Video Compilation of Baltimore Riots

Now that the Nation of Islam, the Crips, and the Bloods have made an alliance we are going to be in even worse shape with crime than Mexico is now and it will only take about another five years. From now on if you are white you had better be looking over your shoulder at all times.

 

When they start hanging dead bodies from bridges, decapitating any non- conformants and murdering school teachers, then its time to worry.

dont go to this page in the dailymail if you are sensitive. the daily mail is a very popular tabloid btw.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hanged-bridge-14-decapitated-heads-found.html

thats all im saying as its going off topic.

 

I think you're putting too much meaning behind this. These people aren't making a statement about being powerless. They just want free (*)(*)(*)(*). Local businesses have nothing to do with their sense of powerlessness.

I heard this morning on the news an African American woman saying, "They said last night they were rioting for Freddie. Well, today I'm cleaning up for Freddie." More African Americans need to speak out against rioting. They don't care what anyone else has to say.

 

That's not true, the things that have changed the least have survived the longest.

Example: Alligator Gar - Virtually unchanged in 60 million years.
Turritopsis dohrnii - Reverts back to it's infant stages before death, no mutations known in this species thus far. Immortal.
Spruce trees - 100 million years old virtually no change.
Christmas trees - 100 million years old virtually no change.


So your argument is dead. gg.

 

You think this is a revolution? This is nothing more than a trigger for a revolution and a revolution that isn't on their side this time.

How to stop a riot

Step 1: Build a fence around afflicted area.

Step 2: Lock the area down, no entry or exit.

Step 3: Don't allow supplies to enter the area until the rioters have repaired the damage they have caused.

Since it's a "violent revolution" it's war.

Hunger will drive you into submission.

 

Huge difference between living under tyranny and not being bottle fed.

 

I kind of cringe when people talk about being "good citizens" because of the images of collectivism that conjures up, like we're all supposed to be good cogs in a machine. I want to say the best citizens of a free country are the best individuals who make an effort to be honorable, and to work hard to help themselves and others. It's an ideal, of course, but one that I feel is what this country was always about. It was a place of freedom and opportunity for people like that to come to, or be born into, and do what they want to do without hampering institutions trying to dictate terms to them. It certainly was a world away from today's welfare state! And that didn't really get going until the early twencen, when many things started to change all at once as the central bank finally took over, the world wars happened, and the federal monster ultimately grew in response to this as a way to manage things it never had to manage before. I don't know how it happened, but Americans' attitude shifted considerably then and thereafter, until now we've got a nation of 'poor' people with their hands out expecting to be given a comfortable life. Could we be any farther from where we started, and importantly, from what made this a great country in the first place?

Found an interesting article to share here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...e-how-much-americas-poor-control-your-wallet/

'Welfare State' Doesn't Adequately Describe How Much America's Poor Control Your Wallet

Many people choose to become Democrats when they are young because of a humane belief that government policies in America are stingy in providing resources to the poor. William Voegeli fingered the attitude in his book, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State: “no matter how large the welfare state, liberal politicians and writers have accused it of being shamefully small” and “contemptibly austere.” Barbara Ehrenreich expressed the same attitude in her book, Nickled and Dimed: “guilt doesn’t go anywhere near far enough; the appropriate emotion is shame” regarding the stingy miserliness of America’s welfare state.

Once such a decision is made, habits are formed, and many continue to vote reflexively Democrat, regardless of facts on the ground. As people start busy careers, and take on family responsibilities, basic assumptions are never questioned, the effects of policies are never considered, identification with “their team” becomes hardened, and it is easy to burrow into like-minded media cocoons, where contrary facts and probing questions are never aired, or printed.

The Welfare Empire

But the term “welfare state” does not begin to encompass the totality of America’s commitment of resources to aid the poor. It is more like a vast empire bigger than the entire budgets of almost every other country in the world. America’s welfare empire encompasses close to 200 or more federal/state programs, including 23 low income health programs, 27 low income housing programs, 30 employment and training programs, 34 social services programs, at least 13 food and nutrition programs, and 24 low income child care programs, among others.

Federal and state governments spend a trillion dollars a year just on these means tested welfare programs, which does not include Social and Medicare. That is more than we spend on national defense. It adds up to roughly $17,000 per person in poverty, over $50,000 for a poor family of three. The Census Bureau estimates that our current welfare spending totals four times what would be necessary just to give all of the poor the cash to bring them up to the poverty line, eliminating all poverty in America. A recent book by Charles Murray, In These Hands, further documents that.

The War on Poverty famously began in 1965. From 1965 to 2008, the total spent only on means tested welfare for the poor in 2008 dollars has been nearly $16 trillion, according to a Heritage Foundation study. That has been more than twice all spending on all military conflicts from the American Revolution to today.

Helping or Hurting the Poor?

What have we gotten for all of that welfare spending? Poverty fell sharply after the Depression, before the War on Poverty. The poverty rate fell from 32% in 1950 to 22.4% in 1959 to 12.1% in 1969, soon after the War on Poverty programs became effective. Progress against poverty as measured by the poverty rate then abruptly stopped. By 2009, the U.S. poverty rate had risen back to 14.3%, and today it has further soared to 16.1%, substantially higher than when the War on Poverty began. In other words, we fought the War on Poverty, and poverty won.

... (continued at link)
-------------

In the case of these black rioters, I think we're looking at a double whammy of social and cultural failure. We have the welfare state and its accompanying mindset on the one hand, and on the other we have decades of "Affirmative Action"-style thinking that has helped cement in the minds of a certain self-isolating ethnic minority the notion that they're oppressed and kept down by the rest of the country that looks different than they do. So here we have generations of self-styled social victims who also expect to be taken care of by others, and who apparently have no notion whatsoever of building and supporting their own communities (the state of their communities speaks to this readily enough), nor even to making something of themselves individually.

It's today's welfare state that allows this to go on... They couldn't afford to act like this if they weren't receiving wads of cash from the government, carrying EBT cards and even getting paid extra to make babies they can't support or even house and raise responsibly. This is why I feel that the whole system has to go. It's not just the hand-outs, either, but the high price of it all that helps make the poor as poor as they are, because the money for those programs comes from individuals and businesses that might otherwise reinvest that money and enrich society in more constructive ways than these welfare programs are doing. Welfare doesn't create businesses or opportunities, and it's a terribly inefficient way to help a few people in genuine need to get what they need to get by for a time.

 

This is the part that kills any validity for this "no justice no peace" "black lives matter" 'cause'.........no one even has the facts yet.

Nope this is not about justice at all, it's about free stuff and unmitigated racist violence and it will only move any real cause backwards.

 

No, looting stores is not revolution it's crime.
Revolution is about change, this crap is about destruction, theft and racist violence.

Rioters aren't seeking change, they are seeking revenge for perceived injustices that no longer actually exist. .....well that and free stuff and unmitigated racist violence.

 

Looting the local hairdresser is not fighting tyranny.

Government not being your cradle to grave nanny is not tyranny.

 

What if they supported what the government was doing?

- - - Updated - - -

Tarring and feathering was a crime too. Throwing Tea chests into a harbor was destroying property. They're changing the system. Violence changes a system. How it does it might not be considered the best way, but change does happen. As for why, police abuses isn't that much of a percieved injustice. It's something that is happening.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. But if the state decides that your rights aren't needed, that to keep you under the wraps of "liberty" and "freedom" is the better solution, isn't that tyranny in of itself? If you can't use your rights, it doesn't matter how many you have. You can't use them at all.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds pretty intolerable. Congress should act on that right away. Please tell me that words "intolerable" and "act" meant something. It was tried, it failed.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe, but then that begs the question, why do they want free stuff? If we look at it in terms of cost value, it "costs" more to take something due to the risks involved then to buy it. So why caused the basic need in the first place for them to steal?

 

I would bet that if someone asked the protesters why they were there, 75% would not know the true purpose of the protests.

 

I know. Citizens are tools for politicians to manipulate for their own ends. Only until we realize that will there be serious change. I don't want violent revolution, but if change doesn't happen, I don't know what will happen.

 

In order of your responses to me.

1 What is the government doing that the hairdresser supports. (All businesses support government via taxation)

2 Tar and feathering of a spy does not equate the random violence occurring here.
That tea belonged to the King of England not Starbucks.
The perceived part is that it's a racial issue when in fact all portions of society deal with police/the justice systems abusing power.

3 Specifically why one should not desire a nanny government which is the equivalent of tyranny.

 

Let's look to the founder of our modern day welfare state, FDR. He argued that we always had a welfare state. It just took different forms. The reason it didn't seem as big today was because we could send our poor somewhere else, we still had to settle the west for most of our history. But when we ran out of room, welfare had to change. The welfare system had to change because the demands of the people changed as well. You couldn't just sell land cheaply, now it had to take into account more people living in cities and the role of corporations and Big Business. Thus modern welfare was born around this idea.

Certainly an interesting story. But it would be nice to know how much money had been spent in other areas to compare to. It also looks like it fudges numbers. For example:
"Federal and state governments spend a trillion dollars a year just on these means tested welfare programs, which does not include Social and Medicare. That is more than we spend on national defense."

Does "national defense" include what states spend as well? What does "welfare" mean? From the way we read it, it would look like the author is trying to add the costs of the Federal Government and the State Governments together while comparing to what the Federal Government spends on National Defense alone.

But that's simply not true. Welfare has been cut in this country. It's like asking a person to do a job, but keep taking away the tools needed to do that job. How is it reasonable to expect someone to do it when they don't have the tools needed to do it? It's also changed style. Instead of helping individual communities, now the state decides how to spend the money. Then when you factor in educational opportunities, it's a cycle of poverty. When the federal government subsidizes the costs of goods, but not provide them, it's not helping. It's like adding a coat of paint to protect a piece of rotting wood. Instead of replacing the wood, it's just being covered up. Eventually when the wood rots through completely, it's going to break whatever it was for.

Then ask yourself, why do they need to have more babies to get more money? Because they need more money in the first place. If the costs for welfare covered the costs of living, then wouldn't it make sense that a person on welfare to stop having so many kids? Then the time needed to raise those children would be replaced doing something else. Like learning how to run businesses, be good parents in the first place. Those are the opportunities created, businesses can boom when people have the time and ability to learn how to become good citizens.

 

Protection of property.

Spies? How about Tax collectors? Tories?

It belonged to the British East India Company. Might have been a corporation created by the government, but it was a corporation never the less.
The perceived part is that it's a racial issue when in fact all portions of society deal with police/the justice systems abusing power.

That's why a "nanny" state exists. It's because a person couldn't use their rights in the first place to protest the system.

 

I don't know about viewing welfare as a tool. It enables people to do less rather than more. It will depend on the person receiving it, of course, as some use welfare as it is nobly intended, but many others do not. They cheat and swindle, they feel entitled to being taken care of and refuse to work for themselves, they fail to take responsibility for themselves because someone else is there to take care of them like a child, etc.

 

How does it enable less? How does a person who needs a tool to do a job lazy if he gets one? How do they cheat and swindle when the system is rigged to stop people from getting it in the first place? How do they fail to take responsibility when Credit Cards target the poor, because they know they'll pay it back without defaulting on their loans?

 

Once they have exhausted ALL OTHER MEANS of redress.

 

Couldn't we say that they have?

 

When most of them the day before were gang bangers? Now you call them part of a "Revolution". Its would be amusing if it wasnt true...

 

Most of them were gang bangers? Come on, really?

 

What a flying load of crap you just posted. Name me what rights you don't have that I as a 64 year old American I do?

Perhaps if this nation would have elected a black president these riots would not happen.

Your comments are absurd because you are only regurgitating the usual liberal meme, not realizing that when our society gets this abhorrent behavior, it is all propagated through liberal ideology

 

"were protestin Freddy Krueger! or somethin like that"?

 

Seeing as how this is how the debate's starting, it's not boding well.

Not a question of rights, but whether or not I can use them. But I will offer one, rather I don't have. The right of respect. The right for my ideas to be respected.

And people wonder why Conservatives have a problem with race.

Five bucks says I can find the Objectivism in my argument.