GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

misterearl wrote:Knickoftime - The difference is that Obama owned his mistake. The Trump mob insists they did nothing wrong.

Did he own when he said you can keep your doctor? when he said it was a video that caused Bnghazi? Come on now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is adolescent reasoning to excuse any wrongdoing with "yeah, but that other person did worse."

If you don't care that she plagiarized, that's fine, you don't have to. But the reason you're offering isn't even good enough for the Trump campaign, who obviously recognize it is an issue, which is why they're denying.

As I say, if you don't care, that's you choice. But you should be able to acknowledge what occurred with reasoning it away.

If you could comprehend words, I already explained to you that I believe it was intentional.

Then it was a campaign misstep, of pretty significant proportions.

Because NO ONE but you is talking about that. The point you think they were trying to make it lost in the accusation of plagiarism, which btw, is also taking them off message for the first 2 day of their convention.

Whether you want to rationalize that it was part of some grand rhetorical plan is up to you, but you should be able to at least acknowledge if that was their plan, it failed.

I added Obama to show YOU how its accepted for some but not others.

You recall it because it was made an issue (rightly) and the issue was acknowledged, not denied.

My own belief is that if the words are good use them.

You're entitled. Just understand your words can get you on the losing end of a lawsuit depending on the circumstances. Plagiarism has a legal definition and this is plagiarism.

As I say, you can rationalize it away. What you cannot rationalize is the Trump campaign intended this to dominate the 12 hours (and counting) following the first evening of their convention.

That's just an unforced, amateur-hour error.

These are your opinions and you have a right to them as do I to mine.

I'm not sure the utility of this statement. This is a given no one is denying. You have absolute right to spin this in the favor of the team you favor. No argument.

You think they have been taken off message by this? What is everyone talking about? Her Speech in which she laid out why he is a good choice to win. She used similar words as the previous winner's.

You may not see it but as others say and I believe they calculated,

They why didn't the campaign on TV today actually making the argument. Saying Mrs. Trump purposely choose those words to highlight the failed promise of the Obama administration.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

The Trump campaign disagrees with you more than I do.

its not about the so called plagiarism, its about owning the headlines as he had since last June.

It's his convention. The headlines this week were already bought and paid for. He had them to himself all week, he could make them whatever he wanted them to be this week.

This is the result.

But to be clear, you're perfectly entitled to believe a significant screw-up was intentional.

You're also perfectly entitled any of this is helping him make up the demographic ground he is at a significant disadvantage in. You'd be wrong, but entitled.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

I fail to see how those are distinct. IT seems like they match up. As to whys and hows of the campaign, I am not privy to them, I just have noticed that they are not normal in any sense of how politics are played. What seems to be a curse for most candidates turns out well for him. Call it a hunch, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

Paul Manafort has gone on TV and stood in front of the press and said you're be crazy to believe the passages that are almost exact is anything but a spontaneous coincidence.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family. To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."

He also legitimized the issue.

"To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,"

Since you actually believe the cribbing was intentional, you do acknowledge Trump sent his campaign manager out on TV this morning to tell a boldface lie that it was not, correct?

I have no idea of what Trump said to Manafort. My guess it that it is true that Melania had no idea she was "cribbing".

So now you're contending Manafort was parsing words and he was saying indirectly without acknowledging it that the campaign intended to plagiarize the speech to make the point you contend, but didn't tell Mrs. Trump this was their plan, so therefore she is not culpable?

Really?

People complain about the ethics of politicians and accuse them of lying habitually, and THIS is why - because if they play for your team, you don't care, will credit their ingenuity, and in fact help craft lies for them.

We get exactly what we deserve.

gunsnewing wrote:I can't fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary. What does she know about creating jobs? A former lawyer who spent all these years working in the federal government and not the private sector where building and job creation takes place

Same can be said of Obama, and Carter, and Bill Clinton, no?

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

misterearl wrote:Knickoftime - The difference is that Obama owned his mistake. The Trump mob insists they did nothing wrong.

Did he own when he said you can keep your doctor? when he said it was a video that caused Bnghazi? Come on now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is adolescent reasoning to excuse any wrongdoing with "yeah, but that other person did worse."

If you don't care that she plagiarized, that's fine, you don't have to. But the reason you're offering isn't even good enough for the Trump campaign, who obviously recognize it is an issue, which is why they're denying.

As I say, if you don't care, that's you choice. But you should be able to acknowledge what occurred with reasoning it away.

If you could comprehend words, I already explained to you that I believe it was intentional.

Then it was a campaign misstep, of pretty significant proportions.

Because NO ONE but you is talking about that. The point you think they were trying to make it lost in the accusation of plagiarism, which btw, is also taking them off message for the first 2 day of their convention.

Whether you want to rationalize that it was part of some grand rhetorical plan is up to you, but you should be able to at least acknowledge if that was their plan, it failed.

I added Obama to show YOU how its accepted for some but not others.

You recall it because it was made an issue (rightly) and the issue was acknowledged, not denied.

My own belief is that if the words are good use them.

You're entitled. Just understand your words can get you on the losing end of a lawsuit depending on the circumstances. Plagiarism has a legal definition and this is plagiarism.

As I say, you can rationalize it away. What you cannot rationalize is the Trump campaign intended this to dominate the 12 hours (and counting) following the first evening of their convention.

That's just an unforced, amateur-hour error.

These are your opinions and you have a right to them as do I to mine.

I'm not sure the utility of this statement. This is a given no one is denying. You have absolute right to spin this in the favor of the team you favor. No argument.

You think they have been taken off message by this? What is everyone talking about? Her Speech in which she laid out why he is a good choice to win. She used similar words as the previous winner's.

You may not see it but as others say and I believe they calculated,

They why didn't the campaign on TV today actually making the argument. Saying Mrs. Trump purposely choose those words to highlight the failed promise of the Obama administration.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

The Trump campaign disagrees with you more than I do.

its not about the so called plagiarism, its about owning the headlines as he had since last June.

It's his convention. The headlines this week were already bought and paid for. He had them to himself all week, he could make them whatever he wanted them to be this week.

This is the result.

But to be clear, you're perfectly entitled to believe a significant screw-up was intentional.

You're also perfectly entitled any of this is helping him make up the demographic ground he is at a significant disadvantage in. You'd be wrong, but entitled.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

I fail to see how those are distinct. IT seems like they match up. As to whys and hows of the campaign, I am not privy to them, I just have noticed that they are not normal in any sense of how politics are played. What seems to be a curse for most candidates turns out well for him. Call it a hunch, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

Paul Manafort has gone on TV and stood in front of the press and said you're be crazy to believe the passages that are almost exact is anything but a spontaneous coincidence.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family. To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."

He also legitimized the issue.

"To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,"

Since you actually believe the cribbing was intentional, you do acknowledge Trump sent his campaign manager out on TV this morning to tell a boldface lie that it was not, correct?

I have no idea of what Trump said to Manafort. My guess it that it is true that Melania had no idea she was "cribbing".

So now you're contending Manafort was parsing words and he was saying indirectly without acknowledging it that the campaign intended to plagiarize the speech to make the point you contend, but didn't tell Mrs. Trump this was their plan, so therefore she is not culpable?

Really?

People complain about the ethics of politicians and accuse them of lying habitually, and THIS is why - because if they play for your team, you don't care, will credit their ingenuity, and in fact help craft lies for them.

We get exactly what we deserve.

Two likely scenarios

1) She plagiarized pieces and it was not identified

2) The speech writers plagiarized pieces and she did not know

I personally think scenario two is likelier, the most logical is that she wrote a draft that was reshaped to their liking and now they are covering up someone's blunder and they are lying which makes it worse.

I dont think less of her or her performance but it does take away . This will pass because America has become numb to politicians

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:I can't fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary. What does she know about creating jobs? A former lawyer who spent all these years working in the federal government and not the private sector where building and job creation takes place

Same can be said of Obama, and Carter, and Bill Clinton, no?

I wonder how many of those jobs are government created jobs.

Some would call them "government jobs" or a different sort.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

misterearl wrote:Knickoftime - The difference is that Obama owned his mistake. The Trump mob insists they did nothing wrong.

Did he own when he said you can keep your doctor? when he said it was a video that caused Bnghazi? Come on now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is adolescent reasoning to excuse any wrongdoing with "yeah, but that other person did worse."

If you don't care that she plagiarized, that's fine, you don't have to. But the reason you're offering isn't even good enough for the Trump campaign, who obviously recognize it is an issue, which is why they're denying.

As I say, if you don't care, that's you choice. But you should be able to acknowledge what occurred with reasoning it away.

If you could comprehend words, I already explained to you that I believe it was intentional.

Then it was a campaign misstep, of pretty significant proportions.

Because NO ONE but you is talking about that. The point you think they were trying to make it lost in the accusation of plagiarism, which btw, is also taking them off message for the first 2 day of their convention.

Whether you want to rationalize that it was part of some grand rhetorical plan is up to you, but you should be able to at least acknowledge if that was their plan, it failed.

I added Obama to show YOU how its accepted for some but not others.

You recall it because it was made an issue (rightly) and the issue was acknowledged, not denied.

My own belief is that if the words are good use them.

You're entitled. Just understand your words can get you on the losing end of a lawsuit depending on the circumstances. Plagiarism has a legal definition and this is plagiarism.

As I say, you can rationalize it away. What you cannot rationalize is the Trump campaign intended this to dominate the 12 hours (and counting) following the first evening of their convention.

That's just an unforced, amateur-hour error.

These are your opinions and you have a right to them as do I to mine.

I'm not sure the utility of this statement. This is a given no one is denying. You have absolute right to spin this in the favor of the team you favor. No argument.

You think they have been taken off message by this? What is everyone talking about? Her Speech in which she laid out why he is a good choice to win. She used similar words as the previous winner's.

You may not see it but as others say and I believe they calculated,

They why didn't the campaign on TV today actually making the argument. Saying Mrs. Trump purposely choose those words to highlight the failed promise of the Obama administration.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

The Trump campaign disagrees with you more than I do.

its not about the so called plagiarism, its about owning the headlines as he had since last June.

It's his convention. The headlines this week were already bought and paid for. He had them to himself all week, he could make them whatever he wanted them to be this week.

This is the result.

But to be clear, you're perfectly entitled to believe a significant screw-up was intentional.

You're also perfectly entitled any of this is helping him make up the demographic ground he is at a significant disadvantage in. You'd be wrong, but entitled.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

I fail to see how those are distinct. IT seems like they match up. As to whys and hows of the campaign, I am not privy to them, I just have noticed that they are not normal in any sense of how politics are played. What seems to be a curse for most candidates turns out well for him. Call it a hunch, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

Paul Manafort has gone on TV and stood in front of the press and said you're be crazy to believe the passages that are almost exact is anything but a spontaneous coincidence.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family. To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."

He also legitimized the issue.

"To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,"

Since you actually believe the cribbing was intentional, you do acknowledge Trump sent his campaign manager out on TV this morning to tell a boldface lie that it was not, correct?

I have no idea of what Trump said to Manafort. My guess it that it is true that Melania had no idea she was "cribbing".

So now you're contending Manafort was parsing words and he was saying indirectly without acknowledging it that the campaign intended to plagiarize the speech to make the point you contend, but didn't tell Mrs. Trump this was their plan, so therefore she is not culpable?

Really?

People complain about the ethics of politicians and accuse them of lying habitually, and THIS is why - because if they play for your team, you don't care, will credit their ingenuity, and in fact help craft lies for them.

We get exactly what we deserve.

I do think it is possible that Melania did not know the words were that similar. I bet she is not happy with someone in the campaign right now because she is taking the blame at this time.

PArsing of words was invented by politicians, and you expect the next one to be better? IT depends on what the meaning of is, is? Bill was the master and Obama is even better. Hillary, bad for her, is an awful liar, IMO.

My initial comment on this was that I thought it was purposeful that they brought up the same themes not necessarily the same words. The words are markedly similar and on the surface its unlikely it was a pure coincidence. MY guess is that in the coming days you will hear some comments as to how the words Michele spoke rang hollow just as many other unkept promises by the current administration.

I see your point in that a lie does not help when you want to accuse Hillary of lying. I also think that they have already gotten away with this with Corey and that it will die down soon because its Melania. Again, its my hunch. Was it a bad play? Maybe, but again, I really think there is more to it below the surface.

I am not suggesting you do, but how can anyone support Hillary with what you just stated?

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

misterearl wrote:Knickoftime - The difference is that Obama owned his mistake. The Trump mob insists they did nothing wrong.

Did he own when he said you can keep your doctor? when he said it was a video that caused Bnghazi? Come on now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is adolescent reasoning to excuse any wrongdoing with "yeah, but that other person did worse."

If you don't care that she plagiarized, that's fine, you don't have to. But the reason you're offering isn't even good enough for the Trump campaign, who obviously recognize it is an issue, which is why they're denying.

As I say, if you don't care, that's you choice. But you should be able to acknowledge what occurred with reasoning it away.

If you could comprehend words, I already explained to you that I believe it was intentional.

Then it was a campaign misstep, of pretty significant proportions.

Because NO ONE but you is talking about that. The point you think they were trying to make it lost in the accusation of plagiarism, which btw, is also taking them off message for the first 2 day of their convention.

Whether you want to rationalize that it was part of some grand rhetorical plan is up to you, but you should be able to at least acknowledge if that was their plan, it failed.

I added Obama to show YOU how its accepted for some but not others.

You recall it because it was made an issue (rightly) and the issue was acknowledged, not denied.

My own belief is that if the words are good use them.

You're entitled. Just understand your words can get you on the losing end of a lawsuit depending on the circumstances. Plagiarism has a legal definition and this is plagiarism.

As I say, you can rationalize it away. What you cannot rationalize is the Trump campaign intended this to dominate the 12 hours (and counting) following the first evening of their convention.

That's just an unforced, amateur-hour error.

These are your opinions and you have a right to them as do I to mine.

I'm not sure the utility of this statement. This is a given no one is denying. You have absolute right to spin this in the favor of the team you favor. No argument.

You think they have been taken off message by this? What is everyone talking about? Her Speech in which she laid out why he is a good choice to win. She used similar words as the previous winner's.

You may not see it but as others say and I believe they calculated,

They why didn't the campaign on TV today actually making the argument. Saying Mrs. Trump purposely choose those words to highlight the failed promise of the Obama administration.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

The Trump campaign disagrees with you more than I do.

its not about the so called plagiarism, its about owning the headlines as he had since last June.

It's his convention. The headlines this week were already bought and paid for. He had them to himself all week, he could make them whatever he wanted them to be this week.

This is the result.

But to be clear, you're perfectly entitled to believe a significant screw-up was intentional.

You're also perfectly entitled any of this is helping him make up the demographic ground he is at a significant disadvantage in. You'd be wrong, but entitled.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

I fail to see how those are distinct. IT seems like they match up. As to whys and hows of the campaign, I am not privy to them, I just have noticed that they are not normal in any sense of how politics are played. What seems to be a curse for most candidates turns out well for him. Call it a hunch, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

Paul Manafort has gone on TV and stood in front of the press and said you're be crazy to believe the passages that are almost exact is anything but a spontaneous coincidence.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family. To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."

He also legitimized the issue.

"To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,"

Since you actually believe the cribbing was intentional, you do acknowledge Trump sent his campaign manager out on TV this morning to tell a boldface lie that it was not, correct?

I have no idea of what Trump said to Manafort. My guess it that it is true that Melania had no idea she was "cribbing".

So now you're contending Manafort was parsing words and he was saying indirectly without acknowledging it that the campaign intended to plagiarize the speech to make the point you contend, but didn't tell Mrs. Trump this was their plan, so therefore she is not culpable?

Really?

People complain about the ethics of politicians and accuse them of lying habitually, and THIS is why - because if they play for your team, you don't care, will credit their ingenuity, and in fact help craft lies for them.

We get exactly what we deserve.

I do think it is possible that Melania did not know the words were that similar. I bet she is not happy with someone in the campaign right now because she is taking the blame at this time.

Which is a reflection of the campaign, which is a reflection of the nominee.

My initial comment on this was that I thought it was purposeful that they brought up the same themes not necessarily the same words.

But of course it was purposeful they used the same words. The idea it was coincidence is ludicrous.

MY guess is that in the coming days you will hear some comments as to how the words Michele spoke rang hollow just as many other unkept promises by the current administration.

And the explanation so far has been Mrs. Trump genuinely believes those words, that they are heartfelt. You can't have it both ways and I think you're trying a little hard to.

I see your point in that a lie does not help when you want to accuse Hillary of lying.

Especially when you do this...

"There's a political tint to this whole issue," he continued. "It's just another example, as far as we're concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person."

That isn't even trying to lie with finesse. That is just a boldface untruth.

I am not suggesting you do, but how can anyone support Hillary with what you just stated?

Well, if you concede to YOUR premise that all politicians are liars and due to the overwhelming evidence Trump is no exception (and according to pretty much everyone who tracks such things, he's actually much more adept), then you're left with having to choose on policy and platform, and from what little Trump actually reveals about policy, his ideas are ludicrous and reprehensible.

The Muslim ban is both, the Mexican wall is both, much of the republican platform on social issues are one or the other. He's demonstrated little knowledge and demonstrated less actual economic policy.

Not even mentioning he clearly has a troublesome understanding of the constitution and the separation of powers.

If Donald Trump could actually succeed in doing a small fraction of the things he promised or suggested (which I see no evidence of), I'd vote against him for that reason alone.

WaltLongmire wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:I can't fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary. What does she know about creating jobs? A former lawyer who spent all these years working in the federal government and not the private sector where building and job creation takes place

Same can be said of Obama, and Carter, and Bill Clinton, no?

I wonder how many of those jobs are government created jobs.

One of the things folks forget to bring up about Reagan is how much he spent on defense during a time when terrorism was a blip on the radar screen and we had no wars to fight...How many jobs were created because of this?

Some would call them "government jobs" or a different sort.

Democrat or Republican, like him or not , it is hard to dispute that Bill Clinton's Presidency was mostly successful. Some say the gains in job, productivity and GDP growth was helped by the explosive growth of the web and technology but it occured regardless of any factors and that growth along with reasonable tax increases resulted in a good economy with wage growth , low inflation and a balanced budget. As far as it pertains to issues today, he passed the crime bill of 1994 that arrested the explosion in crime and murder on the streets that prevailed in 1993 , it resulted in large declines that continued through 2014 but resulted in a criminal justice system that is being questioned for inequities today , he banned assault weapons that were later reinstated under Bush and that are once again being rationally contested today , he passed into law the free trade agreement NAFTA which is under criticsm given loss of jobs overseas as well as the Financial Modernization Act which along with loosening of regulations and lending standards led to the financial crisis of 07. He also introduced several assistance programs for low income groups that specifically addressed the needs of children and Hillary unsuccessfuly tried to introduce the basic tenets of what was to become Obamacare that some wish to overturn

WaltLongmire wrote:

meloanyk wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Uptown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I think this is just a common sense answer from my own personal view point. I think its pretty simplistic. African Americans are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime so the police who are in charge of that area have their "eye" on them much more so than other races. I guess from a cops point of view--he is scared or at a minimum heightened when confronted with the possibility of dealing with a higher source of danger. Remember these guys put their lives on the line every day--so you have to factor in their mindset. I think it really is as simple as that. If black people believe that white people have it out for them--my friends--you are dead wrong. White people green people yellow people--most of us have an every day responsibility of family and we are to busy to think about anything other than immediate issue. If it wasnt for what I heard on TV I probably wouldve steered clear of this thread. I believe strongly that Im a decent and honest fellow and answering questions honestly--even if they potentially offend--although im not trying to do that--is just reasonable back and forth recourse on an issue thats been getting a lot of attention. Its disturbing to hear--as a white person--what I believe is some true deep seeded hatred African Americans seem to have. I dont believe in the hood nor do I believe in excuse of race. If race was such an issue why dont Chinese people complain?

My dad died when I was 8. I went to PS 230 in Brooklyn until I was 10 and moved to a small condo in Ct with my two brothers and Mom. I shared a room with my twin brother for 18 years--two pretty big guys in a small room. I didnt have the money for special sneakers or clothes--and I lived in a town that had some money. The money I had was working a paper route that I had to get up at 6 am before school to do shuffling snow or cutting grass. When i was 15 and old enough to work I worked washing dishes at a Chinese restaurant(maybe the worst job on Earth:) I loved and played all sports--I was tall and ended up being a very decent football player. I dedicated time to work hard on my school work every day--no one told me too--my Mom worked---I took it upon myself to be aggressive and compete on my studies while putting effort into working out working--I mean I had ZERO "privilege" believe me. On top of it I was Jewish--and Ive heard my fair amount of derogatory BS--but I just dealt with it and went about my day--majority of people liked my brother and I. My goal was to play football at Syracuse and become a gym teacher or sportscaster because that is what I loved. I ended up at Uconn and had to pay for my own school and soon found out the difference between being good at sports in hS and college were two different beasts--but I played 4 years and worked hard anyway. I stayed and paid at Uconn for 6 years--all the way to an MBA. I wasnt given a penny for help from anyone in my family--I paid for myself by working in the summer. I ended up in the business side by chance--simply thats what my first roommate was there for--so I went with it as well. I got a very decent job right away in NY after graduating--yada yada 8 years later I dont have to work anymore---some luck there and some cahones--but it was built on hard hard work from a young age with absolutely ZERO privilege. Nothing--so when I hear that I dont get it and I dont personally believe in it. I believe in Obama and thats why I voted for him twice. You have to work hard in this world and those who dont get left behind and bitch. Sorry white people dont hate black people yellow people or green people==really I dont even think about it nor do i care because to me its a non issue.. If I was black and lived in the hood--Id work three F jobs and would get the F out to move my family to a decent place. And those who live there and bthc about it--thats on them--no one in this world forces them to be there. And finally like I said--cut the crime rate down and my bet is a lot of good things will happen.

First off, stop generalizing and painting everyone with a broad brush. The majority of black people who live in the inner-city are decent hard working families and quite a few of them have worked hard and are working hard to move to safer areas and or make their community a safer place to live. Not all white people hate blacks, but to think there aren't whites who do hate blacks, again would be ignorant on your part.

The fact that you are saying the color of a persons skin is a non-issue is either ignorance on your part or denial....Do you agree that there is systemic racism in this country?

It persists but I think it has lessened significantly in the last twenty years. It'd help a hell of a lot if the fabulously and unprecedentedly wealthy black athletes like Carmelo Anthony gave up two-thirds of their earnings to inner city issues. Has that notion crossed your mind? To ask him or others to give back? Money talks and genuine untold wealth can help.

I was always of the opinion that black athletes that make it out of the inner city should give back in some way whether its money for youth programs, investing in black businesses or just to give their time. Jim Brown is not acknowledged enough for the charitable work he has done especially going into some of the worse crime infested areas and re-mediating meetings between gang leaders, etc. More athletes and entertainers need to do this because they are revered by many young kids in the inner city and have the resources and influence to provoke change.

For as much sh#t as Marbury has taken, the one great thing he did was help create affordable sneakers for kids. That was big and innovative and I was hoping some athletes would follow his lead.

No question Athletes being more involved will help tremendously. The best and most effective solution is better parenting and more stable homes regardless of what is happening in the streets, education and the job market.

Too simplistic, my friend...and CashMoney himself, can attest to the power of peer pressure.

Parenting and home stability go hand in hand with economic issues. I saw this all the time as a teacher, parents having to work multiple jobs not being able to supervise their children properly.

I saw the thing CashMoney talked about- kids being pressured to be part of groupings which did not appreciate the importance of education.

A late former colleague talked about one African-American student, who I only knew from my work in the Deans Office, as being very intelligent, but influenced by kids who saw the education thing as uncool.

The classic theory is that most things fashioning personality and actions come from the family...but as an educator of many years I simply cannot say that this is always the case, and I have too many examples of this during my career to doubt the power of peer influences.

I wish it was that easy to take the straight and narrow path. I think I was lucky. My father was a teacher and Athletic Director, but he still had to work extra hours to raise 8 kids while my mother gave up her career to be an in-home mother. We were lacking in some things- didn't get a color TV until I was in college, but we had enough money to reside in a nice neighborhood and live somewhat comfortably.

Hard for me to understand poverty myself, though I've seen it, and my school had a large population eligible for free school lunches...a sign of relative poverty or financial duress.

In some cases, your way of thinking works, but the world is much more complicated, IMO.

Walter and Alpha,

I think you both as well as CashMoney cited peer pressure/ influence of kids as factors in viewing education as uncool. I have cited the 73% out of wedlock birthrate for blacks, a number that grew exponentially across all groups including whites with the War on Poverty legislation in the early 60's. Are both, peer thinking and out of wedlock births, cultural norms that need to change?

Backtracking a bit, but having lived through them, one of the biggest blows for progressives and blacks were the 1960's, a period of time which should have been the beginning of a transformation for many in this country.

Politically, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, and, perhaps more significantly, Martin Luther King, set the Liberal/Progressive/Civil Rights movement back, and in some ways, neutered it. The Vietnam War overshadowed the Great Society and Civil Rights movement, and also affected the nation's politics, and was a tremendous setback for certain groups in this nation.

In general folks are looking at "What," but not "Why," and this is a problem.

Some of the "solutions" presented by folks are ignorantly simplistic. People take the exception and then make it a rule...simply makes no sense.

Most problems seem rooted in poverty and a lack of opportunity. Identifying the "causes of these causes" is not a simple thing.

Racism/prejudice is part of the problem, but not the only thing causing the problem. You really want to create a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, and that society doesn't exist at this point?

A good post that raises other considerations but I do think some are looking at the whys and raising points about what is holding back a subgroup of blacks from exiting poverty while other minorities advanced without the supports that the Great Society promised. I say the same about sections of the white population. There was the war on Poverty before there was the War on Drugs and it didnt and hasn't accomplish much despite numerous enactments of legislation over the years. The pros and cons of welfare has been argued as it can be trapping despite its merits. Sensitive subject but the Irish, Italians, Jews immigrants faced real discrimination going back and the Asians and many other Eastern immigrants have advanced as a group despite many barriers. Slavery obviously stripped away so much but what is perplexing is that black family structure appeared to have been stronger in the early 60's than before many of these progressive policies were enacted and by some accounts African emigrates are making more strides than Native blacks despite the view that racism still reigns widely. I have witnessed blatant racism to blacks as a younger person and I have also witnessed a different society notwithstanding flaws and inequities that still exist . There is still opportunity here and that is why immigrants flock to get here .I had a cousin who worked for the late Reginald Lewis and a nephew who works for Ronald F Johnson company so blacks can achieve with anyone but education and talent are the great equalizers , the ability to deliver and access to it and well as desire to embrace are keys. Right now, I see a growing divide in the black society between the haves and the have nots and the one difference is the haves are educated and motivated and the have nots are generally not. The same can be said about white society. Identifying the causes of causes seems doable, it is addressing them on multiple fronts that is not simple

Uptown wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

meloanyk wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Uptown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I think this is just a common sense answer from my own personal view point. I think its pretty simplistic. African Americans are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime so the police who are in charge of that area have their "eye" on them much more so than other races. I guess from a cops point of view--he is scared or at a minimum heightened when confronted with the possibility of dealing with a higher source of danger. Remember these guys put their lives on the line every day--so you have to factor in their mindset. I think it really is as simple as that. If black people believe that white people have it out for them--my friends--you are dead wrong. White people green people yellow people--most of us have an every day responsibility of family and we are to busy to think about anything other than immediate issue. If it wasnt for what I heard on TV I probably wouldve steered clear of this thread. I believe strongly that Im a decent and honest fellow and answering questions honestly--even if they potentially offend--although im not trying to do that--is just reasonable back and forth recourse on an issue thats been getting a lot of attention. Its disturbing to hear--as a white person--what I believe is some true deep seeded hatred African Americans seem to have. I dont believe in the hood nor do I believe in excuse of race. If race was such an issue why dont Chinese people complain?

My dad died when I was 8. I went to PS 230 in Brooklyn until I was 10 and moved to a small condo in Ct with my two brothers and Mom. I shared a room with my twin brother for 18 years--two pretty big guys in a small room. I didnt have the money for special sneakers or clothes--and I lived in a town that had some money. The money I had was working a paper route that I had to get up at 6 am before school to do shuffling snow or cutting grass. When i was 15 and old enough to work I worked washing dishes at a Chinese restaurant(maybe the worst job on Earth:) I loved and played all sports--I was tall and ended up being a very decent football player. I dedicated time to work hard on my school work every day--no one told me too--my Mom worked---I took it upon myself to be aggressive and compete on my studies while putting effort into working out working--I mean I had ZERO "privilege" believe me. On top of it I was Jewish--and Ive heard my fair amount of derogatory BS--but I just dealt with it and went about my day--majority of people liked my brother and I. My goal was to play football at Syracuse and become a gym teacher or sportscaster because that is what I loved. I ended up at Uconn and had to pay for my own school and soon found out the difference between being good at sports in hS and college were two different beasts--but I played 4 years and worked hard anyway. I stayed and paid at Uconn for 6 years--all the way to an MBA. I wasnt given a penny for help from anyone in my family--I paid for myself by working in the summer. I ended up in the business side by chance--simply thats what my first roommate was there for--so I went with it as well. I got a very decent job right away in NY after graduating--yada yada 8 years later I dont have to work anymore---some luck there and some cahones--but it was built on hard hard work from a young age with absolutely ZERO privilege. Nothing--so when I hear that I dont get it and I dont personally believe in it. I believe in Obama and thats why I voted for him twice. You have to work hard in this world and those who dont get left behind and bitch. Sorry white people dont hate black people yellow people or green people==really I dont even think about it nor do i care because to me its a non issue.. If I was black and lived in the hood--Id work three F jobs and would get the F out to move my family to a decent place. And those who live there and bthc about it--thats on them--no one in this world forces them to be there. And finally like I said--cut the crime rate down and my bet is a lot of good things will happen.

First off, stop generalizing and painting everyone with a broad brush. The majority of black people who live in the inner-city are decent hard working families and quite a few of them have worked hard and are working hard to move to safer areas and or make their community a safer place to live. Not all white people hate blacks, but to think there aren't whites who do hate blacks, again would be ignorant on your part.

The fact that you are saying the color of a persons skin is a non-issue is either ignorance on your part or denial....Do you agree that there is systemic racism in this country?

It persists but I think it has lessened significantly in the last twenty years. It'd help a hell of a lot if the fabulously and unprecedentedly wealthy black athletes like Carmelo Anthony gave up two-thirds of their earnings to inner city issues. Has that notion crossed your mind? To ask him or others to give back? Money talks and genuine untold wealth can help.

I was always of the opinion that black athletes that make it out of the inner city should give back in some way whether its money for youth programs, investing in black businesses or just to give their time. Jim Brown is not acknowledged enough for the charitable work he has done especially going into some of the worse crime infested areas and re-mediating meetings between gang leaders, etc. More athletes and entertainers need to do this because they are revered by many young kids in the inner city and have the resources and influence to provoke change.

For as much sh#t as Marbury has taken, the one great thing he did was help create affordable sneakers for kids. That was big and innovative and I was hoping some athletes would follow his lead.

No question Athletes being more involved will help tremendously. The best and most effective solution is better parenting and more stable homes regardless of what is happening in the streets, education and the job market.

Too simplistic, my friend...and CashMoney himself, can attest to the power of peer pressure.

Parenting and home stability go hand in hand with economic issues. I saw this all the time as a teacher, parents having to work multiple jobs not being able to supervise their children properly.

I saw the thing CashMoney talked about- kids being pressured to be part of groupings which did not appreciate the importance of education.

A late former colleague talked about one African-American student, who I only knew from my work in the Deans Office, as being very intelligent, but influenced by kids who saw the education thing as uncool.

The classic theory is that most things fashioning personality and actions come from the family...but as an educator of many years I simply cannot say that this is always the case, and I have too many examples of this during my career to doubt the power of peer influences.

I wish it was that easy to take the straight and narrow path. I think I was lucky. My father was a teacher and Athletic Director, but he still had to work extra hours to raise 8 kids while my mother gave up her career to be an in-home mother. We were lacking in some things- didn't get a color TV until I was in college, but we had enough money to reside in a nice neighborhood and live somewhat comfortably.

Hard for me to understand poverty myself, though I've seen it, and my school had a large population eligible for free school lunches...a sign of relative poverty or financial duress.

In some cases, your way of thinking works, but the world is much more complicated, IMO.

Walter and Alpha,

I think you both as well as CashMoney cited peer pressure/ influence of kids as factors in viewing education as uncool. I have cited the 73% out of wedlock birthrate for blacks, a number that grew exponentially across all groups including whites with the War on Poverty legislation in the early 60's. Are both, peer thinking and out of wedlock births, cultural norms that need to change?

Backtracking a bit, but having lived through them, one of the biggest blows for progressives and blacks were the 1960's, a period of time which should have been the beginning of a transformation for many in this country.

Politically, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, and, perhaps more significantly, Martin Luther King, set the Liberal/Progressive/Civil Rights movement back, and in some ways, neutered it. The Vietnam War overshadowed the Great Society and Civil Rights movement, and also affected the nation's politics, and was a tremendous setback for certain groups in this nation.

In general folks are looking at "What," but not "Why," and this is a problem.

Some of the "solutions" presented by folks are ignorantly simplistic. People take the exception and then make it a rule...simply makes no sense.

Most problems seem rooted in poverty and a lack of opportunity. Identifying the "causes of these causes" is not a simple thing.

Racism/prejudice is part of the problem, but not the only thing causing the problem. You really want to create a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, and that society doesn't exist at this point?

This is a great post!! Thanks for sharing this.

Yea,

You can go back farther then the 60s though. Imagine if Marcus Garvey wasn't imprisoned and deported. Or Black Wall Street was able to prosper and expand. African Americans being able to fall back on that success and be happy to have that as apart of there culture and strive to maintain that level of success over the years. This during the early parts of today's America. The spread of wealth would be a lot different. African Americans also lost a lot of businesses after segregation ended. What if athletes from the negro leagues and African American sports leagues held there ground and maintained there own leagues and forced whites to merge into black owned leagues rather then into white owned leagues.

WaltLongmire wrote:

meloanyk wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

Nobody did.

She and the campaign were receiving praise for the speech immediately following.

They did this to themselves.

And are currently making it worse.

This belongs on the petty level--I mean come on:) I dont like either candidate but if Im forced to look at Melania Trump 4 four years--I can hack that. And In my book she can plagiarize whoever she wants--who really gives a rats arse--it has absolute zero relevance.

So you are ok with her sounding like this in real life?...because THIS---> is probably closer to the truth.

Wow, what a illiterate dope. Hard to believe that people clapped. She is very lucky that she has some resemblance to that other brainiac Jessica Simpson. Good Lord

I remember watching it once, a few years ago, and I have never watched it again. I find it painful to look at. Don't know the woman...don't want, but I still feel sorry for her, even though the fool had to know what she was getting into.

I expect that she became a trophy wife for a wealthy SC businessman...if she got a college degree I'd like to take a look at the college she went to.

OMG -that video. I have no words. Is like Donald Trump married Forrest Gump.

newyorknewyork wrote:

Uptown wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

meloanyk wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Uptown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I think this is just a common sense answer from my own personal view point. I think its pretty simplistic. African Americans are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime so the police who are in charge of that area have their "eye" on them much more so than other races. I guess from a cops point of view--he is scared or at a minimum heightened when confronted with the possibility of dealing with a higher source of danger. Remember these guys put their lives on the line every day--so you have to factor in their mindset. I think it really is as simple as that. If black people believe that white people have it out for them--my friends--you are dead wrong. White people green people yellow people--most of us have an every day responsibility of family and we are to busy to think about anything other than immediate issue. If it wasnt for what I heard on TV I probably wouldve steered clear of this thread. I believe strongly that Im a decent and honest fellow and answering questions honestly--even if they potentially offend--although im not trying to do that--is just reasonable back and forth recourse on an issue thats been getting a lot of attention. Its disturbing to hear--as a white person--what I believe is some true deep seeded hatred African Americans seem to have. I dont believe in the hood nor do I believe in excuse of race. If race was such an issue why dont Chinese people complain?

My dad died when I was 8. I went to PS 230 in Brooklyn until I was 10 and moved to a small condo in Ct with my two brothers and Mom. I shared a room with my twin brother for 18 years--two pretty big guys in a small room. I didnt have the money for special sneakers or clothes--and I lived in a town that had some money. The money I had was working a paper route that I had to get up at 6 am before school to do shuffling snow or cutting grass. When i was 15 and old enough to work I worked washing dishes at a Chinese restaurant(maybe the worst job on Earth:) I loved and played all sports--I was tall and ended up being a very decent football player. I dedicated time to work hard on my school work every day--no one told me too--my Mom worked---I took it upon myself to be aggressive and compete on my studies while putting effort into working out working--I mean I had ZERO "privilege" believe me. On top of it I was Jewish--and Ive heard my fair amount of derogatory BS--but I just dealt with it and went about my day--majority of people liked my brother and I. My goal was to play football at Syracuse and become a gym teacher or sportscaster because that is what I loved. I ended up at Uconn and had to pay for my own school and soon found out the difference between being good at sports in hS and college were two different beasts--but I played 4 years and worked hard anyway. I stayed and paid at Uconn for 6 years--all the way to an MBA. I wasnt given a penny for help from anyone in my family--I paid for myself by working in the summer. I ended up in the business side by chance--simply thats what my first roommate was there for--so I went with it as well. I got a very decent job right away in NY after graduating--yada yada 8 years later I dont have to work anymore---some luck there and some cahones--but it was built on hard hard work from a young age with absolutely ZERO privilege. Nothing--so when I hear that I dont get it and I dont personally believe in it. I believe in Obama and thats why I voted for him twice. You have to work hard in this world and those who dont get left behind and bitch. Sorry white people dont hate black people yellow people or green people==really I dont even think about it nor do i care because to me its a non issue.. If I was black and lived in the hood--Id work three F jobs and would get the F out to move my family to a decent place. And those who live there and bthc about it--thats on them--no one in this world forces them to be there. And finally like I said--cut the crime rate down and my bet is a lot of good things will happen.

First off, stop generalizing and painting everyone with a broad brush. The majority of black people who live in the inner-city are decent hard working families and quite a few of them have worked hard and are working hard to move to safer areas and or make their community a safer place to live. Not all white people hate blacks, but to think there aren't whites who do hate blacks, again would be ignorant on your part.

The fact that you are saying the color of a persons skin is a non-issue is either ignorance on your part or denial....Do you agree that there is systemic racism in this country?

It persists but I think it has lessened significantly in the last twenty years. It'd help a hell of a lot if the fabulously and unprecedentedly wealthy black athletes like Carmelo Anthony gave up two-thirds of their earnings to inner city issues. Has that notion crossed your mind? To ask him or others to give back? Money talks and genuine untold wealth can help.

I was always of the opinion that black athletes that make it out of the inner city should give back in some way whether its money for youth programs, investing in black businesses or just to give their time. Jim Brown is not acknowledged enough for the charitable work he has done especially going into some of the worse crime infested areas and re-mediating meetings between gang leaders, etc. More athletes and entertainers need to do this because they are revered by many young kids in the inner city and have the resources and influence to provoke change.

For as much sh#t as Marbury has taken, the one great thing he did was help create affordable sneakers for kids. That was big and innovative and I was hoping some athletes would follow his lead.

No question Athletes being more involved will help tremendously. The best and most effective solution is better parenting and more stable homes regardless of what is happening in the streets, education and the job market.

Too simplistic, my friend...and CashMoney himself, can attest to the power of peer pressure.

Parenting and home stability go hand in hand with economic issues. I saw this all the time as a teacher, parents having to work multiple jobs not being able to supervise their children properly.

I saw the thing CashMoney talked about- kids being pressured to be part of groupings which did not appreciate the importance of education.

A late former colleague talked about one African-American student, who I only knew from my work in the Deans Office, as being very intelligent, but influenced by kids who saw the education thing as uncool.

The classic theory is that most things fashioning personality and actions come from the family...but as an educator of many years I simply cannot say that this is always the case, and I have too many examples of this during my career to doubt the power of peer influences.

I wish it was that easy to take the straight and narrow path. I think I was lucky. My father was a teacher and Athletic Director, but he still had to work extra hours to raise 8 kids while my mother gave up her career to be an in-home mother. We were lacking in some things- didn't get a color TV until I was in college, but we had enough money to reside in a nice neighborhood and live somewhat comfortably.

Hard for me to understand poverty myself, though I've seen it, and my school had a large population eligible for free school lunches...a sign of relative poverty or financial duress.

In some cases, your way of thinking works, but the world is much more complicated, IMO.

Walter and Alpha,

I think you both as well as CashMoney cited peer pressure/ influence of kids as factors in viewing education as uncool. I have cited the 73% out of wedlock birthrate for blacks, a number that grew exponentially across all groups including whites with the War on Poverty legislation in the early 60's. Are both, peer thinking and out of wedlock births, cultural norms that need to change?

Backtracking a bit, but having lived through them, one of the biggest blows for progressives and blacks were the 1960's, a period of time which should have been the beginning of a transformation for many in this country.

Politically, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, and, perhaps more significantly, Martin Luther King, set the Liberal/Progressive/Civil Rights movement back, and in some ways, neutered it. The Vietnam War overshadowed the Great Society and Civil Rights movement, and also affected the nation's politics, and was a tremendous setback for certain groups in this nation.

In general folks are looking at "What," but not "Why," and this is a problem.

Some of the "solutions" presented by folks are ignorantly simplistic. People take the exception and then make it a rule...simply makes no sense.

Most problems seem rooted in poverty and a lack of opportunity. Identifying the "causes of these causes" is not a simple thing.

Racism/prejudice is part of the problem, but not the only thing causing the problem. You really want to create a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, and that society doesn't exist at this point?

This is a great post!! Thanks for sharing this.

Yea,

You can go back farther then the 60s though. Imagine if Marcus Garvey wasn't imprisoned and deported. Or Black Wall Street was able to prosper and expand. African Americans being able to fall back on that success and be happy to have that as apart of there culture and strive to maintain that level of success over the years. This during the early parts of today's America. The spread of wealth would be a lot different. African Americans also lost a lot of businesses after segregation ended. What if athletes from the negro leagues and African American sports leagues held there ground and maintained there own leagues and forced whites to merge into black owned leagues rather then into white owned leagues.

You had a foundation of legislation and leaders, and yet we were never able to see things play out. You can also add Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick moment, which effectively ended his presidential aspirations.

You want to use a Knicks analogy? What happened because of those assassinations in the 60s is comparable (sportswise...you really can't compare the two in terms of real importance, IMO) to Willis Reed's injuries, something I also had to live through. Knicks won 2 titles and had success, but they were never able to reach their full potential as a team because of Willis' injuries. We might very well be looking back at them being a dynasty if not for his physical demise. You had some political and social success in the 60s, but it always seemed incomplete and unfinished.

Achievement, with opportunity for further success. The thing about the 60's which is different from what you are pointing out is that you had quality leadership in place in the government, as well as strong popular leaders in the African American community...and then all of a sudden you didn't have them.

I'm always interested in "turning points," and I see the 60's as a big turning point, and I suppose that being around and seeing it also makes it more significant in my eyes.

You had a dream team in place, and in a few brief moments the dreams were gone.