BLM leader shot and killed in England

Proof that no lives matter to murderers regardless of race.

Whites have not been running their c**t mouths for a year how "white lives matter", have they?

That's the issue isn't it? Why are they running their mouths? First they wore armbands (I can't breathe), then they were kneeling, now they are protesting.

They just keep doing it wrong. Or is it that people don't want to hear it and find excuses not to listen?

They keep doing it wrong - that's for sure.

Their first mistake was to tie their movement to a 'black fist' (of Marxist revolution). That symbol has been used in every Marxist revolution since the original Bolshevik revolution over 100 years ago. This made their movement a Trojan Horse for communism, and founders openly talk about it. So when I say F**k Black Lives Matter, I don't mean black people.

George Soros. I love how that quote is even spelled "cuz its not". He sure is the bogeyman to you guys.

If he was paying protesters, why didn't anyone prove it? Why didn't fox news or OAN put somebody undercover to get some of that money? Because it isn't happening.

Been watching PraegerU have we?

Black fist of the Marxist revolution - They are probably using it based on the black panthers usage. I doubt anyone has thought about it any more than that.

"The raised fist logo may represent unity or solidarity, generally with oppressed peoples. The black fist, also known as the Black Power fist, is a logo generally associated with Black nationalism, Black pride, solidarity, and socialism. "

It could be about socialism, but nobody is talking about it. I would think the solidarity meaning is the most likely.

You want me to misquote a guy who says "cuz it's not" and use 'because it's not' instead?

Fist symbol predates black panthers by half a century, and it's always been synonymous with Marxsims.

Look into Soros and the organizations he's funding, and the groups they're funding... don't take my word for it.

Symbols mean what they mean to people. I can't tell you not to dislike the black fist any more than I could tell people to get over the Confederate Flag or Swastikas'.

However the raised fist is generally considered to be a lesser known symbol, and symbolism is often recycled and reused.

If this logic holds - (flying the raised fist proves that they are a Marxist organization) then should I assume that groups who still fly the confederate flag support slavery and secession?

Soros funds political causes. I feel like he's the rights answer to the Koch brothers.

Ifs been a while since I've gone down the Soros rabbit hole. Any particular things he funds that I would be surprised or offended by?

"Any particular things he funds that I would be surprised or offended by?" - Not if you're a communist, and want to see destruction and fall of The United States.

Feel free to confirm this info for yourself.
imgflip.com/i/4a46bb

Nothing says propaganda and manipulation like throwing together quotes out of context with a picture of a crazy person.

The emphasis on "new normal" is also not how it reads or how the term 'new normal' is currently being used.

They were talking about efforts to replace the soviet man with something else - which I grant is creepy, but the part you are talking is past tense and talking about assumptions made.
I can't find the actual article for full context, and in by experience, when people only give you a piece of something its because they don't want you to have the context.

I'm not defending him - I'm just saying this isn't good enough.

>Why? George Soros only matters to the right. He's just a guy. He makes a convenient >target for conspiracy theories, but otherwise I don't understand why I should care.

>If I found someone donating large amounts of money to groups acting to have planned >parenthood defunded, would you care? If I said it was really all about ensuring their were >more poor people to act as a labor pool, would that change your mind on anything? No, >because it doesn't matter.

>I need a concrete accusation before I'm willing to invest the time. Otherwise he's just a >billionaire doing billionaire shit.

You shouldn't care, no one is forcing you to. It's all about choices, remember?

Look deeper into George to find full context. You're not going to achieve that from any single article. Follow the money.

Why? George Soros only matters to the right. He's just a guy. He makes a convenient target for conspiracy theories, but otherwise I don't understand why I should care.

If I found someone donating large amounts of money to groups acting to have planned parenthood defunded, would you care? If I said it was really all about ensuring their were more poor people to act as a labor pool, would that change your mind on anything? No, because it doesn't matter.

I need a concrete accusation before I'm willing to invest the time. Otherwise he's just a billionaire doing billionaire shit.

Like I said, in my experience pieces of an article out of context are manipulative. Especially when you don't provide the link. It discourages people from reading the full article.

https://www.newsweek.com/soros-american-fallibility-110647

NEWSWEEK: You say that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States. That's a pretty strong statement.

George Soros: Yes, but it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that's rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a "war on terror" after September the 11th, we set the wrong agenda for the world. This is something that people in America find difficult to understand because war seems like the natural response.

Why is a "war on terror" the wrong response to the attacks on the United States?

First of all because when you wage war, you inevitably create innocent victims. When you wage war on terrorists who don't announce their whereabouts, the danger of hitting the innocent people is even greater. We abhor terrorists, because they kill innocent people for political goals. But by waging war on terror we are doing the same thing. And the people who are on the receiving end see us in the same light with the same negative attitude as we have towards terrorists. It's also a threat to our democracy. Because when you wage war, the president can appropriate for himself excessive powers. He can call anyone who criticizes his policies unpatriotic. That undermines the critical process of an open society and that is how we made this tremendous blunder of invading Iraq.

People in America now realize that the invasion of Iraq was a disaster. But we still think that the war on terror is the natural and obvious way to deal with the terrorist threat. But it's a counterproductive policy that has done untold damage to our standing in the world and to ourselves. No outside power, or alliance of powers could really endanger our dominant position, but our own stupidity can do it and has done [it].

Soros almost tanks the entire British monetary system to make a buck
Not a bad guy

You blame Soros, I blame the fact that the British government tried to artificially inflate the value of their own currency.

>And I'm supposed to take your word on those motives and objectives? I generally give >people the benefit of the doubt on motive and objectives. If they say they are doing it for a >reason, then barring strong evidence to the contrary, I go with that. 1. because motive is >difficult to prove and 2. because is doesn't matter as much as you might think.

>If someone donates to a cause for the publicity or to help the people the cause is aimed at >probably makes zero difference to the people being helped.

>Its also a matter of logic. If you had damning evidence, then why are you throwing me BS >like this? If Soros was clearly a bad buy and not just some guy spending his money to do >what he thinks is right, then why all the weak ass propaganda? You are I don't have to >agree that it is right, but I have seen no evidence that he isn't trying to help people.

No you're NOT. You're supposed to look into it more deeply yourself and come to your own conclusion. You're a smart guy. You'll figure it out. Follow the money.

No one does anything for wrong reasons, even Hitler thought he was doing the 'right thing'.

The world is a chessboard. Once you figure out what the game is, you will see clear as day. You wont need interpretation. You will see who is pushing one way, and who is pulling the other. You will finally comprehend the real reasons behind decision-making process. Just don't be distracted with the little things they throw at us to keep us divided. Forget micro, look at macro.

Follow the money - I still have a feeling following the money is only going to lead to 'damming evidence' if I assume guilt beforehand and embrace some questionable sources.

Even Hitler thought he was doing right - agreed. Nobody thinks they are the bad guy.

You assume I think there aren't people pulling strings - on the other hand I actually think there are so many groups with so many strings that its very nearly pointless to discuss.

It is because I think there are so many strings that I dismiss your claims. All you've provided is implied threats and propaganda - propaganda is the easiest method of pulling someone's strings.

The people who try to tell me all Muslims are bad, or all social programs are marxism, or all the scientists are lying, or all the countries of the world got together with all the doctors to fake a pandemic in order to... I'm not even clear on what.

I need motive, suspect, and evidence.

First mistake was waging war on a noun.

I always try to provide Source and Headline so that those interested have no problem finding it.

Yes, strong statement that coincides with the prevailing opinion in the world, sure. But to truly understand what he is saying, you must understand his motives and objectives.

And I'm supposed to take your word on those motives and objectives? I generally give people the benefit of the doubt on motive and objectives. If they say they are doing it for a reason, then barring strong evidence to the contrary, I go with that. 1. because motive is difficult to prove and 2. because is doesn't matter as much as you might think.

If someone donates to a cause for the publicity or to help the people the cause is aimed at probably makes zero difference to the people being helped.

Its also a matter of logic. If you had damning evidence, then why are you throwing me BS like this? If Soros was clearly a bad buy and not just some guy spending his money to do what he thinks is right, then why all the weak ass propaganda? You are I don't have to agree that it is right, but I have seen no evidence that he isn't trying to help people.

Not saying there's not blame to go around...

How about trying not to commit disproportional amounts of crime that puts them at risk of a bad encounter with a cop? Maybe that's worth a shot?

Why do black people commit more crime?

Why do so many act like they don't? Especially the blm activist types?

I was going to stretch this out, but...
POC are more likely to be shot by police and are in jail and in poverty at greater numbers (by %) than others. Personal responsibility only works at the individual level. You shouldn't expect to see consistent deviations by race year after year. So, I have to conclude that either black people are more criminal than the rest of us, or there is something else. Since the closest thing I have to a core principle is "People are people", I am unwilling to accept black people are less. Could it be socio-economic (more POC are poor)? Maybe, but then why are more POC poor? We come back to the same question. Any excuse you come up with still comes back to why are POC more effected?

So the way I see it, either we have some things to address in society or black people are inferior. I find the later to be unacceptable.

Gangster culture has an impact. Constantly being told that they can never make it fairly in a world controlled by racists that oppress them at every level is probably a severely heavy demoralization. Then there is the attitude towards cops, who they are told are all racists, presumably the black officers as well. I don't care what race you are, if you go into a police encounter with hostility, it's probably not going to turn out well, especially if you resist arrest. Add that to the fact younger black males have on average a higher testosterone level then other races and it's a recipe for trouble. Poverty has a factor but not to the level it's being pushed, as there are more poor whites and Hispanics then poor black folk.

btw every person on earth has color in their skin. Never saw a clear skinned person yet.

Gang culture - Hispanic gang membership is higher than black, but lifetime risk of being killed by the police is significantly higher for black people.

Higher testosterone - true, but testosterone does not lead to violence.

So, lets walk it backwards - before gangs, were things fair? Were homicide rates and poverty rates more balanced? What led to black people joining gangs?

Everything is cause and affect. You can't look at where we are and ignore where things came from.

So, if statistics don't work for you, how about observation:

The right doesn't trust the government about anything: elections, climate, CDC, FBI. Its all deep state this and deep state that. Covid deaths - must be a financial incentive by the hospitals. FBI - can't trust them. Statistics? Nah.

POC says they are being treated unfairly? Suddenly we have all the faith in the world in government. Statistics and numbers (created from law enforcement reports) are 100% trustworthy. The idea that police might feel those same pressures to make arrests that apparently result in lying about COVID cases? Nah. The idea that cops might cover for each other? Silly.

It is literally the only area where the government seems to be trusted. I interpret this as "the only thing we trust less than the government is black people" - maybe that's not fair, but it its what I see.

Don't like that one: BLM showed up to protest George Floyds Death. It was captured on video, national outrage, first time I remember ever hearing police officers nationwide coming out to say that isn't right. DA announces he might not file charges. WHAT? I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt - he didn't think he could get a conviction. It wasn't even worth taking to trial. No jury need see it. That's when riots started.

Cousins I have who have for years said "if you come into my house with a no knock warrant you're leaving in a body bag" suddenly become pacifists and say you should handle it in court when its Breonna Taylor. Apparently from my cold dead hands has odd caveats I was unaware of.

I could give more, but honestly it is the assumption of guilt and wrongness.

That comes with the territory, POC commit far more crime, which results in greater interactions with the police. Same goes for poverty. Poor life decisions contribute to higher poverty rate. Having rappers or athletes as role models does nothing for individuals. We all have the same opportunity to succeed.

I do not believe black people are inferior. We're all the same. Find out why so many black kids are raised by single mother? Massive setback at the very beginning of their lives, and unfortunately goes downhill from then. But again, it all comes down to poor life choices.

If we all have the same opportunity, then why do black people succeed less often?

Having a giant setback when a child isn't a life choice. So, why aren't the fathers in the home? Did that father have a similar setback early on? Take me back. Tell me when it was fair. Do we go all the way back?

I'm sorry but there are no two ways about it. People given equal opportunities should statistically have the same outcomes. And if the issue is the parents, then jump back a generation and apply the same logic.

"unless you think the races are different inherently then you should expect things to be roughly even when looking at the population, not individuals."

Why isn't Single Parent Household roughly even?
Black (65%); Native American (53%); Asian (15%); Hispanic (43%); White (24%)

What you're describing are NOT statistics, but probabilities.

It's all down to your personal choices one makes in their life. Culture, upbringing, faith, education, etc,. all play a major factor in the decisions and choices one makes in their life, but it all down to the individual.

Victim mentality is also a choice, usually by those who take no responsibility for the choices they have made.

Single parent household - good question. Before we get into cause, lets get into pattern. When did it start? I would imagine that, like going to college, there is a correlation between being from a single parent home and your children being in one as well.

1950 black ~19%, white ~2%
1960 black ~20%, White ~3% << prior to 1969 all white was counted together.
1970 Black ~40%, White ~ 7%, (others not tracked on the chart).
1980 black 57%, white 10%, 24% Hispanic (Asians not broken out)

As far back as I could find, numbers have been significantly higher for black families. What if we could go all the way back? Slave owners separated families, sold them, and went through efforts to erase their culture. People were emancipated, but I imagine that didn't include parenting classes or somehow people knew how to be role-models without strong role-models themselves. << this is 100% me talking. I have no source on this part.

Probability is used to predict the future, statistics are used to analyze the past. They are closely linked. Using statistics to identify patterns is appropriate.

Personal choices work at an individual level. You might have the numbers be off for one year or something but they should swing back.

If its choice you still have one race making consistently poorer choices than others. So we come back to why.

Why do black people succeed less often? Poor life choices. Same goes for whites, or any other race that does not succeed. Poor life choices. Every decision in this life was made by no one else but you. Even when others made these decisions for you, it was your decision to allow them to do so. Responsibility falls directly on the individual.

"Having a giant setback when a child isn't a life choice." - don't think I follow.

Equal opportunities will not produce equal outcome. Human element is not considered in the equation. You leave people to their own devices, they will choose based on their own interest/intuition. For example, men are more interested in 'things', where as women are more interested in 'people'. This is reflected in 80% of engineers are men, and about the same for women nurses.

It's impossible for parents raising their children in the same household, with the same resources, same opportunities, same attention, love, care, and environment provided to achieve equal outcome, how is the government be able to achieve that?? It wont. Equity, and the equal outcome, is a leftist (marxist) lie designed to being everyone to their knees.

Equal opportunities will not produce equal outcome - of course not. But, unless you think the races are different inherently then you should expect things to be roughly even when looking at the population, not individuals. That is to say if you took 1000 of each race and monitored them, if situations were the same you would expect that similar numbers of people in each group would have similar achievements. That's just statistics. There may be variance, but the larger your sample size gets, it should level out that variance.

When consistent patterns form, there has to be a reason.

Giant setback isn't a choice. I'm not seeing what I was responding to, but you had a sentence about peroneal choice and childhood setbacks like the father not being in the home. I'm saying if that is the cause, you need to walk it back to why, because the child didn't make a choice there.

>I like when people look at numbers and say it "proves" something. That's not really how ?>things work. Things are complicated and there are lots of factors and a lot of >interpretations of those numbers.

>I'm not arguing that America is more racist than the 50's. I'm arguing that certain things >are pretty much as they always have been. You want to blame the fact that people >succeed less on whether they have two parents in the home, then I need you to tell me >why black people have always had a higher percentage of single parent families.

>If you remove a referee from a game because they are calling it unfairly, and the team that >the ref disadvantaged continues to lose, is that personal responsibility?

>People can pull themselves up. They can overcome circumstances. But its a lot easier >when you don't have to. Its a lot easier when those circumstances aren't all that bad.

Funny, you provide numbers to make a point and have a problem with people using them.

Not blaming people for being raised in single parent household, but it is a major factor when it comes to child development and chances to succeed in life.

You may want to ask someone who is black to answer that for you. I don't know what contributes to their families being broken more then any other demographic.

(to use you analogy) Whether there is a referee or not, Messi will run fkn circles around me no matter what.

Of course it's not. But that is up to the individual. I would have needed to be self determined, practised hard since I was 5yo, have supporting and encouraging family/coaching environment along the way, if I wanted to compete with Messi. I can't expect to show up one day out of shape, with never much caring about the game before, and later cry it's not fair he's beating me. Joke.

No problem with you using the numbers, just think its funny when people act like theirs is the only interpretation.

I'm not going to convince you, but I'm telling you that is why I'm convinced. Identifying the reasons and working to correct them is something we need to do as a society. It will likely be a lot cheaper than prisons and better for everyone.

Before the civil rights movement, blacks had a slightly higher rate of two parents in the household than whites.

Before the civil rights movement - When, specifically? Because l don't see a point where they were even close.

"1950 black ~19%, white ~2%; 1960 black ~20%, White ~3%; 1970 Black ~40%, White ~ 7%; 1980 black 57%, white 10%, 24% Hispanic"

Not only the numbers you provided dismantled your 'statistically outcome should be the same regardless of race' but it shows it has nothing to do with racism. Unless, of course, you believe America is more racist now, then it was in the 50's prior to Civil Rights Act.

People forget that blacks were very much conservative with strong family bond and values, which have all but disappeared once liberalism was introduced. Your numbers prove that.

Again, life choices and personal responsibility.

I like when people look at numbers and say it "proves" something. That's not really how things work. Things are complicated and there are lots of factors and a lot of interpretations of those numbers.

I'm not arguing that America is more racist than the 50's. I'm arguing that certain things are pretty much as they always have been. You want to blame the fact that people succeed less on whether they have two parents in the home, then I need you to tell me why black people have always had a higher percentage of single parent families.

If you remove a referee from a game because they are calling it unfairly, and the team that the ref disadvantaged continues to lose, is that personal responsibility?

People can pull themselves up. They can overcome circumstances. But its a lot easier when you don't have to. Its a lot easier when those circumstances aren't all that bad.