HitsRus;1738248 wrote:I think at least some of the people you mentioned are talking about a different thing.
Why are "we" not appalled at people attacking innocent people?....well, we are...but in reality it's pretty commonplace. Most are not even race related. Bad people attack innocent people all the time. When it comes to arson, there are over 30,000 arson fires a year...only a handful are race related. So it's not really that innocents are being attacked....it's why they are being attacked....and that brings us back to race.


IMO, we focus way too much on the negative stuff, some pretty minor, and ignore the great progress that has been made in race relations even in my lifetime.

I think that's one of the ugly side effects from the constant 24-hour news bombardment with everyone rushing to break anything for clickbait headlines. You get things that have happened in some way, shape and form through history (recent or otherwise) and aren't happening at any legitimately greater or lesser rate than on average in the past --- except now, they're presented as some sort of epidemic where society is poised to crumble. You could apply that to the recent-ish cases of blacks being shot by cops and the over-the-top reaction it tended to create. You could also apply that to virtually every single bit of "OMG THE DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY CAN'T BE REPAIRED" idiocy that QQuaker posts.

In this age of information, it seems like the information given is designed primarily to inflame and incite the stupid and gullible.

Heretic;1738293 wrote:I think that's one of the ugly side effects from the constant 24-hour news bombardment with everyone rushing to break anything for clickbait headlines. You get things that have happened in some way, shape and form through history (recent or otherwise) and aren't happening at any legitimately greater or lesser rate than on average in the past --- except now, they're presented as some sort of epidemic where society is poised to crumble. You could apply that to the recent-ish cases of blacks being shot by cops and the over-the-top reaction it tended to create. You could also apply that to virtually every single bit of "OMG THE DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY CAN'T BE REPAIRED" idiocy that QQuaker posts.

In this age of information, it seems like the information given is designed primarily to inflame and incite the stupid and gullible.

Oh, I think that's exactly what's going on. Powerful groups and individuals feed their favorite news agent information that supports and drives their agenda in a symbiotic relationship. Things get reported and emphasized to get people's attention and ratings and to drive a narrative.... there is no reward for fairness or balance. Some things get blown out of proportion and others ignored, depending on the agenda.
Take for example what Rmolin73 posted about the sudden increase in black churches being targeted, a deliberate and truly high level racist crime. You would think that the numbers of incidents would be front page story. But no, it's buried on page 2, because people might start to ask why...and it might be uncomfortable to really get into what is suddenly fanning the flames of racial tension among whites. Moreover, it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are the major cause of violent crime in this country, and that if we get rid of the guns, violent crime will decrease.

Are we sure the fires at Black churches are being set by whites?
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/06/30/suspect-arrested-after-racist-message-discovered-outside-church/

superman;1738360 wrote:Are we sure the fires at Black churches are being set by whites?
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/06/30/suspect-arrested-after-racist-message-discovered-outside-church/

I fear that we'll see more of this as people try to make something out of nothing. Some people don't want any type of unity in this country.

superman;1738360 wrote:Are we sure the fires at Black churches are being set by whites?
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/06/30/suspect-arrested-after-racist-message-discovered-outside-church/

I've read a few of them were not even arson, but electrical issues and lightning caused the fires.

rmolin73;1738361 wrote: I fear that we'll see more of this as people try to make something out of nothing.

No respect for the 1st amendment.

rmolin73;1738361 wrote: Some people don't want any type of unity in this country.

People need to stop forcing their personal agendas and accept everyone's rights as a human being. We as American citizens have the same rights, we need not worry about others. The fucking Dukes of Hazzard is under fire for gods sake.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1738391 wrote:No respect for the 1st amendment.



People need to stop forcing their personal agendas and accept everyone's rights as a human being. We as American citizens have the same rights, we need not worry about others. The fucking Dukes of Hazzard is under fire for gods sake.

That's a little ridiculous if you ask me. It's a fucking TV show!!!! I'd rather watch that than most of the reality garbage that's on!

On the flip side I remember the first person on sitcom TV being a lesbian. The made the show TV-14 because of it.

This tells me a few things.. 1) it sucked to be gay at that time 2) mainstream wasn't cool with it.

It's weird how this issue isn't like murder where most would recognize right and wrong quickly.. Most actually wasn't cool with it and it flipped.

Now if you share the belief of the majority from 1998 you are just a bigot.

I'm very interested in the mindset on that

rydawg5;1738407 wrote:On the flip side I remember the first person on sitcom TV being a lesbian. The made the show TV-14 because of it.

This tells me a few things.. 1) it sucked to be gay at that time 2) mainstream wasn't cool with it.

It's weird how this issue isn't like murder where most would recognize right and wrong quickly.. Most actually wasn't cool with it and it flipped.

Now if you share the belief of the majority from 1998 you are just a bigot.

I'm very interested in the mindset on that

I don't agree with homosexuality, however, it's their right. What bothers me the most is why should we as American citizens attempt to force our personal beliefs on others and expect them to join the pack, it doesn't work. Why not accept people for one thing, themselves. You fly your flag and i'll fly mine mentality.

rmolin73;1738398 wrote:That's a little ridiculous if you ask me. It's a fucking TV show!!!! I'd rather watch that than most of the reality garbage that's on!

I agree. Nothing overtly sexual. Nothing racist. Mild violence. Good people triumph over bad. But that symbol on the roof of that car....... I grew up watching that show on Friday nights and never once did it cause me to think that the white race was superior. The reality garbage is far more detrimental to our youth than the Dukes ever could be. I just hope the Asians never get offended over Hop Sing. I would hate to see TV Land drop Bonanza.

Heretic;1738293 wrote:"OMG THE DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY CAN'T BE REPAIRED" idiocy that QQuaker posts.

In this age of information, it seems like the information given is designed primarily to inflame and incite the stupid and gullible.

Please articulate your thoughts on the following 'damage' with particular emphasis on their exponential increases vis-a-vis the current regime's policies which is accelerating said 'damage', and the pathway to 'repair':

$18 trillion in national debt - 44% of which occurred in just the last 7 years

93.6 million Americans without a job -- which is 42% of available working age people, 16-68.

Lowest labor participation rate since 1977, and accelerating

46 million Americans on food stamps ----- record high and accelerating

11 million on disability --- record high and accelerating

20 million illegal aliens and/or criminals ---- record high and accelerating

obamacare ---- disastrous legislation continuing to inflict massive damage to health care and the economy

federal agencies turned oppressive and tyrannical


Thank you.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1738411 wrote:I don't agree with homosexuality, however, it's their right. What bothers me the most is why should we as American citizens attempt to force our personal beliefs on others and expect them to join the pack, it doesn't work. Why not accept people for one thing, themselves. You fly your flag and i'll fly mine mentality.

Here is my two cents on this argument. There is one reason to be against the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage, "It over steps the bounds of the 10th Amendment." And that's a sound argument, this ruling clearly does that, I don't disagree. My rebuttal is this, when the states are using their power to limit the freedoms of the people living within those states, freedoms established in the 1st 2 paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, I'm okay with the federal government stepping over the boundaries of the 10th Amendment to guarantee all people living in this country the same inalienable rights.

j_crazy;1738524 wrote:Here is my two cents on this argument. There is one reason to be against the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage, "It over steps the bounds of the 10th Amendment." And that's a sound argument, this ruling clearly does that, I don't disagree. My rebuttal is this, when the states are using their power to limit the freedoms of the people living within those states, freedoms established in the 1st 2 paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, I'm okay with the federal government stepping over the boundaries of the 10th Amendment to guarantee all people living in this country the same inalienable rights.

They do.
A gay dude can marry a woman.
A lesbian can marry a dude.

I dont recall marriage ever being able to marry whomever you want. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Period.

thavoice;1738527 wrote:They do.
A gay dude can marry a woman.
A lesbian can marry a dude.

I dont recall marriage ever being able to marry whomever you want. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Period.

Defined by an outdated redneck such as yourself? Got it.

thavoice;1738527 wrote:They do.
A gay dude can marry a woman.
A lesbian can marry a dude.

I dont recall marriage ever being able to marry whomever you want. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Period.

Maybe it was in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago. But they didn't have cell phones and rode camels. Posting this from my iphone, in the front seat of my pickup, I tend to think progression is a good thing. On all fronts.

I swear judging by some of the BULLSHIT I've seen posted (not just here, but on FB, Instagram, etc.) about this ruling, I think people honestly believe the SCOTUS has ruled that ONLY gay/lesbian marriages are allowed to take place. If you mainliners really believed in the bible so much, you'd keep your mouth shut and let the heathens meet their fate when it comes, or judge not lest ye be judged. Either argument you want to use, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!

j_crazy;1738531 wrote:Maybe it was in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago. But they didn't have cell phones and rode camels. Posting this from my iphone, in the front seat of my pickup, I tend to think progression is a good thing. On all fronts.

I swear judging by some of the BULLSHIT I've seen posted (not just here, but on FB, Instagram, etc.) about this ruling, I think people honestly believe the SCOTUS has ruled that ONLY gay/lesbian marriages are allowed to take place. If you mainliners really believed in the bible so much, you'd keep your mouth shut and let the heathens meet their fate when it comes, or judge not lest ye be judged. Either argument you want to use, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!

Just wait, in 20-30 years there will be something even more disgusting and immoral that is given the green light by our government and this paved the way for it to happen and you will all be up and arms and posting on JJchatter (justin and JJ come together with a mega merge that was originally held up because the government thought it would become a monopolgy) and think to yourself "for fucks sake, thavoice was right"

Guy is already preparing to sue for the right to be married to two women ......floodgates are open now. Looking forward to the twisted opinion of Elena Kagan and the rest of the radical progressives as they continue to unleash their agenda on The People; after polygamy I assume marrying your dog will be next.

QuakerOats;1738540 wrote:Guy is already preparing to sue for the right to be married to two women ......floodgates are open now. Looking forward to the twisted opinion of Elena Kagan and the rest of the radical progressives as they continue to unleash their agenda on The People; after polygamy I assume marrying your dog will be next.

Dog will be 30-40 years from now. Incestual marriages are next after polygamy.

sleeper;1738562 wrote:Dog will be 30-40 years from now. Incestual marriages are next after polygamy.

I agree that incest is next. After that will be NAMBLA.

superman;1738565 wrote:I agree that incest is next. After that will be NAMBLA.

After that it'll be black women.

QuakerOats;1738540 wrote:Guy is already preparing to sue for the right to be married to two women ......floodgates are open now. Looking forward to the twisted opinion of Elena Kagan and the rest of the radical progressives as they continue to unleash their agenda on The People; after polygamy I assume marrying your dog will be next.

He's mentally unstable who would want two nags?

I think the court could have solved a lot of problems if they would have defined marriage as a personal and civil union between a man and a woman, and then gone on to say that in accordance with the 14 th amendment the states should not prohibit other civil unions between same sex partners. In that way, the traditional religious concept of marriage would not have been defiled, while still being consistent with the constitutional spirit of amendment 14.
Now I realize that the Court should not be defining terms... But that didn't stop them in okaying Obamacare earlier in the week.

That flag stands for slavery and treason. It began as the battle of flag of the army of northern Virginia but became the basis for later Confederate national flags. A nation founded for the purpose above all of protecting and expanding slavery as was stated by the secession conventions, President and Vice Presidents of the Confederacy.

rmolin73;1738575 wrote:He's mentally unstable who would want two nags?

Or worse yet, two mother-in-laws