Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

by Simon 254 Replies latest forum announcements

  • Simon
    Simon

    Fisherman: you are continuing to make a baseless claim - that it is accepted that OW was very aggresive in the first interaction with MB, it is not.

    And I know exactly what you are doing with your other claim - it's an attempt to make OW guilty for "starting" the situation, in the same way people wanted Zimmerman guilty for initially reporting Trayvon Martin.

    Again, it is not just the officers right to approach and confront people who are breaking the law or putting themselves or others at risk but it is their duty. To claim guilt because of this is simply rediculous.

    You will not receive any more warnings.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Desirous & Marvin,

    I spoke on the Page 7, not only of the need to vote . . but of much larger issues. The issue, as I see it, is being stuck in poverty and getting "in trouble with the law" in a disporportionate amount as other races.

    The powers that hold wealth, I think, don't really mind a day/week of a little rioting. The blacks/inner city are destroying their own neighborhood, furthering their poverty, and adding to the the picture that they are just mere thungs. Some rioting blows off their steam & frustration, and in a few days it will return to normal. They will be in poverty and the leaders (whether elitists or with money), will have to rule over/lead them becuase they are unruly. Manageable riotiing is encouraged becuase it keeps the masses impoverished (and they remain in power).

    The real issue is poverty. President Clinton's top economic advisor identified the things that lead to poverty: 1) Not graduating from high school, 2) having a baby before one is 20 years old, or 3) single (usually mom) parents. Look at the absolute rise in these things from the black/inner city community. It's hard for a group of people to admit that they are going in the wrong direction. For a while, the strength of the "Million Man March" led me to hope. And, shows like MTV's "Teen Mom" is hopeful. But, the fact is over these past decades the numbers of black (and even whites) who are failing at #1, #2, and #3 has alot to do with the issue of frustration and loss of hope.

    The other issue is technology. We have strong manufacturing, but it's not manual labor. It's being done by machines. Machinists, skilled labor, are in demand. The jobs for someone who has little set of job skills is restaurant and retail. Both, don't pay. Manual manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The countries that take our jobs have no rules, give us bum products back (Chinese drywall, plastic in baby formula . . . ) and we can't sue them and our government is too woosy to put an import tax on it to help fix the issues the products cause. The US borrows a crapload of money from China, to dole out as welfare to the people being shafted by the powerful

    The stuff that is manual, like pig factories, are being staffed by illegals (who may soon become citizens by President Obama's penstrike). The companies (like Smithfield Farms), advertise for workers in billboards in Central America. They come to the US, illegally, work, and send much of their money back to their families. And, our own government rounds up a few of the illegals, but is rare to round up the executives. Why won't companies, like Smithfield, hire more black people, who are legal? Nope, the powers that be are about to fix all that with legalizing millions of Central Americans, all for their vote. I find it absolutely frustrating. And, the blacks/inner city will riot for a few days over a case of two people, but fail to see the bigger picture, fail to vote, continue to perpetuate the stereotype, and not come together as a mass of people to change the inner city culture that has spiraled down the wrong path.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Why won't companies, like Smithfield, hire more black people, who are legal? Nope, the powers that be are about to fix all that with legalizing millions of Central Americans.

    Skeeter, the legalization of illegals is being promoted by the party that claims to give the greatest support to African Americans. They've been duped. Should they cross over and vote for the GOP which is against the social help programs that they are dependent upon?

    Doc

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Desirous,

    The 2 party system is a hoax. It's two sides of the same coin. They pretend to be a little different, but they are not. They don't rule our government, nor does any single politician you vote for. The Lobbyists rule our government. Lobbyists put massive influence on all three braches of government, with which laws to pass, who to appoint in government positions, and the reelection of state judiciary. Why do you think the FDA is filled with many ex-drug executives, or the EPA have ex-oil executives appointed throughout many, many years. The richest groups pay for the lobbyists. And, the richest of the rich would be bankers. A black person voting for a Democrat is as laughable as a white person voting for a Republican. Yeah, they put out abortion & gay marraige, but it's a side show. Both Republicans and Democrats are ruled by lobbyists.

    Let me give you an example. Remember the housing crisis? Obama came to Fort Myers. At that time, the legal system knew that the mortgages were faked. An attorney in Jacksonville even gave a continuing education course through the Florida Bar on how the signatures on documents were faked, about 6 months before President Obama was elected. As a result, she was getting loans written down to what the house was worth before the housing bubble. The powers that be did everything to stop her after her continuing education class. She was telling every lawyer in Florida. There is no doubt that the White House knew of these issues.

    But, quietly, millions of americans were foreclosed. Finally, when the housing market spiriled down, then President Obama came up with a fix. It was to lower the interest rate on the houses for a 5 year period, but then hit the homeowner with a balloon payment in 30 years for the foregone interest (with additional interst tacked on). People signed up, thinking they were getting something great. If they realized, they stopped paying. The White House prayed on the people not understanding loans/economics. So, President Obama came out with a "refinance at today's rate" for FNMA backed loans. People signed up. Now, the banks have alot of good signatures on loan documetns that they are not going to lose. But, there was no reduction in principal fo the debt to undue the effects of the housing bubble that was created by Wall Street & the government. Reducing principal was the real ticket, but then Wall Street would haver to recognize huge losses. Instead, President Obama gave them a little bit of reduced future earnings, and newly signed, original mortgages! And, both parties gave the banks millions becuase "they were too big to fail."

    Just like Obamacare. The architect of the plan admits it was passed becuase the American people were too stupid and didn't understand economics. . . . . My McKesson stock is souring through the roof since Obamacare was passed. Just saying . . . .

  • Simon
    Simon

    This discussion is not about politics, particularly party politics - please don't try to turn it into one, start a separate topic if you want to discuss it.

    I believe any group is capable of achieving whatever it is that their community promotes as being worthwhile and an ideal to strive for. We need to look at the reasons people make the choices that they do and have the attitudes that lead them to those decisions.

    While poverty is important as a factor I don't think it is the sole root cause. There is lots of evidence that children from broken homes do less well than children with supportive parents and in particular a lack of good male role models is damaging to the group at highest risk (teenage / young males).

    Whatever it is, I don't see anything happening or being promoted by leaders that is going to change things. It seems like people are indoctrinated to believe that everyone will always treat them badly and then they approach life with that belief which colors every interaction, seldom for the good. A better message would be to tell people what they can achieve and to promote the opportunities they have to improve their own lives and that of the community. It starts with better leaders with a plan to help people and who are more interested in positive change than ambulance chasing.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Whatever it is, I don't see anything happening or being promoted by leaders that is going to change things.

    Now we agree.

    So, the protesters (or at least some of them) will probably attempt to burn down Ferguson, Clayton, and downtown St Louis.

    In reality, that will be good for the St Louis economy as much of it in Clayton & downtown will likely be rebuilt. Of course, not so in Ferguson. Nobody gives a shit about a little suburb muncipality that is 70% minority.

    Doc

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Simon,

    My point isn't party politics, it's that the parties are mere puppets. Chasing ambulances would be a reference to trial attorneys, who also are a large segment of lobbyists. But, the money in being a Congressman is from courting lobbyists who put on fundraising dinners, pay for Congressional (& family travel), etc. Congressmen court big money lobbyists to throw the most lavish fundraising dinners, to get big donations to their campaign. When I worked at a law firm, select people running for reelection to judge postitions were brought around to every office and cubicle within the firm by the managing partner. It was known to all to have your checkbook ready. The firm didn't give money directly to the judges, each & every lawyer, secretary, and janitor gave money to his campaign for reelection! Nothing is going to change, becuase our leaders are tied into this system that is mastered by someone else's purse strings. A few days rioting, getting black people to vote Republican or Democrat, white people to vote Republican or Democrat . . . doesn't matter much at all. The Golden Rule applies: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

    You are absolutely correct on fatherlessness. That's what I was driving at in #3. A book is the "Broken Hearth", written a few decades ago. The economists were already seeing the devastating effects of fatherlessness on society. The numbers were staggering at the amount of black dads in jail and/or who completely left the family unit. This reality led to the Million Man March. Now, the figures are increasing in whites too.

    You are absolutely right on a positive "can do" attitude. I feel like half of America wants to slack off these days. Speaking of which, I better get to work myself.

    Skeeter

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yeah, I think too much is made of big business and congress.

    What matters to people at the grass roots level has more to do with local politics and policies than what happens at the national and international level. Micro economics matters more to individuals than macro economics.

    People can have a direct and dramatic effect on their neighbourhood if they want to or a negative effect. The politics of "it's not your fault" or "it's not your responsibility" don't help - at a local level it is everyone's responsibility and if things don't work then they must accept their part of the blame.

    In thise case, people are blaming policing being too white. What have they done to change that? Absolutely nothing it seems. So don't they share some of the blame for the situation?

    Rather than being told "you're a victim, the world is against us, it's because we are black" why aren't the leaders saying "we can change things! let's vote in someone in to local office to represent us, let's start being involved with community policing" etc...

    You don't need masses of outside funding to make your area a nicer place. There have always been poor downtrodden people but many worked hard to make the best they could of their neighbourhood and pretty soon places improved and things got better. If all you can do is paint a fence then you have improved things. If all you do is smash the place up then you can guarantee that people who can leave will leave and when businesses go bust there won't be anyone who wants to invest in the area to replace them. This has been played out over and over but so have communities that have thrived and done things for themselves but the belief that can happen seems to be getting rarer and rarer.

    Where are the entrepreneurs with some vision and imagination to harness people's abilities and energies for positive outcomes instead of destruction? Why is it only gangs that seem able to organize and motivate people?

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    http://governor.mo.gov/news/executive-orders/executive-order-14-14

    Governor of Missouri put up an executive order to oversee/contain the rioting that must be expected to occur. Like the GB, he has an opportunity to really say the right things to lead. Perhaps now is not the time, but when this all calms down I doubt that the obvious will be done.

    (Thankfully, I'm on a conference call right now).

  • AlphaMan
    AlphaMan

    Good grief.......the officer was called into the neighorhood to assist a baby in trouble. Then while leaving the area he spots Brown & Johnson walking down the middle of the stripped road that had sidewalks on each side. Is it really a stretch to believe that 5-7 170 Officer Wilson mearly told Brown & Johnson to get on the sidewalk? This Officer had no history or trouble and was not looking for trouble. Brown either mouthed off to the Officer or Wilson determinded that they fit the discription of 2 robbery suspects. Either way Brown escalated every step in this incident that led to his death.

    No store robbery by Brown, no police radio report of robbery suspects matching Brown & Johnson.

    No walking in the middle of the street, no stopping them by Officer Wilson.

    If Brown complied to get on the sidewalk, the Officer leaves.

    If Brown never attacked the Officer, the Officer doesn't go for his gun.

    If Brown doesn 't go for the Officer's gun, he doesn't get fatally shot.

    The evidence supports Officer Wilson's version of events over the version of Dorian Johnson's.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit