Lets talk specific laws and solutions to Racism

I think instead of attacking “racism” — which is an implicit personal bias and almost impossible to “fix” — we need to focus on police reforms and personal responsibility.

Police officers need to be paid more but with that pay bump they would be required to hold professional liability insurance and licensing. Bad cops would be unable to be protected by the union, would be unable to bounce from department to department and the taxpayer would no longer be on the hook for their negligence. If they get to where they can no longer find someone to insure them then they will have to find a new career. All police misconduct should be investigated by a independent community organization and not the police themselves.

Lastly, we need to stop treating the police as a paramilitary organization. My medium sized town with virtually no crime just got a MRAP swat truck just incase ISIS attacks us... It isn’t unusual for police at events to be wearing what looks to be combat gear carrying military style rifles.
US citizens should not be treated like we are in a war zone.

 

No I fully understand the concept. The problem is that you’re trying to manipulate the terms in order to obfuscate blatant and explicit discrimination against white people. You, i and EVERYONE else knows that telling a group they’re not allowed to access government funds that THEY paid for with their tax dollars based on NOTHING more than the color of their skin, while everyone else can access it, is discrimination.

But see you don’t want to call it discrimination because it would undermine your position. Not only would it demonstrate that whites are the ONLY group whom it is allowed and government sanctioned to explicitly discriminate against, but it would also delegitimize the oppressed blacks narrative because you can’t point to anything even remotely as discriminatory against blacks in place today.

It also makes your argument incredibly racist. Which you cannot abide by.

 

Most drug laws have steeper penalties based on the quantity of drugs the person has.

If crack is 3 times stronger than cocaine, then it would align with other laws that the same volume carries more penalty.

 

Oh, maybe those cities can have less riots burning down the factories that have been in those cities? Or maybe less unions that ruin manufacturing like they did in Detroit. But those are laws, they are a society issue that mostly effects big cities.

 

That's not racist cause its a choice to commit a crime and the law is applied equally to all races of people. A white person still cant vote just as a black person cant vote.

Cause minorities willingly commit more crimes?

Funny that you put the onus on the GOP but ignore dems. The GOP primaried and kicked out Steve King immediately, the dems did nothing to Illian Ohmar. All these riots due to bad policing happen in democrat cities in usually democrat states, but you clearly think this is a republican problem? Cant argue with a fanatic.

 

Want to address #3. Billy ray and billy bob and Jethro, and Cleatus get the same scrutiny as La-A and DE'Quan. Naming your child something odballish is going to be detrimental later on in life no matter what the race is.

 

Hmm... You mean that the trillions of dollars spent to do exactly that by mostly democratic leadership in the large cities didn't get the job done? Is that what you mean? Could you also be referring to the assignment of ghettos to low income minorities to keep them packed together in their collective poverty and that it isn't such a good idea after all? So, let's be honest here for a minute or two. Democrats told everyone who would listen that their solutions were effective, and that their version of delivering services to the poor would eradicate these concerns you now bring forward. Gosh, that seems super problematic then for you since you seem to believe that no one will actually look at history to evaluate your assertion.

 

When was this written? When was the last time you heard of a black family being ran out of a white neighborhood?

 

So the minorities are racist against Zimmerman because they don't listen to the facts that there were many reports of young black men looking in and robbing homes in the neighborhood?

I went with laws because you cant fix every single person in the world of their bias, you can only punish them when they act unlawfully on those biases. Zimmerman would have been convicted if he wasn't overcharged.

 

Ok, so explain the attitude. Had their been problems in that neighborhood where young hoody wearing minorities had committed crimes, broken into houses and such? That attitude has to come from somewhere. Oh, and the answer is, yes there had been break-ins. So, it appears that in this democratic lead city, police had been ineffective in maintaining the civil peace, or protecting property owners. Do you suppose that lead to this "attitude" that you describe? Perhaps what really offends the left is pointing out their numerous service delivery problems and finding that folks are unsatisfied with them to the point they simply find they have to do those things for themselves.

I also don't understand your complaint about the verdict from a trial. Folks found that they weren't going to tolerate the narrative forced on them to accept that what happened to Trayvon was racism. If you'll recall, it was the hoody wearing thug that attacked the concerned citizen, was it not? And a jury agreed with that. That isn't racism, that's doubt that the race hustled prosecutorial case wasn't adequate to convict anyone on. The contrived narratives that you folks deliver beg credulity sometimes. And the distance of time seems to embolden folks like you to continue to try to whitewash past events into the grievances you want modern folks to believe in. I'd say that approach pretty much blows.

 

I answered your question.

Your response is nonsensical and ignores the world outside your echo chamber.

 

What is "under funding" in your mind? When was his story taking place? Inner city schools typically get more per pupil than rural schools. Happens in GA, and ATL school getting twice per pupil as rural schools still have the worst school districts in the state.

 

So, my response to people breaking laws due to their own volition is "nonsensical", but you ignoring that fact that things happened long before someone served their time is sensical? Is the law that convicted felons, white or black, not allowed to vote equal on its face? If whites and blacks committed crimes at the same rate, and they are both treated to the same law when their sentence was over still racist? But you think only due to the fact that blacks commit more crimes that this somehow law is directed towards minorities is strictly based on race.

 

Think beer vs Moonshine

One is a lot cheaper and potent, which also makes it more addictive and readily available. All qualities that poor people don't need in their drugs.

Kind of the same reason opium never really became a problem but heroin exploded. It makes sense that more dangerous drugs carry a heavier penalty.

 

My wife has worked in financial aid for years, I haven't heard of anything. I thought it was based on income, but I don't really know all the ins and outs.

I do find it odd that some ex-cons don't qualify for a lot of financial aid. But I guess it would be very high risk to loan thousands of dollars to say a thief or murderer.

 

I don't remember ever being asked about a criminal past on any form other than for drug use. That seemed to be the one and only automatic disqualifier.

 

Not that it's super relevant, but as someone who has made both, beer is way cheaper to make than moonshine. At least the startup cost is way less. Distilling equipment is much more expensive than a brew pot and a bucket. And "wine" that will get you just as messed up as moonshine (even if you have to drink 3x as much) is even cheaper than that. Pour some yeast in a bottle of apple or grape juice (as long as it uses vitamin C as a preservative) with some extra sugar, run a tube from the top into a cup of water, and wait two weeks. Package liquor versus moonshine might be a better comparison, but then the only difference is that moonshine might make you go blind if you don't get all the head off of it.

Anyway, crack's high is faster and more intense, and also shorter, because of the way it's consumed. If you smash it and snort it, it's basically the same as powdered cocaine. That's what they taught us in my pharmacology class, at least. It's cheaper because it's basically made from what's left after powder is refined, and because of that and how it's consumed, it's more dangerous to your health. After adjusting for socio-economic factors, people on crack aren't any more likely to commit crimes or otherwise be dangerous than those who snort cocaine. I suppose I could agree that a drug that makes someone more dangerous to society should carry a heavier penalty, but that isn't the case for crack vs powder cocaine.

 

So, you're caught speeding. You have a couple of prior speeding tickets. Cops get to kill you?
You got a parking ticket. You've had several. Beat you and tase you? All good?
Sitting in your car doing nothing. Just enjoying the sun and some tunes. Police drag you out of your car beat, stomp, and tase you. Good with that?

Or maybe that's only OK for minorities?

Because, if they're minotities, they must have done something to deserve it, right?

 

Wow, you went from voting rights after you serve your sentence to some straw man of being killed during a speeding ticket? I can see this is going to get people far in talking about racist laws or systemic racism and how to over turn it.

 

The premise is that Black people deserve whatever they get because Black people commit crimes.

Just extending the "deserve whatever they get" beyond Black people.

Perhaps if you and yours can drop the "they deserve it language" you might be a little less uncomfortable when I turn those responses back on you.

 

No kidding. If you start a construction company today and you are white you better put your wife down or a sister as president of the company. Other wise you will not get any contracts.

And for college if you pay tuition out of pocket like I did to ISU almost 40% of your tuition is earmarked for tuition reduction for minorities and poor.

 

No I don't think this is about jobs. I don't think jobs even makes the top 10 on any BLM demands I've seen.

 

Yep.
And this discrimination is pissing off a lot of white folks, and those who had encounters with this real institutionalized racism are rolling their eyes every time a progressive cries racism.

The BLM is literally playing with fire - if they continue escalating their protests (riots, looting, racial assaults), many whites will start losing their minds and all hell will break lose. First of all, whites are more likely to be armed and second - there is more whites than blacks. And throw in Latinos, who like guns too and are very critical of blacks in private conversations. If city authorities are closing their eyes on looting, vandalism, assaults and even murders of whites, sheriffs might start closing their eyes on the same acts but against blacks, which could turn some areas in this country to literally no-go zones with massacres occurring and local cops looking another way.

 

I'm sure you can link to ISU's budget to back up your assertion that a portion of tuition from white students goes specifically to subsidize tuition for minorities, as opposed to that funding coming from something like a federal grant to the school.

 

As far as I know, school decides how much financial aid to grant to each applicant, not federal government. My school was in ultra liberal Minneapolis. That’s why my black classmates enjoyed even parking and lunch for free while whites like me had to get by with unsubsidized loans, which didn’t always cover all tuition.