• 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!

Is MO Gov Jay Nixon helping or hurting the situation...

Is MO Gov Jay Nixon helping or hurting the situation...

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
HogWash said:
I'm not worried about credibility when communicating with jackass democrats. They wouldn't understand credibility if it bit em in the ass. Which it obviously did to you.
Click to expand...

Clearly. You must be a real pleasant person to be around. LOL
 
His job is NOT to placate a potentially violent mob who doesn't agree with the (potential) grand jury decision. His JOB in this instance is insure that the state and local authorities have all the resources I need to protect the citizens and their property from violence and destruction. He is getting in front of this thing. If they hadn't rioted in the past we wouldn't be here. Anyone who thinks that the right response is to give these people any quarter if they actually start rioting is an idiot.

Systematic oppression of people of color? Please. This situation was hijacked by certain special interest groups. As was said already, this isn't about Michael Brown at all. This isn't an act of expressing dissent. If they riot it's a criminal act that endangers the lives and property of innocent people. And it should be addressed with the necessary level of force to counter it. If you choose to riot and loot and burn and hurt people...then you get what get.
 
whysoserious said:
Clearly. You must be a real pleasant person to be around. LOL
Click to expand...

I don't hang with many liberal communistic democrats. So I have no problem with those people except when "Clearly" someone tries to one up me on forum boards like you just did:2wave:.
 
HogWash said:
And I'm TELLING you to take your choice. You can dispel any one of them or all 48. Have at it.
Click to expand...
Ah.

Ok then:
Blacks have the right to take pride in their race. Whites don't.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect.

Black and white persons have equal right to take pride in their race, so long as they do not denigrate other races while doing so.

There's no problem with thinking you're great, so long as you don't add in thinking that everyone else sucks along with it.
 
The Mark said:
Ah.

Ok then:
This is incorrect.

Black and white persons have equal right to take pride in their race, so long as they do not denigrate other races while doing so.

There's no problem with thinking you're great, so long as you don't add in thinking that everyone else sucks along with it.
Click to expand...

I have always had tendency to brag that my favorite college team, Arkansas, were the national champions in 1964. As the ONLY undefeated, untied team in the nation that year, they were proclaimed the post bowl national champs. Number one Alabama lost to an Arkansas victim, Texas, in the Orange bowl.

What I hear back is they were not nearly as good as even the 1999 Arkansas team, a squad which finished with a record of 8-4. Logic? The 1964 team was ALL WHITE. No blacks. Well Grambling was all black and they damn sure wouldn't have beaten Arkansas, Texas or Alabama in 1964.
 
HogWash said:
I have always had tendency to brag that my favorite college team, Arkansas, were the national champions in 1964. As the ONLY undefeated, untied team in the nation that year, they were proclaimed the post bowl national champs. Number one Alabama lost to an Arkansas victim, Texas, in the Orange bowl.

What I hear back is they were not nearly as good as even the 1999 Arkansas team, a squad which finished with a record of 8-4. Logic? The 1964 team was ALL WHITE. No blacks. Well Grambling was all black and they damn sure wouldn't have beaten Arkansas, Texas or Alabama in 1964.
Click to expand...
Uhh...

None of that makes much sense to me

But neither does it disprove my point in any way.
 
The Mark said:
Uhh...

None of that makes much sense to me

But neither does it disprove my point in any way.
Click to expand...

You had no point. So I'll explain it to you. White men can't jump (play football). So you can't be proud of them for their accomplishments back when blacks played football at all black colleges and not white universities. So don't brag on them white guys.
 
HogWash said:
You had no point. So I'll explain it to you. White men can't jump (play football). So you can't be proud of them for their accomplishments back when blacks played football at all black colleges and not white universities. So don't brag on them white guys.
Click to expand...
Says who?

I mean, personally I don't really follow sports, let alone sports from 2 decades before I even existed.

But still, who says you can't celebrate a good sports season?
 
No idea, but it's probably politically prudent.

If he didn't and there are huge riots, he will get blamed.

If he does and they don't riot, he can say (rightly or wrongly) that his actions helped.

If he does and they riot, then he can claim he guessed it right.

Can you imagine the political blood on his hands if he does nothing, they riot and lots of innocent people are killed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom