• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most businesses destroyed in ferguson minority owned

cpwill said:
If so, then they can indeed be minority owned, while a publicly owned national brand.
Click to expand...

Walgreens, Autozone, Family Dollar, O'Reilly Auto Parts, and Title Max are not franchises and not one ceo is minority. Little Ceasars is a franchise but I cannot find anything on Beauty Town, which does appear to be a small business and most likely owned by a minority.
 
tres borrachos said:
Walgreens isn't minority owned. Neither is AutoZone. I'm sorry Excon but I've yet to see a list of the businesses that were destroyed (not damaged) that were mostly owned by minorities.

The headline is clear on Breitbart and KMOV-TV. If it's true, they need to show that. But the stores they mentioned are most definitely not mostly "minority-owned".
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
The headline doesn't say "damaged", it says "destroyed". There is a distinction and they should make it.

It would be valid to point out that the rioters damaged stores where minorities worked, leaving these people without jobs (which is the case for the Walgreens employees, for example). But it seems disingenuous to the innocent minority store owners whose businesses were truly destroyed to include a super retailer like Walgreens in the story.
Click to expand...

:doh
You have no point.
The report that they repeated is that most of the businesses were minority owned. Period.
Even if we accept her claim (and now yours for two businesses) as true, she failed to show that the over-all report is any way false by showing just three businesses out of the many burnt.
She simply didn't do it.
Even her claim of half (at the time) was false.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
If so, then they can indeed be minority owned, while a publicly owned national brand.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I haven't seen evidence of it. I know that of the businesses mentioned, 3 can't be franchised. AutoZone can't be franchised. I just Googled it and Walgreens can't be franchised. I also Googled Family Dollar and it also can't be franchised.
 
Excon said:
:doh
You have no point.
The report that they repeated is that most of the businesses were minority owned. Period.
Even if we accept her claim (and now yours for two businesses) as true, she failed to show that the over-all report is any way false by showing just three businesses out of the many burnt.
She simply didn't do it.
Even her claim of half was false.
Click to expand...

Now they're "burnt" and not "destroyed", as the KMOV headline claimed?

Three of the 3 business (Walgreens, AutoZone, Family Dollar) listed can't be franchised, therefore they can't be minority owned.

The report they repeated could be wrong. Breitbart has been wrong in the past. The media has also been wrong.

You don't have to accept her claim that 3 of the business can't be franchised. That's okay. But she's correct.

And "burnt" isn't destroyed. Let me know when there is evidence that most of the businesses that were destroyed were minority owned. Until then, I'll say that it looks like KMOV-TV was as wrong as the people who said Michael Brown was shot in the back.
 
americanwoman said:
Walgreens, Autozone, Family Dollar, O'Reilly Auto Parts, and Title Max are not franchises and not one ceo is minority. Little Ceasars is a franchise but I cannot find anything on Beauty Town, which does appear to be a small business and most likely owned by a minority.
Click to expand...
:doh
You are still just making claims, and not providing actual support for them.

And you still have yet to get it that those businesses listed were not all the businesses damaged, making your claim of a lie nothing but bs.
 
Misterveritis said:
Does this mean you prefer tyranny to justice?

The police should have used snipers to stop, in their tracks, anyone preparing to burn a structure.
Click to expand...

Hardly. But bringing charges so that a transparent investigation could be demonstrated would have been the way to go, if you wanted to avoid snipers having a chance of stopping the guys we provoked in their tracks. Or did you want the riots so the snipers get their chance?
 
PerfectStorm said:
....and end up like Michael Brown?
Click to expand...

Hey, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.

Folks sure didn't end up "like Michael Brown" out on the Bundy ranch.

If the government had responded then, with tear gas, SWAT teams in MRAPs pushing the crowd, and overt shows of force, as they responded to the first, peaceful, waves of protest in Furguson, I wonder what would have happened?

Of course, the government, and individual government agents whose asses were hanging over the line, foresaw the potential for things to go south real quick and thought better for forcing the typical brand of government tyranny down those peoples' throats.

That's the kind of thing I'm advocating for.

If it comes to violence, so be it.

There are sure to be more than a few Michael Browns laying in the dirt when the smoke clears, but there are going to be a whole hell of a lot dead Johnny Laws left in the wake of the action as well.

Maybe then government will get the message.

It's coming in this country, sooner or later, but it's coming.
 
And this people talking about JUSTICE? Lol, and where is justice for people which were spent many time, money and powers to begin their own business and now lost everything? Where is justice for students which are studying diligently and now lying in hospital, because protesters thought that he is not ally and beats them? Where is the justice?
 
Excon said:
:doh
You are still just making claims, and not providing actual support for them.

And you still have yet to get it that those businesses listed were not all the businesses damaged, making your claim of a lie nothing but bs.
Click to expand...

Name two minority owned business damaged or destroyed.

I have shown 5 out of 8 businesses (more than half) listed in the article are not minority owned. I understand the businesses listed were not all the businesses damaged but I am only trying to point out that if they are listing stores that were damaged with the headline "minority owned" the least they could have done is provide a list more in line with the title. So really I am not just making claims, I have already posted the information with the ceo's which is actual support showing they are not minority owned. If you want to disprove me go ahead and provide information those listed in the article in the op are minority owned.
 
tres borrachos said:
Now they're "burnt" and not "destroyed", as the KMOV headline claimed?

Three of the 3 business (Walgreens, AutoZone, Family Dollar) listed can't be franchised, therefore they can't be minority owned.

The report they repeated could be wrong. Breitbart has been wrong in the past. The media has also been wrong.

You don't have to accept her claim that 3 of the business can't be franchised. That's okay. But she's correct.

And "burnt" isn't destroyed. Let me know when there is evidence that most of the businesses that were destroyed were minority owned. Until then, I'll say that it looks like KMOV-TV was as wrong as the people who said Michael Brown was shot in the back.
Click to expand...

Are you purposely missing the actual point?

It really doesn't matter if she is right about 3, 4 or even 5 of the businesses not being minority owned (that she still hasn't supported) to the original claim that she made being wrong.
The specifics about 3,4,or 5 matters not to her original claim that the story is based on a lie.

She can't show the story is based on a lie as she claimed. So focus on that.

The report clearly spoke to 25.
Fire Departments around the St. Louis County Area put out 25 structural fires caused by vandals and looters ...​

Now unless you are going to suggest that some homes were burned down, they were specifically speaking of the business they were reporting about.
3, 4, or 5 business not being minority owned does not mean the the majority were not.
Do you or do you not understand that?
 
timslash said:
And this people talking about JUSTICE? Lol, and where is justice for people which were spent many time, money and powers to begin their own business and now lost everything?
Click to expand...


While I am NOT in anyway condoning violence, crime, rioting. I would assume (and hope) anyone brave enough to run a business has insurance to cover their losses..
 
Excon said:
Are you purposely missing the actual point?

It really doesn't matter if she is right about 3, 4 or even 5 of the businesses not being minority owned (that she still hasn't supported) to the original claim that she made being wrong.
The specifics about 3,4,or 5 matters not to her original claim that the story is based on a lie.

She can't show the story is based on a lie as she claimed. So focus on that.

The report clearly spoke to 25.
Fire Departments around the St. Louis County Area put out 25 structural fires caused by vandals and looters ...​

Now unless you are going to suggest that some homes were burned down, they were specifically speaking of the business they were reporting about.
3, 4, or 5 business not being minority owned does not mean the the majority were not.
Do you or do you not understand that?
Click to expand...

Are you missing the point?

I said THE ARTICLE, not the story was false when they included non-owned minority stores in a story about minority owned stores. Do you or do you not understand that? If not- show me where I said the story and not the blog or article itself was a lie. Quote me saying ""the story" and NOT "the article" is wrong.
Yes, we can understand that most business were minority owned but can you understand it's misleading to post a list of business that are majority not owned by minorities in an article about minority businesses?
 
Meister said:
If you go back and look at history over the last 50-60 years. You will find that when 'mob mentality' has taken over, they destroy their own neighborhoods and their own businesses.
Look at the Watts riots, Rodney King riots, Detroit riots.......
Click to expand...

When people are upset and projecting those emotions outwardly, they do it where they are when they become upset. That they are in their own neighborhood when it happens is the logical extension of that.
 
joG said:
Hardly. But bringing charges so that a transparent investigation could be demonstrated would have been the way to go, if you wanted to avoid snipers having a chance of stopping the guys we provoked in their tracks. Or did you want the riots so the snipers get their chance?
Click to expand...
A grand jury met. They did not give you the result you wanted. Justice was done. But that is not good enough for the usual suspects, is it?

The police should not have let the rioters loot and burn buildings. Snipers can make sure the right people are stopped. In order to not be stopped one need not burn down buildings.

But why be lawful? The Lawless One has given the necessary example, hasn't he? He told Sharpton to stay the course in private. Then made a public announcement for everyone to stay calm after the potential rioters were already in the streets.
 
eohrnberger said:
I fail to see where you have more knowledge of the evidence and testimony to make the claim that it was idiotic not to bring charges against the police officer in this case.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence that you do in fact know more about it than the evidence and testimony presented to the grand jury.
Click to expand...

Justice is as much about being seen to be done as anything. In knocking it down before bringing charge, it looks like it is rigged. I do not know what happened, but I do know that it does not look like justice.
 
americanwoman said:
Name two minority owned business damaged or destroyed.

I have shown 5 out of 8 businesses (more than half) listed in the article are not minority owned. I understand the businesses listed were not all the businesses damaged but I am only trying to point out that if they are listing stores that were damaged with the headline "minority owned" the least they could have done is provide a list more in line with the title. So really I am not just making claims, I have already posted the information with the ceo's which is actual support showing they are not minority owned. If you want to disprove me go ahead and provide information those listed in the article in the op are minority owned.
Click to expand...
I see you are not paying attention either.

One item at a time.
1. You have not shown any such thing. All you did is make a claim.
That is one issue. Support it.

2. The other issue is that you have not supported your claim that the article is based on a lie.
The businesses listed were of just some of businesses damaged. Not all.

Most of the damaged businesses were on West Florissant Avenue and included:​

It is like you do not understand the words "and included". What do you think those words mean?
All you have attempted to do is show that some are not minority owned. Which in no way addresses the whole.
And the headline certainly makes it clear that some are not minority owned if the majority are. :doh

Bottom line, you still have failed to support your allegation that the report is based on a lie.


Btw, I do not have to provide the names of any businesses. It is irrelevant to your false assertion.
 
Misterveritis said:
A grand jury met. They did not give you the result you wanted. Justice was done. But that is not good enough for the usual suspects, is it?

The police should not have let the rioters loot and burn buildings. Snipers can make sure the right people are stopped. In order to not be stopped one need not burn down buildings.

But why be lawful? The Lawless One has given the necessary example, hasn't he? He told Sharpton to stay the course in private. Then made a public announcement for everyone to stay calm after the potential rioters were already in the streets.
Click to expand...

It obviously does not look like justice was served. And the result is exactly, what I would have expected. It takes an imbecile to provoke a crowd like that and is totally irresponsible.
 
americanwoman said:
Are you missing the point?

I said THE ARTICLE, not the story was false when they included non-owned minority stores in a story about minority owned stores. Do you or do you not understand that? If not- show me where I said the story and not the blog or article itself was a lie. Quote me saying ""the story" and NOT "the article" is wrong.
Yes, we can understand that most business were minority owned but can you understand it's misleading to post a list of business that are majority not owned by minorities in an article about minority businesses?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was going to say.

I think we're both wasting our time though.
 
americanwoman said:
Are you missing the point?

I said THE ARTICLE, not the story was false when they included non-owned minority stores in a story about minority owned stores. Do you or do you not understand that? If not- show me where I said the story and not the blog or article itself was a lie. Quote me saying ""the story" and NOT "the article" is wrong.
Yes, we can understand that most business were minority owned but can you understand it's misleading to post a list of business that are majority not owned by minorities in an article about minority businesses?
Click to expand...

You are speaking nonsense now.
You have not shown that article/story was based on a lies as you claimed.
Nor was the list provided as a list of all the businesses, but as partial list of those on West Florissant Avenue where most of the damaged businesses were.
 
joG said:
It obviously does not look like justice was served. And the result is exactly, what I would have expected. It takes an imbecile to provoke a crowd like that and is totally irresponsible.
Click to expand...

How does it obviously not look like justice was served?
 
tres borrachos said:
How does it obviously not look like justice was served?
Click to expand...

We failed to bring charges. Judging by what was written before and the reactions now it seems that there are a very large number of people inside the country and outside that do not see justice to have been served. As that is, however, one of the most important things about justice, we failed. And the riots are the price.
 
joG said:
Justice is as much about being seen to be done as anything. In knocking it down before bringing charge, it looks like it is rigged. I do not know what happened, but I do know that it does not look like justice.
Click to expand...

I have to differ with your definition. Justice is most certainly NOT 'about being seen to be done'.

Justice, in its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that which is just and the philosophical discussion of that which is just. The concept of justice is based on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. Often, the general discussion of justice is divided into the realm of social justice as found in philosophy, theology and religion, and, procedural justice as found in the study and application of the law.

The concept of justice differs in every culture.
Click to expand...
Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in the 'procedural justice as found in the study and application of the law', the proper procedures were followed and the judgement of the peers on the grand jury panel rendered a judgement that there was insufficient grounds on which to charge the officer criminally.

Since 'The concept of justice differs in every culture', I'd say that your cultural perspective isn't in line with those of the Ferguson population. Fine.

According to your definition, it would seem that your version of 'Justice' is more about show trials, and their excessive expense, ones that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation in question.

I believe that your definition of justice fails to meet the legal requirements.
 
joG said:
We failed to bring charges. Judging by what was written before and the reactions now it seems that there are a very large number of people inside the country and outside that do not see justice to have been served. As that is, however, one of the most important things about justice, we failed. And the riots are the price.
Click to expand...

"We" didn't bring charges because the Grand Jury, which saw and heard all the evidence, said there were no charges to bring.

People outside the country do not see that justice has been served. Interesting. And we started answering to people outside the country on matters that are none of their concern when exactly?
 
Excon said:
Nor was the list provided as a list of all the businesses, but as partial list of those on West Florissant Avenue where most of the damaged businesses were.
Click to expand...


So you think it's good journalism to report an article about damaged minority owned business and then make a partial list of said businesses with the majority being non-minority owned?

So if there was a article about how alot of white police officers are being shot and killed then made a list of the crimes but most of the ones listed were actually gang members being shot, you woudn't have any issue with it?
 
tres borrachos said:
That's exactly what I was going to say.

I think we're both wasting our time though.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you also do not understand how she was wrong.
She clearly said it was based on lies and it was not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom