Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Floyd Protests and Riots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Peck View Post

    Just trying to clarify then. Are you saying that if someone disagree's with changing some of these or even most of these that this would be akin to supporting white supremacy?

    As an example, let's say I agree with fundamental changes with Policing but I don't want to change (let's just say) environmental policy's. That is racist?

    I get that I think you are frustrated with dealing with BnG so maybe you were using hyperbole, but I just want to be clear.
    I don't think an individual with those views is a racist in the sense of actively thinking people of another race are inherently inferior or actively seeking to harm or oppress people of another race or ethnicity.

    I do think we all have internalized racism because we live in a racist system dating back to the establishment of this country. I think we have to struggle against racism on an individual and a broader structural level in the world and in our society. I don't think someone who disagrees is a white supremacist per se, but is at least continuing policies and systems that are white supremacist in that they continue to discriminate largely in favor or whites and discriminate much more against POC.

    I also believe that reform in these areas will benefit all people while likely most benefitting POC since they have been most disadvantaged by our laws/policies/etc. historically.

    P.S. - Thank you for asking in a way that allows for clarity.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

      I don't think an individual with those views is a racist in the sense of actively thinking people of another race are inherently inferior or actively seeking to harm or oppress people of another race or ethnicity.

      I do think we all have internalized racism because we live in a racist system dating back to the establishment of this country. I think we have to struggle against racism on an individual and a broader structural level in the world and in our society. I don't think someone who disagrees is a white supremacist per se, but is at least continuing policies and systems that are white supremacist in that they continue to discriminate largely in favor or whites and discriminate much more against POC.

      I also believe that reform in these areas will benefit all people while likely most benefitting POC since they have been most disadvantaged by our laws/policies/etc. historically.

      P.S. - Thank you for asking in a way that allows for clarity.
      Need some examples. How do you think people are "continuing policies and systems" that "discriminate largely in favor of whites" and where do you see me, in particular, supporting that? I ask because you have essentially accused me of that.

      I have stated here that I am supportive of many reforms suggested including taking down or moving some monuments, replacing the Mississippi flag and some reforms with law enforcement, specifically banning the knee to the neck. I am sure I would be supportive of other reforms.

      What I don't see is some shared reflection. Some ownership and personal responsibility. Some admission that just maybe "the other side" isn't perfect either. Never do we hear that, particularly in the media. Yet there are core issues that need to be acknowledged and dealt with that will exist regardless. Are they hard to fix? You bet. But don't avoid them. People are literally dying because of it.

      Also, still no answer on why Democrat controlled cities are a disaster when their liberal policies are freely applied and have been governing those cities for a long, long time. I think that's proof positive they do not work. Yet there will never be an admission of fault and that, perhaps, they are wrong.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        Need some examples. How do you think people are "continuing policies and systems" that "discriminate largely in favor of whites" and where do you see me, in particular, supporting that? I ask because you have essentially accused me of that.

        I have stated here that I am supportive of many reforms suggested including taking down or moving some monuments, replacing the Mississippi flag and some reforms with law enforcement, specifically banning the knee to the neck. I am sure I would be supportive of other reforms.

        What I don't see is some shared reflection. Some ownership and personal responsibility. Some admission that just maybe "the other side" isn't perfect either. Never do we hear that, particularly in the media. Yet there are core issues that need to be acknowledged and dealt with that will exist regardless. Are they hard to fix? You bet. But don't avoid them. People are literally dying because of it.

        Also, still no answer on why Democrat controlled cities are a disaster when their liberal policies are freely applied and have been governing those cities for a long, long time. I think that's proof positive they do not work. Yet there will never be an admission of fault and that, perhaps, they are wrong.
        Boost minimum wage to a living wage.

        Eliminate no-knock warrants.

        Equalize school funding per pupil in public schools regardless of zip code.

        Expunge and commute sentences of non-violent drug offenses.

        Decriminalize or legalize drugs.

        Approach responsible use and addiction as a public health issue.

        Establish national standard for necessary use of force threshold for police.

        Divert some funding from police militarization to support for public health (mental, addiction, etc).

        Ensure low-cost, basic health care for all.

        Universal background checks on gun purchases and ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.

        That's a start on reform ideas.

        As far as the democrat metro areas, suggesting the Republican leadership would be better is no more than a fantasy until you address these types of issues and others I'm sure I've left out. If the Republicans were capable of improving things, they would already have had a chance. Democrat leadership has not succeeded in many places, but I don't see Republicans stepping up to legitimately support these either. Neither really want to undertake the serious effort to move us toward a more authentically just and equitable society.

        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • First, I appreciate you listing them. To start off, these are mostly about economic class and choices....things people change every day.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

          Boost minimum wage to a living wage.
          First, what a living wage is, is subjective. Nearly everyone in America is technically richer than most people throughout the world. If you have a cell phone, a bed, not starving, a toilet, a roof over your head...you are actually doing quite well in comparison to many around the world. I realize people compare, but try not to do that. Jeff Bezos we are not nor will we ever be. Just accept your lot in life and if you are not happy, work harder to get more money...or find a way to be happy and not envy what other people have. I had to learn that as a young man. A tough pill to swallow watching my sibling move into a mansion in Carmel with all the trappings of wealth. But the fact is, people of all races have been successful in this country. The only thing really stopping people is themselves and their choices. Maybe they don't know how to make the right choice and I can feel for that. That's too bad. That's why we have things like welfare, SSI, Medicaid, and ultimately social security. We do have a safety net bro. I realize people ignore this. What they want is a house on a hill. In any event, people can actually live on $15/hr which is the minimum at Amazon and when they retire they can live off social security. No, they are not going to have a bunch of money to play like they want. Just get over it or make more or find a way to be happy without money. It can be done....and people don't owe others a wealthy lifestyle.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

          Eliminate no-knock warrants.
          This is rarely a real issue. I know it's big in the news right now. In any event, I would not be opposed to barring them. I do question if the laymen like us really know enough about how important they are to law enforcement. I would like to hear a solid debate on it but I will side with you on this one.


          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

          Equalize school funding per pupil in public schools regardless of zip code.
          I know more federal funding goes to poor areas. So poor areas already do take a chunk of money out of rich areas for schools. But you want more, right? Can we get a thank you for the money we are already providing before we give yet more? That's after progressive taxation that pays for other things including national defense. I tried to find actual data on this and it was hard to find, because I really wondered how it compared. But did you ever consider that "the rich" often don't even use the public schools they are funding. Why should they pay even more? They send their kids to private schools...and that is a LOT of kids. That includes areas like the mansions in St. Louis, those rich McCloskey people, almost certainly fund the schools in the inner city. Do they get thanks for that? Nope. They get angry protesters who essentially hate them for being ultra successful even though some of their money probably goes directly to the protesters. So they are already paying an incredible amount to fund schools they don't even use. And no, it's not our job to tell them they have to send their kids to public schools.

          Edit: Just to be clear, I would support equal funding for true academics. We are supposed to be going to school to learn the 3 R's. I do NOT support ANY schools building massive stadiums to play games. America, quite frankly, is ridiculous and it's no wonder we are so far behind so many other nations scholastically. If the rich schools yanked that out of their budget the funding may well be equal.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Expunge and commute sentences of non-violent drug offenses.
          Expungements are already happening every day. I can say this from personal experience with the government as a contractor. Also, I don't consider drug offense to be minor. Drug offenses are always tied to violence. It feeds money to people who are actually violent. Drug use, drug sales, etc., is why a lot of violence occurs in North America today and it might be the #1 reason. So there is nothing non-violent about it.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Decriminalize or legalize drugs.
          It depends on the drug afaic. We already have pharmacies filled with legal drugs. Are you saying that's not enough? In any event, I give you two choices. 1) Get the law passed to have it decriminalized or 2) Follow the law. I think that's fair. The alternative is anarchy or whatever YOU think is right.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Approach responsible use and addiction as a public health issue.
          If someone is addicted, yes get them help. If they don't want help, incarcerate them if they break the law. The only responsible use is legal use. So, I am not really sure what you mean by "responsible use".

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Establish national standard for necessary use of force threshold for police.
          I agree with this one, but that's going to be very difficult to define. Also, police are not robots. They need to be given some leeway. I'm open for that conversation.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Divert some funding from police militarization to support for public health (mental, addiction, etc).
          I would be OK with this. I am all for supporting public health, particularly mental health. We should have never shut down so many institutions which is why they are now in the criminal justice system. So I agree. However, with the tactics antifa is using, especially injuring 49 officers in Chicago, we may need to increase funding for both.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Ensure low-cost, basic health care for all.
          Ding, ding, ding....I agree!

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Universal background checks on gun purchases and ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.
          I don't mind the background checks but I wouldn't ban semi-automatics or high-capacity magazines because the bad guys will have them anyway. So no, definitely not for disarming America at all.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          That's a start on reform ideas.

          As far as the democrat metro areas, suggesting the Republican leadership would be better is no more than a fantasy until you address these types of issues and others I'm sure I've left out. If the Republicans were capable of improving things, they would already have had a chance. Democrat leadership has not succeeded in many places, but I don't see Republicans stepping up to legitimately support these either. Neither really want to undertake the serious effort to move us toward a more authentically just and equitable society.
          I would agree that Republican leadership will not solve the problem and I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you think this problem can be solved with government and you've been given city after city to test your theories and it's never worked. It gets worse the more control liberals have over a city. Help me out here. Is this not true?

          Now, I could tell you the changes that need to be made to fix just about everything, but people don't want to hear it. They want to point the finger and play the blame game. They do not want to own anything and accept responsibility As a result, I am confident the main issues in this nation will not be fixed for a very long time.
          Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-23-2020, 09:46 PM.

          Comment


          • I think I was about 50-50 on your list Mr. D-Bone. Can we meet half way on that?

            Comment


            • So, the Chicago mayor took down Christopher Columbus statues. This is one of the most cowardly things I have seen done by a government official. This type of governance is exactly why Chicago has a murder problem.

              I actually don't think the vast majority of reasonable people believe Christopher Columbus statues should come down. Personally, I think it's ludicrous.

              Edit: Reading about this a bit more, apparently they did this because they cannot control their citizens on the south and west side and need police engaged there. What a mess!
              Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-24-2020, 11:34 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                So, the Chicago mayor took down Christopher Columbus statues. This is one of the most cowardly things I have seen done by a government official. This type of governance is exactly why Chicago has a murder problem.

                I actually don't think the vast majority of reasonable people believe Christopher Columbus statues should come down. Personally, I think it's ludicrous.

                Edit: Reading about this a bit more, apparently they did this because they cannot control their citizens on the south and west side and need police engaged there. What a mess!
                As somebody that came from south america I'm more than OK with blowing up Christopher Columbus statues.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                  As somebody that came from south america I'm more than OK with blowing up Christopher Columbus statues.
                  Well, that explains a lot. You are a socialist.

                  No offense, but America WAS the greatest most powerful country in the history of the world because we weren't socialist. Not so true now that we are in decline.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    So, the Chicago mayor took down Christopher Columbus statues.
                    There is a lot we do not learn about Columbus when we are in school. It is possible the negatives are exaggerated (or just plain false) but at least when I was in school those were never even addressed.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      That includes areas like the mansions in St. Louis, those rich McCloskey people, almost certainly fund the schools in the inner city.
                      Ignoring the rest of your post for a second I am not sure I would site that couple as some kind of role model. This is a family that from everything I have read has obtained some(a lot) of their assets from lawsuits, including their home.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                        There is a lot we do not learn about Columbus when we are in school. It is possible the negatives are exaggerated (or just plain false) but at least when I was in school those were never even addressed.
                        The negatives. I understand that matters but he discovered the freaking country. Also even the mayor said this was being taken down temporarily.

                        The fact is everyone on this earth has evil in them. But not many discover the New World. I think people need to pull some significantly large logs out of their eyes so they can wipe that speck out of everyone’s eye.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                          Well, that explains a lot. You are a socialist.

                          No offense, but America WAS the greatest most powerful country in the history of the world because we weren't socialist. Not so true now that we are in decline.

                          Uh? I guess this is what happens to your brain when you listen to Rush Limbaugh for so long.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                            Ignoring the rest of your post for a second I am not sure I would site that couple as some kind of role model. This is a family that from everything I have read has obtained some(a lot) of their assets from lawsuits, including their home.
                            I would hope they obtained their assets from lawsuits. Both are attorneys. Not only that, McCloskey represented a black man in St. Louis who claimed police brutality.

                            On top of that, why are we judging character here? His character doesn't change the fact he's a rich white guy probably paying a substantial percentage of the property taxes to pay for schools in that district, in addition to the federal taxes he pays to do the same thing.

                            But instead of a thanks, his property is invaded.

                            Comment


                            • Why is there this demonization of rich people. They make the following government services available to the masses:

                              1) City, State and National Parks
                              2) K-12 Schools
                              3) Public libraries
                              4) Fire Departments
                              5) Police and Sheriff Departments (yes, you need them)
                              6) State Social Services. This is the biggest segment of the state budgets. You have no idea how much is spent on this and almost all goes to the poor.
                              7) Federal programs including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, SSI, SSDI, etc. Yes, a massive amount of money transferred from the wealthy to the poor.
                              8) National Defense
                              9) Roads and Highways throughout the nation
                              10) Dams and other water management programs that make your life much better
                              11) Workforce Development - unemployed? They will pay you.
                              12) Department of Revenue and IRS - organizations the rich pay for so that liberals who work there can take MORE of their money to distribute to the masses.

                              This is really just a start. But no. The rich never get thanked. They are just demonized because they don't give more.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X