Is Fox News, news?

[Ibanez]

They did and guess what, I didn't make excuses or rationalize it like others here do. I've said the BLM and Jan 6 protestors that have committed crimes should be punished - I seriously don't understand why that's an issue? What's wrong in saying that anyone that breaks the law, regardless of political affiliation or how much we like them and their opinions, should be punished.

Breaking the law, fine. But just because one happened in DC and the others happened in other cities and towns shouldn’t differentiate. And when BLM burned DC several months before, why aren’t THOSE people being charged with sedition? I mean, it’s literally their stated goal….

You'd have to ask the Trump administration why they didn't go after those people who were attacking federal buildings but you know the answer for the most part - Democratic states didn't want to risk criticizing their base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups.

Protesting police violence is fine. Protesting the 2020 election is fine. The moment you are no longer "peacefully" assembled, you lose any protection under that right, IMO.

[AZGrizFan]

Breaking the law, fine. But just because one happened in DC and the others happened in other cities and towns shouldn’t differentiate. And when BLM burned DC several months before, why aren’t THOSE people being charged with sedition? I mean, it’s literally their stated goal….

You'd have to ask the Trump administration why they didn't go after those people who were attacking federal buildings but you know the answer for the most part - Democratic states didn't want to risk criticizing their base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups.

Protesting police violence is fine. Protesting the 2020 election is fine. The moment you are no longer "peacefully" assembled, you lose any protection under that right, IMO.

I completely agree. But you answered your own question. The law is NOT equally applied, and THAT is the problem here. Not where 1/6 was an “insurrection” and the BLM protests/riots weren’t. If one was, they BOTH were. But once again, we’re only going after the Trump supporters and the Donk supporters get a free pass.

[UNI88]

Breaking the law, fine. But just because one happened in DC and the others happened in other cities and towns shouldn’t differentiate. And when BLM burned DC several months before, why aren’t THOSE people being charged with sedition? I mean, it’s literally their stated goal….

You'd have to ask the Trump administration why they didn't go after those people who were attacking federal buildings but you know the answer for the most part - Democratic states didn't want to risk criticizing their base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups.

Protesting police violence is fine. Protesting the 2020 election is fine. The moment you are no longer "peacefully" assembled, you lose any protection under that right, IMO.

You could easily reword it a sentence and it would apply to January 6: "feckless Republicans s didn't want to risk upsetting Trump and his base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups."

Too many people want to argue that what the other side did was worse so what they did was ok. It wasn't. They should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And lawmakers who enabled it shouldn't be able to run for reelection (Trump, MTG, Maxine Waters, etc.)

Let's cut the whataboutism and be Americans first and foremost.

[Ibanez]

You'd have to ask the Trump administration why they didn't go after those people who were attacking federal buildings but you know the answer for the most part - Democratic states didn't want to risk criticizing their base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups.

Protesting police violence is fine. Protesting the 2020 election is fine. The moment you are no longer "peacefully" assembled, you lose any protection under that right, IMO.

I completely agree. But you answered your own question. The law is NOT equally applied, and THAT is the problem here. Not where 1/6 was an “insurrection” and the BLM protests/riots weren’t. If one was, they BOTH were. But once again, we’re only going after the Trump supporters and the Donk supporters get a free pass.

It isn't equally applied nor are the perps equally condemned. Protests and violence are too frequently excused by people who share the beliefs of the perpetrators as if that relation makes it ok. Too often people rationalize why it's ok for one to have occurred and not the other.

[Ibanez]

You'd have to ask the Trump administration why they didn't go after those people who were attacking federal buildings but you know the answer for the most part - Democratic states didn't want to risk criticizing their base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups.

Protesting police violence is fine. Protesting the 2020 election is fine. The moment you are no longer "peacefully" assembled, you lose any protection under that right, IMO.

You could easily reword it a sentence and it would apply to January 6: "feckless Republicans s didn't want to risk upsetting Trump and his base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups."

Too many people want to argue that what the other side did was worse so what they did was ok. It wasn't. They should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And lawmakers who enabled it shouldn't be able to run for reelection (Trump, MTG, Maxine Waters, etc.)

Let's cut the whataboutism and be Americans first and foremost.

Truth. Maxine Waters and her bullshit is dangerous.

[UNI88]

I completely agree. But you answered your own question. The law is NOT equally applied, and THAT is the problem here. Not where 1/6 was an “insurrection” and the BLM protests/riots weren’t. If one was, they BOTH were. But once again, we’re only going after the Trump supporters and the Donk supporters get a free pass.

It isn't equally applied nor are the perps equally condemned. Protests and violence are too frequently excused by people who share the beliefs of the perpetrators as if that relation makes it ok. Too often people rationalize why it's ok for one to have occurred and not the other.

but I do find it funny that white people are complaining about the law not being equally applied for a couple of years when for 150+ years, whites were the beneficiaries of unequal application of the law.

[GannonFan]

It was a 99.9% peaceful protest/.1% not peaceful.

What was their intent? Were they just protesting the election results or trying to change them?

Isn't the idea of protesting something in the first place that you want to change what you're protesting about? Why would you waste your time protesting if you didn't want whatever it is changed?

[GannonFan]

It isn't equally applied nor are the perps equally condemned. Protests and violence are too frequently excused by people who share the beliefs of the perpetrators as if that relation makes it ok. Too often people rationalize why it's ok for one to have occurred and not the other.

but I do find it funny that white people are complaining about the law not being equally applied for a couple of years when for 150+ years, whites were the beneficiaries of unequal application of the law.

Well, for those white people who are 150 years old and the direct beneficiaries of 150 years of unequal application of the law, you have a great point. For the rest, equal application of the law seems like a good target to work towards.

[UNI88]

but I do find it funny that white people are complaining about the law not being equally applied for a couple of years when for 150+ years, whites were the beneficiaries of unequal application of the law.

Well, for those white people who are 150 years old and the direct beneficiaries of 150 years of unequal application of the law, you have a great point. For the rest, equal application of the law seems like a good target to work towards.

I agree with you (see my posts about not swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction and creating a new class of victims in the future) but I still find it ironic especially when some of the snowflakes that complain would be perfectly happy if we went back to the unequal application from those 150 years.

[Ibanez]

but I do find it funny that white people are complaining about the law not being equally applied for a couple of years when for 150+ years, whites were the beneficiaries of unequal application of the law.

Well, for those white people who are 150 years old and the direct beneficiaries of 150 years of unequal application of the law, you have a great point. For the rest, equal application of the law seems like a good target to work towards.

GannonFan, you ignorant slut. Don't you know by virtue of you being born a white man you are complicit in the ill gotten gains made possible by the African Slave Trade?

[GannonFan]

Well, for those white people who are 150 years old and the direct beneficiaries of 150 years of unequal application of the law, you have a great point. For the rest, equal application of the law seems like a good target to work towards.

GannonFan, you ignorant slut. Don't you know by virtue of you being born a white man you are complicit in the ill gotten gains made possible by the African Slave Trade?

Certainly I understand that train of thought and no, I don't wholeheartedly agree with it.

[Ibanez]

GannonFan, you ignorant slut. Don't you know by virtue of you being born a white man you are complicit in the ill gotten gains made possible by the African Slave Trade?

Certainly I understand that train of thought and no, I don't wholeheartedly agree with it.

I know that. I'm just being obtuse

[GannonFan]

Well, for those white people who are 150 years old and the direct beneficiaries of 150 years of unequal application of the law, you have a great point. For the rest, equal application of the law seems like a good target to work towards.

I agree with you (see my posts about not swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction and creating a new class of victims in the future) but I still find it ironic especially when some of the snowflakes that complain would be perfectly happy if we went back to the unequal application from those 150 years.

There would be many people happy with an unequal application of the law - I suppose they would be happy as long as they are the beneficiaries and not the aggrieved. That aspect of the human psyche is largely universal.

[kalm]

Well, for those white people who are 150 years old and the direct beneficiaries of 150 years of unequal application of the law, you have a great point. For the rest, equal application of the law seems like a good target to work towards.

GannonFan, you ignorant slut. Don't you know by virtue of you being born a white man you are complicit in the ill gotten gains made possible by the African Slave Trade?

I’m not complicit but I’ve benefitted from them. No real harm to my psyche in acknowledging that or that some people can’t.

[UNI88]

GannonFan, you ignorant slut. Don't you know by virtue of you being born a white man you are complicit in the ill gotten gains made possible by the African Slave Trade?

I’m not complicit but I’ve benefitted from them. No real harm to my psyche in acknowledging that or that some people can’t.

On this topic, I just finished listening to The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. The author talks about housing discrimination against blacks and how it has impacted their ability to build generational wealth. When it comes to housing, blacks have been discriminated against at the federal, state and local levels. The FHA didn't insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods (redlining) and subsidized builders who built subdivisions with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans. Local zoning and covenants restricted blacks to specific areas. As a result, blacks were frequently packed into less appealing neighborhoods where they had to pay more for rent because landlords took advantage of the shortage of housing available to them and cities did less to maintain the infrastructure. Without FHA backed loans, Blacks who wanted to buy property had to take out loans with higher interest rates that did not amortize so they built no equity and if they needed to sell or couldn't pay they lost everything. As a result of the higher cost of ownership, they would rent out rooms (increasing density) and forgo needed maintenance leading to slumlike conditions.

I don't believe our typical history curriculum does this justice. Teaching kids about the facts of the discrimination like this isn't CRT or any other theory, it's teaching history.

Now some of you might say "so what?" Following WWII there was a huge (or even yuge) shortage of housing and the government threw money at new developments using FHA and other discriminatory programs. One of the developments that was built was in a suburb of Kansas City where my family bought a home a year or two before I was born and we lived there until I was 3. I always thought my family didn't really benefit from past discrimination but I'm pretty sure they were able to use an FHA-backed loan to buy a home in a good neighborhood with excellent schools when a black family couldn't. I have benefited from discrimination.

[AZGrizFan]

I’m not complicit but I’ve benefitted from them. No real harm to my psyche in acknowledging that or that some people can’t.

On this topic, I just finished listening to The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. The author talks about housing discrimination against blacks and how it has impacted their ability to build generational wealth. When it comes to housing, blacks have been discriminated against at the federal, state and local levels. The FHA didn't insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods (redlining) and subsidized builders who built subdivisions with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans. Local zoning and covenants restricted blacks to specific areas. As a result, blacks were frequently packed into less appealing neighborhoods where they had to pay more for rent because landlords took advantage of the shortage of housing available to them and cities did less to maintain the infrastructure. Without FHA backed loans, Blacks who wanted to buy property had to take out loans with higher interest rates that did not amortize so they built no equity and if they needed to sell or couldn't pay they lost everything. As a result of the higher cost of ownership, they would rent out rooms (increasing density) and forgo needed maintenance leading to slumlike conditions.

I don't believe our typical history curriculum does this justice. Teaching kids about the facts of the discrimination like this isn't CRT or any other theory, it's teaching history.

Now some of you might say "so what?" Following WWII there was a huge (or even yuge) shortage of housing and the government threw money at new developments using FHA and other discriminatory programs. One of the developments that was built was in a suburb of Kansas City where my family bought a home a year or two before I was born and we lived there until I was 3. I always thought my family didn't really benefit from past discrimination but I'm pretty sure they were able to use an FHA-backed loan to buy a home in a good neighborhood with excellent schools when a black family couldn't. I have benefited from discrimination.

I’m guessing the 80% of AA women who are baby mamas without a man around, the absence of a nuclear family, is MUCH more impactful to the ability to build generational wealth than any other single issue. That is and always has been an internal cultural issue and until THAT is solved/reversed, the rest is just pissing in the wind.

[UNI88]

On this topic, I just finished listening to The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. The author talks about housing discrimination against blacks and how it has impacted their ability to build generational wealth. When it comes to housing, blacks have been discriminated against at the federal, state and local levels. The FHA didn't insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods (redlining) and subsidized builders who built subdivisions with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans. Local zoning and covenants restricted blacks to specific areas. As a result, blacks were frequently packed into less appealing neighborhoods where they had to pay more for rent because landlords took advantage of the shortage of housing available to them and cities did less to maintain the infrastructure. Without FHA backed loans, Blacks who wanted to buy property had to take out loans with higher interest rates that did not amortize so they built no equity and if they needed to sell or couldn't pay they lost everything. As a result of the higher cost of ownership, they would rent out rooms (increasing density) and forgo needed maintenance leading to slumlike conditions.

I don't believe our typical history curriculum does this justice. Teaching kids about the facts of the discrimination like this isn't CRT or any other theory, it's teaching history.

Now some of you might say "so what?" Following WWII there was a huge (or even yuge) shortage of housing and the government threw money at new developments using FHA and other discriminatory programs. One of the developments that was built was in a suburb of Kansas City where my family bought a home a year or two before I was born and we lived there until I was 3. I always thought my family didn't really benefit from past discrimination but I'm pretty sure they were able to use an FHA-backed loan to buy a home in a good neighborhood with excellent schools when a black family couldn't. I have benefited from discrimination.

I’m guessing the 80% of AA women who are baby mamas without a man around, the absence of a nuclear family, is MUCH more impactful to the ability to build generational wealth than any other single issue. That is and always has been an internal cultural issue and until THAT is solved/reversed, the rest is just pissing in the wind.

Yes, cultural change is needed but what came first? The 80% of AA women who are baby mamas without a man around or the government enabled ghettos that were fertile ground for gangs and helped further ingrain a culture that probably started with slaveowners separating husbands from wives/families?

[JohnStOnge]

-They peddled the Hunter laptop is Russian misnformation hoax as if it was real, which was a FAKE NEWS.
-They peddled the Trump/Russia collusion hoax as if it was real, which was a FAKE NEWS.
-They peddled the the Jessie Smollett hoax as if it was real, which was FAKE NEWS.
-They’ve peddled Jan 6 was an insurrection, which is FAKE NEWS.
-They’ve peddled that Nicholas Sandman was a racist, which was FAKE NEWS.
-They’ve peddled that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white Supremacist (FAKE NEWS) who illegally transported a firearm across state lines (FAKE NEWS) and was guilty of murder (FAKE NEWS).

I left off they (CNN, MSDNC, et al) peddled the FBI Whitmer kidnapping hoax, which was FAKE NEWS.

Two people got acquitted by a jury. Two people already pled guilty to the plot. Two can be tried again. There was a plot to kidnap Whitmer. That was not fake news. The FBI arrested people for it. That is news.

Two people got acquitted. That does not prove them to be innocent. That is the way our system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. A "Not Guilty" verdict does not mean it was proven that the defendant was innocent. It means the jury did not think the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to declare them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JohnStOnge]

I am wondering if conservatives think that all the stuff about HIllary Clinton's private server e mails was fake news because the Justice Department decided the situation did not merit charging her with anything.

[SeattleGriz]

I am wondering if conservatives think that all the stuff about HIllary Clinton's private server e mails was fake news because the Justice Department decided the situation did not merit charging her with anything.

Bro. In every large corporation in America, you sign a yearly commitment that you will honor the codes of your company and, in addition, you will act in a manner that does not cast suspicion on your actions.

Hillary broke both.

[kalm]

I am wondering if conservatives think that all the stuff about HIllary Clinton's private server e mails was fake news because the Justice Department decided the situation did not merit charging her with anything.

Bro. In every large corporation in America, you sign a yearly commitment that you will honor the codes of your company and, in addition, you will act in a manner that does not cast suspicion on your actions.

Hillary broke both.

Whoosh!

[SDHornet]

I left off they (CNN, MSDNC, et al) peddled the FBI Whitmer kidnapping hoax, which was FAKE NEWS.

Two people got acquitted by a jury. Two people already pled guilty to the plot. Two can be tried again. There was a plot to kidnap Whitmer. That was not fake news. The FBI arrested people for it. That is news.

Two people got acquitted. That does not prove them to be innocent. That is the way our system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. A "Not Guilty" verdict does not mean it was proven that the defendant was innocent. It means the jury did not think the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to declare them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You need to read up on this. There were more FBI "informants" that were "encouraging" action than there were rando extremists willing to lead this effort by themselves. The fact that a jury told FBI testimony to "fuck off" regarding their evidence is pretty telling.

[houndawg]

You'd have to ask the Trump administration why they didn't go after those people who were attacking federal buildings but you know the answer for the most part - Democratic states didn't want to risk criticizing their base for doing awful things. So they just ignored it and passively approved it. It's what happens when you cow-tow to special interests and minority groups.

Protesting police violence is fine. Protesting the 2020 election is fine. The moment you are no longer "peacefully" assembled, you lose any protection under that right, IMO.

I completely agree. But you answered your own question. The law is NOT equally applied, and THAT is the problem here. Not where 1/6 was an “insurrection” and the BLM protests/riots weren’t. If one was, they BOTH were. But once again, we’re only going after the Trump supporters and the Donk supporters get a free pass.

..and the hits just keep on coming....


You don't even believe your own bullshit. Look at the Capitol when the protest was by BLM vs. when the protest was by the militia cunts. When BLM came to town the Capitol steps were lined with troops in full riot gear, when the militia cunts showed up the cops were wearing MAGA hats and were completely unprepared to deal with the sittuation; if the militia cunts weren't such gutless cunts they would have easily won the day. Fortunately they were too busy shitting on the floor and wiping their ass with the Flag to get anything done.

[houndawg]

I left off they (CNN, MSDNC, et al) peddled the FBI Whitmer kidnapping hoax, which was FAKE NEWS.

Two people got acquitted by a jury. Two people already pled guilty to the plot. Two can be tried again. There was a plot to kidnap Whitmer. That was not fake news. The FBI arrested people for it. That is news.

Two people got acquitted. That does not prove them to be innocent. That is the way our system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. A "Not Guilty" verdict does not mean it was proven that the defendant was innocent. It means the jury did not think the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to declare them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need to have a "not proven" verdict like the Scots have.

[Ibanez]

I am wondering if conservatives think that all the stuff about HIllary Clinton's private server e mails was fake news because the Justice Department decided the situation did not merit charging her with anything.

She worked with and part of the US Government for decades. She knew the rules just as I and thousands of others did. She broke the law and got special treatment.