U.S. Flag

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

The SJWs offend by intent and action in their "protest". The monument makers of the past and those honoring the country and US flag at sporting events have no intent to offend - NONE. The left seeks to be offended by torturous logic and childish pique. Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one. The hypocrisy is obvious but the SJWs couldn't see it if it hit them with a truck.

Yawn.

[ptsdthor]

Jun 28, 2020 10:13:42 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

The SJWs offend by intent and action in their "protest". The monument makers of the past and those honoring the country and US flag at sporting events have no intent to offend - NONE. The left seeks to be offended by torturous logic and childish pique. Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one. The hypocrisy is obvious but the SJWs couldn't see it if it hit them with a truck.

Yawn.

There is nothing as boring as the truth." - Charles Bukowski

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 10:37:44 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Jun 28, 2020 10:13:42 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Yawn.

There is nothing as boring as the truth." - Charles Bukowski

Or another edgy, trying too hard to sound tough post from a Trump panderer who doesn't believe in civil rights or equal protections for citizens, promoting bigotry openly. Incoming "hypocrisy" rant about drivel. Save your time and energy.

[aztecking]

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one.

I can’t tell if this is meant as sarcasm.

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 10:42:53 GMT -8 aztecking said:

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one.

I can’t tell if this is meant as sarcasm.

It's a routine.

[johneaztec]

Jun 28, 2020 9:25:51 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 9:06:26 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

All of those mentioned, except Kaepernick, are disrespectful if intentional. To many, Kaepernicks gesture is a slap in the face to our military, etc... There can be degrees of disrespect. I know MANY military, ex and current, who despise Kaepernicks act.

Then they aren't very indicative and don't represent the greater majority of people who have enough common sense to connect straight line points that don't involve false conclusions. It has absolutely nothing to do with the military, in any shape or context.

It may have nothing to do with the military in his head, but it's the wrong platform, since this all about the Military to MOST. The song itself explains that. Go ahead and kneel, but personally I'll never condone it.

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 11:02:30 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Jun 28, 2020 9:25:51 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Then they aren't very indicative and don't represent the greater majority of people who have enough common sense to connect straight line points that don't involve false conclusions. It has absolutely nothing to do with the military, in any shape or context.

It may have nothing to do with the military in his head, but it's the wrong platform, since this all about the Military to MOST. The song itself explains that. Go ahead and kneel, but personally I'll never condone it.

That sounds like your own flawed interpretation of privilege. It's the absolute right platform because of the representation and power that it gives. It's supposed to honor this country and the freedoms it provides. It's not about the military to anyone with common sense. They are kneeling for social injustice, racial bias, oppression and systemic violence in this country. The sense of righteousness and indignation towards that is not honorable, it's just sad.

[ptsdthor]

Jun 28, 2020 10:42:53 GMT -8 aztecking said:

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one.

I can’t tell if this is meant as sarcasm.

Probably can't tell about a lot of things.

[ptsdthor]

Jun 28, 2020 10:42:41 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 10:37:44 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

There is nothing as boring as the truth." - Charles Bukowski

Or another edgy, trying too hard to sound tough post from a Trump panderer who doesn't believe in civil rights or equal protections for citizens, promoting bigotry openly. Incoming "hypocrisy" rant about drivel. Save your time and energy.

Yawn indeed. Truth or Drivel?

[johneaztec]

Jun 28, 2020 11:25:55 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 11:02:30 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

It may have nothing to do with the military in his head, but it's the wrong platform, since this all about the Military to MOST. The song itself explains that. Go ahead and kneel, but personally I'll never condone it.

That sounds like your own flawed interpretation of privilege. It's the absolute right platform because of the representation and power that it gives. It's supposed to honor this country and the freedoms it provides. It's not about the military to anyone with common sense. They are kneeling for social injustice, racial bias, oppression and systemic violence in this country. The sense of righteousness and indignation towards that is not honorable, it's just sad.

I know why they're kneeling. Like I said, to me, it's the wrong platform. You don't need to tell me if I'm right or wrong. That's my opinion.

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 11:36:54 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Jun 28, 2020 10:42:41 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Or another edgy, trying too hard to sound tough post from a Trump panderer who doesn't believe in civil rights or equal protections for citizens, promoting bigotry openly. Incoming "hypocrisy" rant about drivel. Save your time and energy.

Yawn indeed. Truth or Drivel?

Truth.

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 11:40:09 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Jun 28, 2020 11:25:55 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

That sounds like your own flawed interpretation of privilege. It's the absolute right platform because of the representation and power that it gives. It's supposed to honor this country and the freedoms it provides. It's not about the military to anyone with common sense. They are kneeling for social injustice, racial bias, oppression and systemic violence in this country. The sense of righteousness and indignation towards that is not honorable, it's just sad.

I know why they're kneeling. Like I said, to me, it's the wrong platform. You don't need to tell me if I'm right or wrong. That's my opinion.

Good thing they don't need permission or validation.

[ptsdthor]

Jun 28, 2020 11:47:43 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 11:36:54 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Yawn indeed. Truth or Drivel?

Truth.

Reminds me of my youth when we would all say "Sure Doug. Sure."

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 11:55:06 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Jun 28, 2020 11:47:43 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Truth.

Reminds me of my youth when we would all say "Sure Doug. Sure."

Okay? Congrats to your youth.

[johneaztec]

Jun 28, 2020 11:48:07 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 11:40:09 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

I know why they're kneeling. Like I said, to me, it's the wrong platform. You don't need to tell me if I'm right or wrong. That's my opinion.

Good thing they don't need permission or validation.

Nope. They definitely have the right to.

[gocoaztec]

Jun 26, 2020 23:33:51 GMT -8 bnastyaztecs said:

Jun 26, 2020 17:27:06 GMT -8 gocoaztec said:

I went to the BLM website and find it to be as leftist as it is pro-black, and to filled with half truths and blatant lies. It’s purpose, to me, seems much more to inflame than inform. Just a couple of whoppers from the blm website:

“White Supremacy is threatening our existence.”
Fact: In 2018 there were 2925 black homicides, 234 were committed by white assailants. Whites make up approximately 60% of the population, and committed about 8% of the black homicides. These statistics do not take into account whether the homicides were justified or not. When blm makes such a radical, divisive statement, they have a responsibility to back it up with facts. But, we know that there is no truth to their allegation.

“Police killings are now a leading cause of death among black men.”
Fact: in 2018 there were 209 black suspects shot and killed by police. In 2018 there were 2925 black homicides, so police shootings account for 7% of black homicides (again, without regard for whether they were justified). But wait, BLM claims it’s a leading cause of death - there were 19,969,000 black males in 2018. Black mortality was 853 per 100,000 so, (math in public) 170335 black male Americans died in 2018. You can see what’s coming: 209 out of 170335 = 0.12% of black male deaths were due to police shootings. Sure, any reasonable person would agree that basically one out of thousand can now be considered “a leading cause of death”, right?

So what’s the real story, a sad truth that I challenge you to find in the blm website? 2600 of the 2925 homicides were committed by black Americans against black Americans. That’s 89% percent, but it doesn’t even earn a sentence on the blm website, because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

It’s a leftist website attempting to cause division and unrest by using the trusting good nature of most Americans.

Sources:
www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=black&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/race/2018/ppl-ba18/ba18tab1.xls
blacklivesmatter.com/

The vast majority of homicide victims are killed by people of their own race. People tend to kill who they know.

Since 2001, black on black and white-on-white homicides as a proportion of those killed of each race peaked at 91.9 and 87.2 percent, respectively.

There is no statistical difference in white on white murders and that of Blacks...whites killed more whites than Blacks killed anybody.

According to 2018 FBI Table 6:

3315 whites were murdered...by 2914 white males...

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

So what's your point about murders? Is it to justify the cop killing innocent/unarmed Blacks because you know how they are? I mean...look what they do to each other. I haven't heard an utterance about white on white crime or the white supremacy causes Black poverty. Poverty causes crime and murder for economic gain. Here's the kicker all those stats you posted mean nothing without understanding the role white supremacy plays into it:

African-Americans More Likely to be Wrongfully Convicted


"African-American prisoners who were convicted of murder are about 50 percent more likely to be innocent than other convicted murderers and spend longer in prison before exoneration, according to a report released today that’s co-edited by a Michigan State University College of Law professor."

“Exonerations in 2016” found a record number of exonerations for the third straight year and a record number of cases with official misconduct."

"The 2016 data show convictions that led to murder exonerations with black defendants were more likely to involve misconduct by police officers than those with white defendants."

"Judging from exonerations, a black prisoner serving time for sexual assault is three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than a white person convicted of sexual assault."

"In addition, the report, officially titled, “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States,” found innocent black people are about 12 times more likely to be convicted of drug crimes than innocent white people."

research.msu.edu/innocent-african-americans-more-likely-to-be-wrongfully-convicted/

Crime stats mean nothing when white supremacy is the cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and media hyping Black crime but ignore whites commit 70 percent of it....

Crimes by Race 2018
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

So now maybe you can see BLM's point about white supremacy threatening Black existence by locking up and destroying innocent Black lives...by taking eligible Black men and women out of the population...they are unable to procreate to create and sustain a nuclear family....

OK, on to part 2 “The kicker” or “Numbers without context can fool some of the people”
The article that you linked was written by Barbara O’Brian who happens to be on the staff off the non-profit National Registry of Exonerations. She obtained all of the information for the article from a paper written by:
Samuel R. Gross, Senior Editor
Maurice Possley, Senior Researcher
Klara Stephens, Research Fellow
National Registry of Exonerations.
The National Registry of Exonerations is a non-profit that openly solicits donations, in fact it’s the very first thing that is printed on their website. Therefore, both the writer of the article and the authors of the source paper have a monetary interest in promoting the National Registry of Exonerations website.
We will concentrate on the paper, written by an esteemed college professor – certainly he can’t have an agenda, can he? But, before we do, let’s poke some fun at Ms. O’Brien. It’s one thing to get all of your information from just one source, who happens to be your boss. It’s another to pick a fact that, by its very nature, can never be proved, as she did in the first line of the second paragraph:
“The vast majority of wrongful convictions are never discovered”
She is truly brilliant. I’m sure that she’ll follow up with other facts like “the vast majority of Bigfoots are never discovered” or maybe “the vast majority of right wing conspiracies are never discovered” - I can’t wait.
On to the paper in question. I could not find any evidence that “RACE AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES” the paper in question, has been peer reviewed. From what I’ve been told, peer reviews don’t mean much anymore, but still. So we are relying on a 3 year old paper, written by a partisan with a financial interest that has never been reviewed. Great.
Let’s look at your first claim: "
"African-American prisoners who are convicted of murder are about 50% more likely to be innocent than other convicted murderers."

This is directly from the executive summary. To find the data, we must move past the summary to actual document. On page one is Table A and it shows that 50% of the murder exonerations are black convicts. This receives further emphasis in the first line of page 3:
“Half of all defendants exonerated for murder are African Americans (380/762), who make up only 13% of the population of the United States.3 For the population at large, that’s seven times the rate for whites, who are 64% of the population4 but comprise only 36% of murder exonerations.”
Both the chart and the quote are extremely deceptive, because they lead the reader to believe that murder convictions by race follow the same distribution as the percentage of the population by race, and that is blatantly false. The author, sorta, gets to the fallacy of these numbers three paragraphs down:
“Forty percent of defendants imprisoned for murder are African American8 but they account for 50% of murder exonerations”
This destroys much of the author’s argument, but it’s even worse. Even though the data on exonerations covers many years, the author lists this as source for the “40%”:
“Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice. Prisoners in 2015. (December 2016): p.30, Appendix Table.”
One year. What’s wrong with that? Let’s look at footnote five:
“The numbers of prisoners reported in this study by the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics are estimates of the prison population on a particular date, in this case December 31, 2015. So are most of the general statistics we discuss on arrest, conviction and imprisonment. The murder exonerations to which we compare these numbers are based on convictions that occurred over decades, from the 1960s through 2016—almost all since 1980—and the proportions of crimes and convictions by race have varied over that period. As a result, throughout this report, all rates and comparisons we discuss that depend on general criminal justice statistics are estimates or illustrations.” (bold added for emphasis)
I searched the document that the author used, and I could not find the 40% reference, but he may have added up the numbers to produce a percentage.  I did take about 2 minutes of internet search to find Homicide Trends from 1980 to 2008: www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf and it shows that 52.5% of the murder offenders were black.
So, 52% of the convicted murderers were black, and 50% of the exonerated murders were black – almost exactly the same and TOTALLY DESTROYING the author’s math that “proved” that blacks were wrongly convicted at a much higher rate than whites.
Good Gawd. Besides the false numbers leading to bad math, the emphasis of wrong information, the failure to put the total number of exonerations into context as compared to the total number of convictions, the claiming of facts that can’t be proved and many many more, there is also the obvious issue with the concept of using exonerations to prove bias. The percentages in Table A are all over the place if you look at all the crimes listed (of course it’s pretty much useless without percentage of convictions by race). There is also the questions of why they were exonerated, how many cases are reviewed each year, who does the reviewing, etc.
This paper is rubbish, but I’m sure that it’s earning them a fine haul of donations – just follow the money.

I look forward to your response, if you care to make one, but I have to call it quits at this point.  My Super-Model wife has pointed out that I need to put my efforts back into increasing our already embarrassing level of wealth.

Hasta La Vista Baby

[fisher1fan]

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

The SJWs offend by intent and action in their "protest". The monument makers of the past and those honoring the country and US flag at sporting events have no intent to offend - NONE. The left seeks to be offended by torturous logic and childish pique. Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one. The hypocrisy is obvious but the SJWs couldn't see it if it hit them with a truck.

www.history.com/.amp/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

What makes you think the monument makers of the past who put up statues didn’t want to offend? Not even one?

Your claim that none of statues, plagues, monuments had no intend to offend, is laughable. Do you really believe not a single had any intend to offend or support white supremacy?!


www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-timeline-history-2017-8%3famp
As you can see in the timeline below, the number of Confederate memorial installations peaked around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow, an era defined by segregation and disenfranchisement laws against black Americans. Confederate installations spiked again in the 1950s and 1960s, during the Civil Rights Movement.

[ptsdthor]

Jun 28, 2020 19:10:56 GMT -8 fisher1fan said:

Jun 28, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

The SJWs offend by intent and action in their "protest". The monument makers of the past and those honoring the country and US flag at sporting events have no intent to offend - NONE. The left seeks to be offended by torturous logic and childish pique. Joe football fan loves his country and hates no one. The hypocrisy is obvious but the SJWs couldn't see it if it hit them with a truck.

www.history.com/.amp/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

What makes you think the monument makers of the past who put up confederate statues didn’t want to offend? Not even one?

Your claim that none of statues, plagues, monuments had no intend to offend, is laughable. 1,500 symbols and not a single had any intend to offend?!


www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-timeline-history-2017-8%3famp
As you can see in the timeline below, the number of Confederate memorial installations peaked around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow, an era defined by segregation and disenfranchisement laws against black Americans. Confederate installations spiked again in the 1950s and 1960s, during the Civil Rights Movement.

Are you saying that some people were actually trying to say "Hate to be you Indians" when they put up statues of Fr. Serra and Christopher Columbus and were not interested in remembering them specifically or extolling their virtues?

I would suggest that the intent behind the Confederate statues was to extol their regional heroes in a time when they were dealing with a sense of defeat and shame. A feeling unique to the residents of the South. These statues were not denied, even in traditional northern or border states, as an overture of North-South reconciliation and not to stick it to the black community necessarily.

Have you been to a civil war battlefield? You see monuments that show state pride, etc. No different than buying a CA Bear Tee Shirt or I Love NY bumper sticker or Don't Mess with Texas license plate cover. They are not about racial hatred.

And later, when the bases were being named for southern Generals, consider what states of our country provided the highest percentage of volunteers to enlist in the armed services per capita at that time. The Southerner had a unique sense of defeat and were more willing to join as if an attempt to erase that shame. The Confederate General's names on bases were recruiting tools, not necessarily statements of White Supremacy.

The biggest fallacy of the thought police, however, who are now accusing the past statue makers of overt racial hatred is their use of current mores on people who had no exposure to the modern mores whatsoever. Everyone fails at being perfect, even in their own time. How can one survive the test of time with new and changing criteria? Besides being an ex post facto fail, it is absolutely juvenile intellectually but passes for wisdom in Academia.

Here it comes....more thought police...

[aztecryan]

Jun 28, 2020 20:03:42 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Jun 28, 2020 19:10:56 GMT -8 fisher1fan said:

www.history.com/.amp/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

What makes you think the monument makers of the past who put up confederate statues didn’t want to offend? Not even one?

Your claim that none of statues, plagues, monuments had no intend to offend, is laughable. 1,500 symbols and not a single had any intend to offend?!


www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-timeline-history-2017-8%3famp
As you can see in the timeline below, the number of Confederate memorial installations peaked around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow, an era defined by segregation and disenfranchisement laws against black Americans. Confederate installations spiked again in the 1950s and 1960s, during the Civil Rights Movement.

Are you saying that some people were actually trying to say "Hate to be you Indians" when they put up statues of Fr. Serra and Christopher Columbus and were not interested in remembering them specifically or extolling their virtues?

I would suggest that the intent behind the Confederate statues was to extol their regional heroes in a time when they were dealing with a sense of defeat and shame. A feeling unique to the residents of the South. These statues were not denied, even in traditional northern or border states, as an overture of North-South reconciliation and not to stick it to the black community necessarily.

Have you been to a civil war battlefield? You see monuments that show state pride, etc. No different than buying a CA Bear Tee Shirt or I Love NY bumper sticker or Don't Mess with Texas license plate cover. They are not about racial hatred.

And later, when the bases were being named for southern Generals, consider what states of our country provided the highest percentage of volunteers to enlist in the armed services per capita at that time. The Southerner had a unique sense of defeat and were more willing to join as if an attempt to erase that shame. The Confederate General's names on bases were recruiting tools, not necessarily statements of White Supremacy.

The biggest fallacy of the thought police, however, who are now accusing the past statue makers of overt racial hatred is their use of current mores on people who had no exposure to the modern mores whatsoever. Everyone fails at being perfect, even in their own time. How can one survive the test of time with new and changing criteria? Besides being an ex post facto fail, it is absolutely juvenile intellectually but passes for wisdom in Academia.

Here it comes....more thought police...

So wait...you think a statue of Jefferson Davis, for example, a notorious slave owner, is the same as a California bear shirt?

I've heard it all.

[ptsdthor]

Jun 28, 2020 20:20:16 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Jun 28, 2020 20:03:42 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Are you saying that some people were actually trying to say "Hate to be you Indians" when they put up statues of Fr. Serra and Christopher Columbus and were not interested in remembering them specifically or extolling their virtues?

I would suggest that the intent behind the Confederate statues was to extol their regional heroes in a time when they were dealing with a sense of defeat and shame. A feeling unique to the residents of the South. These statues were not denied, even in traditional northern or border states, as an overture of North-South reconciliation and not to stick it to the black community necessarily.

Have you been to a civil war battlefield? You see monuments that show state pride, etc. No different than buying a CA Bear Tee Shirt or I Love NY bumper sticker or Don't Mess with Texas license plate cover. They are not about racial hatred.

And later, when the bases were being named for southern Generals, consider what states of our country provided the highest percentage of volunteers to enlist in the armed services per capita at that time. The Southerner had a unique sense of defeat and were more willing to join as if an attempt to erase that shame. The Confederate General's names on bases were recruiting tools, not necessarily statements of White Supremacy.

The biggest fallacy of the thought police, however, who are now accusing the past statue makers of overt racial hatred is their use of current mores on people who had no exposure to the modern mores whatsoever. Everyone fails at being perfect, even in their own time. How can one survive the test of time with new and changing criteria? Besides being an ex post facto fail, it is absolutely juvenile intellectually but passes for wisdom in Academia.

Here it comes....more thought police...

So wait...you think a statue of Jefferson Davis, for example, a notorious slave owner, is the same as a California bear shirt?

I've heard it all.

Yeah, that is what was said