Drive-by Aussie gang violence?

Sadly, it's because these "good cops" all but never police their criminal brothers in blue, and the excessively few who have stood up are almost always threatened until they are run out of law enforcement.

Right now police departments are fighting tooth and nail against a new California law requiring them to disclose records of criminal misconduct committed by police and the investigations of that misconduct, and they are terrified that information is about to be public....only one reason for that.

When they catch a gang member who didn't pull any trigger but stood with those who did, alibiing them and hiding evidence for them, driving the getaway car and being a lookout, they gleefully call him a bad actor and charge him like the rest. Turnabout is fair play.

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate murdering police, but I understand why many people would. They do not resemble the people who protect and serve all too often, and far worse imo the "good ones" ride or die with the worst ones. I only advocate avoiding them as much as possible, and if stopped, answering any question with "Am I suspected of committing a crime? Then kindly ask my attorney, I have nothing to say." as my brother's lawyer taught me, and trying to not be murdered...you can always sue over the civil liberty violations later.

I also believe 1000 good deeds don't erase one criminal one as they often argue....especially when it's your job.

That's why....but hey man, it's just, like, my opinion, man.

He was successful.....at beating his face into Pelosi's foot....and at getting less than he was offered.
Now he's successful in undermining his own political argument, admitting there is no emergency and blatantly planning on stealing funding from anti drug funds and the military, Republican third rails.

Unfortunately, an actual emergency isn't required for the president to declare one. Hopefully the theory that Pentagon money can't be diverted for civil projects will hold up, as will every challenge to how he plans on exercising his expanded powers, but with the okeydoke gang on the supreme court, there's no telling.
*quality questioning....deplorable answering

Duh.

Edit: of the 3 groups, which had permits....natives
Of the 3 groups, which was still performing closing ceremonies of a permitted March...natives.
Of the 3 groups, which refrained from insulting the other two....natives.
Of the 3 groups, which tried to defuse rather than escalate....natives.

But the native elder calmly trying to defuse the escalating situation is the one in the wrong in your opinion.


The inevitable attack was against the Israelites, because the kids were getting irate, taking off their clothes, jumping around like madmen, and screaming insults at the Israelites. Before he came in drumming, it sure looked like violence was likely.

I watched it as many times as I'm going to, which was many, and when the elder stops there's plenty of room between everyone, then the kids move closer from every direction.

Look, you can bend over backwards to pretend the kids weren't also instigating, or being rude, or racist, but I must admit I'm floored people can see a gang of white kids gleefully tomahawk chopping and hi-ya-hi-ya-ing undeniably derisively at a native elder (veteran, but who knew that there) while smirking inches from his face as he's surrounded by their jeering buddies and instead of admitting what they see with their own eyes and hear with their ears, pretend the irate screaming kids were being respectful angels not disrespectful racist assholes. I see and hear what's on the video, you find excuses for it and pretend you don't hear racism in their racist taunting.

I'm most floored chaperones on a church field trip didn't just let the kids respond to the provocation of the Israelites (which is moronic and exactly what they wanted), they encouraged it and did nothing when it turned racist against the elder, just egged them on more. So much for Christ's teachings....fuck what he said if someone's teasing you, right? Christ said take an eye for an eye....oh wait, no he didn't.

You claimed he was portrayed unfairly because it was reported when he repeatedly dehumanized migrants, Arabs, and Muslims as pretext to treat them poorly, Obama didn't dehumanize and demonize them, nor did he just let them all in, so only Fox reports that he did....in opinion pieces dressed as news. You can try to hide from that claim by attempting to change the subject to Trump's poor performance but you won't be successful.

Obama did a better and more humane job on immigration, Trump did a worse, but undeniably more racist job.

Trump calls migrants rapists, murderers, and gang members. He gave up any pretext for middle eastern people and just calls them middle eastern with a derisive tone, because all middle eastern people and Muslims are terrorists we don't want here.
You claim reporting that is an unfair portrayal, painting him as a meanie, I say it's honest reporting of his unedited words and positions.

How could anyone possibly connect Dumb Donald's continuing public accusations against numerous prominent Jews that they are paying refugees (rapists and murderers), gang members (murderers), and Islamic terrorists (murderers) to "invade America" with the right wing terrorist, Bowers, who authored a social media post before the shooting accusing the organization HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, of bringing "invaders in that kill our people."
There's clearly no connection at all. Just because right wing terrorists are attacking the exact targets Trump continues to designate as the enemy (like calling CNN "the enemy of the people" between when the second and third bomb addressed to them was discovered), and are using his arguments and tweets in their manifestos and internet ramblings doesn't mean they've ever even heard of Trump, no connection.
*facepalm

My counter argument....that that's not what you said....and it's still inaccurate.

You said the blanket statement about any/every group of 50 whites being a violent racist gang is not entirely inaccurate. It is.

Now, had you said the blanket statement about every group of 50 whites being a lynch mob was true some of the time, that would still be a wildly inaccurate overstatement, but better. There has been no point in time when every group of 50 white men was a lynch mob.

Had you said what you now say, it's not entirely inaccurate because it's true some of the time in certain specific areas with certain groupings, it would be contradicting the original blanket statement which is inaccurate, so it's still technically incorrect, just like saying the statement about groups of black people isn't entirely inaccurate....it is, because the unwritten but undeniable subject of the statement is ANY group of 50 black/white people, not one specific group in a few specific places at some times.

If you understand that, you understand why it's entirely inaccurate no matter how you wish to interpret the rest.

Is it true that there have been groups of 50 white men that were a lynch mob, yes. That doesn't resemble what you said.

I don't think they're intended to mean "it's infinitesimally possible, however incredibly unlikely and totally wrong as a blanket statement about any group of 50 white people", paired with your explanation I think it means "that's true in many places".


Kind of like agreeing that "50 black people are a violent criminal gang" is not entirely inaccurate because in certain specific places it might be possible....but as a blanket statement about ANY and EVERY group of 50 black people it's not only entirely inaccurate, it's insultingly racist.

What sort of evidence?

- Accusation/testimonial evidence?

- Or Physical evidence that is an invariant indicator of rape, that you can hold, see, measure, etc?



Anyone can accuse. That's effortless. Takes barely more energy than breathing.

(It's also effortless for a group of sour girls to gang up on a dude that upset them. Because "f that guy'. (That attitude isn't even rare.))



Physical evidence? People are convicted day in and day out of all sorts of things without physical evidence.

(Court is after all a popularity contest.)




My scary moment was when a cop detained me and told me he was going to charge me with : reckless driving, driving without a seat belt, and with threatening his life.

Why? Because I pulled up to a road block and asked him if I could drive past his road block to go home (which was a short way past the road block)... and he was having some emotional stability/triggering issues at the time, and he instantly turned red and went full on tirade mode.

Fortunately for me, after detaining me a few hours, some switch flipped in his head again and he just went to his car, got in, and drove off. Surreal.

So I asked myself :
If I had been charged, what would be the difference in court, vis-a-vis evidence, between it being a lie, and it being the truth?
Answer : No difference.

All he threatened me with was provable only by his word, and no evidence was required. I likely would have gone to jail, and had my life turned upside down... all on some person's grimace.

My view on evidence changed that day.
I will _NEVER_ convict anyone of anything, without physical tangible evidence that I can hold in my hand and see with my eyes, or at least run forensic tests on.
Testimony doesn't mean _shit_. It's absolutely, patently _worthless_.

(I also now run a dash cam everywhere I drive to protect myself from false accusations)




Basically, unless you have physical proof, I don't care.
Whatever you have to say, prove it.
No proof, no cares.

That goes for all accusations of anything ever. Across the board. Absolute.

It's the standard I want people to have for me, and it's the standard I have for others.

-scheherazade





(Aside, unrelated : I know a dude that was raped by a girl (he was nearly paralyzed drunk at his own house party). Wasn't even a secret. People at the party knew it happened. Nobody cared. When he complained, all anyone said was "Oh whatever. Shut up get over it". It wasn't even a question of 'did it happen?', it was a matter of "so what?".)

Nope I Do not concede it was Hypothetical speaking.

3 public accusations known..

1 is ford.
1 claims gang raped - 10 times -- She is not a victim.. She is an enabler.

The 3 is -- A story so not believable no one want to use it.

Democrats used this stunt to besmirch Clarence Thomas and Democrats are doing it again.

Did you ever consider they ganged up on him because he's so incredibly anti American and destructive that anyone who cares about American Democracy would oppose him, Democrats, Republicans, independents, honest media, the intelligence community, law enforcement, etc? Probably not, you're convinced his party is turning on him because he's winning too much.

Lol. Steele dossier....the one that was just upheld in court when Trump's lible/slander cases were thrown out....or did you not know that?

Yes. It was the turn to backing him that was the wrong, self serving, proven short sighted move.

Trump has not sold out conservative principles, he's thrown them in the trash and shit on them. Clearly principles are NOT what you hang your hat on, he has none and you've admitted it privately.

The creature from the bronze lagoon was hardly the one to help clean up the swamp, and his most criminally convicted administration ever is pretty good proof of that.

That $80 you got goes away in a few years and becomes a raise in your taxes by around $160, in case you won't read the actual law. You didn't get a tax break, you got a tax raise and a 5 year loan packaged as a tax break, and you bought it. Trump, according to economists that studied his public holdings, stands to gain around $1 million per year forever....his tax breaks are permanent. Not what he said, but you don't care he outright lied to you about it for months, do you, yet one corrected mistake by Clinton (Benghazi was a protest over Koran burnings in America, quickly retracted) and you still think she'll be indicted for....something you're incapable of naming, but something.

Fuck, Bob. Your insistence on backing Trump's every move no matter what has made you bat shit insane, inconsistent, and totally disconnected from reality. I hope you can get therapy.

McCain was a turncoat to me in 2008. ( well even before 2008) Same for Bush 44.
Deplorable Republicans. I did not vote for McCain in 08.

Bush 44 turn me against ( # walkaway) the Republican party and I then registered independent.


Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally the same .
In public they will "fight " each other for show. Behind the doors they serve their own self interest. They enrich themselves and family. Author Peter Schweizer book (Secret Empires) shines light on this.


Trump comes along, a true outsider, and both sides gang up on Trump, to the likes America has never seen. Media is right along for the ride (ratings). McCain, in my opinion had his hand in the Steele Dossier to destroy Trump.

The Republican kept their anti Trump position for nearly a year, and only then started to back Trump.

If you are a Republican you don't sell out conservative principles.----------------This is where I hang my hat. --


Bottom line DC is a self interest swamp. Every one wants something done. Liberals wanted Bernie. Republicans wanted Bush. America ended up with Trump.
I'm happy it was not Bush
My pocketbook is happy it wasn't Bernie.


As far as Trump Tax cuts They touted that average family of 4 making 70K would see something like 140$month
I see about 80$.. Not what they said but definitely noticed.

No. I disagree completely.

Paying taxes to support your government is mandatory and not doing so is punishable by law, with the full force of law enforcement backing that up.
Paying tithe and supporting a gang of known repeated, continuous child molesters and their helpers/protectors is a conscious free choice, as is remaining intentionally ignorant of their crimes (if that's even possible).

There's no correlation. It's not a slippery slope at all imo.

Now if you choose to stand up in support of those disastrous government programs, cheering them on and backing their supporters, then you're complicit.

Um....it was time to leave when the first public massive child molestation case happened decades ago which also included a massive thorough cover-up by the church.

It's time to use RICO to seize all the catholic church's assets in America and end them. What the fuck is wrong with people that they wouldn't want to eradicate this cabal of child molesters?

*promote telling Catholics to GTFO of this molestation gang or be labeled complicit in the molestation. You give tithe, you paid to molest children....you still tithe, then you're doing it knowingly and should be lumped in with the molesters.

You got it right, that's the agenda as I see it, make racism seem so outrageous and pervasive that people act....but only white on black racism exists or matters in that agenda. If you have such a biased, racist agenda, it detracts from the message that racism is bad and makes you sound ignorant.
Yeah....he argued once that he believes in racist faucets as a real issue of institutional racism, not a function of physics, even when it was explained scientifically....but I sound ignorant.
And through the filter of that agenda any white vs black interaction that's not the white person kissing ass is obviously pure racial malice and bias, and the only possible explanation is because all white people are overtly racist....and I sound ignorant.
And outright lies are fine with that agenda, including 100% bullshit stories like the one about racist gangs kidnapping a kid that obviously never happened, and dozens of others that are never corrected when debunked...and I sound ignorant.
I've posted dozens and dozens of videos about racism, but I do it because I think it's a real problem not dog poo I get to shove someone's nose in, so I'm careful to not equate bullshit, lies, exaggeration, hyperbole, and other falsehoods with it, because that gives racists ammunition to "prove" racism is dead and only alive in some people's minds and agendas, and a license to ignore true stories of real racism as more of the same. Doing THAT is ignorant and harmful.
That's true no matter what the agenda is, and is especially misguided and ill advised when it's about something important.
*facepalm