the war on drug...and everything in between. Southern states have a pretty solid history of rights violations, many of which aren't in the infinitely distant past. We're far more of a corporate welfare state than anything else. God forbid corporations pay taxes to reinvest in the public sector they benefit from. Oh I'm sorry, I misspelled 'rob from producers'. Both sides limit freedom, the way someone sees it just depends on their bias.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389701)
A Strawman would first require an argument. but way to go ignoring my actual position and addressing it head on... what do you call that? :idea:
|
Originally Posted by x_25
(Post 1389736)
I am more concerned about the fact that the travel ban included green card and visa holders who were outside the country at the time. As well as some people who had visas to those countries but were not citizens and people with duel citizenships who had been living in other countries (canada and britain).
Also, how did they decided on these 7 countries? The executive order mentions 9/11 and the terrorissts involed several times, but none of them were from the 7 countries involved, and there have been no deaths in the US from any terrorists in those 7 countries since at least 1975 (I don't have data further back than that). But yes they are arbitrary and it is a stupid list. It should also not exclude people who already have green cards or visas and such. As all those people have been vetted extremely well. |
Originally Posted by shuiend
(Post 1389738)
The 7 countries were chosen from a list that Obama signed into law in 2015. I believe they were pork in a budget bill of some sort.
But yes they are arbitrary and it is a stupid list. It should also not exclude people who already have green cards or visas and such. As all those people have been vetted extremely well. I think part of the issue is that people that haven't had to get an American visa or immigrated here have no idea how hard it is to begin with. |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1389747)
I think part of the issue is that people that haven't had to get an American visa or immigrated here have no idea how hard it is to begin with.
|
Originally Posted by x_25
(Post 1389736)
I am more concerned about the fact that the travel ban included green card and visa holders who were outside the country at the time. As well as some people who had visas to those countries but were not citizens and people with duel citizenships who had been living in other countries (canada and britain).
Also, how did they decided on these 7 countries? The executive order mentions 9/11 and the terrorissts involed several times, but none of them were from the 7 countries involved, and there have been no deaths in the US from any terrorists in those 7 countries since at least 1975 (I don't have data further back than that). The reason it is being called a Muslim ban is because that was trumps campaign and one of the people who helped write the order has been quoted as saying that Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally. The bigges issue with the EO that I have though, is that it is poorly written, poorly exicuted, those that needed to be informed on how to execute and handle it were not, and it was basically just sprung on everyone. I don't know if all those are due to incompitance or design. How is it poorly written? How is it poor executed? How do you know those that needed to be informed in order to execute were not? |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1389737)
Um. I don't think you can actually commit a genocide against yourself.
Again, there's a difference between violence committed by members of the public and that committed by the state. The police's bias plays out in this scenario and there's little to no accountability for their actions. The opposite is true for african americans that commit murder. I have no clue what that flyer is from, but I'm sure that you can keep digging ad infinitum for random shit that idiots on both sides of the aisle are pushing if you want to use outliers to fuel your sense of outrage. There's no end to it, but it's low hanging fruit. Makes for great sensationalism without really saying anything of importance. There's plenty of evidence that there was a bipartisan effort to screw african americans, from the policies of the FHA to the war on drug...and everything in between. Southern states have a pretty solid history of rights violations, many of which aren't in the infinitely distant past. We're far more of a corporate welfare state than anything else. God forbid corporations pay taxes to reinvest in the public sector they benefit from. Oh I'm sorry, I misspelled 'rob from producers'. Both sides limit freedom, the way someone sees it just depends on their bias. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389752)
are you okay with gun show loopholes? Are you actually concerned about this, or did NBC tell you to be?
Look at the list of seven "countries of concern" and take a wild guess how they came up with it. But, the previous administration had came up with the list. no. facts don't support this. Using #Muslimban is easier to get angry about and spread fake news about. does it include as many spelling/grammar errors as this post? How is it poorly written? How is it poor executed? How do you know those that needed to be informed in order to execute were not? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389755)
So you deny the holocaust?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389755)
the difference is the violence committed by the state is statically insignificant in comparison.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389755)
Police bias plays out in what scenario? Oh i forgot, ignore the statics again, take focus away from the fact that police only kill blacks at a rate of 25% even though they have an offending rate 8 times greater than whites?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389755)
the flyer is from the black panthers, it's pretty clear if you read it. You took all the humor out of something silly I posted.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389755)
Show me the receipts. You want to know one way black people could stop being harmed by the war on drugs? get out of the drug business.
Is this a good enough receipt: The Racist Housing Policy That Made Your Neighborhood - The Atlantic
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389755)
Are you saying giving jobs to people doesn't somehow benefit the employed? And if corporations paid more in taxes, blacks will somehow be saved? The only color businesses know is green -- they dont see race.
I'm sure coal miners would have been taken care of if the companies weren't forced to provide benefits for the health effects the workers suffered. But I guess, it was the workers choice to work there, right? And businesses see color. They see black and red ;) |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1389760)
That's pretty much exactly what I said. How'd you figure?
No, it implies a different power dynamic. The scenario where they can kill a person with their back turned and claim it was in self defense and get to keep their job. And the scenario in which there has been widespread evidence of racism within departments. Possession doesn't imply dealing. Nope, that's not what I said. It depends on the nature of the jobs and the benefits that come with them. I'm sure coal miners would have been taken care of if the companies weren't forced to provide benefits for the health effects the workers suffered. But I guess, it was the workers choice to work there, right? And businesses see color. They see black and red ;) |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
Since you claimed that genocide cannot be done against your own kind and i was like when in history were there actually genocides. Hilter immediately came to mind, and then I remembered he himself was a Jew.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
what does a different power dynamic have anything to do with anything?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
The problem here is when/if they do go to court, a jury of their peers let them walk... what does this have to do with anything? How does that make it genocide?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
define widespread. If cops performing genocide on blacks were actually true, it would be easily provable. it's not, and the evidence doesn't add up. how does "widespread evidence" of racism prove genocide when cops are killing more whites than black despite whites not causing as much crime (ie., as many interactions)?
Does this fit a criteria of 'widespread':https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rce-finds.html Folks love bringing up chicago for some reason.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
so don't possess drugs.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
the nature of ALL jobs is to work and get paid. if you are getting paid, is that not a benefit?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
yes, actually, they chose to work there. It was either work in shitty conditions, but get paid money in order to live, or not work, stay put, and die. There were other choices to be made.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1389761)
semantics.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands