You are misinterpreting my words, 13ubba, and you have been for the past 3 days that we've been debating. I didn't say that if they're in a financial crisis it's their fault. I said that if they're in a financial crisis it's most likely their fault. The United States has systems in place to where you can't just be hopelessly broke, unless you did something to screw your own life up. You aren't just born with absolutely nothing, and remain that way for the rest of your life here in America.

Sorry for interjecting into your debate, but what makes you say that its most likely their fault? That's absolutely ridiculous. People in communities like Ferguson don't slip into poverty, they're born into it. Its not like most poor people used to own a company until they made a risky investment that left them broke. In that case, yeah, it would be their fault. But that's not what we're talking about.

In a discussion about poverty, you CHOSE generalize that poverty is the fault of the poor. 13ubba isn't misinterpreting you're words, you literally said them. 

Edited August 16, 201510 yr by Riley24

You are misinterpreting my words, 13ubba, and you have been for the past 3 days that we've been debating. I didn't say that if they're in a financial crisis it's their fault. I said that if they're in a financial crisis it's most likely their fault. The United States has systems in place to where you can't just be hopelessly broke, unless you did something to screw your own life up. You aren't just born with absolutely nothing, and remain that way for the rest of your life here in America.

Lol, what? That is what I just said. If you read what I posted I said that you said "it is most likely their fault" which is exactly what you just said. So the people who are born poor in a part of the country with poor education and poor social services are somehow to blame for their own poverty? Guess they should have picked to be born into a rich family or in the case of my neighbor should have saw the future and not worked for a company that was going to lay him off due to downsizing.

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by l3ubba

Lol, what? That is what I just said. If you read what I posted I said that you said "it is most likely their fault" which is exactly what you just said. So the people who are born poor in a part of the country with poor education and poor social services are somehow to blame for their own poverty? Guess they should have picked to be born into a rich family or in the case of my neighbor should have saw the future and not worked for a company that was going to lay him off due to downsizing.

No, that's not what you just said dude.

You literally just said that if they are failing it is their fault. Look at the quotes below. You said that if someone is having financial troubles then it is most likely their fault.

I never said that if they are failing it is their fault. I said that if they are failing, it's most likely their fault. There's a big difference between the two. One is saying that it's always their fault no matter the circumstances. The other is saying that it's most likely their fault, but there is a possibility that it's actually not their fault. You are still misinterpreting what I'm saying, and it's why we're still stuck on this. I've been saying the same thing since my first post.

The DOJ report revealed a long history of racism inside of the Ferguson Police Department, and huge racial disparities in things like traffic stops, as well as the fact that the overwhelming majority of officers were white and from out of town, and that the Ferguson PD had basically thrown away all efforts to form relationships with the community. As if that wasn't enough, the town used its police department to generate revenue by issuing arbitrary and excessive fines to poor members of the community. Oh, and the racist emails between officers...

All of that is unrelated to the Michael Brown case. What happened in Ferguson is that the Michael Brown shooting opened a deep racial wound that had been left poorly stitched for decades.

 

I actually read the report after I3ubba first explained the things about two investigations. I can't say I am really surprised by the findings. I imagine it's a common thing in many US cities and towns (as it is here, too). However, returning to the topic, I fail to see how this justifies the riots - unless it's virtually impossible to change the situation using legal means. Is the federal or the state attorney able to prosecute city and PD authorities for the activities mentioned in the report?

 

No, that's not what you just said dude.

I never said that if they are failing it is their fault. I said that if they are failing, it's most likely their fault. There's a big difference between the two. One is saying that it's always their fault no matter the circumstances. The other is saying that it's most likely their fault, but there is a possibility that it's actually not their fault. You are still misinterpreting what I'm saying, and it's why we're still stuck on this. I've been saying the same thing since my first post.

No you haven't. You have said something different almost every post you have made on this thread.

I don't know everyone's situation but who's fault is it if they're failing? Is it my fault that the man across the street is broke?  Is it your fault that the homeless guy up the street is still homeless? Is it the governments fault? Is it the fault of the kids at school? No, it's their fault. People need to learn to get up off of their butts and do something about it, and that's the problem I have with welfare.

^ See? After I said something to you about it being their fault you then changed it to "most likely their fault".

No you haven't. You have said something different almost every post you have made on this thread.

^ See? After I said something to you about it being their fault you then changed it to "most likely their fault".

Because in the cases I've described above it is their fault. Who can they possibly blame for their being unseccesful?

Because in the cases I've described above it is their fault. Who can they possibly blame for their being unseccesful?

Didn't I just tell you about my neighbor who got laid off from his job due to downsizing? He was successful until his company laid him off. You are saying that it is his fault his company got downsized?

Didn't I just tell you about my neighbor who got laid off from his job due to downsizing? He was successful until his company laid him off. You are saying that it is his fault his company got downsized?

No, but one can argue that it's his fault for not having a backup job if he remained unemployed for a while. 

I actually read the report after I3ubba first explained the things about two investigations. I can't say I am really surprised by the findings. I imagine it's a common thing in many US cities and towns (as it is here, too). However, returning to the topic, I fail to see how this justifies the riots - unless it's virtually impossible to change the situation using legal means. Is the federal or the state attorney able to prosecute city and PD authorities for the activities mentioned in the report?

It doesn't justify the riots, it just explains them. There's no justification for burning down a store, but it'd be silly of us to not mention the equally, or more terrible things that drove them to that point.

As far as I'm concerned there's no current prosecutions of city or PD authorities, because what they did was technically legal. But it seems like federal LE agencies are setting new boundaries for conduct in the future, as they certainly should.

No, but one can argue that it's his fault for not having a backup job if he remained unemployed for a while. 

Based on that comment I'm going to assume you have never had a full time job. How does one have a "backup job"? Do you go to an employer and say "I'd like to apply for a job but I don't want to work here just yet, this will just be my backup job in case something bad happens to me in the future."? Or by backup job do you mean having a part time job on the side in addition to your full time job? Either way neither of those are very realistic.

Based on that comment I'm going to assume you have never had a full time job. How does one have a "backup job"? Do you go to an employer and say "I'd like to apply for a job but I don't want to work here just yet, this will just be my backup job in case something bad happens to me in the future."? Or by backup job do you mean having a part time job on the side in addition to your full time job? Either way neither of those are very realistic.

Apparently there's enough jobs to double-dip. I guess we forgot to tell the millions of unemployed people.....oops.

Based on that comment I'm going to assume you have never had a full time job. How does one have a "backup job"? Do you go to an employer and say "I'd like to apply for a job but I don't want to work here just yet, this will just be my backup job in case something bad happens to me in the future."? Or by backup job do you mean having a part time job on the side in addition to your full time job? Either way neither of those are very realistic.

I'm not sure, just saying that I've debated with people that have used that as an argument.

I'm not sure, just saying that I've debated with people that have used that as an argument.

I would not listen to those people.