Are LVA Conservatives Shredding Their Socks And Setting Their Shoes On Fire?

"Police accross the country are not adhering to this code when they shoot unarmed people in the back."

Rather than engage in liberal rhetoric, show us the evidence

P J Stroh writes: " 'To Serve and Protect'

Police accross the country are not adhering to this code when they shoot unarmed people in the back....or 'stop and frisk' people based on the color of their skin....or routinely shake down minority populations disproportionately  in traffic violations to build up revenue....or detain latino americans as illegal immigrants based upon the evidence of 'how they look' ".

The "police" to which P J Stroh refers are overwhelmingly city or state employees.  DonDiego opines showing disrespect to the National Anthem is inappropriate.

(DonDiego understands a protest against the anthems "Illinois" or "I Love You California" or "Texas, Our Texas" might not be as attention-getting, but it would be better targetting.  Why, heckfire !, . . . DonDiego wouldn't mind protesting against "Illinois" himslf, . . . or "I Love You California".)     

We have...about a hundred times.....on this board.....with the cited example appearing in each thread. 

I believe your typical contribution to those threads was to change the topic to "black people in Chicago".    

True dat, DD!   But I only gave a partial list.   

At the Federal level you can easily point to unconstitutionally gerrymandered districts that Federal Courts ruled used race unlawfully in their drawing....and voter ID laws whose creators admitted were enacted to repress votes in Federal elections by minority voters...and 8 hour voting lines in urban districts.

    Not to mention rheotric from the sitting president that routinely identifies Latin immigrants in this country as MS-13....and sympathizes with a crowd of Confederates that murdered someone in Charlottesville...and likes to toss around the "N" word accordin to his own hand picked staff..and who openly states he'd rather have immigrants from White populated nations as oppossed to the "shithole" nations inhabited by non-whites.

And this is also a partial list.

Humour me with 2 examples

You mean rehash the same intelligent  conversations where you ultimately land on "Black People in Chicago" ?

No thanks.   Once was enough.

"No thanks.   Once was enough."

So, you got nothing

Try these crime stats

Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population.

Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

 Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

In New York City, blacks committed "75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime," despite only composing 23 percent of the population. Additionally, 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers show that in 2009, "blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties."

Kudos, Tom.   You’ve Upped your game.   Now you’ve changed the topic to black people in New York City.

see folks?   It’s ok to shoot unarmed people in the back...and make assumptions about someone’s criminal activity based on how they look....because black people in NYC.    

nike is going to sell a shitload of shoes.

Pj - please read, most of the stats were nationwide. 

Waiting for your stats on police shooting unarmed innocent blacks in the back. 

Hey !   Today September 6th is the first game of the 2018 season, . . . the Atlanta Falcons versus DonDiego's World Champion Philadelphia Eagles.

Oh, and by the way, . . . Nike's "Just Do It" campaign featuring Colin Kaaepernik is not being received favorably by the sports-minded shoe-buying public.

i.  Before the announcement, Nike had a net +69 favorable impression among consumers, it has now declined 34 points to +35 favorable.

ii.  Among younger generations, Nike users, African Americans, and other key demographics, Nike’s favorability declined rather than improved.

iii.  Before the announcement, 49 percent of Americans said they were absolutely certain or very likely to buy Nike products. That figure is down to 39 percent now.

iv.  Forty percent of consumers said Nike’s campaign does not make them more or less likely to watch/attend NFL games — 21 percent said more likely and 26 percent said less likely (14 percent didn’t know).

Lots of details at  Morning Consult, . . . but here's some notes:

1.  Favorability fell "across the board" including age-groups, politics, and race.

2.  Nike "Purchasing Consideration" is down across all age-groups, politics, and race.

3.  A plurality see the ads as a "publicity stunt".

4.  Forty percent of consumers said Nike’s announcement does not make them more or less likely to watch or attend NFL games — 21 percent said more likely and 26 percent said less likely (14 percent didn’t know).

For the record, . . . DonDiego doesn't rank Mr. Kaepernik or Nike among his concerns.  

For the record, DonDiego will watch lot and lots of NFL Football.  He plans on attending the season opener in Foxborough, Massachusetts next Sunday.  This will complete his and teecher's quest to see a home game in person for each team in the NFL.  {Now he'll have to revisit some teams new stadia as time permits, . . . like the Falcons, the 49ers, the Chargers, the Rams, . . . and soon the Las Vegas Raiders ! ! !