DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ray Lewis Tears into Black Lives Matter for Ignoring ‘Black Men Killing Black Men’

'Tell the truth:' Bill Clinton clashes with Black Lives Matter protesters

Former President Bill Clinton was involved in a heated exchange with Black Lives Matter protesters Thursday at a Hillary Clinton campaign event in Philadelphia, where he was forced to defend his record as president and his wife’s past statements.

For almost 15 minutes Clinton sparred with protesters who objected to the 1994 criminal justice reform bill he signed into law as president that increased prison sentences for a number of gang-related offenses. Black Lives Matter activists claim the bill disproportionately hurt African-Americans.

A visibly agitated Clinton told the protesters that the bill helped crack down on gangs who were killing African-American children.

"I talked to a lot of African-American groups. They thought black lives mattered. They said take this bill because our kids are being shot in the street by gangs. We had 13-year-old kids planning their own funerals," Clinton said.

One protester yelled that “black youth are not super predators” – a reference to a statement Hillary Clinton made as first lady. The former president shot back.

“I don't know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out onto the streets to murder other African-American children, maybe you thought they were good citizens,” Clinton said, his face turning increasingly red. “She didn’t.”

“You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns,” Clinton yelled.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/...ml?intcmp=hpbt1

Better is probably a poor choice of words, but it is apparent that the BLM people believe that Black deaths at the hands of White people are somehow more worthy of notice, or are somehow more tragic, than other kinds of crime.

Like it or not, the majority of Black murders in this country are at the hands of their fellow Black people. In fact, the highest murder rate in this country is Black people killing other Black people.

By the way, Trump made some statements on this subject, which have been proven false. (big surprise there)

This site uses FBI and Census data.
Here are four charts on race and murder in America to tweet back at Donald Trump - Quartz
http://qz.com/556988/here-are-four-chart...t-donald-trump/

Anyway, IMHO, each and every life stolen by violence is a tragedy.

I just have to ask Swish.....

What if a group formed called White Lives Matter and protested and pointed out when blacks kill whites without calling for justice in other cases of violent crimes?

You wouldn't consider that racist? Because I would.

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04/05/black-...nd-white-folks/

A Toronto Black Lives Matter co-founder made a tweet about asking Allah to give her strength to to not cuss/kill men and white folks.

One of the activists wouldn't even remotely address it and got into a semi-heated discussion with one of the news anchors about why it was aired. It's actually kind of comical, like some of these protesters have absolutely no concept of self-awareness.


edit: here's the whole story, bold emphasis is mine, video is in the link:



Then again this is the group that protests by laying down on an open freeway. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

You ever rode the Hatfield and McCoy trails in WV?? [/quote] No, I have not ridden there.


First, I didn't say there was "no crime".

And yes, where we ride, it's poor. Dirt poor. Perhaps some of our difference in experience is we go with local people, where as perhaps you didn't/don't?

If we ride from the guys house (the guy we stay with), we'll pull our keys from the 4 wheelers at night. But they sit outside, in his yard.

And often times, my bro in law and I will just head out.

If we go to the guys cabin (trailering the quads) - near Hacker Valley, we don't even take the keys out. Of course, from the only paved road, the cabin is pretty much 5 miles into the mountains. Paved road (as I call it, the "only road", to stone, to logging trails. You don't get to the cabin in a car, or a 2 w.d. pickup. No problems what so ever.

Now, there are some places you're not allowed to ride. Private property - 1 fellow in particular takes great offense.

But, we'll put 40-70 miles in on any given day. No problems with people at all.

Need a beer? Ride the 5 miles out, head down the highway to a gas station another mile down the road. On your quad. Fill up, get a 12 pack, and go back.

No problems. Well, you do get tired of waving to every person sitting on their porch, but......

Even had a guy, at the gas station, ask me once "You from Cleveland?" No. "Oh, well, go Browns!". Then I realized I had a browns shirt on.

I guess your experience is different than mine.

The big difference I see is those backwoods poor folks is they are pretty much self sufficient, they take care of their lives and the lives of those around them. They grow and hunt their own food, provide for their own safety and keep an eye out for each other. They are all in the same boat and row as one.

They can plow a field all day long and catch catfish from dusk till dawn, they make their own whiskey and their own smokes too, ain't to many things them old boys can't do. They grow good old tomatoes and home made wine because a country boy can survive. Country folks can survive!

The inner city, not so much.

Well, if you take the song lyrics out of it.......

Yeah, wanna see gardens that would make you envious?

Out in the mountains, they know how to can food. Venison is a staple, along with fish. Leeks too. (I hate those).

Having a full mouth of teeth isn't required.

Lumber yards pretty much shut down during deer season.

But boy, do they eat. Good food.

And yes, prescription drug abuse is terrible.

What song lyrics?

They have self pride and can rely on themselves. Being poor doesn't make you bad unless you let it.

once again, everybody in our community understand black on black crime.

and we already have movements on that. but what's funny is that those movements don't get any national media coverage.

yet the BLM movement does the moment we start calling white people out.

the million man march got damn near ZERO national air time, because yall never like putting positive images of black men on TV unless it's about sports.

so don't sit there acting like you have any idea what we try to achieve within the community. you and other prove with every post the opposite.

i dunno, but the reality is that black on white crime is a big thing.

start a movement i will support it.

but this is what i'm talking about, Pit. you and others, instead of addressing the issues we bring up, want to deflect and bring up other problems and now this hypothetical.

why can't you stick to the topic at hand? if we're talking about the relations between police brutality and blacks, why can't you talk about that?

if you want to talk about black on black crime, let's go.

but the BLM isn't about that. as i told YTown, we have other movements that DOES adress black on black crime, but you whites don't ever bring it up unless it's to make some point that we are a plague to society.

there were problems with certain individuals when MLK was making his moves.

Malcolm X spoke different about the problem than MLK, but that didn't take away from MLK's overall message and the point of the whole civil rights movement.

you're trying to pick isolated incident's and wanting to say that's a representation on what the BLM movement's overall message is.

the others on this board might buy the crap, but i won't.

Who's deflecting?

Thread title: Ray Lewis, BLM, Black men killing black men"


"You whites" ?

Yes, "Those People".

yes, you whites.

i'm tired of being PC.

yes, the thread is about Ray crying about the BLM and black on black crime.

but his point is about the message of the BLM movement.

my point is that the BLM is about systemic racism in this country, and you, Ray lewis, and others have tried to bring up something else instead of the issue the BLM movement brings up.

there are other organizations about black on black crime.

that's like crying that a women's right to vote movement isn't talking about abortion, even though that's not what the group is about, because there are ALREADY other movements addressing that problem.

should i tell you the same thing in Turkish? so you can understand?

maybe spanish or german? how many different ways do i have to tell you people on this freaking board the same god damn point.

Black lives must not matter when it's black on black crime.

LMFAO, Ray Lewis?? Really?


webbagio

Only Lewis pleaded guilty in relation to the case: for obstruction of justice, a misdemeanor. He originally was charged with two counts of murder but struck a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony against two of his companions that night, Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting.

Lewis never directly linked his two friends to the killings, and they were acquitted. Lewis had testified that Oakley, Sweeting and another man had gone to a sporting goods store the previous day to buy knives. Baker's blood later was found in Lewis' limo. Having fled the crime scene, Lewis told the limo's passengers to "keep their mouths shut." The white suit Lewis was wearing that night — on Super Bowl Sunday — never was found.

"I'm not trying to end my career like this," Lewis said in his hotel that night, according to the testimony of a female passenger in the limo.

He didn't. For his punishment, Lewis received one year of probation and a $250,000 fine by the NFL.

Lewis declined to comment when asked about the subject Thursday by USA TODAY Sports. Messages left for agents and attorneys representing him were not returned. Oakley, recently living in Atlanta, didn't return messages seeking comment. A relative of Sweeting, living in Miami, hung up when reached by USA TODAY Sports. And the prosecutor, Paul Howard, declined a request to be interviewed.

My point was more about racially motivated groups. ie.... When you isolate a group that targets its intent is to be about race, and not the actual problem, it becomes divisive.

The fact of the matter is, the type of incidents between blacks and the police, actually often happens in poor white neighborhoods as well. What gets missed in all of this is that once again the problem you speak of exists in all poor neighborhoods, not just poor black neighborhoods.

That's why a lot of Bernies platform gets lost. Because he understands that it's a rich and poor problem, not a black and white problem. He wants an equal platform for all poor people, not just black poor people.

Just like some others on this board, my family comes from the Appalachian mountains. From the time I was a child, I remember going to my grandma's house. My aunts and uncles would come over. Often times squirrel and rabbit were served at the meals. They had no indoor plumbing. We pulled water up in a bucket from the well. They had a cow and raised a few hogs for meat. They had chickens for eggs and raised a garden. They were DIRT poor! My grandma lived in these conditions until she was no longer able to physically continue the rigors of such a lifestyle. She was well over 65 and was able at that point to get assisted housing in town.

Often times when they went to town, some of my relatives were pulled over by the cops for no reason. So when you start talking about "not buying crap", it seems like a lot of the crap to me has to do with how one certain race acts as though they are the only ones that endure abject poverty and the blight of inequality.

You are right that MLK had a different message. It was not one of division, but one of inclusion. He did not work at dividing people, but uniting people. I've said it for the longest time, yet the message is still being missed.....

Until the poor unite as one rather than dividing itself along racial lines, nothing will ever get better.

As long as you don't get insulted the next time someone says "you people" in regards to blacks, that's fine.

Yes, it happens and white communities.

And one thing you have NEVER seen me do is go"why are y'all complaining, when this and this is going on?"

Whatever goes on with white people, I don't ever attempt to minimize what happens.

The white community has an epidemic going on with the heroin stuff. And guess what? I hope to god you guys figure it out. But you'll never see me go "yea, heroin is a problem, but you know what's more important? White cops".

Do you see what I mean? Heroin in the suburban community. It deserves its OWN individual conversation, instead of trying to deflect to other problems.

That's all I'm saying bro. Why does the BLM movement have to discuss other issues, when other movements are discussing those problems?

Why can't systemic racism have its own conversation. Why are people on this board more or less going "eh.. Yeaaa, it's a problem, but here's what's really the issue".

Do you have any idea how frustrating that is?

See, we just find different things frustrating.

I find it frustrating that you need a lot of different groups to break things down into subsets and along racial lines. It only serves to divide people IMO.

I believe all poor people would be far better served to address these problems by economic structure rather than race. You would have far more people being included in addressing the problems with a much wider racial make-up. It would send a much stronger message that includes a much bigger following. When people break problems down by race alone, it serves to divide, not include.

Because the exact same things you accuse "us whites" of, you are doing. You believe that it's, "systemic racism". You haven't and don't see that the same thing goes on in poor white neighborhoods and it's not just "a black thing". It's systemic against poor people that can't afford good attorneys. It's the fact that DA's are elected and care about their conviction rates based on political reasons. IT'S NOT JUST A BLACK THING!

Your opinion is based on your upbringing. On what you have experienced in your own life without looking outside the box. Without looking at the big picture. It's why the poor blacks and the poor whites are still where they are.

Because neither side sees the big picture and are willing to understand they need to join forces in order to change anything.

I don't agree. Especially when I've advocated for inclusive policies, such as taking race check boxes off of applications and such.

I already acknowledge that it happens in the white communities. When I talk about the inner city, I talk about everybody.

But the convtctiin rate and per capita shootings by cops affects the black community way more.

The stats speak for themselves.

When something that happens to mostly white people, I haven't ONCE attempted to mimizie the problem.

I don't go "yea, but this is more important"

Not once.

The fact is that the only way blacks get any national coverage is when it effects white people.

The million man march got virtually no press coverage. The other movements to bring positivity to rap music, or to stop black on black crime.

No press coverage.

But some black kids who got falsely accused for gang raping some white girl in a park? National news.

The real story that the dad is a sicko? Barely made any headlines.

So yes, I accuse white people of a lot, because you control the content that gets put out and marketed in the first place.

Well said Pit

Yes I know, but people (white people) were starting to listen to him and follow him... one black guy shouting about shaking up the economic power structure wouldn't get shot... one developing a big following, would.

Yes you have, I have raised a few concerns about Christians having their religious freedom taken away and you have told me that white Christians shouldn't complain because they are the "majority"... but anyway.


There are two reasons for this.. the first is that this is a MB and dozens of people come here regularly to weigh in... if 2 people, or even a small group wanted to sit around and discuss a topic and have some control over where/how that topic migrated, we could do that.. expecting it to happen in here is a futile effort.. it's never going to happen.

the second reason is because nothing exists or happens in a vacuum. There are many factors that go into everything, many cause and effect variables influencing everything.

If you want to talk about "systemic racism" as a stand alone topic, just off the top of my head, you are going to have to touch on poverty, justice, cops, poor neighborhoods, civil rights history, employment, prison, drug laws, family structure, discrimination/reverse discrimination, etc.. then each one of those can go in 8 different directions as well. You can't talk about it without bringing all of those things into it which could either be a cause of it or an effect from it.. and each one can lead the conversation into its own direction..

What events get more coverage is debatable. There is a pretty good rant from a black female in St. Louis that brings up some of these issues.

Type this into Google if you want to pull it up: angry st louis resident slams black lives matter protesters (it contains several F words and it's a very pointed video, I don't agree with every single thing she says but she does make a lot of good points).

dailymail has a video of it. Early in the video, she opens with a description of how a criminal pulled out a stolen gun, shot at the police, the police shot back and killed the guy. Around the same time, news broke out of a 9 year old girl shot and killed, in her room, by a stray bullet in a drive by shooting. And of course the Black Lives Matters people protested police brutality because the criminal got shot.

We've all heard and discussed the police brutality angle for a long time now. There's a lot of disagreement there but I don't think it has been ignored. For example, it's been a recurring conversation on here for quite some time now.

Thank you for posting that! I was thinkin' the same thing.

DC, his point is valid, its not the fact that people on this board are just switching topics. The are dismissing and ignore the issue. If the topic is about "systemic racism" and a user chimes in about poverty in central america. They are completely dismisses the topic of "systemic racism". How can we have meaningful debate/conversation when the person refuses to talk about the topic, and after they refuse to talk about the topic, they want to "one up" you with their comment which in their eyes is more important and valid.

I feel that people want to argue just to argue, they don't want to learn new things.

The "big picture" of all the poor united is not realistic IMO, lets say all the poor united and started singing kumbaya... their will still be a racial divisions... there will still be systemic racism".. there will still be a privilege.

That is my only beef with Bernie, he is smart enough to know this issue but will not address it. (He is still my boy though lol)

And here I thought the topic of the thread was this:

And you're right but...



...If you look up dawgtalkers in the dictionary this is the definition you'll find.

No it's not your wrong again.

Well the whole point is for the communists who are trying to bring American downfall, to separate the whites and the blacks by using things like BLM, to increase tensions between the races.

Well, the former leader of the communist party (in soviet union) said they'd do such; or did such; on the t.v. show 60 minutes, somewhere around the year 1999.

If they did so in the past, why would they not be doing so now.

So if the point is to split the American people into races, then it's not about any lives; it's just trying to spread the hurt.

Well, about the only thing in that which is true is the fallacy that more gun laws would reduce gun violence.

The reason that the black on black homicide rate is continually brought up isn't because people are trying to make some kind of argument accusing blacks of being "savages" or some such BS. It's simply trying to hold BLM accountable for the language they use.

For instance, BLM tells us that the number of young black men that are killed in encounters with police are of "epidemic" proportions. The language they use (and of some posters here) insinuates that cops are systematically gunning down young black men throughout the nation, that it's a daily occurrence.

This is flat out false, and a completely manufactured lie.

When people stop fudging the numbers and playing with "rates", and look at the actual numbers (which are often hidden), a little more than 100 black people are killed in confrontations with police in a year... NOTE that this is still less than the number of white people killed in confrontations with police.

Of those more than 100, the actual facts and evidence show that the majority of those were justified. This means that a small minority of those killed would qualify as "murders". BLM tells us that these few qualify as an "epidemic".

The reason why the number of black on black murders is brought up is simply this: if that small number qualifies as "epidemic", what do you call the 50 black people killed by other black people for each one killed by an officer? if less than 100 is epidemic, surely the 5,000 per year would be genocide right? And virtually none of those 5,000+ are justified.

#blacklivesmatter right?

I know Swish mentioned earlier that BLM doesn't need to focus on black on black crime because there are already other groups who are. I believe him 100% when he says there are, but I still have to ask, who are they? Why aren't they getting the attention they should? And if they are having a hard time getting the attention they should, doesn't BLM have some obligation to help them get that attention, to assist in getting them to the forefront considering they don't seem to have a problem getting it?

Now this may bake some noodles: probably the most unfortunate thing I got out of that excerpt is the use of the word "myth" to describe black on black violence, and how it denigrates Spike lees movie "Chiraq". I haven't watched it, and from what little I do know about it based on a couple interviews I saw of him discussing it, while I may disagree with some of the causes he talks about, I have to give him credit for recognizing it as a problem and trying to bring the conversation forward. The author of the opinion piece would tell you that white people kill each other too, so there's nothing to see there. Basically bad behavior excuses bad behavior. I find that to be a disgustingly callous way of viewing the issue.

The homicide rates may be similar, but what BLM can't do is name any other urban center in America where 500 white people will be killed and another 2,000+ will be shot by other white people.

Even when you take race out of the equation, amongst the poor there are what I see as 3 basic groups:

1) (the majority) people who mean well, do well, and do the best they can in a bad situation. These are the kind of people you wouldn't mind to have as your neighbor.

2) (a minority) people who have excepted that is all their life will amount to and the only way to survive is to get in on the "hustle"... get what you can, when you can, and however you can... it's no big deal to take from someone who has more because they have more, or to game the system to get paid (like cheat on your income taxes). These people will try to out hustle The Man, and minimally victimize their neighbors under the belief that they are owed something.

3) (a smaller minority) the criminal element. These are the people who victimize the people in their own neighborhoods for their own gain... gangs, drug dealers, rioters, etc.

I'll likely never know what it's like to not get a job based on my race, but I do know how group 3 and the support they receive from group 2 prohibits group 1 from getting out of poverty and breaking the cycle.

I think there is an argument to be made about how much more people on the "outside" looking in can do to help. But what a lot of you guys have to consider is that it doesn't matter how much you provide, it will never be enough to get groups 2 and 3 to change their ways and groups 2 and 3 HAVE to be addressed because they are the ones keeping group 1 from taking advantage of any opportunities they may actually get.

It's that concept of how miserable people are only happy when everyone else is miserable... but on a larger scale.

There's a lot of "you don't understand" "you can never understand" or " you're racist" that goes on around here. Perhaps instead of telling other people what they are supposed to think and believe, recognize that as an "outsider" looking in, we have our own observations, our own questions.

Explain to me why I should feel sympathy to the 1000 rioters who tore up Baltimore trying to make a martyr out of a crack dealer? When they destroyed schools (a source of education), businesses ( a source of jobs), and a senior center it took 10yrs for a pastor to build (a source of investment in the community)... explain to me why I should give any credence to the same people when they complain that the "outsiders" aren;t doing enough to provide education, jobs, and investment. Why should I sympathize with the rioters over the the people who lost so much? Because honestly, when I watched that, I felt sadness in the fact that I was watching a disadvantaged community destroy itself from the inside and they didn't even realize they were the ones doing it.


I hope all y'all Dawgs are doing well!

Many of the assertions that are presented in that article as facts are provably false, and the author makes a few leaps of faith as well. Let's call it what it is-- an opinion piece. About a week ago, I made a comment somewhere (possibly this thread?) that I thought many times the cause and effect of social issues get switched. Here's an example of this:

Does the environment make people?
or do people make their environment?

That piece would have you believe that it is mostly or even exclusively the former. That is an increasingly common opinion, often due to the correlation of how people in certain environments often act in a similar ways. But correlation does not imply causation. I lean more toward the latter interpretation, that people make their environments with the recognition that the environment also contributes fairly significantly as well. But then again, I don't see this country as being hostile to any particular race so that's sort of a moot point in this context.

Here's a question for you, CHS (or any other dawgs who want to chime in): What country would be a good model to follow for equality? You posted an article that essentially says blacks are in the position they are in due to institutional racism, but a reasonable person could also look at the degree of entitlements, welfare (with blacks, on average, taking out far more than they put in), race-based affirmative action, companies that value diversity above and beyond simply hiring the best person, etc etc and conclude that any disadvantages to being black are outweighed by government and social corrections.

So show me what country does it better. What country has done everything right that has allowed blacks to achieve the same standard of living as other races (in terms of income, crime, etc.) If I had a good example of this, I would be more inclined to change my views, but it appears that I am not knowledgeable enough about this to have a good model to follow. Please help me out.

Please post some data on this. You can't bring a big statement like that without citing sources.


There are reasons for this because minorities who were qualified are not getting jobs. Also there have been many different studies that showed that minorities with ethnic names do not get call backs after submitted applications, we can only conclude that the hiring manager does not want to hire minorities.
I am still waiting to see a Latino in the IT industry here in Columbus.

Also you you assume that minorities check the box, I know I don't nor will I ever will.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-final.pdf

http://prntscr.com/arczfi - Here's one such piece of data: ~54% of black and hispanic households are using some sort of welfare program, ~23% of white households, and ~22% of asians. ~30% overall

This is broken down into several different programs and blacks are use them all more commonly than the national average. Thus the statement that blacks take out on average more than they put (in other words, total benefits taken out exceeds the amount paid in taxes, likely by an enormous margin although I can't find the raw data on that).


A liberal take on it: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/20/1279118/-Black-People-on-Welfare-Let-s-Not-Sugarcoat-It

This article says blacks make up 32% of welfare recipients while being 12% of the population. It's an interesting article although I only briefly skimmed it


A conservative take on it: http://www.amren.com/features/2015/10/welfare-whos-on-it-whos-not/



Now look, I'm not against welfare. I realize that some people were born into awful situations and there should be some degree of help for these people so they can lives decent lives, get back on their feet, etc.

On the other hand, I do think the welfare state is massively bloated and I think it's a big problem. It costs taxpayers a lot of money, people abuse the system, it makes people complacent, etc.

And finally I realize that since blacks make up a disproportionate share of poor/those in need and thus will by default make up a disproportionate share of welfare recipients. Again there is no problem with that, but the point is that if you break it down to the fundamental reality of the situation, it is an ongoing transfer of money from white/asian to black/hispanic. It's raises a red flag for me when I am told that blacks are being held back due to institutional racism. The logic doesn't follow there, that's all.

You see a similar situation with the schools. Suburban schools almost always outperform inner-city schools. I often read claims that because the suburban schools perform so much better, that must be a result of institutional racism. Yet I see that the inner-city schools get most of the time, energy, and care, more money per student is spent on inner-city schools (mostly due to state and federal funds); if there is institutional racism going on there then it probably goes the opposite direction than what is usually said.

- Latinos make up ~5% of the population in Columbus but beyond that, inequality of results does not necessarily mean inequality of opportunity. There are many more factors that could cause that beyond just bigotry.

Very interesting reading.

I can't reply to this now in detail, I will when I get home.