Elizabeth Warren Speaks Out for Black Lives.

[Derec]

Why should anyone "stand up" against what is right?

But BLM is not right. They haven't been right since the start and their lies about the Michael Brown case.

In my opinion, it is those who try to malign and sideline the Black Lives Matter movement who lack "the testicular fortitude to stand up" for what is right... or they are racists... whichever.

Or they have legitimate criticisms of a misguided movement.

Since Bernie Sanders caved to BLM, not he is going to cave to anti-Israel activists as well.
The reason pro-Palestine Boston students picked Bernie Sanders’ rally to make a statement

They were disappointed when an event staffer, at the request of a campaign staffer, asked them to leave the event or take down their sign, “Will Ya #feeltheBern 4 Palestine?”

However, Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver said it was the actions of a rogue low-level staffer, who was wrong to ask them to take down their sign. Weaver told Boston.com Monday night that he personally apologized to the group.

Boston SJP members told Middle East Eye that they had a 10-15 minute conversation with the campaign manager and that a future meeting with Sanders campaign is “in the works.”

Oh great! Now he is going to meet with them as well. Because three people picketed his event. If they weren't from a cause near and dear to the far left I doubt they would have gotten an audience. I mean if it were three people holding a pro-Keystone XL sign, does anybody really think Sanders would apologize to them and agree to meet with them?

Feel the burn for Palestine? You mean like this?

 

[Derec]

Black Lives Matter leader DeRay McKesson speaks out in favor of looting.
'Black Lives' leader defends looting in Yale lecture
Weren't we told on this forum that looters were a small minority which was in no way connected to the "black lives mater" protest movement?
I guess this now has official BLM and Yale stamp of approval:

Also, why is Yale hiring this idiot? Do they want to prove Harvard right once and for all?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where do you get all these articles and photos of minorities? Is there a minority news feed somewhere out there?

 

[RavenSky]

The article came from Faux News (that should say something right there) but he must have google for the photo because it does not accompany the article.

Predictably, even the Faux News article does not go as far into racist vitriol as Derec does. Buried in the article are a few facts Derec fails to mention:

Readings for the course included Ta-Nehisi Coates’s book “Between the World and Me,” a Huffington Post article titled “How The Black Lives Matter Movement Changed the Church,” the book “Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfilled Hopes for Racial Reform,” by author Derrick Bell,” Leah Gunning Francis’ book “Ferguson & Faith: Sparking Leadership and Awakening Community,” and a New York Times article titled “Our Demand Is Simple: Stop Killing Us.”

Included in all of those reading for a two-day course was ONE article, an August, 2014 post from the literary magazine “The New Inquiry” entitled “In Defense of Looting" which reads in part:

“The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power. On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, ‘opportunistically,’ and in excess.”

McKesson is quoted as saying:

“The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War & the Boston Tea Party,” he said via Twitter to FoxNews.com. “The reading ... allowed us to explore all sides of the American historical relationships and tensions present in protest.”

The article also quotes a Yale official as saying:

...there was no one in the room who spoke out in favor of looting when the article was being discussed.

What I find most... interesting... is that Derec chose to seek and a post an inflammatory photo instead of the photo of smiling McKesson that actually accompanied the article, or maybe a photo of the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Derec]

The article came from Faux News (that should say something right there)

But you have no problem when people link to Huffington Post and the like?

but he must have google for the photo because it does not accompany the article.

It's the same photo I used in the original "Dying for Swisher Sweets", no, I mean "Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath". And it was not difficult to google for, just enter "Ferguson Quiktrip" and you get many results for behavior that McKesson says has "many practical and tactical advantages".

Predictably, even the Faux News article does not go as far into racist vitriol as Derec does. Buried in the article are a few facts Derec fails to mention:

Racist vitriol? I am merely attacking a particular movement. Should they be above criticism just because they have "black" in their name?

Included in all of those reading for a two-day course was ONE article, an August, 2014 post from the literary magazine “The New Inquiry” entitled “In Defense of Looting" which reads in part:

So are you claiming that "In Defense of Looting" doesn't defend looting or what exactly is your point?

“The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power. On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, ‘opportunistically,’ and in excess.”

I.e. looting good, condemnation of looting is merely invention of the "ruling class" and thus bad. And this is supposed to make his positions look good? If a business decides not to rebuild in Ferguson (and QT decided not to rebuild) that affects the local residents much more than the so-called "ruling class". And when certain neighborhoods have little or no desirable retail outlets it is not the racism of the "ruling class" to blame, but is a logical response to having been looted/torched.

“The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War & the Boston Tea Party,” he said via Twitter to FoxNews.com. “The reading ... allowed us to explore all sides of the American historical relationships and tensions present in protest.”

Because some people in 18th century dumped some tea into the harbor it's ok to loot stores, set buildings on fire, etc.

The article also quotes a Yale official as saying:

...there was no one in the room who spoke out in favor of looting when the article was being discussed.

He'd be saying that of course. Yale hired McKesson after all. But that is not consistent with what McKesson was saying.

What I find most... interesting... is that Derec chose to seek and a post an inflammatory photo instead of the photo of smiling McKesson that actually accompanied the article, or maybe a photo of the Boston Tea Party.

No, the photo I posted is not inflammatory. The accelerant "peaceful protesters" used to torch it is.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But you have no problem when people link to Huffington Post and the like?

but he must have google for the photo because it does not accompany the article.

It's the same photo I used in the original "Dying for Swisher Sweets", no, I mean "Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath". And it was not difficult to google for, just enter "Ferguson Quiktrip" and you get many results for behavior that McKesson says has "many practical and tactical advantages".

Predictably, even the Faux News article does not go as far into racist vitriol as Derec does. Buried in the article are a few facts Derec fails to mention:

Racist vitriol? I am merely attacking a particular movement. Should they be above criticism just because they have "black" in their name?

Included in all of those reading for a two-day course was ONE article, an August, 2014 post from the literary magazine “The New Inquiry” entitled “In Defense of Looting" which reads in part:

So are you claiming that "In Defense of Looting" doesn't defend looting or what exactly is your point?

“The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power. On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, ‘opportunistically,’ and in excess.”

I.e. looting good, condemnation of looting is merely invention of the "ruling class" and thus bad. And this is supposed to make his positions look good?

“The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War & the Boston Tea Party,” he said via Twitter to FoxNews.com. “The reading ... allowed us to explore all sides of the American historical relationships and tensions present in protest.”

Because some people in 18th century dumped some tea into the harbor it's ok to loot stores, set buildings on fire, etc.

The article also quotes a Yale official as saying:

...there was no one in the room who spoke out in favor of looting when the article was being discussed.

He'd be saying that of course. Yale hired McKesson after all. But that is not consistent with what McKesson was saying.

What I find most... interesting... is that Derec chose to seek and a post an inflammatory photo instead of the photo of smiling McKesson that actually accompanied the article, or maybe a photo of the Boston Tea Party.

No, the photo I posted is not inflammatory. The accelerant "peaceful protesters" used to torch it is.

The photo is inflammatory. You know it. That's why you chose it over the picture that actually went with article. DUH!

 

[RavenSky]

What I find most... interesting... is that Derec chose to seek and a post an inflammatory photo instead of the photo of smiling McKesson that actually accompanied the article, or maybe a photo of the Boston Tea Party.

No, the photo I posted is not inflammatory. The accelerant "peaceful protesters" used to torch it is.

The photo is inflammatory. You know it. That's why you chose it over the picture that actually went with article. DUH!

Exactly. There were even pictures included with the original article that Derec could have used, instead of reusing a photo he saved on his computer after googling for it using the search term "Ferguson Quiktrip" for a completely different thread.

 

[Derec]

The photo is inflammatory. You know it.

The photo accurately depicts the looting that was going in during BLM protests. Looting which McKesson is now defending at Yale.

That's why you chose it over the picture that actually went with article. DUH!

So what? I used the photo to illustrate just what is being defended here.

 

[RavenSky]

The photo accurately depicts the looting that was going in during BLM protests. Looting which McKesson is now defending at Yale.

That's why you chose it over the picture that actually went with article. DUH!

So what? I used the photo to illustrate just what is being defended here.

In addition to defending your inflammatory use of an old photo you apparently saved on your computer (I can just imagine the title you gave it :rollingeyes: ), you are grossly mischaracterizing the content of the two-day guest lecture by McKesson.

The article you have your "panties in a bunch" about was one of many books and articles on a wide variety of topic related to the Black Lives Movement and it's place in the context of history. You (& Faux News) have zeroed in on ONE article out of a dozen, an article that was NOT written by McKesson, and have tried to misportray McKesson as supporting looting in general.

Moreover, you have completely ignored the wider historical context that McKesson introduced on the topic, namely historical "looting" as part of larger political protests. The example given was the Boston Tea Party. Now reasonable people could have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Boston Tea Party vs "Ferguson QuikTrip"; and apparently the people in the class did exactly that.

You, on the other hand, choose to fly you racism and ignorance proud and loud by misrepresenting the entire focus of the lecture and mischaracterizing the man teaching it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The photo accurately depicts the looting that was going in during BLM protests.

BLM protests are usually die-ins. Looting happens during die-ins?

Looting which McKesson is now defending at Yale.

That's why you chose it over the picture that actually went with article. DUH!

So what? I used the photo to illustrate just what is being defended here.

Then you failed because it doesn't.

 

[Derec]

Speaking of Tamir Rice, there has been a new development.
2 Reports Say Officer's Shooting of Tamar(sic) Rice Justified

A white Cleveland police officer was justified in fatally shooting a black 12-year-old boy holding a pellet gun moments after pulling up beside him, according to two outside reviews conducted at the request of the prosecutor investigating the death.

A retired FBI agent and a Denver prosecutor both found the rookie patrolman who shot Tamir Rice exercised a reasonable use of force because he had reason to perceive the boy — described in a 911 call as man waving and pointing a gun — as a serious threat.

It appears to be buildup to another no bill.
Cue the looting Yale Divinity approved undocumented shopping.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speaking of Tamir Rice, there has been a new development.
2 Reports Say Officer's Shooting of Tamar(sic) Rice Justified

A white Cleveland police officer was justified in fatally shooting a black 12-year-old boy holding a pellet gun moments after pulling up beside him, according to two outside reviews conducted at the request of the prosecutor investigating the death.

A retired FBI agent and a Denver prosecutor both found the rookie patrolman who shot Tamir Rice exercised a reasonable use of force because he had reason to perceive the boy — described in a 911 call as man waving and pointing a gun — as a serious threat.

It appears to be buildup to another no bill.
Cue the looting Yale Divinity approved undocumented shopping.

I've been saying for years that the carrying of such realistic replicas should be subject to the same rules as carrying real weapons. When everyone knows it's a toy, fine--go ahead, have your Airsoft competitions. Don't play with them in public, though.

 

[fromderinside]

I've been saying for years that the carrying of such realistic replicas should be subject to the same rules as carrying real weapons. When everyone knows it's a toy, fine--go ahead, have your Airsoft competitions. Don't play with them in public, though.

Now its the kid's fault for playing with corporate issued realistic 'toys' their parents bought for them out of love ? Why don''t we just relabel the police cars with "Death Force - To Attack and Kill" so everybody will be for warned there're licensed killers out there.

Hell any time one of those black and whites or whatever pops into the neighborhood children should be be safety sirened in by the local police watch unit.*

* ^{_{best definitions and use of safety and police watch IMHO}}

 

[maxparrish]

"None of us can ignore what is happening in this country. Not when our black friends, family, neighbors literally fear dying in the streets." Warren said. "This is the reality all of us must confront, as uncomfortable and ugly as that reality may be. It comes to us to once again affirm that black lives matter, that black citizens matter, that black families matter."

"Economic justice is not — and has never been — sufficient to ensure racial justice. Owning a home won’t stop someone from burning a cross on the front lawn. Admission to a school won’t prevent a beating on the sidewalk outside," Warren declared. "The tools of oppression were woven together, and the civil rights struggle was fought against that oppression wherever it was found — against violence, against the denial of voting rights and against economic injustice."

"We’ve seen sickening videos of unarmed, black Americans cut down by bullets, choked to death while gasping for air — their lives ended by those who are sworn to protect them. Peaceful, unarmed protesters have been beaten. Journalists have been jailed. And, in some cities, white vigilantes with weapons freely walk the streets," Warren said. "And it’s not just about law enforcement either. Just look to the terrorism this summer at Emanuel AME Church [in Charleston, S.C.]. We must be honest: 50 years after John Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out, violence against African Americans has not disappeared."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lives-matter-activists-have-been-waiting-for/

One wonders why Warren, for many years AOL on racial issues, recently decided to wallow in the fever swamp of the BLM movement. Still, as an always adroit demonologist of economic events, she expanded her shtick and excoriated the demons of race - something fresh for the liberal tent's congregation to palsy over. In pandering to the BLM mob, she earned her reputation points. (And, by the way, done a much better job of pandering rhetoric than of Senator Obama).

Of course, one would not wish to confuse Warren and the mob with facts that are real 'downers' to those who are in the throes of rapture. Facts like those pointed out by McWhorter, a BLM supporter:

“Our demand is simple: Stop killing us,” the movement says. But America wonders: What about “Let’s stop killing each other”?

This year alone, in Chicago almost 80 percent of the people killed have been black. In Baltimore the figure is 216 black people versus 11 white, in Philadelphia 200 black people versus 44 white. Most by other black people.

Some object that most people of any color are killed by someone of their own race, but it’s the proportions that are important—why do so many more black guys kill each other, numerically and proportionally? This is dismaying—we want to fix it. Yet the good-thinking dialogue on “race” in America has classified it as behind the curve to dwell on this issue. Instead we are to focus on the Darren Wilsons and Michael Slagers as black America’s supposed biggest problem regardless of actual homicide statistics because, because… well, what we get are such rickety defenses.

One is the idea that somehow “the state” killing black people is worse than black people killing black people, which is one of the most infantilizing propositions imposed upon black America in its entire history....

....
All of these defenses are sweaty feints—policings, as it were, of the dialogue aimed at keeping us focused on racism 24/7. And this is not a “conservative” or “right-wing” observation, as is clear from black people of similar sentiment such as here, here, and here. The problem is not an America blind to racism, or even an America that thinks racism is solely the n-word, cross-burnings, and housing covenants. The problem is, I hate to say, a progressive ideology on race that confuses performance with action.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/28/black-lives-matter-is-living-in-the-past.html

Perhaps the next time Warren pounds the air over outdated images of burning crosses and making rants better suited to the 1960s, she will have absorbed something sensible - although pathologically angry crusaders usually don't want to be disillusioned.