Riley24

​Hold on, I'm going to clarify in the OP. Some border checkpoints are put in place to stop supposed undocumented immigrants, but what ends up happening is Hispanic people are singled out and searched for no reason other than the fact that they're Hispanic. Compare the border security at the Mexican border to that at the Canadian border.... I think these "fruit checkpoints" are totally fine. They're helping keep our environment safe.

There are plenty of videos online of people driving through border checkpoints and refusing to show identification or give consent to searches. Typically, I'm against these stops because they're unconstitutional, and unfairly target minorities (in the case of citizenship checkpoints in the south). But I think there should be exceptions for certain circumstances. California, for example, has (or has had) a big problem with invasive species. I've fast forwarded to the relevant part. Watch as a constitutional advocate goes off on a border protection officer upon entering California. Note: This stop is not a citizenship check. Its a check to make sure invasive species aren't being brought in by unwanted fruits and firewood.

What a wonderful guy, with an amazing record of success in his life. No matter what way you lean politically, it's a tragedy. And shame on Ted Cruz for making fun of Joe Biden at this time, that really didn't sit well with me.

Aaannd this is part of the reason why ISIS will fail. They're poorly organized and lack structure. They're just a temporary movement and they're being made out to be the boogeyman. They'll fade away into the darkness and another group will rise. This is how radicalism works.

​There are a lot of Americans that are ashamed of our recent history, and we're glad France and other countries were able to avoid the war. In a lot of ways we made the same mistake in Vietnam. I hope this time we've learned the lesson.

​Come on, that war was hyped up beyond belief. We were told that if we didn't invade Iraq, that there would be mushroom clouds on US soil. Except Iraq never...ever attacked us, and by some kind of coincidence, powerful people in the country made tens of billions of dollars off of the war. I admire your service to the country, I really do. I know that I don't have the courage to do what you did. But it makes me furious that you were sent into an endless war. We spent ten years there, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of US servicemen and women. But to say that no one but people who were there have a right to comment on that is absurd. We share this country and we elect the people who send us to war. We all have a responsibility to make sure that we don't allow ourselves to potentially destroy the world over a lie. The Iraq War was one of, if not the largest foreign policy disaster in American history. They told us it would be a quick and easy military operation, and they lied. The weapons we were looking for didn't exist. Sure, there probably were some kinds of chemical weapons found in Iraq years later. But we were all lied to, there was never the risk of a "mushroom cloud" on American soil. They just used the fear and panic of post-9/11 to justify a war they had wanted to fight already. And ISIS came out of the chaos of post-war Iraq, not a decision made by the current president. Tying this back into the Patriot Act, its just another way for the government to feed off of the fear of terrorism. In the 60s it was communism. Terrorism is just the current boogeyman, and we're allowing ourselves to be terrified. And when that happens, we lose freedom.

It is unconstitutional and incredibly ineffective. There's a reason why none of the mostly Republican politicians can point to a single case where the Patriot Act, or any other unconstitutional surveillance program, has helped stop domestic terrorism. 9/11 created a huge surge of panic and money in the intelligence community, and we've completely lost our system of checks and balances. Its just power for power's sake, and they've tricked some of you into thinking its keeping you safe.

​When you look at a peaceful protest, lead by community and religious leaders, and think that within a certain amount of time, they will be jumping on police cars and throwing rocks at bearcats, that is generalization. But don't worry, the police officers who sent a small army of militarized police to the peaceful protests are just as guilty of that. You need to accept that yes, this is happening. Police are not perfect, and this is not a case of good guys vs. bad guys. There are atrocities being committed by both sides, but of course more on the side of the rioters. That being said we need to encourage peaceful protesting, because it is a fundamental part in the larger conversation about these issues.

Please show me that percentage that shows that peaceful protests become violent protests without the riot police there.

Yes...the key word is peaceful. You're the one that wants to send in the APCs to those peaceful protests, remember? ​ And the context can be found in the pictures...you can clearly see in both sets of pictures the difference between a peaceful protest and a violent one. Based on that difference, the police response should be different.

​If its politically correct to not be heavy-handed with peaceful protesters, then I guess I am politically correct. I'm all for going after looters with tear gas and batons, because they're criminals. But these people are NOT the criminals:

People who kill cops and cops who kill people are treated completely differently in our justice system.

How exactly does political correctness play into this?

​It's a dangerous job. We pay them to risk their safety to enforce the laws. Sure, they might be safer if they disregard all sensitivity and common decency, but that is bad policing, and does nothing to help the situation in the long-term. And all that I found are those allegations were articles on Breitbart and InfoWars.....so I'm not ready to believe that.

​Glad to see we're on the same page. I didn't see your saying you would trample on the memorial as a metaphor lol.

​This is a nation-wide issue, though. Its not as black and white as the traffic stop example. They have the right to protest and the right to be as angry as they like while doing it, up until the point where violence happens. That's all I'm saying: that the police need to be more sensitive and responsible when dealing with situations like these.

​Nobody is saying they do...

​I'm talking about the memorial, since its technically a form of free speech. So by trampling on that memorial, aren't you doing a disservice to the people that have died for their right to put up that memorial?

​So I don't think you would disagree with the concept that military service men and women die to protect our freedom. Wouldn't one of those freedoms be the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble? So wouldn't it be a little contradictory to your own ideals to trample on someone else's free speech, just because you don't agree with it? The soldiers that die for freedom don't get to choose what freedoms they do or don't die for, only the fundamental rights themselves. Haven't you ever heard the saying "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? So by trampling on free speech, aren't you doing a disservice to the people that have died for their right to say it?

​Its a very emotional issue for a lot of people, its not really fair to ask them all to be completely logical in the middle of that anger.

​You're a big supporter of the military, correct?

Actually a fair point lol, but I still think the police shoud've been more sensitive towards people who are obviously grieving over someone they killed (Justified or not). I'd love to see those timelines, because they sound completely different from everything I've heard. Again, I think it's possible your timelines might be a little off. I think a lot of times, seeing police with gear like this at a peaceful protest is part of what incites anger in the crowds. Also, things were much better when MHP Captain Ron Johnson took over the response. There's something to be said about what he was doing, which was working with peaceful protesters to make sure everything stayed peaceful.

​No, of course they should have riot police on stand-by all across the city, so that if looting and arson takes place they're able to intervene. They shouldn't roll up with all that gear to a peaceful protest. This is common sense.

​You're right, there's no excuse for looting. But it would be incredibly ignorant to lump together all of the peaceful protesters and the looters. They are completely different entities and should be treated as such. Once someone breaks a window and steals something, they're a looter. When someone stands on the side of a road with a sign, they're a protester. Yes, sometimes protesters become looters. It seems silly that I need to point this out... And my apologies for not travelling across the country to go sight-seeing is Ferguson.