Miranda wasnt trying to justify anything. Miranda was merely responding to the Efffete's statement "They aren't the monsters the media keeps portraying".

I can't believe y'all call yourselves Liberals and are trying to deny honor killings are bad.

You mean this rich and unique culture?

"Honor killings in Iran are usually planned in advance with silent approval of female members of the family even mothers and sisters of the victims. Due to sensitivity of the issue of family dignity, a great portion of these murders are not reported to the legal authorities or persecuted. In most honor killing cases in Iran, the perpetrators are considered family heroes. "

I don't turn a blind eye to ANY of it. Any society that allows children to be beheaded are monsters. I figured that would be universally agreed upon you think it's okay that the Iranians do it because the Saudis do too? So you tell me to STFU? Who is the one turning a blind eye?

Then you rinvoke Trump. Why is it you myopic fools assume anyone who disagrees with them must be. Trumper. I am not and have never been a fan of the orange man you are so obsessed with.

I have a camera pointing at my mailbox to prevent package thievery. It also picks up my neighbors driveway, so I also see every car in and out of his placr, which is none of my business. If he asked me to move it I would. I wouldn't be able to see my mailbox anymore, but that's common courtesy.

Peace not oeacme typo

They aren't monsters? So you're okay with routinelybeheading teenaged girls for "honor killings" fir offenses like being a rape victim or refusing a arranged marriage? You ready to make oeacme with them? Send you're daughter over there then.

Thanks for the additional information. Im fine with the suits for harassment, intimidation,, any anyone who committed violence as well. They should be held accountable for their specific actions. The broad brush " conspiracy" claims ... .I'd have to see more detail ... .actual evidence of how the conspiracy caused the plaintiffs to be injured before I could support that. I haven't been able to find those details. Maybe the media is obscuringbthoseon purpose to make the story more controversial.

Im also fine with "casting aspersions" on ANY protesters or groups on either side. That's free speech as well, yours and mine. It is when you start putting people in jail or taking all their money by government action fir that free speech that I have an issue. There should be a very high bar for those actions.

I've got a 1964 Wslther PPK. nice gun, too bad you don't have it anymore. I have my aunts yearbook from
Late 60's. They had a rifle club, you could bring your gun to school. Girls and boys in the club. That was in DC suburbs, not Deep South. Guns were pretty prevalent then but people weren't shooting each other like they do now. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Our courts are not designed to arbitrate right from wrong. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you. They are designed to differentiate between lawful and unlawful, within the confines of the Constitution. The Constitution is pretty clear on Freedom of Speech.

Typing on tiny phone screen, sometimes I miss the typos. no Desire was supposed to say no idea. Autocorrect got me, Cirky, I mean Cirky.

Cirky, you never cease to amaze me how you manage to reduce complex issues into reductive one liners. It must be comforting to be so simple minded.

The guy who drove the Dodge Chslllenger into the Charlottesville crowd was prosecuted and sued, I'm fine with that. The guy who organized the protest opposing the removal of the Robert E. Lee statues, no he wasn't responsible for what the guy In the Dodge Challenger did, any more than the organizers of BLM were responsible for all the injuries and deaths that occurred at their protests.

Most of you have no desire what facism is. There is nothing more facist than the government taking action to stop free speech, no matter how offensive that free speech might be, the first amendment is the most important barrier between society and facism.

I love to watch football, but I just don't think people who don't even watch it I should be forced to pay for it. Football is not a public service, it is a form of entertainment.

I don't think much of Colin Kapernick, but his remarks and some of the memes equating the NFL draft and combines to slave auctions is pretty spot on. Of course the players choose it and are payed well but the dehumanizing aspect of it is still very real.

Massive money but what was the true loss to the taxpayers? We all know the money won't go back to them.

Cities get literally fleeced by the NFL. They should build their own damn stadiums but that will never happen. Local government officials are more than happy to bankroll the teams with millions of taxpayer dollars for stadium improvements while infrastructure and important social programs remain unfunded. Football teams are like toy soldiers for City Mayors. They sits in their skyboxes and vicariously compare their dicks to other city mayors. That's what it's really all about.

The three comments below were posted by others on NYT message boards. Not my words but I concur

When political organizers, however despicable their ideas, are found liable for arranging a demonstration that turns violent, all political demonstrations are at risk. Protests are quintessential First Amendment conduct and so this verdict jeopardizes all kinds of demonstrations protected by the First Amendment. I trust the case will be reversed. If not, be wary of ever organizing a political demonstration.
=======
The 77 pages of instructions from the judge explained how engaging in a conspiracy did not require all participants to forge an agreement or meet in the same room, or even to know one another. Nor did a conspiracy require the participants to have caused the violence themselves. The main point was that they all shared an objective and could foresee the violence that occurred."
By these standards, there should be hundreds of cases filed against BLM organizers for the violence which occurred at the mostly peaceful protests last year

This verdict will very likely bite back, if held ...
=========

If those who got official permission for a demonstration are held liable/responsible for the actions of counterprotestors and anyone other than themselves, what "responsibility of organisers" will be tried in our courts over demonstrations/protests that were not given official permission and turned into violent riots in the past or the future?

Precedent is a part of our laws and this sets a new precedent to be used in future.

It might behove many to stop and think before cheering over this, in my humble opinion.

Clearly a whole lot of citizens know little about the laws or believe laws should only be applied to some for historical, ideological or emotional reasons, not all. That is not going to happen.

CBOB Communism has always been the boogeyman, and the threat is still very real. Who do you think made the phone or the tablet or computer you are typing on? Shoot, China owns the pork industry in the United States and may have deliberately caused the pandemic. China already control us in ways you can't imagine. They just need to flip a few switches to completely control us economically, if not militarily. If you don't think Communism is a fictional boogeyman, ask Cubans, Venezuelans, ask the Taiwanese or the Uyghurs ... ..oh wait, you can't, they are in concentration camps.

Stable government will never come from the far left fighting off the far right. Investing in that fight only strengthens those with extreme views as they seek to sort us into two distinct camps. The current climate forces people to align themselves with one side vs the other. The strength has to come from building consensus and unity closer to the center. If we can strengthen the center, the fringes become irrelevant.

Have you got something interesting to say or do you just go out of your way to troll? It's a complex issue, which I acknowledged. There are many reasons and we agreed on about 6 and then I talked about one more (personal finances) that is within the control of the individual. That is the ONE reason of all of them that is solvable with education and awareness, but to you, bringing it up makes it " blaming" and stereotyping? .Ignoring facts because they are uncomfortable does not make society better.

As fior Boaz, he is the kind of guy who believes in personal responsibility and isn't waiting for the Liberal White Saviors to take the blame and save all his problems. I doubt he would consider himself oppressed. You have, a problem with that kind of uppitiness I suppose.

And marriage ... ..marriage builds wealth. Single parenthood and child support are not conducive to wealth building. I know lots of cops who can't stay married, some divorced 5 or 6 times. They usually end up living in Trailer parks trading lot rent for security.

Most of my career was in public service, so I knew my coworkers salaries, which were mostly the same as mine. It was interesting to see how they spent their money. Some preferred to put it into their nest, building equity and staying home. Others vacationed frequently and kept a more modest home base. Some had stay at home wives or put their kids in private schools and sacrificed luxuries to afford that. The ones who always had new cars, boats and other depreciable assets could never seem to keep up with their bills, but they had a lot of fun on weekends. Another coworker spent nearly everything he had on his menagerie of animals. Another ate every single meal in restaurants, didn't even own pots and pans. The smokers ... .They had ------ houses and cars. Tobacco kills dreams. I was pretty thrifty. Me and spouse packed lunches for work and shared 1 car for 15 years. Saved enough to payofv our mortgage and keep trading up to acquire some nice real estate and pay cash for college, but didn't have much fun. I don't judge any of them for their choices. To each his own, but net worth is directly tied to these decisions, and many of them are directly tied to cultural norms and expectations.

No, and. You are right. I did more research and the wealth gap between Black. And white is indeed widening, not narrowing as should be expected considering progress. Some of that is due to the historical factors noted,and inherited wealth. Some of it is also due to modern lifestyle factors and individual choices in financial management. Black family's traditionally shun the stock market and voluntary investment vehicles such as IRA.s, with many storing savings in low interest bearing savings accounts or worse yet, entrepreneurial startups. Black families also spend a higher proportion of their income ( as compared to white families) on "conspicuous consumption" such as expensive vehicles, jewelry, clothing and restaurants, and lesson positive ROI categories like home ownership, education and health care. That adds up over lifetimes and generations. Not suggesting this is the on,y reason for the difference, but the factors an individual can control are certainly a good place to start.

Dan, The conversation was about race relations, so glad to hear you are in agreement with me.
As for economic equations, I agree that the effects of redlining, historical wage discrimination, Jim Crow laws and yes, even slavery have carried forward through generations and therefore still impact today's landscape. Certainly Black families would be better off economically economics would be in better shape if not for those factors. BUT those conditions have also improved dramatically over the last few decades (with exceptions) and I would be inclined to believe there is a net overall improvement in Black family economics over that same time period relative to a similar index for non-Black famillies. I don't know what the stats show, however. Yav (and my daughter) seem to believe that everything is worse than ever.

The exception I would make is redlining, land taking and neighborhood splitting. Many Black families who still own older homes impacted by those actions have seen declining equity values as a direct result. This is also obscured by a broader problem of declining equity for homeowners in lower income neighborhoods, mostly due to crime and middle class flight. Relocating overpasses and reunifying neighborhoods may result in gentrification of these neighborhoods and help reverse these trends, but that isn't necessarily a good thing either. Gentrification wipes out affordable housing, forcing out struggling residents. It is a complex problem that "anti-racism" can't solve.