Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Once again, Ollie stated a fact. People in this BLM movement have made statements like that. As Vikorr stated these guys have hijacked the general concern over how black people are treated.
Yes, black lives matter. However, the BLM movement is evil.

You've got it wrong. Oralloy states something he alleges is fact, which is usually questionasble at best and is his interpretation of the data, which is an interpretation and not the data itself. and you''re rewriting history,

Redlining was a fact. That hindered blacks getting homes and banks factored it into their risk assessments. The legislation was for fairness for blacks. It had nothing to do with the 2007 crash. Fannie and freddie bylaw had to meet strict standards to write morgages. thwe private market could do whatever they wanted to. They reinterpreted their risk, disastrously wrongly as it turned out, and started writing huge quantities of riskier loans lkto the extent that vbefore the crash fannie and freddie's market share fell by avbout half and they starterd pressuring congress to let them write riskier loans. that was very late in the game, years late. they never caught up before the crash, driven by the private market who wrote bad loans to everybody, black or white, individual or business, big or small. Not dems, just greed drove the financial institutions. The lure of the quick buck and damn the consequences drove the Great Recession.

wrong. BLM never made statements about killing police. That's purely the extremist right's anti-black racism. They simply want police to stop killing them. George floyd, ahmad arberry, breona taylor, trayvon martin. That's part of a widespread generations-long pattern. BLM is not responsible for everything anyone says. BLM is not evil, racism is evil.

Dems forced banks to ignore economic facts. Dems seem to always do stupid things and then find a scapegoat for the resulting damage they cause.
At least you are willing to discuss topics. Progressives today want to prevent any discussion. To them disagreement means "hate speech".

Police put their lives on the line every day. They can die any minute of their shift.
When I interact with police, I acknowledge their authority. They are much more comfortable when they know the situation is under control.
Those who appreciate the point of view of an officer will tend to be treated better than those who are hostile.

the inequities were addressed. hey were not economic facts. that's the problem. They were inequities in who got mortgages and who didn't. and they had nothing to do with the banks et al's decisions to make huge numbers of risky loans to EVERYBODY, not just minorities (who federal law didn't get risky loans from the federal-related groups, fanny and fredy)/ Until almost the end of the bubble,It was purely private institutioons who wrote the bad loans for EBERYBODY because they miscalculated risk and could make huge immediate p;rofits frolm doing so).

Which is absolutely nonresponsive to the fact that too many innocent people are dying at police hands or being treated unfairly simply vecause they're not white. Justify the cop who walked into the wrong apartment and killed the its lega black tenant,, thnking he was in her apartment. or the black guy shot in his relative's yard holding a cell[hone which the cop mistook for a gun. Problem is, too many hair triggers kill too many black folk.

NNN's post is actually spot on, even while it also doesn't address your point. Both issues exist at the same time. I would certainly not want to be a police officer in the US. And I also wouldn't want to be a black person in the US having to deal with your police.

To me it seems like there is a minority of police officers who are racist in their dealings with black americans. This always makes the news, making it seem larger than it is (this is not to say it is not an issue - it is - it is to say the perception of its prevelance is likely not to the degree that it is perceived to be). This increases hostility, which makes the job of being a police officer much less safe, which makes them take stricter actions to ensure their safety, which makes people think they are power hungry authoritarians, resulting in people displaying more resistance, which results in police perceiving even more danger to their safety...and you get the picture.

I wouldn't want to be on either side of that.

The solution is to take both perspectives into view and try to come up with a solution that addresses both perspectives. Don't you think that if society went back to personal morality, including respecting authority that the situation would improve?

considering the entire history of american morality for many, many, many people has allowed for racism is some form, there is no place in history that i think persoonal morality is the answer. And Trump's personal morality has always been just "me, me, me". So no, that's not the answer.

I believe that you are confusing personal morality with social morality.
As with pre-born babies today, there was a time when blacks we're considered less than human. Therefore, slavery was considered to be fine. Likewise, Indians were considered to be 'savages".
Economic factors enered into the picture. In effect a slave was a "net asset" similar to the plantation itself.
The New Testament focuses heavily on eternal life. The main effect in this life was to instruct slaveowners to be kind to their slaves. However, blacks were not considered to be equal to whites.
Margaret Sanger certainly considered certain people to be inferior people. Nazi Germany taught that all people are inferior to Germans.
By the time I was born there was no doubt that a human was a human, no matter the color of their skin. Where I lived "KKK" meant that Sandy Koufax struck out the side.
Liberals correctly said that IGNORANCE was the main cause of racism. So, we got to know each other. However, leftists seem to insist on driving a wedge between the races

This is a biased opinion stated as if it were factual. First thing, this person uses the term "progressive" as a grab bag for anyone to the left of George W. Bush. But most people don't have the power to "violate people's rights." Someone who opposes widespread access to firearms isn't violating anyone's rights by holding that belief. The only people who can deliberately violate anyone's civil liberties are judges and lawmakers, as in the violation of reproductive freedoms by statute or judicial decision.

That is not factual statement either. I challenge the person to provide 1) an example of a "progressive" who violated people's civil liberties, and 2) prove that the "progressive's" sole reason for this action was personal enjoyment.

(1) Social Media (with this website being an obvious exception)-----progressives refuse 1st Amendment rights to conservatives using the excuse of "hate speech" for what is merely a difference of opinion. Indeed, a site which serves the needs of conservatives was brought down by (I believe Google).
(2) Governors like Gavin Newson---riots we're allowed with no concern about the pandemic. However, worship was forbidden. Bars could remain open but other small business owners were forced to close down. He (and Pelosi) could do whatever he darn well pleased but ordinary citizens were "locked down".
The same thing happened with several mayors.
(3) Chuck Schumer-----Our chief justice of the Supreme Court knew that the Senate has NO right to try citizen Donald Trump, so he refused to take part in this "kangaroo court trial". So, Schumer appoints a hostile leftist senator to president over this fiasco.
Please refer to Schumer's speech before the Supreme Court about a year ago. He language was extremely harsh. He actually threatened 2 of the justices.

(4) Nancy Pelosi and Dems in the House----She gets caught going to a beauty salon without a mask. She then verbally attacks the owner.
Because of her personal hatred of Donald Trump, she is willing to hinder the beginning days of Biden's presidency in a costly (to taxpayers) effort to take revenge on Trump. Meanwhile, citizens are suffering. However, Pelosi does not care about that
(5) The actions of other power hungry progressives.

1) What conservative has been prosecuted for anything they've said?

2) "Worship" can't be forbidden as it can be practiced privately.

3) "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" — Trump is not the president.

4) You would have Trump — and other presidents in the future — incite an insurrection with impunity?

5) The power-hungry people were those supporting Trump in defiance of the will of the voters.

(1) Conservatives have been denied freedom of speech for disagreement with progressives.
A few years ago it was acknowledged that the KKK had the right to freedom of speech. Then, the idea of "hate speech" came along Now, progressives use "hate speech" to apply to anyone who disagrees with them
Trump encouraged conservatives to stand up for their beliefs. Frankly it would be far easier to prosecute MLK for what he said than to prosecute Trump for what he said.

(2) One aspect of worship is meeting together to praise God and encourage one another.
(3) Correct. That is why the Senate trial is a sham. Also, Dems are using tactics that would never be allowed in a trial of any kind. If this was not a kangaroo court trial, the "prosecutors" would have their lincenses revoked by the impartial judge.

(4) You know very well that Trump did not start "an insurrection". In fact, the few who got violent did so when Trump was beginning to talk

(5) There were improprieties in the voting process, including the introduction of mail-in ballots. I am one of those people who believe that the election was stolen from Trump.
However, Jan 6 was supposed to be the day that objections were raised for Penn, Arizona, and a few other states. After that, Biden was expected to take office on 1/20

Would you say that people generally act in their own interests?

1) I don't believe in "hate speech" and don't think the distinction is necessary.

2) One aspect of worship is preserving the health and life of one's self and one's neighbors in the face of contagious disease.



3) No, it's not a "sham", it's simply an unprecedented situation. It is not a judicial "trial". According to your logic, people like Hawley and Cruz couldn't serve as "jurors".

4) No, I don't "know" that — what I know is that Trump started laying the foundation for this lie about a "stolen election" last summer. Michael Cohen warned us that he would do this two years ago.

5) Mail-in ballots are legal and, during a pandemic, potentially life-saving.


My already rather low estimation of your intelligence and capacity for original thought has been borne out by this statement. Even Barr said that none of the irregularities (which are to be expected) were anywhere near large enough to change the outcome in any state. No vote was "stolen". Such objections and legal appeals are dealt with in the courts, not in a ceremonial procedure in the Senate. The suits were properly thrown out of court.

No. People are normally too blinded by egotism to perceive what their self interests actually are.

That's one of the best characterizations I've seen in a long time.

"No. People are normally too blinded by egotism to perceive what their self interests actually are."

(1) That is what progressives use as an excuse for denying other people their 1st amendment rights.
(2) That is just an excuse to keep churches closed. After all, the riots were quite acceptable to these progressives.
I think that honest people would acknowledge that community worship is also important. Jesus never told people not to go to the temple. He went to the temple too.
(3) It is the chief justice of the Supreme Court who presides over an impeachment trial. Since Donald Trump was now a private citizen, the chief justice knew that the trial was a sham