« First « Previous Comments 634 - 673 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
Thats not the conclusion I reached when I read the old threads
The numbers before the BLM riots don't support the widely held liberal contention that the police are racially violent, either. In actuality, after adjusted for population, White Males are the most likely victim of police shootings, not Blacks. Despite Blacks being disproportionally involved in violent crime at massively disproportionate rates to other ethnic groups.
White Males are the most likely victim of police shootings, not Blacks.
Oh come on Patrick... you know this type of cherry picking is disingenuous.
they were cheerful and not beating up anybody
Patrick says
they were cheerful and not beating up anybody
Sure, Patrick. They were all totally calm and orderly, following police instructions, chipper and friendly as can be.... just like you say. Your characterization is accurate, there were no exceptions. I am disconnected from reality.
staged
how many were seriously injured on Jan 6?
Ashli Babbit (unarmed woman) who was shamelessly murdered by a capitol police goon
police goon
mell says
staged
Staged? You think the images/videos were staged? they were broadcast live... how could it be staged?
mell says
how many were seriously injured on Jan 6?
114 officers reported injuries resulting from the incident, though I do not know the severity of each:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
mell says
Ashli Babbit (unarmed woman) who was shamelessly murdered by a capitol police goon
She was trying to climb through a barricaded door onto the other side which was defended by armed officers, through a window broken by the crowds, I've seen that video. s...
Individual black males are MORE likely to be victims of police shootings than individual white males.
Compare pushing against government barricades to blm
Are individual white males less likely to be involved in/associates/colleagues with criminals or more
likely to be criminals than individual black males?
mell says
Compare pushing against government barricades to blm
I am not making this comparison. I am not defending violent protests from either side. I am not defending vandalism, arson, or any of the other violence or property damage stuff that happened in BLM protests. I am totally opposed to it and think its wrong.
That's my point... You are criticizing violent behavior of one side but defending violent behavior of the other. Thats why you are being hypocritical.
I am NOT doing that.
You can look for pictures of BLM protests that are peaceful, and you can look for ones that are violent, and you will find both.
I think you are trying to use cherry picking to support a mantra of "only the left is violent"
I am not defending trespassing, but nothing more happened
PeopleUnited says
Are individual white males less likely to be involved in/associates/colleagues with criminals or more
likely to be criminals than individual black males?
I dont know about associates/colleagues, but for violent crimes committed, yes, I linked the FBI crime rates by race above. My overall take is that officer involved shootings are roughly proportional to the rate of police encounters with individuals involved in violent crime.
This does NOT agree with the left's position that cops are racist and prefer to shoot black people.
Its closer to saying cops do NOT have a preference for which race they shoot, but a certain fraction of interactions with individuals involved in violent crime result in an officer involved shooting regardless of race.
mell says
staged
Staged? You think the images/videos were staged? they were broadcast live... how could it be staged?
And police are more likely to shoot you when you are interacting with them, and if they believe you are a criminal (including non violent crimes like driving while high etc....)
mell says
Compare pushing against government barricades to blm
I am not making this comparison. I am not defending violent protests from either side. I am not defending vandalism, arson, or any of the other violence or property damage stuff that happened in BLM protests. I am totally opposed to it and think its wrong.
That's my point... You are criticizing violent behavior of one side but defending violent behavior of the other. Thats why you are being hypocritical.
I am NOT doing that.
PeopleUnited says
And police are more likely to shoot you when you are interacting with them, and if they believe you are a criminal (including non violent crimes like driving while high etc....)
Yeah. I have no data on how often shootings happen durring arrests for violent crime vs. non violent crimes.
I do make an ASSUMPTION that officers feel more threat to themselves if they think they are dealing with a violent person, and are more likely to draw their weapon and defend themselves if they feel threatened. That assumption is purely based on how I think I would feel, not data.
There are also a lot of officer involved shootings that start out with a mental health crisis where the officer is there because the person is acting out and then the situation escalates. Not all officer involved shootings involve a rational criminal resisting arrest.
I would just add drug use/intoxication t
Many of the people who were violent in those two different types of protests believed their violence was justified. But the media/leftists seem to believe that only the anti police rioters were justified.
it is called an insurrectio by the leftists
PeopleUnited says
Many of the people who were violent in those two different types of protests believed their violence was justified. But the media/leftists seem to believe that only the anti police rioters were justified.
Yes I see this too. Although I called out patrick above for cherry picking the images he posted, the captions in those images show what you are saying. Left side media DOES give a pass to violence and bad actions by the left. Right side media does the same for the right.
The objective of many of the people who were there (and in my opinion the objective of Trump)
Individual black males are MORE likely to be victims of police shootings than individual white males.
Others can argue with you, but if you refuse to admit 2 + 2 = 4, there's not much point.
I think you've thoroughly discredited yourself as an argument partner by:
claiming that being fired for refusing the death jab is not being forced to take it
claiming that Trump was going to install himself as "emperor" with less than zero evidence, while Trump was telling people to be peaceful (see his Tweet)
buying into the see-through lie that unarmed people being led into the Capitol by Ray Epps is somehow the crime of the century
claiming that hundreds of violent BLM riots are somehow unimportant
Others can argue with you,
Im sad for what this site has become, nothing more than an echo chamber for like minded people who wont even discuss with people who have different opinions.
Dan was more fun and less disingenuous.
To be clear, I've said I dont support mandates, and I dont think storm troopers were forcing people to get them against their will, separate from as a condition of entry to certain places.
She was trying to climb through a barricaded door onto the other side which was defended by armed officers, through a window broken by the crowds, I've seen that video. sad she died, but what the hell was she thinking? What the hell were any of them thinking?
DeficitHawk says
She was trying to climb through a barricaded door onto the other side which was defended by armed officers, through a window broken by the crowds, I've seen that video. sad she died, but what the hell was she thinking? What the hell were any of them thinking?
ask this, how many left wing protesters were met by armed guards and shot at during Kavana scotus trial? they too took over quite a few times, nothing happened there to them.
our government treats people very different based on their political views.
Why so you all bother with this guy? He's been caught red handed dishing out total bullshit and then caught lying to cover it up.
DeficitHawk I think you've thoroughly discredited yourself as an argument partner by:
- claiming that being fired for refusing the death jab is not being forced to take it
- claiming that Trump was going to install himself as "emperor" with less than zero evidence, while Trump was telling people to be peaceful (see his Tweet)
- claiming that hundreds of violent BLM riots are somehow unimportant
- buying into the see-through lie that unarmed people being led into the Capitol by Ray Epps is somehow the crime of the century
Probably other stuff too, but you really ought to be embarrassed by directly contradicting reality over and over. Others can argue with you, but if you refuse to admit 2 + 2 = 4, there's not much point.
EDIT: I speculate that the deep state is contracting psychologists to get a bead on the simmering outrage amongst the "deplorables" to contribute to a possible threat assessment as to the extent of the righteous backlash that will occur once people wake up and the shit really hits the fan.
richwicks says
If you cannot be consistent in your thinking, you must be wrong in someway. If they cannot be consistent in their thinking, but continue, they are wrong, and refuse to admit it.
But I already knew about that. I live in Cali and have ro listen to that ALL the time. No 'debate on PatNet with a Libtard' needed.
IF you insist on wearing patnet conformity blinders, i can not help you. I showed you the pictures. I linked the report of 114 injured officers. If you do not think there was any violence, I just dont think you are being honest with yourself.
Do you think they were giving this guy a back massage? Is that why he is lying on the ground?
Dude definely suffers from cognitive dissonance problems that I believe is what forces him to avoid seeing reality when it is shown directly to him.
« First « Previous Comments 634 - 673 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.