473sj1.gif (click to show) Now who can argue with that?

true
so true

3feyma.gif (click to show) You got something I want, says the government

I hate what you're saying. Not because it's wrong, but because it's true.

5ikms1.jpg (click to show) Sad but true, Thanks

That's only going to work for so long.

473sam.gif (click to show) I like what you've done here

I like it! Upvote for you!

5igsy3.jpg (click to show) Thanks

Exactly & right on!

473sj1.gif (click to show) Now who can argue with that?

You are so close to getting it that it hurts.

If the guy being smacked in this cartoon was black I think you'd be singing a different tune.

This is funny because we have been making this very same statment for years and RIGHT WINGERS can not deal with reality.

POLITICIANS are not ENEMY #1 COPS ARE !!!

The idea a pos human can simply claim they are just "doing their job" is about as immoral as it gets.

WTF are you talking about, cops and politicians are part of the same structure. Politicians are making laws to benefit the corporate elite, and cops are enforcing those laws through violent coercion. You can't have one without the other.

I think you should go live in Mexico for a while to see what corrupt cops really are.
We do have some bad ones here in the U.S., but they are the exception, not the rule.

Just because you have corrupted cops in mexico does not mean there are no corrupted politicians in United Stated doing those activities portrayed in the meme. There really is corruption all through North, Cantral and South America, just that in United States the people are known for doing something about it. Also some other countries had good civil wars like argentina and Bolivia... you know, countries where its people fight corruption instead of running to a neighboring nation with less corruption.

I didn't say there is no corruption in the U.S.

But you are trying to devalue it by putting it in contrast to Mexico's police corruption, which to that I say while may be done dufferently, still is high corruption and none is greater than the other and should be dealt with and not ignore OR scape from.

I am saying that the key to life is perspective.
Do you live in the U.S.?

I currently live in United States. I have also lived in central America and Caribean. You know, I bet Cuban cops are more currupted than Mexican cops. What good will that do but make your argument inferior and what good will that bring huh?

Again... I am saying that the key to life is perspective.
Religious people like to say, "Count your blessings."
I am not religious, but I think that is good advice.
But you are welcome to focus on whatever you like.
As this is the internet, I will focus on what I choose and make comments as I see fit.
Good day to you.

No, if your perspective is:

It’s not so bad so we don’t have to do anything about it then it’s a shit perspective.

If that’s not what you’re saying, then be more clear.

Just because corruption here isn’t as bad as it is in Mexico, doesn’t mean nothing should be done about it.

Your argument appears to say there systemic or widespread corruption. But why denying that instead just asking for more clarity?

If you are as perceptive as you say you are, then you’d be asking for proof or clarity rather than simply denying something.

Context is king ...

we see Govt.(G), abuse People (P) and then hide behind Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)..

LEO only knows that G is running from P. and the P 'appears' intent on doing harm to G (while Both G & P know why, LEO does not)

LEO's culpability and any claims of 'just doing my job' are wholly dependent on the events of the next (non-existent) panels of this story... in a Just world, P explains the story to LEO, and LEO hands his Baton to P, and steps back using the riot shield to keep blood spatter off his uniform...

standing between those intent to do harm, and the person they intend to harm is literally the reason 'Police' (are supposed to) Exist...

And that's why a black man was elected for two terms...

Exceptions do not make it a rule.

Not every black person who has run for President has won, nor has every white person who has run for President has won. Just because we have had 40-something white Presidents does not mean every white person can be President. The same can be said for black people.

Who is President is a poor example of the struggles of a people no matter the race, color, or creed.

One would think Republicans would understand this perfectly given how desperate they feel now with Biden in charge.

How? If blacks are so hated, and there is racist that has been allowed to live, then why did a BLACK MAN GET ELECTED FOR TWO TERMS?

Who said the standard is if EVERYONE can?

Yes, it is. There can be political and racial struggles, but if people are really that racist, he wouldn't be president. The racists would have realized Obama is black, even if by the second time around.

Nothing of race matters to most conservatives, especially not me. Biden's politics is what is bothering me, not his skin color. Especially how he virtue signals to all the liberals.

Allow me to Devil's advocate for a moment.

Every election, we hear the same ol' same ol' that Republicans freed the slave and were against segregation - and that Democrats were pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and are the party of the KKK.

Let us assume these hasty generalizations apply to all and there has been no nuanced events between these facts that changes any of the political perspective. That black people are foolish to vote for slavers, segregationalists, and the party of the KKK.

Who benefits from there being a black president in this context?

Furthermore, how would a black president from the very party of the KKK be beneficial to racist people?

Again, forgive me for indulging in these hasty generalizations but I think the situation is far more nuanced than, we have a black president therefor racism is totally gone away.

No, I wish that were true, but no.

What their issues with when it comes to systemic racism is that they say the laws that were written before or during slavery, segregation, and civil rights that are still active today contain traces of that systemic racism. Yes, generally, things have vastly improved but that mistrust of authority and government, not unlike most conservatives I might add, can still be found in local/state laws across the country.

The fact we even accuse Democrats of harboring racist resentment due to their past racial alignments is enough evidence to concede at the very least that systemic racism still exists.

I never said racism is totally gone. I said that it would be strange for a racist country to have a black president for two terms. And we did.

We call democrats racist because they say openly racist things.
Joe Biden, for example: https://www.foramerica.org/post/joe-biden-s-7-most-racist-moments

Sorry but that would be the implication that you’re implying that we were no longer racist because we elected a black President.

Yet, what was the largest claim why Obama won in 2008 by many black voters and moderates?

“Because he was black.”

Electing a President for his race is in itself racist, is it not?

He scared the few remaining white racists, surely, and their screeching of white genocide has only increased each time Obama was elected.

No, it is not so strange for a country that values race to elect a President of a different race once.

So, are we all racist or what?

No. What is your definition of racism?

Twice.

Stereotypes are a form of prejudice.

Prejudice, n; Any attitude held towards a person or group that is not justified by the facts. Prejudice includes negative and positive attitudes towards people solely on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, or sex.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100343319

Stereotype, n; A preconceived and oversimplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person, race, or community which may lead to treating them in a particular way.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100530532

Those "stereotypes" were not negative. They are the way things are. Yes, many Hispanic people do hard labor, mothers most often take care of the home, and men do most of the work. This is the way of the world.

Well, that depends on your definition of "we", doesn't it?

The problem with racism wasn't just the vulgar crimes against humanity (which were completely legalized by the system) but rather the prejudices of groups of people against another.

Everyone is capable of prejudice.

People seem to think that when someone calls you a racist, that term is in and of itself prejudicial or generalized to think of the Confederacy, the KKK, (Democrats for some even.) And yet, you can be prejudiced and still think you're being "good", like assuming all Asian people are good at math, Mexicans are hard workers, and that Russians are tough. These are still prejudicial generalizations. And it's not just limited to race or nationality either. Religion also plays a part. Christians are too puritan, Jews control all the networks/banks, and Muslims are terrorists. These types of thinking have no basis in law nor civil conversation that focuses on the crimes, errors, or characterizations of the individual.

The individual not being lumped into a "group" to be prejudiced toward is essential for conservatism to move forward. When conservatives make generalizations against liberals and/or Democrats and their motivations this, too, weakens the overall argument of why people should choose Republicans. You cannot change the way a person feels personally about how the system should change or not change (liberal/conservatism or reform/incumbent.)

If you'll forgive my own generalization, but I think a large people are very unhappy with the government. Everyone wants the system to change in some way so there can be found common ground but when we stick by our more extreme principles and choose to see each other as the enemy that, too, keeps the system from being changed.

You can never change certain groups being racist. Obviously, again, those groups must not have been powerful enough to stop a BLACK PRESIDENT FROM BEING ELECTED TWICE.

Those are not prejudices. They are what the way the world has gone for a while. The "religious" section of your argument is mostly right. I wouldn't exactly call it a prejudice, more of a untasteful stereotype.

Okay...

So you’re saying South Africa’s racism was solved when Nelson Mandela became President?

Elaborate.

From 1948 and onwards after the election and certain legislation of the National Party, white South Africans, especially Afrikaners, enjoyed various legally or socially sanctioned privileges and rights which were denied to others. This was called Apartheid (the South African equivalent of Segregation only this began in the US much earlier, almost right after the US Civil War). Examples of racism over the course of South Africa's history include forced removals, racial segregation, uneven resource distribution, and disenfranchisement. Racial politics still remain a major phenomenon.

The first example of apartheid legislation was the Population Registration Act. This act was the first to force citizens to be registered under their race, and this set the stage for later racial tension. Black South Africans were relocated into reservations and lost all rights as South Africans if they resided there. They were expected to run their own governments once they had arrived. Economic conditions on these lands were not satisfactory for the people there, as the South African government put minimal effort policy-wise into developing these regions economically. Black South African citizens were forced to carry their passbooks with them at all times. If someone was found without their passbook, they would be arrested.

It wasn't until 1994 that real efforts to return rights to black South Africans began to gain traction with the election of Nelson Mandela after his successful efforts to appeal to the government to repeal Apartheid.

You could see this as the American equivalent of electing Martin Luther King Jr. as President right after the Civil Rights passed. What a very interesting timeline that would've been, eh? However, do you think general racism really ended in 1964? Or was King's death a catalyst that kept it going through the decades despite remarkable steps in changing legislation to protect the rights of people based on skin color?

My point is, electing a black person President does not immediately mean we've come to a turning point in our racial struggles. Not just black people but all people who reside in the United States - and black people still remain targets of prejudice despite our overall progress. And these will continue as long as we remain constantly vigilant to people who try to scapegoat groups of minorities for the failures of the majority.

I actually think it does mark a major point. In fact, it obviously does. Again, if a black president is elected for two terms in a row, then a few years later, we have the 2 years of BLM and now major companies are virtue signaling (like using mostly black people as actors and pampering to them), I am pretty sure racism is gone. In fact, major companies like Disney, Apple and Amazon see the gain in using this political movement. They have harnessed it and will continue to until they see no benefit. So, I guess, in that sense they are racist...In a way, because they use black people for their gain. Yes, there is also the obvious racism in abortion. Killing more black people in a week than the KKK has in a century (Planned Parenthood). However, those things, like eugenics have been present for a long time. But, the people themselves are not as racist, or racist like the definition would be a few decades ago.

Racism isn’t gone because a black man was President.

By your erroneous analysis, voting in a woman President would mean women would have nothing else to complain about in terms of equality.

If it were that simple, why don’t we do just that?

I never said it was.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to have a black president be president for two terms in a racist country.

Do what?