You are totally right, KHH1, about the futility of racial discussion with people who have no concept of the effects of separate social and economic statuse. One wonders what social and economic circumstances led to the defensiveness, blame, judgement, ideological fixation, negativism, and just plain hatefulness that characterize the weird group of OPP problem personas on this thread? What made them the unreasonable sicko way they are?

Note that 3 of the 6 police charged are black, including the one held most accountable. Not a biased DA at all. The basic charge was involuntary manslaughter from failure to follow police rules and shackling the prisoner feet & arms (behind back) and placing him on the floor face down and giving him a "rough ride" resulting in severe injuries, a practice that has resulted in multimillion payments in Baltimore in recent past. The DA has a good case on its face and should be commended for acting quickly and forcefully. I hope the 6 involved will not receive maximum sentences, but they must be held accountable for the results of failing to do their job right. Right practice and justice is as much a right-wing cause as left.

Your rant is exactly what you claim R's is, Knifeblade.

Neat summary of Rush and his audience, Rumitoid! especially the characterization "drunk on venom and dancing to the slow beat of America's ruin" describes the nutcase fanatic club on OPP. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Weird is right...on my computer only the first half of the above showed, so I was surprised when the ending half showed up when the "quote reply" came through. That was weird.

At least in the end half you acknowledge you "don't really know." Keep that thought in mind...it's the path to sanity. It's ironic when someone claims to be enlightened ("illuminated" :lol: :wink: ) about a past nutcase group who named themselves the Illuminati (the enlightened). Fantasy is entertaining whether it's Batman, Superman, or Jack and the Beanstalk...but you need to lay off believing in political fantasies, Steve.

You describe yourself. :wink: :wink:

Typical TPtard denial. You may not have "said" that, but you demanded a reply, which was what 3Jack was referencing. Your reply was the twist. The issue was "why" you were asking for ,and thereby supposedly expecting, a reply. Your reply to 3Jack was the actual "twist."

Again, why didn't you check the facts of their births before sending your claims that made no sense? And then you post the nonsense. Don't you "have enough smarts" to check beforehand the basic facts about their being natural born citizens before sending the letters to Rubio and Cruz and before posting your mistaken self-righteous indignation. Will you acknowledge you were mistaken and unjust about them...or try to deny and twist you way out like a "TPtard"?

Pardon my bluntness (and rudeness), but you really need to recognize your unreasonableness and try to avoid it in the future.

OK, Prince, I was curious what claim these two had to being natural born citizens and therefore qualified to serve as President...googled the names just now, and the answer is (1) Rubio's mother was an American citizen and he himself was born in Florida and (2) Cruz's mother also was an American citizen and thus he was born a citizen of the United States. He was born in Canada but born a citizen because his mother was a citizen of the United States. Why didn't you check FACTS before you posted? Are you related to that Trumpeter Donald? :lol: :lol: :lol:

They are not stupid, so obviously they know the provision of being born a citizen of the United States to be able to be President. They are running for President, so obviously they have reason to believe they both have reason to claim they qualify as "natural born" citizens of the US. The definition of "natural born citizen" is birth in the US or a mother or father that is a citizen or both.

Why didn't you do some research regarding their claims to qualify before y'all make fools of yourselves by assuming they don't qualify?

As for Obama, his mother was American, so it is irrelevant where he was born. Don't worry about Rubio & Cruz...the better question is whether Donald Trump, if he somehow got the nomination, is qualified for your vote, considering the stupidity of his "birther" questioning.

Actually, I too am a bit curious about details of their birth citizenship situation. Cruz. who was born in Canada, presumably is qualified because one or both of his parents was a citizen. Perhaps Rubio was born in Florida? or his parents were Cuban refugees who were granted citizenship as refugees? or both?

Refer to J Anthony's REASONABLE reply above. You are the one presenting hoaxes and damage.

Why are you accusing DB of doing what you automatically do every time anyone disagrees with your disillusionment agenda? hmmm???

Gee, another OPPer, ro-tardo, joining "anonymous" on a thread way more than a year old. What's the game, tardo? anarchic vacuuming? filling in a gap? What?!!

...who now are predominantly Southern Republicans.

So anyone "on my side of the aisle are pretty much Communists." That statement is about as nutcase as it gets.

I voted for Nixon in 1960 and in 1968 and 1972 (and would again), and for Reagan in 1980, but not in 1984 after I realized the future consequences of Reaganomics and realized the GOP had become the equivalent of the 1800s Jacksonians and populists. From my junior year American history class, my political thoughts have been Hamiltonian Federalist, Whig, Lincolnian Republican, and now "conservative" Democrat. My favorite Dems are the Clintons. My unfavorite Dems are Howard Dean and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie S. as extremist and uncompromising. My favorite GOPpers are Sen. Corker and Govs. Christie and Bush. My unfavorite GOPper is Sen. Rand Paul--followed by Cruz and Walker. Strictly a matter of political positions, not personalities.

Actually, you missed my point about the KKK as a grass roots civic organization acting like Tassine's idea of community law or populist enforcement...the equivalent of sharia law...the intent being good but the way being wrong. The KKK and Sharia comparisons were meant to demonstrate that what seems good in intent may be horribly wrong in practice. You miss the cited fact that KKK chapters existed in the north--in the cited instance in rural far northern Illinois--without the awful atrocities in some Southern communities but still wrong, though with what those KKK chapters thought was good civic intent. My intent was to get the fanatics on this thread to think whether the extremes that seem to them intending to good may in practice be awful and wrong and contrary to American ideals.

Yes, there are and have been contradictions to American ideals. Segregation was a contradiction of the ideal of equality (as obviously was slavery before emancipation). The former slaves were not made equal in practical terms by emancipation, and "separate but equal" (community separateness, segregation) was the pragmatic "rule of law" compromise regarding the very real social, economic, and aspirational differences between established order and the former slaves (primative equivalent of manorial serfdom) unequipped to function equally. It would be a hundred years before desegregation and integration could become the rule of law and America step again nearer its ideal of equality. Not that color does not still statistically involve degrees of economic and social practices differences (and thus arrest frequency)--lingering effects of the past. Nevertheless, America has moved beyond its version of the caste system toward real equality, not just in theory, law, and ideal but in essential practice. We shall overcome...someday. The civil rights movement was very careful to avoid extremes and fanaticism and pose their goals in terms of patience, overcoming, determination, and "someday." I know--I was there. Of course, there were those who were extremists (Black Panthers) who had other intentions and a different day in mind. Well, also of course, there were extremists (and moderates, for that matter) opposed to integration. The "moderates" had no idea of the degree to which blacks were denied voting rights. I had no idea either, until I was introduced to one of three blacks in Birmingham who had the right to vote in the 1960 Presidential election...only 3!!

"Conservatives"? Fanatics are radicals--extremists who would in their extremism destroy the rule of law and compromise upon which rests movement toward freedom and equality for all. The fanatics and radicals on this thread and on OPP should reconsider their extremist ideas.

Another big idea, an investment in a better future everywhere.

Marvin, you have big ideas. Too bad these small-minded people don't look to the ideas instead of their focus on false trivia.