Riley24

How did you get that impression? Plenty of people are talking about gun control after this tragedy.

No, I'm saying that Fox News viewers tend to be old and white, which is actually true. (http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/fox-newss-old-viewership-is-getting-even-older/371792/) But as it also points out, all network news channels attract an older audience. Just look at Pavelow, yourself and I. Did any of us actually watch this clip on Fox News? No. This is just my own commentary, but the GOP field is only diverse because of the same mentality that exists on Fox News. Notice how Rubio and Cruz, the two Hispanic candidates, aren't supporting any policies that would help Hispanic Americans. Ben Carson isn't tackling any issues that affect black Americans. Diversity doesn't mean anything if you're not bringing anything new to the table, which none of them are. And I've got no love for CNN, they're an establishment news network that seems to side with whatever the current administration is, because they're under the impression that the most reliable source is always the government. That's why they played such a huge role in selling the Iraq war to the American people. Also, MSNBC is a joke. They have a few progressive hosts that get forced to apologize every time they say something slightly outlandish, even if its true. No balls. And I actually heard about Chris Matthews saying that lol. Funny that everyone's up in arms about political correctness but they freak out when someone asks a question about the diversity of a Republican candidate in a red state, but phrases it in a non-PC way. Not only that, but it was about Trump's rally, the guy who is only a successful candidate because of his ridiculous comments an disdain for political correctness.

Fox News....really? Every time they cover issues of race or religion, they bring on someone of that race or religion to tell the (generally old and white) audience that whatever the issue is, its directly and solely the fault of everyone else in their ethnic group. Black people being killed by police? Bring on a black correspondent to tell us its black people's fault, and that they need to pull their pants up. Muslim terrorist attack? Bring on a Muslim correspondent to tell us how horrible Muslims are. The only exception is when they bring on Police Union leaders and former commissioners, sheriffs, and chiefs to tell us that there's absolutely nothing wrong with policing in America. They're a joke of a news network, and they're actively fueling the race issue.

"I absolutely would have broken through the line, and I wouldn't have any problem going to sleep that same night." If you were saying that you would just nudge people, why include the second part? The second part implies that you would cause bodily harm to people, and you wouldn't have any remorse. "Sure I'd go to jail, but you'd probably be dead." Wait, I thought you were just going to nudge people? Now you're saying they'd probably be dead? So you get pissed off that someone is making you late, so you run them over with your car, get arrested, and go to jail. Just so we're clear, that's the kind of person you are. Not a self-righteous motorist, but a dangerous criminal. I'm not saying it, you're saying it. And I love how again, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, and then you say something even more outrageous. You're still saying "the police don't do X" as if they're one cohesive force that always play by the rules. There were multiple cases of police assaulting and arresting peaceful protesters in Ferguson alone, let alone over the years. That's a fact that overrules your perception of what cops do during protests. I'm defending them because you're telling me that you would murder them with your car. I don't support blocking traffic, I'm pro-not running people over. And there was no talk of an ambulance until you brought it up out of the blue, and now you're saying that I'm assuming that there's not? Huh? You're inventing ambulances to make a hypothetical point about the dangers of a protest I've already told you that I don't support.

I'm not saying that standing in an interstate is a legal reasonable thing to do, but running people over isn't any better. And yes, I know you said "a little nudge", but that's not how you started off. I'm going by your original statement, because that you said you would do based on emotion, not what you changed it to after I questioned you on it. What would I do? I wouldn't run people over to be on time. I'm not wired to use violence to get what I want. So when peaceful protesters were being tear gassed and journalists were being assaulted and detained, and when officers were walking around pointing lethal weapons at unarmed peaceful protesters, show me where your posts were that defended them. I'm guessing you didn't care when that happened, am I wrong? And you're saying "police do this, or police don't do this", as if the police in Ferguson have perfectly been playing by the rules since the shooting. No, I'm not implying it. You're twisting my words, the exact thing that you accused me of. In case you missed it, this is what I actually said. "Am I OK with civil disobedience? Yeah, if the grievance is valid. I understand why they were arrested and so do they. Almost every single successful non-violent political movement has used civil disobedience, this is nothing new. I'm more angry about the conduct of the Ferguson Police that lead to these protests than the actual protests themselves." See but you're making up hypotheticals. Was there actually an ambulance stuck in traffic? You have no idea. The protesters honestly might have gotten out of the way if there was an ambulance with lights and sirens, we don't know, because it didn't happen. Blocking traffic isn't legal or reasonable, which is why they were arrested. But you're the guy saying he would run people over to be on time for work. That's also not reasonable or legal, and you would probably be arrested for that and charged with hit and run. Good luck "supporting your family" in prison.

All of this is true. But the even sadder part is that there are jobs, the job market is relatively healthy. But they're higher-level jobs, meaning that you need a college degree to even apply. In order to get that college degree, you need a whole bunch of money. Then once you get that college degree, you graduate with so much student loan debt that you can't pursue the career that you got your degree for in the first place. And you can't even reach that level of screwed if you don't have enough money to afford college. And if you can't afford to go to college, you have to get a minimum wage job. And we're right back where we started. We've been systematically screwed from top to bottom.

You're not quite getting it-you're still talking about running people over as if its a reasonable (or even legal) thing to do. Then where was your outrage when peaceful protesters were being assaulted and arrested? I'm guessing you didn't exactly care when that happened. At least on this forum, you've never defended the free speech of protesters or police brutality protests even as a concept. Please don't try to have fake support for something to sound reasonable. Woah woah woah, scroll back up. You accused me of twisting your words and misunderstanding you. When did I say that standing in the interstate was a good idea? Tell me. Right there, see it? You're twisting my words. And I'm talking to someone who wants to run over protesters because they're inconveniencing him, and I'm still managing to take you seriously.

Why does the year it was created matter? I was showing similarities between the civil rights movement and the Black Lives Matter movement. You're still missing the point. Black lives matter has nothing to do with whether or not white lives matter, because historically and generally, white people are not treated the same by the justice system as black people are. They exist because black people are being treated as if their lives do not matter. Just like the civil rights movement, they are reminding us of their humanity. That is not prejudice, its literally the opposite. And it is literally civil disobedience. For something to be civil disobedience, you don't have to agree with it or think its legitimate. That doesn't change its classification.

Did you click on the links? They're just pictures...of a real protest that actually happened. And did you not understand my explanation, whats stopping it from making sense? You're missing the point. If you were at the "I am a man" protests, you would've been the guy shouting "WHITE PEOPLE ARE MEN TOO". You're missing the point, man. Its not that white people aren't men, or white lives don't matter. Its that black people are being treated in a way that's as if their lives don't matter to the police. Their movement has nothing to do with the value of other lives because other lives aren't being treated the same way (at least in their perspective). Am I OK with civil disobedience? Yeah, if the grievance is valid. I understand why they were arrested and so do they. Almost every single successful non-violent political movement has used civil disobedience, this is nothing new. I'm more angry about the conduct of the Ferguson Police that lead to these protests than the actual protests themselves. You said you would run people over (but try not to kill them) and sleep perfectly fine. How am I twisting your words? Please explain that to me.

"Which is exactly why I'm against the movement. I spit on their purpose, because their purpose doesn't make sense and it's blatantly ignorant. The power of the media is truly frightening. It's hard to take such a movement seriously when there are people within that movement that think "All police are racist". It's just stupid. This is one of the very few political topics that I have no respect for the opposing side. It just doesn't make any sense. None at all." You weren't talking about interstates. You were talking about the movement. So deciding to run people over isn't attempted murder? At the very least its manslaughter, if my basic legal knowledge is adequate. I love that you say that as if its perfectly reasonable. What happened? I thought you were against political correctness? I'm not very politically correct, I just call it like I see it.

Because there isn't a history of discrimination of white people. We've been at the top of the social ladder ever since the country was formed (see: white privilege). What about the racial makeup of the officers, and how its not nearly proportionate to the community? And the racist emails. And just because a minority group makes up for the majority of the community, does not mean that the police just happen to interact with them more. Ferguson is a textbook case of racially biased policing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/

Why do you hate people who are mistreated by police so much? Please keep talking. You're talking about how you would try to murder people by running them over on an interstate. Not only that, but you're not showing any remorse. This is a textbook case of psychopathic behavior.

No, they don't state that. You missed the entire point of the movement. Lets travel back in time to the 1960s, shall we? The Black Lives Matter movement is incredibly similar to a phrase used by civil rights activists, called "I am a man". http://41.media.tumblr.com/9333141784118aa5555e9bf54684321d/tumblr_ml01xlvz291rw872io4_1280.jpg http://36.media.tumblr.com/02778deb3d347eb04f72fc4bab6d99dc/tumblr_ml01xlvz291rw872io5_540.jpg The reason they did this protest is because they were being treated as if they weren't men, or human beings. They weren't saying "I am a man" to say that white people aren't men. Now, Black Lives Matter use that slogan because they're being treated as if their lives don't matter. They're not saying that white lives don't matter, or that their lives are more important. Nothing against you and DivineHustle, but you guys are literally missing the entire point of the movement.

Then don't join it. Well, that certainly says a lot. You probably should.

So either you suffer for the rest of your life in the poverty you've inherited and cannot overcome, or you join the military and potentially risk your life in order to collect whatever minuscule assistance the VA offers? Poverty and homelessness are common among veterans, who often don't get psychological treatment for post traumatic stress. Does that sound like "the American Dream" to you? That doesn't even sound like freedom, it sounds like a third world country. And lets not forget, we're talking about minimum wage. Plenty of other countries have higher wages than our workers, and their economies are stronger in many ways. When you raise someone's wage, it puts them in a better position to contribute back to the economy. It allows them to consider starting their own business, or simply buy more things, which stimulates the economy. In a lot of ways, higher wages are what can lead to the creation of jobs and strengthening of the middle class. The reason why some massive corporations don't raise their wages is because CEO pay is astronomical. Again, income inequality. Some CEOs make 300x what the average worker does. That just doesn't happen in other countries. If companies were to reign in the ridiculous pay of their executives, they could easily afford to pay a higher minimum wage to their employees. But because of Citizens United, the rich are able to donate to politicians, who in turn oppose legislation that would do just that. Under the assumption that you're not a billionaire or a politician, you and I are in the same boat. Its not by chance that our wages are so low, its by design.

You literally missed the entire point of the movement.

So you can't afford to enroll in college because you were born in a historically poor area, but you can afford to move? And you can't exactly "find scholarships". Come on. Again, income inequality.

What if there are no higher-paying jobs in your area, and you can't afford higher level education? "get a real job" isn't a legitimate policy position.

Two words: income inequality.

You're joking, right? Its been a leading headline on national news for MONTHS. Just like Benghazi, even after the investigation found nothing. Hmm, I wonder if right wing media is trying to smear the most likely Democratic candidate?

Restraint. Its a powerful thing.