the NO PC ZONE!

How does your politically correct frame of mind feel about police planting of evidence especially when it is caught on tape? This after swearing to the world that they found evidence at a crime scene, claimed blacks were resisting arrest, and threatening cops even though those tapes show it was the cops who brutalized innocents and planted "evidence"?


Go to youtube for dozens if not hundreds of videos showing instances like that.

 

Apart from the fact that they're talking about imprisoning people who disagree, and you're talking about exiling people who disagree, I don't see any substantive difference between the two points of view.

 

Did it occur to him that the other person might have actually called for a cab?

 

Maybe, it was dark and the cab driver didn't see Roker. Joking aside, there could be plenty of alternate explanations.

 

The proper reply would be that the Cop In question is a corrupt (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) deserving of a nice vacation in a cell with Buba on Viagra, Who he framed last year and wants a little playmate. The PC version would be that he was just doing his job and it was a matter of self defense.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Then he would not have a story to tell, or something to complain about....we cannot have that. Ne was bein' Oppressed onna couta hes black.

 

Jesus - according to the Bible, Prince of Peace:









The right wing politically correct Jesus:

 

Being offended is a choice. A person can learn much about their self if they just pause and ask HONESTLY ... why does that make me feel offended? You will find out that you have some belief in or some self doubt of what was said. Very enlightening.

The world will be a better place when we all learn to make better choices. Take away honest thought and expression and you take away opportunities for a path to better choices.

 

Well said!! You hit the nail on the head. Some people think NOT being politically correct (as they subjectively define it), is some carte blanche justification to speak/act in crude or uncivil ways. They decide to show their asses... then expect by claiming "no political correctness", they should be considered guiltless.

I can respect the reality that not all discussions can necessarily cater to personal feelings or special interests... but it's ironic that the way some people throw the term "political correctness" around... shows that they themselves are delving into a 'form' of the same, which suits their own agenda.

 

Lets be blunt the poor, blacks and other minorities won't get anything by petitions and whining and picketing they need to VOTE and PUT PEOPLE INTO OFFICE beholding to that vote then they will get laws and policies that benefit them. Politicians don't care because these aforementioned groups DON'T VOTE!

 

It has been my impression that poor people are more apt to ask me for money on the street and rich folks to take it from me by more sophisticated schemes.

The latter "PC" approach eschews the frank forthrightness of the former, couching the shakedown in the labyrinthine argot of regulatory circumlocutions.

Given the ongoing radical redistribution of the nation's wealth into the pockets of the obscenely affluent, I'd have to say that the devious approach has been far more successful than the straightforward one. It's so subtle, some hardly notice they're being fleeced.

​

 

That cartoon, which was later posted by Mr_Truth, betrays a certain amount of political ignorance. I know this, because I'm disabled and my friends are middle class. My friends and I were all better off under Bush than under Clinton or Obama. As for rich people, I don't know for certain, because I don't know any rich people, but all that tax money the Democrats were taking from people like my friends was certainly not benefiting people like me. By process of elimination, that pretty much leaves the fat-cats.

 

Ideological dogma may be distorting your perception If you actually believe that the middle class fared better under Bush than under Clinton or Obama. That is what many rightist media entertainers are preaching to their dissonant choirs, of course.

Here is but a single, objective, empirical metric you may wish to share with your co-religionists:

The middle class needs to work, and Clinton left office with the unemployment rate at 4.2% in January 2001. Bush had driven it up to 7.8% by the time he absconded in January, 2009, and it had been lowered to 5% in October, 2015.

For those whose espouse radical, airy-fairy TP economic beliefs, we have now been provided with its actual application in Brownback's self-proclaimed "experiment", his vaunted Red State Model (See http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...red-state-model-lesson-too-late-learning.html)

As for the redistribution of the nations wealth and its increasing concentration in the pockets of the very few, that is an ongoing scam that has been pulled for decades, regardless of the party in control.


.

 

You might want to learn something about the people you're talking about, before you refer to them as "co-religionists." I and half of my friends are atheists, and the other half are not particularly religious.

Regarding the unemployment rate, you left out the fact that unemployment statistics only count people actively seeking employment, and under Obama, many people have given up looking for a job. Anyone who thinks that Obama's job growth is stellar, or even good, or even average should read the following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418693/reagan-still-beats-obamas-below-average-job-growth-deroy-murdock

While I haven't looked into Sam Brownback so I can't discount the possibility that he would be an even worse leader than Obama, the thread you cited says more about liberal distortions than it does about Obama.

I agree with you regarding that last comment, except that the Democrats are redistributing more wealth the the Republicans.

Also, in advance of any potential accusations of my conservatism, I'd like to point out that I'm a moderate, and so are the more open-minded members of my circle of friends. I used to be a liberal, but I gradually turned to moderatism, as do all open-minded people. I'm 100% certain that moderates are the only open-minded people, and nothing you could possibly say could ever change my mind. Anyway, if we were discussing certain other issues, such as gay rights, or right-wing Christian fundamentalism, there's a distinct possibility that I would agree with you.

 

You can deny the ideological beliefs that you had expressed, but you do seem to prescribe to that dogma.

That may be your opinion, but where is the comparative emperical data? If you are actually claiming that the economy improved under Bush and then deteriorated under his successor, you'll need to back it up with legitimate numbers.

I don't know who they are, and would dismiss them as readily as those who would claim that Bush's job growth rate was "stellar."

If you wish to believe that the fiscal plight TP Sam has inflicted on Kansans that has resulted their now assigning him the lowest approval numbers of any governor in the nation is a "liberal distortion", that is just the sort of article of faith that is characteristic of certain knee-jerk ideologues. The folks who elected Sammy and are now expressing their overwhelming dissatisfaction are far from those nebulous, ubiquitous, "liberals", that all-purpose, demonic bête noire boogie man. Meanwhile, Americans consistently assign their twice-popularly-elected leader mediocre numbers.

Yes, your opinion is consistent with the tenets of the ideology. Could you please provide the empirical evidence for this belief?

As a pragmatist, I seek objective evidence for political notions, no matter how firmly held, and no matter what those who espouse them like to call themselves.



.

 

Regarding your claims or apparent beliefs about my claims or denials of my ideologies, I'm having the same sort of Alice in Wonderland experience which I often have when arguing with creationists, and I honestly have no idea how to sort any of it out.

Anyway, as to Obama having been twice elected, you must admit that the Republicans certainly gave him a big boost by nominating Romney.

 

According to what I just read at Wikipedia, I may have misjudged Romney's politics. The closest thing I have to an excuse is that my deep but rational hatred of religious fundamentalism makes it difficult for me to overcome my knee-jerk hatred of religious fundamentalists.

 

If you agree that black people are often right when they feel they are being discriminated against, why shouldn't they protest, march and complain?

 

They probably should...But, they should not riot, loot, burn, shoot, and kill cops when doing so. This is counterproductive and creates disdain for the movement. They should listen to Chris Rock and they will be more effective.

 

I'm not aware of the Black Lives Movement shooting and killing cops. If the discrimination is real, how can you say black people are the ones who need to change their behavior?

 

So, you cannot substantiate your opinions via empirical data, and yet will persist in imagining the Bush to have left the nation a better economy that he inherited and that it is even worse now than the Bush bequeathed, despite the numbers.

If you dismiss facts that do not comport with your ideological agenda so readily, I can't help you.

Whether Romney was the best nominee the GOP could find is entirely speculative. I see no reason to guess.

 

If you are truly unaware of these things...you have no paid attention to many things and cannot connect the Dot to Dot.
Also...if you cannot see what behaviors need to change, you might read up on Chicago and Detroit.

 

No PC huh? Cool.

Then basically its like this, we have a bunch of loud mouthed ignorant bigots on one side and a lot of prissy know it alls on the other. If you try to look at things from something other than those two perspectives they all label you a fence sitter.

The lefties don't really know everything and every situation does not follow the weird social/political narrative they ascribe to it. Everybody is in the wrong sometimes and that includes individuals, corporations, local governments, white males, minorities, women and oompa loompas. You can't fit everything into a version of reality where one set of people are always the bullies and another set is always the victim.

The righties are not always perfect patriotic saints, and everyone who disagrees with them is not a communist or self loathing idiot. Governing a country takes GOVERNING. Getting rid of government and taxes is a stupid idea. Thinking that the majority of the people living in the same country that you live in are enemies of the state is completely illogical and unpatriotic. Living in a state of rage about everything is great if you want to be a radio pundit, but if you're just a normal joe take a chill pill.

Anyone who thinks they are always right is a moron. Including Republicans, Democrats, Independents and moderates like me.

 

That guy in Ferguson had just robbed a store, and got physical with the clerk trying to stop him, so it's not a stretch to think he may have done something similar with the cop who was also trying to bring him to justice. Rodney King was resisting arrest. Like Chris Rock points out, don't resist arrest and you'll go a long way towards not getting your ass kicked by the po-lice.

 

Please provide evidence of Black Lives Matter shooting and killing cops.

Please explain why you think that black people should have to change their behavior to avoid being discriminated against. You admit they are often right when they feel discriminated against, then go on to suggest that the best way for them to deal with this is to get black men to stop acting stupid. That is illogical. The definition of discrimination is unjust treatment on the basis of race, age, etc. If the disparate treatment is due to behavior, it is not discrimination. If you agree that this discrimination is real, how is a change in behavior supposed to change it when it has nothing to do with behavior? Or, do you believe the discrimination is not real?