jerry rice retracts statement all lives matter..

[Grapesoda]

fucking AWESOME!!!!! blacks have made it politically incorrect for all lives to matter lol!

[CDSmith]

Are you saying that Rice is taking so much heat from the black community that he has no choice but to retract his statement?

That's...

that's.....


...unsurprising.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Are you saying that Rice is taking so much heat from the black community that he has no choice but to retract his statement?

That's...

that's.....


...unsurprising.

might as well be a 3rd world country to politicize human life here in the united states

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

fucking AWESOME!!!!! blacks have made it politically incorrect for all lives to matter lol!

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Are you saying that Rice is taking so much heat from the black community that he has no choice but to retract his statement?

That's...

that's.....


...unsurprising.

He should have retracted it since it's a bullshit phrase repeated by

a) racists

b) idiots that still don't comprehend what BLM means.

[JSWENSON]

Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

[]

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

This is the perfect response to “All Lives Matter” | Fusion

[GFED]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

He should have retracted it since it's a bullshit phrase repeated by

a) racists

b) idiots that still don't comprehend what BLM means.

BLM is a terrorist organization. Go fuck yourself.

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by GFED

BLM is a terrorist organization. Go fuck yourself.

It's not my fault you're retarded, take it out on your mom.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Imagine that you?re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don?t get any. So you say ?I should get my fair share.? And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, ?everyone should get their fair share.? Now, that?s a wonderful sentiment ? indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad?s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn?t solve the problem that you still haven?t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement ?I should get my fair share? had an implicit ?too? at the end: ?I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.? But your dad?s response treated your statement as though you meant ?only I should get my fair share?, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that ?everyone should get their fair share,? while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That?s the situation of the ?black lives matter? movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

[]

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase ?black lives matter? also has an implicit ?too? at the end: it?s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying ?all lives matter? is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It?s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means ?only black lives matter,? when that is obviously not the case. And so saying ?all lives matter? as a direct response to ?black lives matter? is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

This is the perfect response to ?All Lives Matter? | Fusion

,
I was raised by an asshole that treated me just like that seriously, I've seen Jerry Springer, so even I know there are 2 sides to every dysfunctional relationship and I don't really follow the 'current' hateful pop philosophies enough to have even gained a basic understanding of BLM. however I can tell you this very clearly, I have no interest in any organization based on hate, resentment and demands.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

It's not my fault you're retarded, take it out on your mom.

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

He should have retracted it since it's a bullshit phrase repeated by

a) racists

b) idiots that still don't comprehend what BLM means.

Yea sure.

Make a WLM movement, but package it like 'we believe lives matter of poor caucasian people living in trailers that are constantly being targeted by police'.

See how that goes. You brainwashed fool.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

[]

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

This is the perfect response to “All Lives Matter” | Fusion

Since black crime is a direct correlation to black interaction with police. Isn't it safe to assume they are getting their fair share but they want to pick and choose their shares? What share is it backs are wanting exactly? What if the person who didn't get served didn't do their fair share of work that day and all of the other family members did? Maybe dad is proving a point by not serving up said person who expects something for nothing?

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Since black crime is a direct correlation to black interaction with police. Isn't it safe to assume they are getting their fair share but they want to pick and choose their shares? What share is it backs are wanting exactly? What if the person who didn't get served didn't do their fair share of work that day and all of the other family members did? Maybe dad is proving a point by not serving up said person who expects something for nothing?

Nice to see you take a quote that is given as an example and misread it to mean black people are asking for any share of anything. FFS this is dumb.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Since black crime is a direct correlation to black interaction with police. Isn't it safe to assume they are getting their fair share but they want to pick and choose their shares? What share is it backs are wanting exactly? What if the person who didn't get served didn't do their fair share of work that day and all of the other family members did? Maybe dad is proving a point by not serving up said person who expects something for nothing?

oh stop it

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Nice to see you take a quote that is given as an example and misread it to mean black people are asking for any share of anything. FFS this is dumb.

have you ever read a variation of this statement, from the old testament I believe, the people get the government they deserve? this statement or variations have come up several times though the great thinkers in many civilizations.. even recently if I remember correctly.

try and wrap that thought around BLM and the cops for a minute... what I see is opposing forces that have trained each other to react as they do, trapped in a cycle of a degrading relationship.

other than a few dickwads, nobody really wants to be on the front lines with this.

so cry all ya what homey, that's the reality

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Nice to see you take a quote that is given as an example and misread it to mean black people are asking for any share of anything. FFS this is dumb.

A "fair share" is a share of something.... Period.

[escorpio]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Imagine that you?re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don?t get any. So you say ?I should get my fair share.? And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, ?everyone should get their fair share.? Now, that?s a wonderful sentiment ? indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad?s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn?t solve the problem that you still haven?t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement ?I should get my fair share? had an implicit ?too? at the end: ?I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.? But your dad?s response treated your statement as though you meant ?only I should get my fair share?, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that ?everyone should get their fair share,? while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That?s the situation of the ?black lives matter? movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

[]

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase ?black lives matter? also has an implicit ?too? at the end: it?s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying ?all lives matter? is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It?s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means ?only black lives matter,? when that is obviously not the case. And so saying ?all lives matter? as a direct response to ?black lives matter? is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

This is the perfect response to ?All Lives Matter? | Fusion

Imagine you are sitting down to a meal with your family and everyone gets an equal portion, including you. You choose to piss on your portion and then complain about it.

That's BLM.

[escorpio]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

He should have retracted it since it's a bullshit phrase repeated by

a) racists

b) idiots that still don't comprehend what BLM means.

I forgot how you have been indoctrinated to respond to "if black lives matter, why not address the epidemic of black on black violence?" Could you remind me?

[MiamiBoyz]

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by escorpio

I forgot how you have been indoctrinated to respond to "if black lives matter, why not address the epidemic of black on black violence?" Could you remind me?

Start your own fucking movement. Why not address the epidemic of retards posting on GFY. /s

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Start your own fucking movement. Why not address the epidemic of retards posting on GFY. /s

difficult question right? So difficult you couldn't answer it... brainwashed clown

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by nico-t

difficult question right? So difficult you couldn't answer it... brainwashed clown

BLM doesn't address black on black violence. BLM addresses unequal treatment of minorites by law enforcement. There are dozens of related causes and other groups work towards those goals all the time, your point is idiotic and moot.

Congratulations. You have been a fucktard for 13,873 days in a row without incident.

[escorpio]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

BLM doesn't address black on black violence. BLM addresses unequal treatment of minorites by law enforcement. There are dozens of related causes and other groups work towards those goals all the time, your point is idiotic and moot.

Congratulations. You have been a fucktard for 13,873 days in a row without incident.

Calling yourselves Black Lives Matter and then refusing to address black on black violence is what is truly idiotic. Obviously black lives do not matter unless they fit your racist agenda.

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by escorpio

Calling yourselves Black Lives Matter and then refusing to address black on black violence is what is truly idiotic. Obviously black lives do not matter unless they fit your racist agenda.

I'm a pasty white motherfucker from the south, I don't call myself anything. The name BLM was in response to violence towards black people FROM POLICE, nothing else. If you want to address some other cause then start your own shit.

[charlie g]

JSWENSON, people like you make me chuckle. Do you think police are shooting blacks for no reason? There is a reason and it is because a cop is 8 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white. A black that does not comply with police, armed or not, probably deserves to be shot for being stupid. You see the blue lights, turn down your fucking music, pull over, pull up your fucking pants, keep your hands where the cop can see them and dont act like a fucking prick. If the cop shoots you at this point then yeah, there is a racist cop. But if your music's blaring "kill a cop" ghetto shit rap, and you get out of your car waving your hands about like a belligerent idiot not complying with police commands, there is a very good chance your ass will get shot. I would much rather a person like this gets shot by the police than the police get shot by them

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JSWENSON

Start your own fucking movement.

okay you mother fucker, I WILL !!!

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by charlie g

JSWENSON, people like you make me chuckle. Do you think police are shooting blacks for no reason? There is a reason and it is because a cop is 8 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white. A black that does not comply with police, armed or not, probably deserves to be shot for being stupid. You see the blue lights, turn down your fucking music, pull over, pull up your fucking pants, keep your hands where the cop can see them and dont act like a fucking prick. If the cop shoots you at this point then yeah, there is a racist cop. But if your music's blaring "kill a cop" ghetto shit rap, and you get out of your car waving your hands about like a belligerent idiot not complying with police commands, there is a very good chance your ass will get shot. I would much rather a person like this gets shot by the police than the police get shot by them

Yawn.

First of all, black people aren't shot at a higher rate than others by police. Guess what, that is a good debate to have with BLM. Know what does happen at a higher rate though? Police abuse, violence, charges filed, etc. Drug laws are unevenly enforced, stop and frisk is employed even if on the down low, etc. Rights are rights motherfucker, you don't get to unevenly enforce them because of your own bias. Cops are in a position of power, willingly, they should be held to a much higher standard than regular old citizens. There are no excuses for their bullshit.

Oh, and that isn't even the conversation we were having here. It was about the smart ass and ignorant phrase "all lives matter". It's a faggot ass thing to say in response.

[DBS.US]

BLM=U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

I do not recognize any other groups trying to use that name.

[dillfly2000]

Since we all die eventually, does all life really matter?