This is not media being targeted by the government.
This is just a badly trained or commanded police force.
If this was the KGB they would be in their underwear in a wood 100 miles away and their equipment (not to mention their passports) would be gone. And they would never dare mention the incident.

This is democracy led by none other than the super intelligent and highly eloquent whatshisname whose solution to this situation is that more people need to be shot ASAP. The only hope is that the current administration is too incompetent to turn this into an outright military coup. But who knows?

Police reform? Gun laws? Stop putting people in jail based on race? Desegregate schools? Nah...

Remember one of the biggest moves in the conservative movement, one of the main reasons why evangelicals support the GOP, was because the government forced desegregation on Bob Jones University. Though evangelicals started down the GOP path before that, it was a huge turning point in getting evangelical church's directly involved with politics and having them tell their members to vote for the GOP and part of why they call Democrats, who are probably doing more along the lines Christ Himself would, Demoncrats. It's when you'll see the 700 Club, TBN and many others start pushing the GOP agenda rather openly.

Study up on Christian Reconstructionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism), dominionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology), and The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family:_The_Secret_Fundamentalism_at_the_Heart_of_American_Power). Remember to vet things along the way. You'll start to see how those at the top of the Christian right movement, are moving their masses like a cult to be what it is now... making their members think they are the ones who are most thoughtful and intelligent, while blinding them to any sort of truth. This why they accept "alternative facts" and "truth isn't truth" that truth in the eye of the beholder, and facts don't matter if they contradict what is being preached.

Sure the conservative movement is one of if not the main reason why people leave the faith and are turned off by the faith, but they don't care. Greed is now a good thing, and so long as they get in, they don't care what they make the faith look like to the world. They dig their heels in more and more and behave less and less Christ like, showing less of the love of Christ, and more bigotry and discrimination in concordance with the goals of the movement a the top levels.

What I mentioned was couched as a quota/limit for Asian kids, not an advantage for white ones. It might not still exist, it was a while back and I'm well out of school.

Yes, reservations allow discrimination based on heritage.

Yeah, don't listen to people who watch breitbart, Fox, or Jones. Just walk away, they're either insane, liars, or dupes.

The racism you complain about is only meant to mitigate the racist policies and reality those students suffer from because we aren't working to end it. Like I said on your profile, we are making the disparities bigger here by defunding programs that do help and are mostly means based, not race based. We're idiots.

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of what you think society will tolerate. You should talk for yourself, maybe your group, but society will tolerate more than you could imagine. The groups getting the assistance tolerated FAR more than someone cutting the line at college. You forget, it's society that created these plans, not some outside group forcing them on you.

I'm not wrong, these programs are decades old with no revolution starting because of them, and there's less effort to crack that nut daily.

There's no racist law against whites here, only a few programs benefiting other groups. You can claim that's against whites, but then you must admit the totality of law and society is against minorities....at least here.

Not true here....sorry. we've survived giving disadvantaged groups a leg up for quite some time, and haven't resorted to using the military to enforce it since desegregation in the 60's.

0:06 - Is government the antithesis of liberty?

0:47 - One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.

2:02 - What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?

3:38 - Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.

5:41 - In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.

7:41 - Is government inherently evil?

9:03 - Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.

9:47 - As soon as you've built an army, you've now said government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? Who do you think I am? We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.

10:54 - You say: government which governs least governments best. But that were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for 8 years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.

11:16 - You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.

11:56 - Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.

13:38 - Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system? ...and there are choices within the educational system.

15:00 - Would you go back to 1890?

16:20 - If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?

16:30 - Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80's and the 90's were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.

19:04 - Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?

20:13 - Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.

20:24 - Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not... The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

23:23 - Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

if you have to speculate...>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
there was a really amazing course at my college (the first private college to desegregate) about "Black Stereotyping in American Cinema."
The films (by the likes of Spike Lee, Sidney Poitier, D.W. Griffeths, John Singleton, and Melvin Van Peebles, among others) and the reading still shape my thinking to this day.

Sounds like you're a really boring person.

>> ^Trancecoach:

there was a really amazing course at my college (the first private college to desegregate) about "Black Stereotyping in American Cinema."
The films (by the likes of Spike Lee, Sidney Poitier, D.W. Griffeths, John Singleton, and Melvin Van Peebles, among others) and the reading still shape my thinking to this day.


Sounds like you're a really boring person.

there was a really amazing course at my college (the first private college to desegregate) about "Black Stereotyping in American Cinema."

The films (by the likes of Spike Lee, Sidney Poitier, D.W. Griffeths, John Singleton, and Melvin Van Peebles, among others) and the reading still shape my thinking to this day.

From TPM:

The “controversy” around President Obama’s 1990 speech at Harvard on the occasion of the late Professor Bell’s decision to take a leave of absence to protest Harvard’s hiring practices is shameful in what it implies (full disclosure — Professor Bell taught me Constitutional Law at NYU during his self-imposed exile from Harvard).

The implication is that Professor Bell was some kind of violent radical racist. Professor Bell was a HERO who dedicated his life to desegregating the United States. From his job as the only black lawyer in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the 1950’s, to his work alongside Thurgood Marshall bringing hundreds of desegregation actions in Mississippi, right up to his leaving Harvard, Professor Bell lived what he preached. That his life’s work was radical or provocative says more about how far we have left to go. If its radical to be appalled that Harvard Law School had no women law professors and only five black male law professors among hundreds of professors, then the world could use a lot more radicals. And to tarnish his reputation as simply anti-white is false and totally and intentionally missing the point. I hope to see President Obama speak about Professor Bell, in prime time, on all networks, if for no other reason than this was an American hero that more people should know about and take inspiration from.

I like having Libertarians in discussions because they're a good voice to have because market forces are potential solutions to various issues, because sometimes we do turn away from market forces too soon. However, the philosophy just flat breaks down as any other philosophy does, and I think this debate kinda proves it. Stewart keeps coming back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced public businesses open to the public to desegregate. According to libertarian philosophy, the free market should have ended segregation by citizens who were conscientious objectors to boycott any public business that was practicing racial segregation. If you notice in the debate, Napolitano skirts this when pressed, and kept saying the gov't should have desegregated gov't institutions, but that skirts the issue of what should have been done in privately owned public businesses. It's a point where libertarian philosophy breaks down, and true hardcore libertarians either know it and try to avoid it because it is so unpalatable to the general population, or they will outright admit that would be their stance and advocate for it.

Public schools are another example. The simple fact of the matter is the general population was not generally educated until the gov't began public schools, and society is all the better for it.

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.>> ^NetRunner:

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.
Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.

Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Chocolate News: Desegregating Adult Films. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Yeah, pretty weak sauce. He's also factually wrong on how many terms FDR had -- he actually won a 4th term, though he died 3 months into it.

Then you got Truman, who desegregated the military...

>> ^imstellar28:
Why do you think the government is the only solution, or even a viable one?

<snip>

There are political problems, and then there are cultural problems. Can you accept that? It seems as if you view all problems as political, with only governmental solutions.

Not true, I just see a wide spectrum of issues facing society, and don't see a particular reason to take government action off the table.

For example, with regard to gay rights, it's indisputably going to require passing laws that explicitly protect their right to get married and be protected from discrimination for them to truly come up to par with heterosexuals. Whether that's "less" government or "more" isn't really a question that matters to me in the slightest. Republicans say that's some sort of gross government overreach like desegregation was. You're inclined to say it's government butting out of people's business. I (and other progressives) would say it's government fulfilling its role in establishing and providing the defense of a human right that had not been available to homosexuals heretofore because of the adherence to the right of people to discriminate, based largely on the property rights you champion.

In the case of a boycott, do you really think I could get one where even a significant percentage of people to go homeless in order to support it? People can be terribly weak, and will go along to get along, and not make a fuss, especially if putting up a fight will pose a significant threat to their lifestyle. After all, you just get used to the camera after a while...

Why did we ever need a 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment? Why didn't the abolitionists just drive the slave owners of the south out of business, or buy up all the slaves?

It can be much easier to rally people to vote for an action they would find too risky to do themselves. I wish people were different, but they are not.

In the case of something like slavery or the environment, there just aren't enough resources amongst the people leading the cause to do something like buy up all the oil fields or all the slave hands in the fields. Sometimes the rights of the people outweigh the need to be subservient to an individual's right to property (my rephrasing of the Trekian "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few").

I also think your view boils down to "people only deserve the rights they can defend", which for most people isn't going to amount to much.

How can you not distinguish between your right to do as you please with your own body, or your own property - and the right of others to have their body, and their property respected by you?

I do distinguish between them, I think I just draw the borders differently from you. Most of the difference I have probably has a lot to do with the shell games corporations play with property so that they rob essentially all of their employees and customers blind, largely for the benefit of people who've really done nothing to create wealth, and along the way empower people who trample on all sorts of individual freedoms that we used to think were sacred.

I'm not big on absolutes in any case. All of our rights have limitations and exceptions. When it comes to conflicts between the various fundamental rights, I think property should be the least important, not the most.

I'm sure the South squealed like stuck pigs about how freeing their slaves would hurt business, and was some sort of terrible government theft. Ditto for desegregation.

Now they say public health care would be terrible for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Personally, I won't shed a tear about that if it means actually delivering health care to those who need it, no matter what their income level is.