What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

Can't remember the last time a riot was so expected. We're all expecting no indictment, and we're all expecting a riot. Typically riots are the result of the unexpected.

I'm wondering: if the protestors are watching the news and paying attention, it seems to me that they would not be expecting an indictment either? If that is the case, then no matter how enraged it makes them, I doubt there will be a riot. Again, riots usually occur when people become emotional after a surprising, disappointing result. No matter how much you might disagree with a result, so long as you anticipate it, you're unlikely to become emotional enough to do stupid things.

 
mcintyre1 said:
Todem said:
Hopefully it will be a peaceful protest if the verdict does not go the way the demonstrators want. The fact the National Guard has been brought in already does not bode well for "peaceful".

Such a shame we have people in this world who can't voice their concerns peacefully, but instead they must burn, destroy and pillage their own neighborhood. It's just plain stupidity. I do not have any sympathy for people like that. They are part of the problem, not any type of solution.
I have all the sympathy in the world for them, and I won't disparage them for rioting if they do. Our society is not constructed to allow the downtrodden a voice. To some degree, that is an extension of how our government does not work for the people. If they don't respond in any meaningful way to relatively affluent middle class people, what hope do those in poverty have of achieving meaningful change through the system?If these protesters remained absolutely peaceful the media would cover it for a few days and then disappear. Some people would think "I feel really bad for them, they're in a terrible situation" for maybe a few weeks, and then we'd never really address the issue again until the next blowup.

History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means. We've been living under the spectre of unresolved race and, to a much larger degree, class issues for decades. We can't continue to ignore that forever and just expect it to go away.

IMO, we're basically reliving the 1930's. But that's OK, because Jim assured us there won't be any wide spread rioting.
To a lesser degree I don't disagree. However I believe race relations and tolerance have come a lot farther in the last decade than 25 years prior. It has been accomplished through law and change in the corporate world as well. And that includes Sports, Hollywood and more importantly small business's around the country as well as fortune 500 companies.

While I undetrstand how bad some inner city race relations are, the answer is not violence, but meaningful representation and change through the governmnet channels, at the voting booths and through business pressure. Hurt them where it really hurts, in the pocket book. Hold the Police accountable through strict pay control, pension benefits being pressured, sheriffs being replaced and if true fraud and corruption has taken place revoking tax payer's funded retirement pensions. There are ways to make changes to police corruption, cover up and racism.

Burning your own neighborhood which provides job's, goods and vital services to your family and yourself is not the answer.

It's a slippery slope. And again I sympathize with people who will use their strength and will from within over those that will just burn, destroy and pillage in the name of justice. It is not the answer, it is not the solution, and it will change nothing. If anything it will strengthen the hatred, and strengthen the perception that the inner cities are filled with nothing but "hood rats".

If you want to change that perception and make a change you must change the way you protest. Riots have done nothing in race relations other than make them more tense, destroy lives and kill people.
Thanks for the reasoned answer, I agree with a lot of what you said- if I believed that change could still be attained through official channels. I'm very pessimistic on that, and probably unreasonably so. In this specific instance (police violence against minorities), I'd love to see widespread roll out of personal cameras on police with heavy penalties against the officer if the camera "malfunctions." Minneapolis is piloting a camera program for MPD, and I'm really hopeful that it doesn't get destroyed by the police union. It's going to be a tough fight, though. The #Pointergate thing that hit the Daily Show and national news sources was a direct result of the police union trying to put our new Mayor in her place for forcing the camera system on them.

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.

So then ... that makes the upcoming Ferguson riots something like an overhead cost of maintaining a free society. Maybe in the long run, Ferguson itself will be better by some measure. Don't know. But it won't advance any kind of wider cause a whit.
I'm not advocating for the complete eradication of poverty. I agree that, in a capitalist system at least (and I'd agree that capitalism is, so far, the best system we've developed to support a free society), it cannot be eradicated. But I do vehemently disagree that we can't make a dent in it and that rioting can't ever lead to positive change (for me, the US Civil Rights era is the most pertinent example). I guess that's where we ultimately disagree, and I'm doubtful we'll be able to move each other much on that point.

 
Can't remember the last time a riot was so expected. We're all expecting no indictment, and we're all expecting a riot. Typically riots are the result of the unexpected.

I'm wondering: if the protestors are watching the news and paying attention, it seems to me that they would not be expecting an indictment either? If that is the case, then no matter how enraged it makes them, I doubt there will be a riot. Again, riots usually occur when people become emotional after a surprising, disappointing result. No matter how much you might disagree with a result, so long as you anticipate it, you're unlikely to become emotional enough to do stupid things.
Just because it wouldn't be surprising to us doesn't mean it wouldn't be surprising to those that would be inclined to riot. The media is stoking this pretty heavily.

I actually don't know if there will be an indictment or not. I wouldn't be surprised either way. Indictments are generally pretty easy to get.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
mcintyre1 said:
I'd love for us to live in a world where all grievances can be resolved in a rational, calm manner, but let's not pretend we're anywhere near that place.
Mods: Can we get moving on that Dislike This button please?
To expand on this, how, exactly, do you think we live in such a world when we can't even have calm political discussions on an anonymous message board about fantasy football? When our congress struggles to pass any law, let alone any specific law?
Well, we actually do have pretty calm discussions on this board -- we're having one right now. And even when people get bent out of shape, it's just still talking, not violence.

More to the point, though, the civil rights movement succeeded in swiftly remaking American society almost entirely peacefully -- the occasional race riot was the outlier, not the force that drove integration forward.

 
Governor Nixon holding a live press conference at 2pm for whatever this is.

ST. LOUIS (KMOV.com) Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon will swear in the members of the Ferguson Commission on Tuesday.

Last month, the governor announced plans to create an independent commission to study and make specific recommendations for how to make progress on the issues raised by events in Ferguson.

The governors office said they received 261 applications and nominations for the Ferguson Commission.

The commission will not have any interaction with the Ferguson Citizens Review Board, which was formed at the local level.

Tuesdays swearing in ceremony will take place at the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park at 2:00 p.m.
http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/Gov-Nixon-to-swear-in-members-of-Ferguson-Commission-Tuesday--283039691.html

 
I'm not advocating for the complete eradication of poverty. I agree that, in a capitalist system at least (and I'd agree that capitalism is, so far, the best system we've developed to support a free society), it cannot be eradicated. But I do vehemently disagree that we can't make a dent in it and that rioting can't ever lead to positive change (for me, the US Civil Rights era is the most pertinent example). I guess that's where we ultimately disagree, and I'm doubtful we'll be able to move each other much on that point.
Nearly all 60s rioting in cities like Detroit, Camden, Cleveland, Watts, et al came in the mid and late 60s after Congress had already passed the Civil Rights Act.

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in large part due to the negative reaction the American public had to the images they were seeing on TV in the late 50s and early 60s of mainly peaceful black protestors having hoses and dogs turned on them by white officers.

When the American public later saw the images of violent black riots in the mid and late 60s, the public did not feel sympathetic for the rioters but was instead turned off by them. The public voted for the more conservative Nixon in '68, and that period was the beginning of the mass exodus of the white lower and middle class from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party and the white flight from the cities to the burbs.

The lesson in both the white use of violence in the late 50s and early 60s and the black use of violence in the mid and late 60s is that the public is far more turned off by the violence than sympathetic toward it, and, as a result, violence generally hurts a cause rather than forwarding it.
excellent analysis. I pretty much agree 100%. There is also an argument to be made that anti war rioting in the late 1960s actually prolonged our involvement in Vietnam.

 
Anyone care to make this interesting? I'll take the the no indictment side. I'll parlay with over 50 injuries, over $10MM in property damage, and two deaths... For the super teaser I'll add that of the dead, one will be white and the other black.

 
I'm not advocating for the complete eradication of poverty. I agree that, in a capitalist system at least (and I'd agree that capitalism is, so far, the best system we've developed to support a free society), it cannot be eradicated. But I do vehemently disagree that we can't make a dent in it and that rioting can't ever lead to positive change (for me, the US Civil Rights era is the most pertinent example). I guess that's where we ultimately disagree, and I'm doubtful we'll be able to move each other much on that point.
Nearly all 60s rioting in cities like Detroit, Camden, Cleveland, Watts, et al came in the mid and late 60s after Congress had already passed the Civil Rights Act.

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in large part due to the negative reaction the American public had to the images they were seeing on TV in the late 50s and early 60s of mainly peaceful black protestors having hoses and dogs turned on them by white officers.

When the American public later saw the images of violent black riots in the mid and late 60s, the public did not feel sympathetic for the rioters but was instead turned off by them. The public voted for the more conservative Nixon in '68, and that period was the beginning of the mass exodus of the white lower and middle class from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party and the white flight from the cities to the burbs.

The lesson in both the white use of violence in the late 50s and early 60s and the black use of violence in the mid and late 60s is that the public is far more turned off by the violence than sympathetic toward it, and, as a result, violence generally hurts a cause rather than forwarding it.
excellent analysis. I pretty much agree 100%.There is also an argument to be made that anti war rioting in the late 1960s actually prolonged our involvement in Vietnam.
Huh, clearly my recollection of the timeline involved was very wrong. Thanks for the info Olaf. I'll read in to it more.

 
mcintyre1 said:
Todem said:
Hopefully it will be a peaceful protest if the verdict does not go the way the demonstrators want. The fact the National Guard has been brought in already does not bode well for "peaceful".

Such a shame we have people in this world who can't voice their concerns peacefully, but instead they must burn, destroy and pillage their own neighborhood. It's just plain stupidity. I do not have any sympathy for people like that. They are part of the problem, not any type of solution.
I have all the sympathy in the world for them, and I won't disparage them for rioting if they do. Our society is not constructed to allow the downtrodden a voice. To some degree, that is an extension of how our government does not work for the people. If they don't respond in any meaningful way to relatively affluent middle class people, what hope do those in poverty have of achieving meaningful change through the system?If these protesters remained absolutely peaceful the media would cover it for a few days and then disappear. Some people would think "I feel really bad for them, they're in a terrible situation" for maybe a few weeks, and then we'd never really address the issue again until the next blowup.

History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means. We've been living under the spectre of unresolved race and, to a much larger degree, class issues for decades. We can't continue to ignore that forever and just expect it to go away.

IMO, we're basically reliving the 1930's. But that's OK, because Jim assured us there won't be any wide spread rioting.
You think rioting is going to bring meaningful change for blacks? :lol:

Let me know what black riot ever brought meaningful change for blacks? I maybe you are right, in the 60's when they rioted, anyone with the means to do so went as far away as possible from them, so I guess you have that going for you!!!

 
Lets be clear on any type of violence. It is effective in one way only. You need to be prepared to kill everyone who matters and even some who do not. Otherwise, the public turns against you and you lose. The most effective Communist regimes of the 20th century understood this an gained a significant amount of power through the use of violence.

Even in our own case, in trying to fight our stupid wars over the last 50 years, we lose every time simply because we, as a society, do not have the balls to take things all the way. Iraq could have been easily changed. We just would have had to murder millions of people, then they would be doing everything we say. We do not have the stomach for that, so we do not really change anything in fighting these piddly distractions we call war.

If blacks think they are going to war, they are sadly mistaken if they feel they will win anything. They will looked at as 'the other' in our society more than ever, and will set back the clock another 50 years on their own civil rights. Of course, that is what the politicians want; a subservient underclass that is powerless to change its own diaper. I am sure Odumbo will be popping champagne when he sees the first protester/looter cut down by gunfire.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1 said:
Todem said:
Hopefully it will be a peaceful protest if the verdict does not go the way the demonstrators want. The fact the National Guard has been brought in already does not bode well for "peaceful".

Such a shame we have people in this world who can't voice their concerns peacefully, but instead they must burn, destroy and pillage their own neighborhood. It's just plain stupidity. I do not have any sympathy for people like that. They are part of the problem, not any type of solution.
I have all the sympathy in the world for them, and I won't disparage them for rioting if they do. Our society is not constructed to allow the downtrodden a voice. To some degree, that is an extension of how our government does not work for the people. If they don't respond in any meaningful way to relatively affluent middle class people, what hope do those in poverty have of achieving meaningful change through the system?If these protesters remained absolutely peaceful the media would cover it for a few days and then disappear. Some people would think "I feel really bad for them, they're in a terrible situation" for maybe a few weeks, and then we'd never really address the issue again until the next blowup.

History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means. We've been living under the spectre of unresolved race and, to a much larger degree, class issues for decades. We can't continue to ignore that forever and just expect it to go away.

IMO, we're basically reliving the 1930's. But that's OK, because Jim assured us there won't be any wide spread rioting.
You think rioting is going to bring meaningful change for blacks? :lol:

Let me know what black riot ever brought meaningful change for blacks? I maybe you are right, in the 60's when they rioted, anyone with the means to do so went as far away as possible from them, so I guess you have that going for you!!!
I think rioting draws attention to issues that most people willfully ignore because they're hard issues. I think that attention can bring meaningful change. As has been pointed out to me (thanks Olaf), the Civil Rights era is a terrible example for me to use, because the riots came after most of the changes had already happened at a federal level. We'd all prefer change to happen completely peacefully, but I still hold the opinion that there are times when peaceful efforts fall on deaf ears and will inevitably devolve into violence, and that violence can lead to positive change in the long term as we become retrospective on the causes behind it, similar to reforms made in police procedures after the Cincinnati Riots in '01 or the the LA Riots.

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.

 
mcintyre1 said:
Todem said:
Hopefully it will be a peaceful protest if the verdict does not go the way the demonstrators want. The fact the National Guard has been brought in already does not bode well for "peaceful".

Such a shame we have people in this world who can't voice their concerns peacefully, but instead they must burn, destroy and pillage their own neighborhood. It's just plain stupidity. I do not have any sympathy for people like that. They are part of the problem, not any type of solution.
I have all the sympathy in the world for them, and I won't disparage them for rioting if they do. Our society is not constructed to allow the downtrodden a voice. To some degree, that is an extension of how our government does not work for the people. If they don't respond in any meaningful way to relatively affluent middle class people, what hope do those in poverty have of achieving meaningful change through the system?If these protesters remained absolutely peaceful the media would cover it for a few days and then disappear. Some people would think "I feel really bad for them, they're in a terrible situation" for maybe a few weeks, and then we'd never really address the issue again until the next blowup.

History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means. We've been living under the spectre of unresolved race and, to a much larger degree, class issues for decades. We can't continue to ignore that forever and just expect it to go away.

IMO, we're basically reliving the 1930's. But that's OK, because Jim assured us there won't be any wide spread rioting.
You think rioting is going to bring meaningful change for blacks? :lol:

Let me know what black riot ever brought meaningful change for blacks? I maybe you are right, in the 60's when they rioted, anyone with the means to do so went as far away as possible from them, so I guess you have that going for you!!!
I think rioting draws attention to issues that most people willfully ignore because they're hard issues. I think that attention can bring meaningful change. As has been pointed out to me (thanks Olaf), the Civil Rights era is a terrible example for me to use, because the riots came after most of the changes had already happened at a federal level. We'd all prefer change to happen completely peacefully, but I still hold the opinion that there are times when peaceful efforts fall on deaf ears and will inevitably devolve into violence, and that violence can lead to positive change in the long term as we become retrospective on the causes behind it, similar to reforms made in police procedures after the Cincinnati Riots in '01 or the the LA Riots.
What exactly do you think is going to change? Or what should change? The way I see it, the kid got into a major tussle with a cop. Sorry, but anytime that happens, no matter what color you are, the cop might kill you. That is the way it goes and why should that change? Also, what peaceful efforts are the poor currently making to enact change?

Over where I live, a couple of gangbangers shot some bullets into a house last week and blew the head off of a five year old sitting in Grandpa's lap. I am not joking, this happened last week.

http://www.people.com/article/laylah-petersen-shooting-victim-family-donates-heart

Nobody, outside of her family and a few people in the neighborhood is up in arms about this, as a matter of fact, nobody has even turned these slugs in yet. Why anyone cares about Micheal Brown, I really do not understand. He got what was coming to him when he assaulted the cop. I'm telling you, the only type of change this type of thing will cause is more segregation, more racism, and more profiling.

P.S. Go on Wikipedia and look up police killings, there are around 20 - 40 a month that happen all over the country. Most likely 90% are justified and who cares about the ones that are not, none of you give a rip about the little 5 year old who is missing half of her skull, due to the 'negligence' of the brothers who worship and emulate the 'gangster' style that we all love to listen to on the way to work every morning.

 
I'm not advocating for the complete eradication of poverty. I agree that, in a capitalist system at least (and I'd agree that capitalism is, so far, the best system we've developed to support a free society), it cannot be eradicated. But I do vehemently disagree that we can't make a dent in it and that rioting can't ever lead to positive change (for me, the US Civil Rights era is the most pertinent example). I guess that's where we ultimately disagree, and I'm doubtful we'll be able to move each other much on that point.
Nearly all 60s rioting in cities like Detroit, Camden, Cleveland, Watts, et al came in the mid and late 60s after Congress had already passed the Civil Rights Act.

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in large part due to the negative reaction the American public had to the images they were seeing on TV in the late 50s and early 60s of mainly peaceful black protestors having hoses and dogs turned on them by white officers.

When the American public later saw the images of violent black riots in the mid and late 60s, the public did not feel sympathetic for the rioters but was instead turned off by them. The public voted for the more conservative Nixon in '68, and that period was the beginning of the mass exodus of the white lower and middle class from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party and the white flight from the cities to the burbs.

The lesson in both the white use of violence in the late 50s and early 60s and the black use of violence in the mid and late 60s is that the public is far more turned off by the violence than sympathetic toward it, and, as a result, violence generally hurts a cause rather than forwarding it.
excellent analysis. I pretty much agree 100%.There is also an argument to be made that anti war rioting in the late 1960s actually prolonged our involvement in Vietnam.
Huh, clearly my recollection of the timeline involved was very wrong. Thanks for the info Olaf. I'll read in to it more.
Not wrong. Just a different interpretation.

While Olaf is correct in his description of what happened in the 1960s, that does NOT mean that, as a general rule, positive change in this country is achieved through peaceful means. Say what you will about the labor unions, to cite one example, but they were absolutely essential for the creation of the middle class in this country, and they won most of their gains through strikes which were violent in creation and violent in response.

There are no general rules to these things. Sometimes violence creates a positive result. Sometimes it doesn't. But it's rarely justified when it is actually taking place, and it certainly wouldn't be justified in this situation.

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.

We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.

We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?
Yes, the real problem with the poor is that they're spending all their money on their electric bills!!

:lol:

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.

We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?
Yes, the real problem with the poor is that they're spending all their money on their electric bills!!

:lol:
Yeah, I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying here. Electric bills are the least of it. Energy costs affect the price of everything. With nuclear fusion, the cost of energy would potentially be 1/100th of what it is now- or less. Imagine wages staying the same but the price of everything you buy dropping dramatically- milk 10 cents a gallon. An iPhone cost you $5. A new house cost you $8000. Etc.

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.

We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?
Yes, the real problem with the poor is that they're spending all their money on their electric bills!!

:lol:
Yeah, I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying here. Electric bills are the least of it. Energy costs affect the price of everything. With nuclear fusion, the cost of energy would potentially be 1/100th of what it is now- or less. Imagine wages staying the same but the price of everything you buy dropping dramatically- milk 10 cents a gallon. An iPhone cost you $5. A new house cost you $8000. Etc.
So what. So the poor would be able to afford another big screen and a 4th playstation. Problem solved!!!!

:lol:

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.

We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?
Yes, the real problem with the poor is that they're spending all their money on their electric bills!!

:lol:
Yeah, I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying here. Electric bills are the least of it. Energy costs affect the price of everything. With nuclear fusion, the cost of energy would potentially be 1/100th of what it is now- or less. Imagine wages staying the same but the price of everything you buy dropping dramatically- milk 10 cents a gallon. An iPhone cost you $5. A new house cost you $8000. Etc.
So what. So the poor would be able to afford another big screen and a 4th playstation. Problem solved!!!!

:lol:
You know, at first I was going to respond with a "you're still not getting it" (because you really aren't) but then it occurred to me that your response, as crude as it is, is pretty close to the truth. Yes I do believe that economic prosperity would solve most of our problems- not necessary another big screen and a 4th playstation, but the absence of debt, plentiful employment, good safe schools for your kids to attend, nice neighborhoods, economic security. Not being rich, but the absence of being poor. Yes I seriously think that this is at the roots of the world's problems, be it in Africa or here or Israel and Palestine. When people are well-fed and enjoy living and don't feel threatened, they don't riot and they don't go to war and they don't treat others with intolerance, no matter what their religion or culture teaches them.

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.

We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?
Yes, the real problem with the poor is that they're spending all their money on their electric bills!!

:lol:
Yeah, I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying here. Electric bills are the least of it. Energy costs affect the price of everything. With nuclear fusion, the cost of energy would potentially be 1/100th of what it is now- or less. Imagine wages staying the same but the price of everything you buy dropping dramatically- milk 10 cents a gallon. An iPhone cost you $5. A new house cost you $8000. Etc.
So what. So the poor would be able to afford another big screen and a 4th playstation. Problem solved!!!!

:lol:
You know, at first I was going to respond with a "you're still not getting it" (because you really aren't) but then it occurred to me that your response, as crude as it is, is pretty close to the truth. Yes I do believe that economic prosperity would solve most of our problems- not necessary another big screen and a 4th playstation, but the absence of debt, plentiful employment, good safe schools for your kids to attend, nice neighborhoods, economic security. Not being rich, but the absence of being poor. Yes I seriously think that this is at the roots of the world's problems, be it in Africa or here or Israel and Palestine. When people are well-fed and enjoy living and don't feel threatened, they don't riot and they don't go to war and they don't treat others with intolerance, no matter what their religion or culture teaches them.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a link to a study that details everything you've noted above, or is this another uninformed Tim opinion?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now he's insisting I provide evidence that my speculative thoughts about nuclear fusion are true? Maybe tgunz is right about Strike...

 
Now he's insisting I provide evidence that my speculative thoughts about nuclear fusion are true? Maybe tgunz is right about Strike...
Nope. Just confirming that this was your opinion and not anything you had actually researched. So I can give it the weight that it deserves.

 
I'm guessing no announcement until the national guard is in place.. people will be free to protest, but any looting and violence will dealt with harshly..
They could be waiting for the coldest day in the forecast. The demographic that likes to loot and riot is not fond of the cold.
Link?
First hand sources...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Zfp-5VRYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXXTnPxUU64

http://quintessentialnegro.blogspot.com/2006/04/cold-hard-facts.html
How persuasive, Cedric The Entertainer and two people no one ever heard of.
Try life experience and actually talking to black people. I'm not exactly breaking new ground here by stating the obvious that black people are not as fond of the cold as white people.

And how white supremacist of you to completely disregard the viewpoints of three black people.
This is really awful shtick, Slingblade.

 
mcintyre1 said:
If strict controls are put in place to prevent outright exploitation of the lower classes and moderate redistribution of wealth into public services that benefit everyone, everyone prospers. If those controls fail, the lowest among us get squeezed and squeezed until there is no incentive for them to remain quiet and their anger will manifest itself in violence. This is what happens when you put masses of discontented people in a powerless position.
Well, then this is an unsolvable human problem in the current set-up of the U.S. Poverty can never be eradicated in a free society -- probably can't even put much of a dent into it.
We've spent trillions in the war on poverty and the government's own index shows that just about the same percentage of the population live in poverty from the 60s-now. It really hasn't changed all that much.
You're absolutely right. I am one, as you know, in favor of spending much more on education than we do, especially in poor urban areas. But I acknowledge that's no going to solve the problem.We need to come up with cheaper energy that makes everyone's lives more prosperous. I was thinking about this the other day: suppose Lockheed really was able to produce nuclear fusion. Can you imagine how our lives would all change? I believe that if that happened, poor people living in the ghettoes of America would eventually have enough spending power to purchase most of the luxuries that rich people can now afford. And were that to occur, I think racism and economic resentment would be relegated to a distance past. Maybe I'm dreaming?
Yes, the real problem with the poor is that they're spending all their money on their electric bills!!

:lol:
Yeah, I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying here. Electric bills are the least of it. Energy costs affect the price of everything. With nuclear fusion, the cost of energy would potentially be 1/100th of what it is now- or less. Imagine wages staying the same but the price of everything you buy dropping dramatically- milk 10 cents a gallon. An iPhone cost you $5. A new house cost you $8000. Etc.
So what. So the poor would be able to afford another big screen and a 4th playstation. Problem solved!!!!

:lol:
You know, at first I was going to respond with a "you're still not getting it" (because you really aren't) but then it occurred to me that your response, as crude as it is, is pretty close to the truth. Yes I do believe that economic prosperity would solve most of our problems- not necessary another big screen and a 4th playstation, but the absence of debt, plentiful employment, good safe schools for your kids to attend, nice neighborhoods, economic security. Not being rich, but the absence of being poor. Yes I seriously think that this is at the roots of the world's problems, be it in Africa or here or Israel and Palestine. When people are well-fed and enjoy living and don't feel threatened, they don't riot and they don't go to war and they don't treat others with intolerance, no matter what their religion or culture teaches them.
There will always be poor people. See: bell curve
 
mcintyre1 said:
mcintyre1 said:
History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means.
This is complete BS when you look at modern times.

I don't recall gays starting riots and burning stuff to the ground in order to get more rights.

I don't recall violence being the catalyst for the civil rights movement.

I don't recall women taking up arms.

In fact your statement is idiotic and nothing more than an attempt to justify violent means in today's world by attempting to glamorize past wars and violent struggles.

 
mcintyre1 said:
mcintyre1 said:
History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means.
This is complete BS when you look at modern times.I don't recall gays starting riots and burning stuff to the ground in order to get more rights.

I don't recall violence being the catalyst for the civil rights movement.

I don't recall women taking up arms.

In fact your statement is idiotic and nothing more than an attempt to justify violent means in today's world by attempting to glamorize past wars and violent struggles.
Maybe you don't recall it but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The gay rights movement began in 1969 with a riot called Stonewall. The black civil rights movement certainly did involve violence on all sides, though Olaf is correct to assert that often violence had an adverse effect- though not always. And the women's movement was, from the beginning , among the most violent of movements- particularly the Suffragettes in England, but also here.

So his statement is not idiotic at all.

 
mcintyre1 said:
mcintyre1 said:
History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means.
This is complete BS when you look at modern times.I don't recall gays starting riots and burning stuff to the ground in order to get more rights.

I don't recall violence being the catalyst for the civil rights movement.

I don't recall women taking up arms.

In fact your statement is idiotic and nothing more than an attempt to justify violent means in today's world by attempting to glamorize past wars and violent struggles.
Maybe you don't recall it but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.The gay rights movement began in 1969 with a riot called Stonewall. The black civil rights movement certainly did involve violence on all sides, though Olaf is correct to assert that often violence had an adverse effect- though not always. And the women's movement was, from the beginning , among the most violent of movements- particularly the Suffragettes in England, but also here.

So his statement is not idiotic at all.
You are picking blips on the radar. Stonewall has nothing to do with the widespread acceptance gays are experiencing today. The Suffragettes of England are not the reason women make up such a huge percentage of the workforce today. The wikipedia entry on womens suffrage mentions violence exactly twice. One referring to near violence and one referring to violence against demonstrators, not by.

Even the actual violent examples were never situations where people looted and robbed like they did in Ferguson or L.A.

You are from California Tim(I grew up there as well). You saw first hand exactly how little violence accomplishes for civil rights.

 
mcintyre1 said:
mcintyre1 said:
History shows us that, by and large, change is not achieved by purely peaceful means.
This is complete BS when you look at modern times.I don't recall gays starting riots and burning stuff to the ground in order to get more rights.

I don't recall violence being the catalyst for the civil rights movement.

I don't recall women taking up arms.

In fact your statement is idiotic and nothing more than an attempt to justify violent means in today's world by attempting to glamorize past wars and violent struggles.
Maybe you don't recall it but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.The gay rights movement began in 1969 with a riot called Stonewall. The black civil rights movement certainly did involve violence on all sides, though Olaf is correct to assert that often violence had an adverse effect- though not always. And the women's movement was, from the beginning , among the most violent of movements- particularly the Suffragettes in England, but also here.

So his statement is not idiotic at all.
You are picking blips on the radar. Stonewall has nothing to do with the widespread acceptance gays are experiencing today. The Suffragettes of England are not the reason women make up such a huge percentage of the workforce today. The wikipedia entry on womens suffrage mentions violence exactly twice. One referring to near violence and one referring to violence against demonstrators, not by. Even the actual violent examples were never situations where people looted and robbed like they did in Ferguson or L.A.

You are from California Tim(I grew up there as well). You saw first hand exactly how little violence accomplishes for civil rights.
yes I did; that's why I agreed with Olaf. But as I wrote earlier, there's no general rule to this stuff. Sometimes violence works and sometimes it doesn't. I think we can both agree that in the case of Ferguson (as in most racially charged incidents in the past several decades) violence does nothing to advance the cause of those who engage in it.

 
yes I did; that's why I agreed with Olaf. But as I wrote earlier, there's no general rule to this stuff. Sometimes violence works and sometimes it doesn't.I think we can both agree that in the case of Ferguson (as in most racially charged incidents in the past several decades) violence does nothing to advance the cause of those who engage in it.
I think there is somewhat of a formula.

If the violence is in the moment, there is a small chance it could lead to positive change.

If the violence is after the fact revenge, it will only hurt the cause.

 
Oakland To Offer ‘Healing Centers’ As Police, Shop Owners Prepare For Ferguson Verdict


CBS, November 18, 2014 9:12 PM
OAKLAND (CBS SF) — Business owners in Oakland prepped their storefronts in anticipation of protests over an expected grand jury decision on the police shooting of an unarmed man in Ferguson Missouri. Meanwhile, the city says it will open “healing centers” for those who remain troubled by the incident.

Dion Bullock’s downtown Oakland shoe store Groupie suffered damage in a protest over the Trayvon Martin case, and fears what might happen after the grand jury’s decision on Ferguson.

“As a business owner, we’re kind of nervous because we don’t know what to expect,” Bullock said.

Mayor Jean Quan seemed to warn Oaklanders to expect the worst, calling on business owners in an open letter to save recordings of criminal activity, cover exterior doors with a steel plate, and leave the cash drawer empty.

The Mayor also announced four so-called “healing centers” where people can come to vent their frustrations, rather than taking them out on the city.

The San Francisco Chronicle lists the three locations for dialogue about the shooting as:

  • Youth Uprising at 8711 MacArthur Boulevard
  • Youth Employment Partnership at 2300 International Bvd.
  • Health Communities/Healthy Oakland at 2580 San Pablo Ave and 1485 8th Street.
The city is determined to be ready this time. Police Chief Sean Whent admitted his officers were caught flat-footed during the Trayvon Martin protests.

“What happened that evening was largely an intelligence failure,” Whent said.
 
Lets be clear on any type of violence. It is effective in one way only. You need to be prepared to kill everyone who matters and even some who do not. Otherwise, the public turns against you and you lose. The most effective Communist regimes of the 20th century understood this an gained a significant amount of power through the use of violence.

Even in our own case, in trying to fight our stupid wars over the last 50 years, we lose every time simply because we, as a society, do not have the balls to take things all the way. Iraq could have been easily changed. We just would have had to murder millions of people, then they would be doing everything we say. We do not have the stomach for that, so we do not really change anything in fighting these piddly distractions we call war.

If blacks think they are going to war, they are sadly mistaken if they feel they will win anything. They will looked at as 'the other' in our society more than ever, and will set back the clock another 50 years on their own civil rights. Of course, that is what the politicians want; a subservient underclass that is powerless to change its own diaper. I am sure Odumbo will be popping champagne when he sees the first protester/looter cut down by gunfire.
So you need to make it more of a "final solution"?

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
well that depends ...do you want to watch people get tackled ....or watch a bunch of guys in uniforms and helmets beat people up

 
'Bracing' for Violence in Ferguson

NRO; November 19, 2014

Beleaguered store owners in Ferguson, Mo., are boarding up their shop windows again; police departments throughout the area are purchasing riot gear; and the governor of Missouri has declared a state of emergency, a condition precedent to activating the National Guard — all in anticipation of the grand jury’s imminent decision on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in August. These depressing precautions are considered normal. Fifty years after the cataclysmic riots of the 1960s, rioting is still regarded as virtually a black entitlement. No one is “bracing,” in press parlance, for white riots or police violence should Officer Wilson be indicted. Nor were there preparations for Asian riots last month in Los Angeles as a jury heard a murder case against a 22-year-old thug from South Central L.A., who, along with an accomplice, had shot two Chinese engineering students attending the University of Southern California in 2012. That murder, as the Ph.D. candidates sat quietly in their car near campus, was part of a horrific pattern of attacks on Asian students at USC, one that has not resulted in either the threat or the reality of Asian “unrest.”

The fear of riots in Ferguson has grown more intense because of a growing sense that the grand jury might not deliver a murder indictment. Why might it not indict for murder? There is no hint of jury bias or biased prosecution, despite the groundless and incendiary claim to the contrary by a Brown family lawyer. Rather, the jury might not indict for murder because the evidence might not support a murder charge. The story offered up by Brown’s friend Dorian Johnson about the shooting — that Wilson had grabbed Brown without provocation and tried to choke him, and then had ruthlessly shot Brown when his hands were up — was always unlikely. Forensic evidence supports Wilson’s claim that Brown had repeatedly punched and scratched Wilson in his car and tried to grab his gun, putting Wilson in fear for his life. One might think that it would be good news if Wilson did not initiate the violent encounter or shoot Brown in cold blood: It would mean one less instance of alleged police brutality. Instead, the possibility that there might be no basis for charging murder apparently increases the risk of violence, since the conviction that Brown was the victim of murderous police racism is unfalsifiable.
Normal, as well, is the sickening sense of dread with which one awaits another possible outbreak of black rage. The press’s eager expectation of such an outbreak is palpable. After all, it has been fueling the conceit for years that blacks remain under siege by white bigots in the criminal-justice system, schools, and workplace. The Obama administration has lent its prestige to this conceit, charging, for instance, that the elevated rate of black school suspensions reflects administrator and teacher bias. The disproportionate rate of black students’ misbehavior is left completely out of the anti-discipline crusade, just as the disproportionate rate of black crime is ignored when the media, the White House, and academics discuss allegedly racist police activity and incarceration. The mantra of the Ferguson protests is “stop killing us.” Amazingly, this command is directed at police officers, not at black criminals. In 2013, there were 6,261 black homicide victims in the United States. The police kill roughly 400 individuals a year, most of them armed and dangerous, out of about 40 million police-civilian contacts. If the police eliminated all fatal shootings, it would have almost no impact on the black homicide risk. The killers of those black homicide victims are overwhelmingly other blacks, resulting in a death rate in inner cities that is ten times higher for blacks than for whites. In 2013, 5,375 blacks were arrested for homicide, compared with 4,396 white and Hispanic homicide suspects combined. Blacks are only 13 percent of the national population. Recent black victims of this black homicide spree include a 29-year-old woman who was shot in the head in Watts in late October 2014, a 15-month-old girl who was killed by stray gunfire in Irvington, N.J., also in October, and a 14-year-old girl who was killed in Paterson, N.J., in September. No one “braced” for riots after those killings.

Al Sharpton crows constantly about his favored status as President Obama’s civil-rights liaison. If he wanted to actually earn such an august role, he should be out in Ferguson every day insisting that civil violence is never justified, that no hard-working store owner deserves to have his livelihood destroyed for an incident he had no control over, and that blacks do themselves no favor with the implicit threat of riots. Such violence betrays the millions of hardworking blacks who deplore criminality and fiercely defend law and order. Sharpton should emphasize that the grand-jury proceeding has been thorough and conscientious. Brown family lawyers complain that it has gone on too long, as if length is a sign of malfeasance; had the proceedings been brief and the outcome not to their liking, they would have complained about brevity. A black-separatist group has offered a $5,000 bounty for the location of Officer Wilson. Wilson’s life is effectively destroyed. Sharpton and other black leaders should denounce such slow-motion lynchings. Ferguson’s business community will also be wounded for years. Sharpton could announce a “Buy Ferguson” campaign. And U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, before he leaves his post, could emphasize that America’s criminal-justice system is a model of fairness.

It will, of course, take an enormous amount of courage for the grand jury to follow the evidence, if that evidence is insufficient to indict for murder. But the violence, should it come, is ultimately not the worst aspect of the malaise attendant on the grand jury’s deliberations. The worst is simply the reminder of the country’s persistent racial divide.
 
Oh, thank God. The National Review is here to explain racial strife and the frustrations of minorities and the underclass with perceived injustice to us.

Thank you to the poster and the trusted folks at the National Review for bringing their wide-ranging expertise and insight in these matters to us.

 
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Interesting day to pick. Uses up the whole weekend, so you don't have Friday night & Saturday night issues. Of course, the NFL will have a lot of people occupied. And, as of right now, weather.com shows the Sunday forecast for the St. Louis area as upper 40s with 100% chance of rain during the day.

The only thing more they could have asked for is a windy, bitter-cold snow day. But all-day rain in chilly air will suffice.

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Link?

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Pfft. They should really announce on Black Friday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Pfft. They should really announce on Black Friday.
That is the greatest idea I've ever heard.

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.
Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Pfft. They should really announce on Black Friday.
That is the greatest idea I've ever heard.
I can't even imagine the mayhem that would cause.

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Pfft. They should really announce on Black Friday.
That is the greatest idea I've ever heard.
At Walmart.

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Link?
http://fox2now.com/2014/11/19/ferguson-grand-jury-could-reach-decision-as-early-as-friday/

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Link?
http://fox2now.com/2014/11/19/ferguson-grand-jury-could-reach-decision-as-early-as-friday/
Uhh, so possibly Sunday.

 
No announcement yet?
What a stupid day if true.
Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html
Just heard. Public announcement on Sunday. So do I watch football or riots? Touch call.
Link?
http://fox2now.com/2014/11/19/ferguson-grand-jury-could-reach-decision-as-early-as-friday/
Uhh, so possibly Sunday.
They should have Costas announce the verdict during one of his soapbox sermons on Sunday Night Football.
 
Thank you to the poster and the trusted folks at the National Review for bringing their wide-ranging expertise and insight in these matters to us.
You're welcome.

In the future I'll be sure to only post things that TobiasFunke approves of. Hopefully Ta-Nehisi Coates publishes an article on Ferguson tomorrow.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top