bullets13

I don't have a problem with the media bringing to light a police officer murdering someone who is merely running away. I DO have a problem with the media trying to make it sound like these handful of murders a year is some kind of epidemic. Realistically, if you look at the actual facts, there are maybe what, 3 or 4 murders by cops a year against African Americans? Now, bear in mind, I'm not talking about justified shootings, or cases where someone is all hyped up on PCP and dies because it took 6 tazers to stop them. I'm talking about shootings like the one that recently surfaced with the guy getting shot in the back in while running away. Shootings like that one are a big deal, and SHOULD be reported as such. The problem is how little common sense the general public uses when assessing who is right and who is wrong in many of these shootings. The media is guilty of spurring this on, however. Look at what happened with Mike Brown. The media slanted things so badly from the beginning that the average African American STILL thinks that the officer did something wrong there! Eric Gardner is another good example, with legitimate news sources reporting that he was "choked to death for selling loose cigarettes." In fact, he resisted arrest, and had done so before, leading to several officers jumping on him when he resisted once again. Complications of obesity, along with other pre-existing conditions, aggravated by his struggle with police ultimately led to his death. the quasi-chokehold that he was in for about 6 seconds had nothing to do with his death! Yet still, thanks to the media's coverage of those two events, dozens of athletes and other types of stars wore "I can't breathe" shirts, perpetuating the myth that police had choked him to death. "Hands up, don't shoot" is another one, of course coming out of the Ferguson shooting. The only problem is in both cases the cops did very little wrong, yet those are two cases immediately brought up when pundits want to talk about "police brutality" and an "epidemic of police murders."

I read stuff like this a lot. In very rare occasions, you'll see a video of a police officer shooting someone with little or no provocation. but 99% of the time, the criminal brings it upon himself. his death has nothing to do with the original reason he was stopped, other than the fact that if he weren't a criminal, he likely wouldn't have been stopped in the first place, and he certainly wouldn't have run. you are, however, absolutely right that running from the cops is a bad idea. When you cooperate, you can get everything straightened out at some point. When you choose to run, police are much more likely to misinterpret an action as one of aggression, which could lead to the miniscule chance that you might get shot.

protesters may have a point here, we'll know more when all the facts come out, but it's all been overshadowed by the looting and rioting. for every person who's outraged into action by one of these cases, there's another who's just looking to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain. Whether it's the race baiters that pop out of the woodwork looking for camera time, or the looters who are just looking for a "justified" reason to steal, it's a shame that so many people take advantage of situations like this. I'll never understand the stance of "I'm angry because of the way that the police treat those in my community, so I'm going to steal from and burn my community".

yep. but from what I've heard, he may have been hurt after he'd already been arrested.

It's entitled "Racism in America, I'm Caught Up in the Web: Autobiography of a Mental Patient." So I'm guessing from the title he believes he's been in a mental hospital all this time because of his race, and not because he ate his mother?

I said I could not access the site because my work's firewall had the site labelled as "hate speech." Again, you didn't quite get it right. That being said, seeing as 95% of your articles take a few facts and then twist them into blatantly false accusations or gross misrepresentations, even an embedded fox video means very little. But seeing that "as far as you're concerned, the site is legit", you know, just because, there's no point in trying to prove to you otherwise. You've shown us at least 500 times that you'll believe ANYTHING a radical right website tells you to believe, even when the article is proven false. So ironically enough, while you continue to throw accusations that the left calls any website that posts articles for the right "fake" on the sole basis of them not agreeing with them, you continue to regurgitate false "news stories" with total blind faith simply because you DO agree with them.

If the rangers get him at this incredible discount that's being reported, I'm fine with it. I think they've proven they can keep his head on straight, and when his head's on straight, he's a pretty dang good player.

Another hot tip for whether or not a website is a real political website or not: If one of their top stories is entitled "Jeb Bush is Going to Get Chubby Again", you probably do not have a winner. [Hidden Content] ;)

Typical Smitty: posting an article without vetting it, and then demanding that others prove it wrong rather than taking the responsibility of posting truthful links. I'm not doing your work for you. And it's a fake site when the majority of it's "news" articles grossly misrepresent or blatantly fabricate the truth. My agreeing with it or not agreeing with it has nothing to do with making it fake, no more than it fitting into your narrow belief system makes it real.

If I thought that not having access to contraception would keep them from having sex, I would kinda be able to follow your logic. That being said, in this case I don't believe contraception is going to encourage sinning, and I do believe it will help reduce the amount of money the US has to waste on children born here to unwed immigrant mothers.

I kinda think you're right. But still, considering how strongly many feel about not having this huge influx of illegal aliens, it seems crazy to me that we'd be okay with the organization dealing with them when they make it here not doing the things they could to keep those illegal aliens from becoming pregnant.

do you feel the same way about birth control? serious question. I feel like birth control is a very important service that we need to be providing to young immigrant women, Catholic Charities or no. I'm going to stay away from the abortion issue, because A) I don't want to get way off topic on here, and B ) based on my research that's kinda what happens the least in these situations, and I'm assuming Fox just threw it in there to make the headline better clickbait.

That's another really good point I was planning on getting to. It's conceivable that a private organization might step in or be formed based on the large amount of money going into funding it, but who knows.

My definition of low information voter also includes your definition, but also references the quality of information. Simply having a lot of information does not make someone an educated voter. Reading hundreds of articles such as this one (there are lots of folks out there who troll the fake news sites all day trying to find the next big "scandal") will provide tons of information to a voter, but will do very little to increase their knowledge of what is actually going on. If the information you have is not accurate, you are still a low information voter in my book.

Most of them come here to work. But if you offer someone free stuff, they're going to take it. That being said, I would prefer for them to come over and not immediately get pregnant with an anchor baby because Catholic Charities refuses to allow them access to birth control.

The deal is, this "charity" has a major contract with the government. So if they want to follow God's Word (as they interpret it), then they probably should get rid of the contract worth tens of millions of dollars with a government who allows legal services that their religion disagrees with. If they're going to take the money from the government, then they need to provide those legal services, as they benefit our country.

I have a WHOLE, WHOLE lot of thoughts on this one... First, if you've read the article, I feel like the title is misleading. I don't see where the ACLU is trying to require the Catholic Charity to provide abortions and contraceptives. It seems like they're more interested in not allowing them to forbid them? Kinda murky there. That being said, I have several issues about this whole deal: 1. Should a catholic organization be contracted by the government to the tune of $73 Million dollars? It seems to me that there could be some serious separation of church and state issues here, especially in situations where the church's beliefs may not be suited to providing the necessary services that they're being paid for. From the ACLU: "“The Catholic Bishops are taking millions of dollars in federal grants- and then imposing their beliefs on this vulnerable population who they are supposed to serve… and that raises serious concerns under the separation of church and state provision in our Constitution,” said Amiri. No matter how you feel about the ACLU, that really is a legitimate concern. 2. Is the Catholic Church's anti-abortion and anti-birth control stance really the best stance for us to adopt for young Mexican women who are coming and having babies that essentially anchor them in the country? I know that many of you guys are anti-abortion, and I respect that, but surely you would prefer than young immigrant women, especially those who may be victimized, be put on some form of birth control the minute that they come under government or Catholic Charities' protection (for lack of a better word).

[Hidden Content]

really? If someone on the left posted an article on here, and 3 or 4 people got on here and agreed with it without verifying, and then someone on the right did 10 seconds of research and discovered the article was made up or misrepresented the truth, what would you guys be saying? "Look at the low information voters, believing everything the read." You and I both know that this works both ways.

personally, I think you should've started a new thread, as your topic was a REAL topic that could generate real debate. You've now placed it under one of Smitty's fake headlines, which means it will likely generate little or no discussion. But it's all good.

the real problem here is this... There's still a WNBA? But seriously, there's not going to be much press about the WNBA's scandals when nobody even cares about the WNBA's actual product.

does this say something about flying illegals into the country? I missed it I guess, but I was just scanning.

my work web filter banned this site as "hate speech". it's probably right.

Whether or not you are correct in your opinion here, that does not change the fact that what may actually happen is nothing like what this article portrays, thus inciting low information voters to spread the hate propaganda.

by giving the impression that the United States will be paying a $50B signing bonus to Iran? By wording their title and article in such a way to give the impression that the US will be using US funds to give Iran an insane amount of money, the author of this "news piece" has ensured that people of your ilk will be angered and pass it on, whether it's factual or not.