- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
1.) ZERO insults, if you disagree please quote me insulting you, you will fail it will be a made up false unsupportable assumption
2.) except for that FACTS keep destroying your posts and proving them wrong
3.) translation: he didnt suggested all his officers are racists, thanks thats what we thought and thank you for again proving your own posts wrong
if you disagree AGAIN simply point out where he suggested all his officers are racists, we are waiting
I bet you dodge it again
facts win again
BOOM another dodge just like i saidYes, he did suggested his officers are racists.
Everyone, whose thinking isn't clouded with partisan propaganda, knows what he means.
Yes, he did suggested his officers are racists.
So he doesn't know whether there is racism or not but he will confront it when he meets it, if he meets it. Is he assuming he is the only one who will be doing this, that other members of the force aren't doing the same, or is he just grandstanding?It should only offend the racists that MAY or MAY NOT be within his ranks. Hes not holding a sign up that says "My cops are racist" Hes publicly promising to confront it, should he meet it. No need for bull****.
It does suggest that racism is some large problem in his police force. If my boss was all, "I resolve to challenge racism amongst my employees", I'd resent the implication that it's such a rampant problem.
Lets say ONE person at a jobsite gets hurt as is found to be on drugs. The boss then says, in response to ONE druggie accident, "I resolve to perform more random drug tests for overall safety." Do you assume that the boss is running a company full of junkies?
Lets say ONE person at a jobsite gets hurt as is found to be on drugs. The boss then says, in response to ONE druggie accident, "I resolve to perform more random drug tests for overall safety." Do you assume that the boss is running a company full of junkies?
Looks like Pittsburgh has an idiot for a police chief.
Per the Libbo SOP, when one is unable to form an intelligent argument, he, or she, feels compelled to resort to insults.
This comes as no surprise to anyone.
:lamo
Oh look, apdst's first post in this thread:
And then later, same thread:
No, not surprised at all, your first post in this thread was an insult.
You really shouldn't put yourself down like that.
opcorn2:
It's only "tone deaf" if the tone is being set by anti-Black racists.
You're the only one that thinks this Police Chief is stupid. How can it be possible to hold an anti-rascism
sign as a symbol that the police are rascist. This guy holds a sign that says Pittsburgh police are anti rascist.
The Police Unions seem to be run by an Al Sharpton imitator seeking a cause. He can just keep piling it higher
and deeper, just like Al.
As posted above, I agree with apdst so he's not alone.
agree with him on what?
do you agree with this statement:
" He's suggesting that all his officers are racists."
yes or no
1.)I'm not interested in any discussion with you
2.) - have a good day.
Correct, at work is specified. That does not mean he will encounter it alot, or regularly, or that every one is racist, or anything else. Simply that when he does encounter it, he will challenge it. When you have to assume he means stuff, because it fits the narrative you want to build, you are creating a dishonest, integrityless argument. How about actually discussing what the sign does say, instead of what you wish it said so you be all outraged.
I'm not interested in any discussion with you - have a good day.
Well, for myself, I resolve to challenge AJ whenever he posts like a lunatic douchebag with AD/HD.
Nobody should have any issue with my comment, should they? All the same defenses should apply. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of potential uses for this template and, if it gets me in trouble, I'll be sure to point out in this thread all the things I'm not saying.
so you are welcome to answer the same question
do you agree with this statement:
"He's suggesting that all his officers are racists."
yes or no
if yes please present the facts that support the assumption and make it true
if no then facts win again
thanks
Correct, at work is specified. That does not mean he will encounter it alot, or regularly, or that every one is racist, or anything else. Simply that when he does encounter it, he will challenge it. When you have to assume he means stuff, because it fits the narrative you want to build, you are creating a dishonest, integrityless argument. How about actually discussing what the sign does say, instead of what you wish it said so you be all outraged.
I applaud him for accepting the fact that there is institutional racism in the criminal justice system. I think that his approach is the correct one. This is not something that can be changed through legislation, it is a cultural thing. We live in a culture where minorities are seen as trouble makers. No legislation can change that. It will take people like this police chief, and minorities that denounce the use of violent protest and looting as a method of advancing their views.
1.)Of course he's not suggesting that all his officers are racist.
2.) Who here has argued that's what he meant?
1.) thanks then facts win again, just like i said
2.) the author of the quote who is wrong
the rest of your opinions/post has nothing to do with anything I was discussing or the inane assumption I (and others) pointed out to not be logical.
thanks for agreeing with us and supporting/agreeing my posts in this thread
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?