Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What context? Context meaning what the heck the song was attempting to communicate? It's usually a good idea to not pull words out and indepedent of the context of the communicator. "We make this movement towards freedom, for all those who have been oppressed, and all those in the struggle." that's also a sentence from the same demonized song- sounds very Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island like huh?
She wasn't a member of the Black Liberation Army. She was a Black Panther, which is very different, as a matter of fact the differences were so wide in that the Black Panther's didn't want to be associated with the BLA.
BP's where about self help, self support, SELF DEFENSE, and self empowerment for power impoverished black people. Wow, the concepts sound similar to another very important document- The US Constitution. Interestingly enough, it's at this point BPs became the subject of intense scrutiny by the FBI and local law enforcement. God forbid poor people actually start organizing and embracing their constitutional rights.
Anyway, this is tiring as your not even attempting to validate or verify the sound bites your parroting back here. I give it another page or two before the mods shut this thread down since it's veered way of track.
According to Wikipedia she was a member. In fact, she wrote about membership in her autobiography.
When is it a Constitiutional Right to murder and flee police?
You know Hitler wrote nice things too about people?
So none of you think that the police unions (who vote Democrat BTW) have a legitimate beef with Obama over this?
I'd take the New Jersey State Police a little bit more seriously if they displayed more of an intersest in protecting the civil rights of citizens and acting in a more professional manner.
TINTON FALLS -- A former Tinton Falls cop was awarded $5 million by a federal jury after he sued a New Jersey State Police trooper for excessive force.
Gary Wade was pepper sprayed and handcuffed by Trooper Michael Colaner in 2004 after a motor vehicle stop on the Garden State Parkway. State Police officials have said Colaner's actions were justified because Wade was speeding, combative with troopers and refused to identify himself as a police officer.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which is representing the trooper in the lawsuit because he patrols the Garden State Parkway, said they are considering appealing the verdict, which was reached last month.
"We think the verdict was flawed. The evidence didn't support that," spokesman Joe Orlando said. "It looks like the jury ran away there."
Wade's original lawsuit, filed in 2006, asked for $1 million. The jury awarded him $500,000 in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in punitive damages after a five-day trial.
Wade's attorney,Thomas Cunniff, said his client feels that "justice was finally served."
"The jury's verdict was warranted, given what they saw," he said. "The jury unanimously saw that the use of force by the State Police was excessive."
The 2004 incident cost Wade his job. He was fired after being convicted in municipal court of charges related to the motor vehicle stop and currently works as a substitute teacher.
BELVIDERE | A mentally impaired Oxford Township man who was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by state troopers in 2009 is suing those troopers asserting they beat him after ordering him out of the vehicle.
The May 16, 2009, incident is on videotape and is the subject of an internal New Jersey State Police investigation, said attorneys for the plaintiff, Justin Bayliss.
Bayliss, now 22, was in his own vehicle in a Mansfield Township driveway off Jackson Valley Road when troopers investigating a nearby crash arrived. The troopers ordered the person behind the wheel to take field sobriety tests, according to the lawsuit filed Jan. 14 in state Superior Court.
The driver passed the tests, and troopers had no probable cause to charge him with drunken driving, the lawsuit asserts.
Troopers then ordered Bayliss out of the vehicle, according to the suit filed on his behalf by Morristown, N.J., attorney Robert Woodruff.
The lawsuit alleges Trooper R. Wambold Jr., without justification, threw Bayliss to the ground, jumped on top of him and began punching him.
The New Jersey State Police has also been involved in several federal lawsuits related to racial profiling.
Why do many young Americans like and listen to '50s, '60s and '70s music? (I read their comments on youtube often. Comments such as "why can't they make music like this today?" And, "This is real music." And, "I am 16 years old and love music from the '70s and earlier; I wish I was alive then to have experienced it.")
Maybe because it's far superior to what is considered to be "popular music" today?
To each his own the bottom line is that Common is an award winning and popular artist with many young people around the world.
I'd take the New Jersey State Police a little bit more seriously if they displayed more of an intersest in protecting the civil rights of citizens and acting in a more professional manner.
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,547,554 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroc5156
Oh, so I guess it's a good thing that at least one trooper was killed right?
Seriously, your reply is one of the dumbest I've read in a while.
Hmm Jazzy's reply was backed up with actual news reports. Seems pretty well thought out to me. So we'll split it down the middle then and my subjective comment will +1 your -1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroc5156
And OJ Simpson was a great running back and funny actor and was popular with young Americans during his time. Big deal.
I guess if any celebrity were to commit a crime, it wouldn't matter to you. Hitler wrote a book you know.
All irght, I'm going to give my opinion on this one, so this will probably end any reason to continue this thread with additional opinions. Here it goes...
Obama probably should not have invited Common to the White House. It was probably not a good move politically. On the other hand, Stewart is spot-on with everything he said, including the thing about assault weapons. If the White House is going to ban one guy for a controversial opinion, the White House, regardless of who is occupying it at the time, has to ban many others. But there is some element of truth that Obama has "shady" folks such as Rev. Wright in his past as significant players. So although the Wright thing is more/less water under the bridge, it doesn't do any good to redirect the stream so some of the water potentialy flows under the bridge once again. But as for the Stewart guest appearance... Stewart wins the "debate" 4-1.
Personally, I have a tough time watching Stewart because I disagree with a little too much of what he says. And I have a tough time watching O'Reilly for the same reason, plus O'Reilly continually interrupts people mid-sentence. Annoying.
Hmm Jazzy's reply was backed up with actual news reports. Seems pretty well thought out to me. So we'll split it down the middle then and my subjective comment will +1 your -1.
Why do you keep referring to Hitler's book?
Oh, so some cases of police brutality warrant support for a murderer. Ok. Here's some more actual news reports:
All irght, I'm going to give my opinion on this one, so this will probably end any reason to continue this thread with additional opinions. Here it goes...
Obama probably should not have invited Common to the White House. It was probably not a good move politically. On the other hand, Stewart is spot-on with everything he said, including the thing about assault weapons. If the White House is going to ban one guy for a controversial opinion, the White House, regardless of who is occupying it at the time, has to ban many others. But there is some element of truth that Obama has "shady" folks such as Rev. Wright in his past as significant players. So although the Wright thing is more/less water under the bridge, it doesn't do any good to redirect the stream so some of the water potentialy flows under the bridge once again. But as for the Stewart guest appearance... Stewart wins the "debate" 4-1.
Personally, I have a tough time watching Stewart because I disagree with a little too much of what he says. And I have a tough time watching O'Reilly for the same reason, plus O'Reilly continually interrupts people mid-sentence. Annoying.
Fair enough. I too really don't have a problem with the invite. I just feel the people who don't think that the police have a legitimate gripe about it are unreasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
