You Don't Blame Someone You Hate For Something You Support

I'm not a liberal. But all the liberals I've seen do not support the riots - they support the protests. Big difference.

When liberals call the riots "peaceful protest" they are supporting it.

No, there has been some peaceful protests along with the riots. Their not as common and don’t really have a point anymore considering the Libs got what they wanted. But on the other hand, many liberals do support the riots. Some are peaceful, some aren’t.

True. There are some actual peaceful protests, one took place in my city. It was about 50 people standing in front of city hall. That was it.

because the police and right wingers are almost all of the reasons for escalation. tear gas isnt even allowed in warfare and the police are just lugging that trash at peaceful protesters.

Yes, all the looting and beating people are rightwingers hahahahahahaha

When will you leftists take responsibility for the actions of fellow feral leftists? Rightwingers were the ones protesting peacefully over lockdown a few weeks back and you hypocrites whined about that.

wow way to misquote me bro, very cool

My bad. Those evil police and rightwingers just somehow forced the rioters to riot. Got it now.

thats a pretty loaded statement, but yes, the police and right wingers are getting protesters to become violent. its called leading by example and it does work

That's called an excuse. However, antifa have infiltrated the actual peaceful protesters, even coming from out of state. Are there some rightist people larping, trying to escalate things? I'd believe it. But the lack of evidence makes me think the numbers would be small. Certainly not enough to blame for everything that's happening. That's just a pathetic excuse to deflect blame.

is there more evidence to suggest that it is actually antifa, which isnt an actual group like the kkk is, than there are white supremacists inciting violence, or are you just assigning blame because the cause is generally left wing? how do you know 'antifa people' arent the fringe larpers and the white supremacists are the ones coordinating violence from out of state. no one really knows, and im willing to drop the claim about right wingers inciting violence because of that, but ive seen too many police brutalizing innocents to say that's just some weirdos

Stop being silly.

The rioters & looters are Police & Right Wingers?
Did the Tooth Fairy inform you of this, or was it Winnie the Pooh?

let me rephrase: many instigators are police and right wingers, not all, but many
it's not something i can prove with solid data, just several anecdotes, cause where would that data come from, police reports? in turn, you cant prove that most of the instigators are antifa or whatever without anecdotes or police reports. and police reports would obviously have a conflict of interest.

Nonsense.

In NYC, 1 out of 7 looters arrested were from out of state - as far as Texas. They didn't travel here to loot a bottle or two of whisky.

0 of those arrested were cops.
The problem with your sceanrio is that a cop dressed as a masked rioter is taking the chance of getting treated like one by other cops. Surprisingly not many takers. Oh, and to what end?

While Right Wing extremists may be in there, most of the infultrators are Antifa, as these are their tactics and the very unrest they seek to exploit for their own ends.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-intelligence-antifa-weekend-violence-george-floyd-protests-2020-6?utm_source=reddit.com

Agreed, you ARE anti-intellectual.
Tear gas isn't allowed in warfare and Antifa instigators is proof cops are looters? What planet are you from?

I don't do links, and that includes of those who haven't a clue what they're talking about.

anti-intellectual

wait please confirm you thought you got me i would love to know if you thought not looking at opposition arguments would make you win

The burning and looting started before the police started launching tear gas.

And, where do you get this nonsense that tear gas isn't allowed in war? Why do liberals just make shit up.

i disavow any actual protesters looting, but some of it was instigated by undercover cops and alt-right people who wanted to increase tensions

and do you want to die on that tear gas is allowed in war claim? did you actually google it before you said that?

So, Antifa is made up of undercover cops and alt-right people? Say what?

YES!!!!! I CAN SEE THE BADGES AND MAGA HATS!!!!!

haha

wearing black and masks, antifa exclusive activity

I keep hearing this claim it was undercover cops, but nobody has any evidence of that. If you do, I would be happy to see it. But every time I ask for it, the only thing I get is a picture of a white guy looting, but nobody knows the white guy is a cop. They are just saying is because he is white.

there was a guy at the beginning of the protests who had an umbrella who was acting suspicious, smashing windows nonchalantly in an expensive mask. he was not confirmed to be a cop, but there are a multitude of clips where cops just spray a crowd with mace and start attacking the protesters (https://twitter.com/junkwannie/status/1267732718391099392) (https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225). I've seen a clip of a cop forcing a stick into a protesters hand while they were pinned on the ground (https://twitter.com/BrutumF/status/1267575655509577728), ive seen an actual undercover cop lying about being a cnn journalist (https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1266773045416546305). yeah, cops are definitely instigating a lot of fights, and are really invested in hiding it (https://twitter.com/ChrisBishopL1C4/status/1266546753182056453) (https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1267918654944968708)

Well thanks for showing up and showing us you also, like everyone else, can't prove your claim that cops are the ones looting.

there are videos of cops breaking stuff like their own cars, but i didnt say they were looting. i said they were ESCALATING

nice. meme.

Again, there were already riots before cops showed up in many many places

im not saying *every individual riot* was caused by opposition parties, rioting is inevitable when there's an unaddressed problem is present in society. look at the revolutionary war for example or revolts against kings in europe

You're not responding to me, you're responding to the author. But you haven't done that, because you can't, because you didn't read it.

why would i be responding to the author? hes not here

It's substantiated in your failure to respond to the authors shitting all over your comparison

how do i know you read it yourself and youre not just bullshittin in a faux own

So you can't read very well. Well I knew that, but you established it again.

The tea was the property of the STATE SPONSORED east India company.

Do you get it, or does mommy need to draw a picture?

actually youre kinda right i only skimmed the article cause it was a bunch of bullocks.
are youre saying people in the east india company actually harvesting the tea and exporting it were to blame as much as parliament in london who conscripted the tax laws?

Start here

https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/comparing-floyd-riots-to-boston-tea-party-insults-actual-patriots/

aight i read it

i have some problems. first of all, i disagree with the characterization of martin luther king jr. quoting him to tell people they should bootlick is a blatant insult to his memory.

on the main point of the article, whether or not the boston tea party is an action-action mirror of what's happening today is a nitpicky point if you asked me. the people who worked to get that tea across the atlantic ocean must have felt some type of way to seeing their source of income floating in the harbour that morning.

i also dislike that the author says that likening the boston tea party to what's happening now is insulting the people who made this country possible. the boston tea party was a reason for increasing tensions, but in no way is it comparable to the actual war. i think the revolutionary war is more comparable because livelihoods were destroyed and buildings were burned and everything you people complain about happened. the author focusing on the boston tea party is fine, he can do that, i dont really care; im not married to that comparison, but no one is going to tell me the revolutionary war cant be compared.

so i assume whoever harvested the tea deserved to have their labour dumped into the boston harbour because of actions by the british government
and i also suppose during the entire revolutionary war no american property or american lives were attacked by american minutemen.
no comparisons can be drawn at all

So you can't challenge the author? You need me to paraphrase the author for you to do it? You can't be this foolish.

i could read it, im just lazy and doing other stuff lol sorry for dissapointing you

You're back with a fresh supply of stupid...lets take a look...

"just look at obama and how he didnt fix things, how donald trump spearheaded the birther movement in response to his election."

This wasn't a question of RACE, it was a question of NATIONAL ORIGIN. But I understand your confusion, as you're not very bright. In fact, this argument was created by the Left and used against John McCain who was born on an Army Base in Panama. The Left attempted to claim he was not born in American and hence ineligible to be President.

"but 'racism is over and theres no systemic problems anymore' is incorrect."

Where did I say racism was over? Racism is a problem. But there is no such thing as "systemic racism". I challenge you to produce a single law or institution that propagates racism in this country.

"my response to mlk's daughter is '>you are an answer and a solution'. and dont think you can walk away without addressing the present events. there people being actively peaceful and getting attacked by the police unprovoked, right now. theres a curfew to suppress protests."

This isn't a response, its merely a regurgitation of your ignorant claims that don't hold up to scrutiny. Case in point, there is no curfew to suppress protests. There are curfews to suppress RIOTS. These are not protests. They are riots. Stop trying to defend RIOTS by calling them PROTESTS. This is the new "hands up don't shoot" lie for this chaos. And its really stupid.

As I have said, you don't offer anything concrete or substantive. Instead you misquote MLK, misread MLK and dismiss the reality the man WAS AGAINST RIOTS. You then cry "systemic racism" yet offer zero examples of said institutions, laws or superstructure that create said problem.

You're a joke.

right off the bat youre taking things at face value. why werent white presidents before obama getting questions about whether they were secretly french or canadian or some other 'nationality'? it's just a stupid racist's lazy dodge. john maccain's case isnt comparable, id never heard of it so i cant speak to its size, but it's a definite fact that mccain was born on that military base. there isnt any evidence that obama was born in kenya.

by racism i mean systemic racism. laws cant explicitly say 'black people cant do x' anymore so they have to be written in a non-racialized sense. there was a voter ID law in north carolina that was struck down by courts because it targeted black people 'with almost surgical precision'. it didnt say anything about black people, but the court drew that conclusion from the contents. drawing the line at 'DoEs iT sAy BlAcK PePo?' is so reductive it physically hurts.

what are you talking about 'no curfew to suppress protests' theres literally a curfew in response to the protests. i addressed what youre saying about stopping the riots: why are the police attacking peaceful protesters if it's about stopping riots? doesnt that just incite violence?

Whether or not I read it is irrelevant to your non-response.

yes it is, i could have responded perfectly and your accusations would be irrelevevant

Please don't make the asinine comparison between today's riots and the Boston tea party. It's not rational.

why isnt it rational?

Being able to read is one thing, reading with comprehension is another.

okay? i do indeed have the ability to comprehend what i read. conservatives are dumb tho so sometimes there might not be much to comprehend

So admit to 1) not reading it and 2) predetermining the authors reasoning is "Bullock's", and the only way you could have done that is by looking at the source.

You did nothing to challenge the author and his claims, you simply decided since he doesn't agree with you, he must be full of crap.

Right...and I am supposed to take you as a rational and intelligent human being?

i didnt say i didnt read it, i said i skimmed it; you can often get conclusions like 'this is bullocks' from skimming conservative media

if you would like to paraphrase the authors point i can destroy it with facts and logic, or i could just read the article and destroy it later idk

Again you go to MLK and again you fail to understand the core message. Yes he says that riots are the language of the unheard, YET HE CONDEMNS THE LANGUAGE. Acknowledging what the language is does not equate to supporting the language. MLK never supported riots, never used riots and SPOKE AGAINST THEM AT ALL TIMES.

Then you create this incredible lie " It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years."

Black unemployment was at (pre lockdowns) ALL TIME HISTORICAL LOWS. At no other point in history has there been more black americans in elected office, or appointed positions of power, or as CEO's of large companies. At no other time in America has there been more opportunity for minorities. If you believe there was, please point it out the time, and cite specifically how it was better.

"if you think mlk would be on your side at this time, please reconsider your position."

LOL and you assume ignorantly he would be on the side of rioters? What an incredibly ignorant position. MLK would sympathize with the feeling on inequity, but he wouldn't support riots. You know, its entirely possible to be AGAINST RIOTS AND RACISM at the same time? It's called being rational. Only idiots, such as yourself, reduce this to an ignorant either/or choice. MLK's own daughter is AGAINST THE RIOTS. She stated in interview "Nonviolence is not weak or passive.
Nonviolence is active and aggressive.
It is strategic, with an ultimate goal.
It seeks true peace, which = justice.
Even if you disagree with it as a method for social change, I still hear you and love you. You are an answer and a solution."

This ends the debate. You are defending the indefensible. You are standing in the way of progress. You are the problem.

you read the first sentence of that quote and decided the meaning based on that?

mlk wasnt just talking about unemployment and having elected leaders of a certain ethnicity. that doesnt mean things will change. just look at obama and how he didnt fix things, how donald trump spearheaded the birther movement in response to his election. i think it's your burden of proof to tell me exactly when america was 'great', i never said any point was better than now, and i dont believe that to be the case. it's better than it was 60 years ago, but 'racism is over and theres no systemic problems anymore' is incorrect.

im not in favour of rioting, i just have a high enough iq to understand what causes riots, as did mlk. if you were rational you would agree with me as well as the rest of that mlk quote. anyway, youve already demonstrated that you dont believe that that inequity is present in america, with your speech about employment rates and business owners.

my response to mlk's daughter is '>you are an answer and a solution'. and dont think you can walk away without addressing the present events. there people being actively peaceful and getting attacked by the police unprovoked, right now. theres a curfew to suppress protests. if they were to prevent riots, the police wouldnt be bludgeoning peaceful protesters. call that defending the indefensible.

you claim im standing in the way of progress, but will you say trans rights?
and one more thing: do you luh black people?

Which explains you offered nothing to combat the author who destroys your asinine comparison

can you substantiate that claim?

This pretty much alone destroys the comparison to today's riots and the Boston tea party

"That cold night in December 1773, the Sons of Liberty did not seize or destroy the property of their countrymen. They didn’t threaten members of other local militia companies, rampage through the streets of Boston, or exploit the anger of the moment to burn down the homes or businesses of their neighbors."

Secondly, the MLK quote does nothing of the sort, as you claim " just bootlick". Nothing in that quote says that. That is the most inane and reductive summary of that quote. The thrust of the quote is as simple as it can be. Violence is never the solution to these matters.

"Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible."

The fact you chose to equate this to "bootlicking" shows you're incapable of combating MLKs reasoning, so you create an argument that was never put forward. MLK isn't saying "do nothing, hold your breath, and hope for change". He is saying there are other paths devoid of violence, and violence is antithetical to the goal, which is brotherhood.

As I suspected, your recalcitrance to addressing the author's writings was because you would be unable to provide a logical counterargument. Hence your words "I dislike...". Well, it's not about "liking" the argument, it's about countering it, which you didn't do.

again, youre ignoring my comparison to the revolutionary war, instead continuing to focus on the boston tea party, which im not going to argue further. that quote was clearly used to request bootlicking because mlk has also said
"Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."
to simply state 'mlk of milk toast said rioting is bad so you shouldnt do it' is 'technically correct' but disgustingly oversimplified and a call to bootlicking. if you think mlk would be on your side at this time, please reconsider your position. no one has said unironically that the rioting is absolutely positive, but it is a consequence, and we cant condemn the rioters until we have condemned the root cause. to do one and not the other is an implicit endorsement of that other.

Again we see just how dumb you are

"why werent white presidents before obama getting questions about whether they were secretly french or canadian or some other 'nationality'?"

JOHN MCCAIN WAS WHITE..He was the FIRST ONE TO GET THE QUESTION.

Next you go even FURTHER into the dumb "john maccain's case isnt comparable, id never heard of it so i cant speak to its size,'

First you say "its not comparable" then you say you "NEVER HEARD OF IT". How do you know its not comparable if you never heard of it?

Just stop talking, the more you talk, the more you embarrass yourself.

Can you get any dumber? Yes, you can..lets see just how much dumber with this...

"by racism i mean systemic racism. laws cant explicitly say 'black people cant do x' anymore so they have to be written in a non-racialized sense. there was a voter ID law in north carolina that was struck down by courts because it targeted black people 'with almost surgical precision'."

SO THE INHERENTLY RACIST SYSTEM SELF CORRECTED TO END A RACIST LAW? And this is your example of "systemic racism"? A law that was STRUCK DOWN?

I'm literally icing my head right now, because I smacked it against my desk from my reading that.

"what are you talking about 'no curfew to suppress protests' theres literally a curfew in response to the protests. '

Follow the bouncing ball...They...Are...RIOTS...Not....Protest.

Now f**k off, you are seriously studid.

you didnt even address my first point: it's a definite fact that mccain was born on that military base. there isnt any evidence that obama was born in kenya. if you cant 'win' without blatantly quoting me out of context, then you should probably just give up.

my example of racist law was perfectly reasonable. not every racist law is scrutinized. nc was just lucky to catch it. you should hit your head so much, it's caused you to think only in anecdotes.

you obviously having been keeping up with the protests because there are peaceful protests happening all across this country that are being put down with extreme force. youre kind of being a fash apologist, and it shows through your denial of systemic racism.

"Now f**k off, you are seriously studid" this speaks for itself

Captain Moron strikes again

"how do you know black americans are poorer because of poor choices?"

I know statistically, that black Americans graduate high school at a lower rate and are raised in single parents homes at a higher rate than white Americans.

"As economist Thomas Sowell points out, before the 1960s “most black children were raised in two-parent families.” In 2013, over 72 percent of blacks were born out of wedlock. In Cook County –which Chicago belongs to – 79 percent of blacks were born to single mothers in 2003, while only 15 percent of whites were born to single mothers."

Not going to school and having sex out of wedlock ARE CHOICES.

"because if black communities are coincidentally more policed than white ones. could that possibly be a factor? hmmm."

Interesting question, but again, reductive. The question is WHY ARE BLACK COMMUNITIES POLICED MORE? Well, we know that black Americans represent roughly 13% of the population, yet they are OVER REPRESENTED in the number of crimes they commit.

As remains the case today, blacks in the past were overrepre­sented among those arrested and imprisoned. In urban areas in 1967, blacks were 17 times more likely than whites to be arrested for robbery. In 1980 blacks comprised about one-eighth of the population but were half of all those arrested for murder, rape and robbery, according to FBI data. And they were between one-fourth and one-third of all those arrested for crimes such as burglary, auto theft and aggravated assault.

Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks com­mitted more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation." -Jason Riley

Now, I really don't have any more time for you and your inability to read and comprehend, and your invisible Boogeyman of "systemic racism".

You twitchy sperg.

HAHAHA

ad hominem, make your point

Prove 'blacks that got a harsher sentence then whites for the same crime' didn't have previous charges that influenced the sentencing.

Whites and blacks smoke at the same rate was determined by voluntary admittance, not drug tests, so it's not proven and meaningless.

Gee, maybe because when people commit crime while having drugs on them, they are more likely to get charged for it.

youre right, one of the reasons black people get harsher convictions is because of criminal history. can you explain to me why black people often have criminal histories? that would be real interesting.

can you prove that the voluntary admittance data is significantly unreliable to label it as meaningless? theres no meddling in the data by the researchers is there?

LOL..."like say, being unable to get a job"

Well, that would be a lot easier if you would just graduate high school. Real shit.

Birther arguments are not actually a new thing. They have been in American politics for over 100 years. I didn't want to have to bring this up, but your idiocy and general lack of knowing what you talk about now demands it

birther arguments have been raised against Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona before it was a state), George Romney (born in Mexico to American parents), and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents) as well as Obama and Cruz.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/one-hundred-years-of-birther-arguments-56236

As for establishing it was leftist who brought the claim against McCain, yes that can be shown. In fact serious debate, with mutliple constitutional experts weighing in.

youre more than 118 years old? all of those examples you listed execpt for obama were legitimate concerns. those questions create precedent for the requirements for the presidential election because theyre all gray areas. for obama, people are seeing his birthplace being hawaii, a state and saying 'but what if he was born in kenya?'

how is it that leftists are shown to have invented these birther arguments? you didnt actually support this claim by mentioning serious debates

Ummm, because they commited crimes? And before you talk about poverty, poor whites don't commit crimes at the rate poor blacks do. The real problem is single parent homes. It's the single biggest indicator for future incarceration, drug use etc. For all races. Unfortunately black kids go through about a 75% single parent household rate. And the white rates are also skyrocketing. 100 years ago, it actually was more statistically common for black people to have a 2 parent home than whites by a small margin. Democrat policies that incentivized the single parent home changed that.

No, but there's no way to know who's lying. It's a poll, not scientific.

"Democrat policies that incentivized the single parent home changed that." is this...institutional...racist policies???????????
and ill not question you on whether those policies were actually made by democrats because it doesnt matter LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
and it doesnt even matter about the poor whites single parent households skyrocketing, because it brings questions about your initial point about poor white people committing less crime than poor black people, and black people are more likely to be poor. thank you for agreeing with me!

You didn't make that point, and it's a known fact the military bases on foreign soil are considered US territory. Yet, Leftist invented the Birther argument anyways, against a WHITE MAN

leftists? can you substantiate that it was leftists? if you asked me id say mccain has every right to run for president

and i did make that point, i guess youre not reading properly. try ctrl+f and copy this in: "it's a definite fact that mccain was born on that military base. there isnt any evidence that obama was born in kenya". you should get two results, excluding this comment, considering i copied that sentence from my original comment.

it seems you didnt get it the first time so ill try and explain again. john mccain, who was born on a military base in panama, getting a legitimate question about whether he was eligible, which it was determined he was, is not equivalent to people baselessly claiming that someone who was born in the state of hawaii was actually born in kenya and that his birth certificate was fake and his wife was a man and it's a big conspiracy. no one was making outrageous claims like that against mccain, the WHITE MAN, as you exclaimed.

Double LOL.."do you think that if the opportunities were equal, the success rates would be similar too? "

Nope. It's called EXECUTION. Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcomes.

You keep getting this wrong, over and over and over and over and over.

are black people worse at execution than whites?

LOL..."my example of racist law was perfectly reasonable. not every racist law is scrutinized. nc was just lucky to catch it. you should hit your head so much, it's caused you to think only in anecdotes"

You can claim I can only think in anecdotes when it was you who provided ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING, AND THAT EVIDENCE DISPROVED YOUR CLAIM

you asked for an example of a racist law. i can give you more systemic answers, like the fact that black people are arrested for marijuana possession 4 times as much as white people despite similar usage rates, the fact that black people get harsher sentences for similar crimes done by white people, and black people are more likely to live in an air-polluted environment because they are more likely to be poor, as are native americans, to name a few.

Again we can see, you're just not smart. The issues I will copy from your post you have nothing that proves systemic racism, you're simply implying because of skewed outcomes, there must be racism.

" i can give you more systemic answers, like the fact that black people are arrested for marijuana possession 4 times as much as white people despite similar usage rates"

Usage rates are not directly correlated to people being arrested for possession, and not all users at equal chance of being arrested. There are factors that impact this, one being where the user consumes drugs. For example, if I use marijuana in my home, but don't carry it in public I will have a far lower chance of being arrested on possession charges.

Next you allege blacks are more likely to live in polluted areas because they are more likely to be poor. Well, first if you are poor, period, you are more likely to live in polluted areas. Next you offer zero insight to the major contributors to poverty in America. Studies show time and time again the following factors have the largest correlation with poverty: Not graduating high school, having children out wedlock and or single parent households. Black Americans are far less likely to graduate from high school and far more likely to be raised in single parent homes than white Americans. These factors greatly contribute to the poverty rates we see in black communities. And these are not caused by "systemic issues" but by poor personal choices and the repetitive nature of the choices being made generationally.

As I said you see disparity in outcomes, and conflates equality of opportunity with equality of outcomes. It's not the place of the Government to create equality ex post facto. They should endeavor to create equality of opportunity, and at no other time in America, has there been a more equal opportunity for minorities.

Lastly, I never said "Leftist created the Birther argument". I said "leftist used the Birther argument against McCain, which they did. In fact a liberal law professor named Chin filed a federal lawsuit against McCain seeking to prevent him from running for President. And it was you who said "why werent white presidents before obama getting questions about whether they were secretly french or canadian or some other 'nationality'?"

Well, they were, and just because you're historically ignorant doesn't change that.

lmao i love having to argue against 'just because there is a skew in data between black and white people in almost all systemic instances doesnt mean theres a racial bias' very big brained, sir

do you have data that supports your implied claim that black people carry around marijuana with them more than whites do? because if black communities are coincidentally more policed than white ones. could that possibly be a factor? hmmm.

how do you know black americans are poorer because of poor choices? can you substantiate that they arent pushed into those conditions by socioeconomic factors? like say, being unable to get a job and having to sell drugs to make money, not having access to birth control or contraception? did you happen to watch the prageru video about this by ben shapiro because your argument is the exact same as the one he made.

do you think that if the opportunities were equal, the success rates would be similar too? why is it that the equal opportunity society we have has black people failing at a disproportionate rate to white people?

lastly, may i directly quote you? "Yet, Leftist invented the Birther argument anyways, against a WHITE MAN". your next issue is you say a liberal law professor filed a lawsuit against mccain. first thing's first, you claim he is a *liberal*, not a leftist, and there is a distinction. second, again, that lawsuit was calling to the eligibility of mccain because it was a gray area in law. ultimately, mccain won out of course. but in obama's case, there isnt any evidence to show that obama was born outside of america whatsoever, just weird conspiracies, which you havent provided any precedent for. mccain's birthplace was a fact of the matter, and there was a question to what extend 'born in the usa' counted. but the birther movement's argument was that obama wasnt born in american territory at all, he was from kenya, he was lying about being born in the usa, and was not allowed to run for president, none of which, as i have said, was proven in any way.

I hear using flatulence in war was just banned too! Those evil noxious fumes.

do you want to die on that tear gas is allowed in war claim? did you actually google it before you said that?

How so? I said 'was just banned too' :^)

did i ask?

Do I care?

if you didnt care, 😎you wouldnt have responded😎

Yeah, It's the right wingers fault a white cop killed a black man in a Democrat controlled city in a Democrat controlled state that hasn't elected a Republitard in 30 years.

youre not even addressing what i said, but i dont think it was a democrat-republican thing, stop politicizing my video games

You said the police were "lugging that trash at peaceful protesters".
Were you lying then or are you lying now?

You politicized it when you made the idiotic claim undercover alt right cops increased tension.

Stick to your video games, I suggest the game Pong for mentally challenged people like you.

it's called a meme joke dude

You would have had to make a Meme for your lie to be a little believable.
Liberals sense of humor is as bad as their Memes. You failed...Twice.

my actual argument didnt even fail youre still not addressing my initial argument
>talk about a right winger calling a left winger out on calling his dumb opinion just a meme--fascists been 'just meming' for so long

now, first of all, youre not funny, so you probably wouldnt know a joke if it smacked your ass
and second of all, im not liberal, dont make such vile accusations unless youre certain theyre correct

So now you weren't joking,
Now, now, first of all, You are hilarious, You can't keep your lies straight. , And second, You're whining and lying, just like a liberal.

can you prove that im 'whining' or are you just making stuff up like the usual conservative?

So because tear gas isn't allowed in the military that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used? These rioters are throwing rocks, bricks, etc. Giving 'em Hershey Kisses won't do anything. Tear gas isn't lethal.

yes, war crimes, generally a bad thing, y'know? maybe you make exceptions if the people being war crimed at are political opponents, idk
and i dont know if you can read, but i specifically said tear gas was being used on PEACEFUL protesters

Um,
wOt
&
wOt?