ADVERTISEMENT

The only reason I am staying with Nike is because of Tiger Woods.

I'm not sure what me being socially liberal has to do with recognizing there is a crime problem in the black community.
.

But that's not what you said. You said that police brutality against blacks isn't real and that blacks aren't targeted by police. There is overwhelming evidence and statistics otherwise.

Overwhelming statistics show that innocent blacks are pulled over far more often, innocent blacks were stopped under "stop-and-frisk" far more often, innocent blacks are handcuffed/detained during stops far more often, and blacks are abused and/or shot far more often.

You aren't socially liberal. Stop pretending that you are.
 
Another perspective. Received this in my email today - it's been published on Brietbart and the Conservative Review and is making the rounds. A powerful letter.

A Letter to Nike
 
Another perspective. Received this in my email today - it's been published on Brietbart and the Conservative Review and is making the rounds. A powerful letter.

A Letter to Nike


I fail to see how Nike or Colin have anything to do with her husband’s death or how they are, in any way whatsoever, minimizing the death or his service through his profession.
 
I fail to see how Nike or Colin have anything to do with her husband’s death or how they are, in any way whatsoever, minimizing the death or his service through his profession.

On top of that, a (if not the) major complaint from this woman is that Kaepernick "directly" donated $25,000 to a convicted cop killer. That is incorrect on numerous levels.

First, he donated that money to an activist organization in Chicago named after her, not directly to her. She is considered a fugitive of justice and has lived in Cuba for 30+ years. Giving her money would be a crime.

She also isn't a cop killer. There is numerous evidence showing that she didn't shoot or touch a gun during that incident. Was she somehow to blame? Possibly. Did she shoot the officer? No.
 
On top of that, a (if not the) major complaint from this woman is that Kaepernick "directly" donated $25,000 to a convicted cop killer. That is incorrect on numerous levels.

First, he donated that money to an activist organization in Chicago named after her, not directly to her. She is considered a fugitive of justice and has lived in Cuba for 30+ years. Giving her money would be a crime.

She also isn't a cop killer. There is numerous evidence showing that she didn't shoot or touch a gun during that incident. Was she somehow to blame? Possibly. Did she shoot the officer? No.
This letter presents a different perspective. From what I can tell it wasn't written by some zombie Trumptard getting all riled-up because the Fuhrer said they should be repulsed by Kaepernick. Or the general BS whining about "they need to respect the flag."

But it does offer some food for thought....

Assata Shakur was convicted - rightly or wrongly - of murder so that part of the letter is accurate. According to the below...she was at the scene, but the cop was supposedly killed by another person. Shakur was anything but a saint....she was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, attempted murder as well as murder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/joanne-deborah-chesimard
https://www.essence.com/culture/assata-shakur-facts-call-return-from-cuba/

The organization - Per CNN:
"$25,000 was earmarked for 'Assata's Daughters,' an organization honoring the daughters of convicted cop killer Joanne Chesimard (Assata Shakur), who escaped from prison and fled to Cuba, where she currently resides beyond the reach of US extradition efforts. For many in law enforcement, she remains a particularly sore subject."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/opinions/nfl-law-enforcement-opinion-gagliano/index.html

So, I would say the Ms. Graham overstated the part about the money going to a convicted cop killer. Still...one can understand why she would take offense.
 
But that's not what you said. You said that police brutality against blacks isn't real and that blacks aren't targeted by police. There is overwhelming evidence and statistics otherwise.

Overwhelming statistics show that innocent blacks are pulled over far more often, innocent blacks were stopped under "stop-and-frisk" far more often, innocent blacks are handcuffed/detained during stops far more often, and blacks are abused and/or shot far more often.

You aren't socially liberal. Stop pretending that you are.

Let's see those stats from an objective source. Blacks are targeted by police for the same reason pit bulls are targeted: they have shown to have a greater inclination for violence.

You seem to be confusing social liberty for social justice. Of course, you've been having a hard time with a lot of things lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Let's see those stats from an objective source. Blacks are targeted by police for the same reason pit bulls are targeted: they have shown to have a greater inclination for violence.

You seem to be confusing social liberty for social justice. Of course, you've been having a hard time with a lot of things lately.

7QHjOWZ.png
 
I fail to see how Nike or Colin have anything to do with her husband’s death or how they are, in any way whatsoever, minimizing the death or his service through his profession.
not surprised someone who doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit cannot comprehend the point of her letter.

you really are a fvcking dolt.
 
Shakur was anything but a saint....she was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, attempted murder as well as murder.

Where are you getting this info? A quote and direct source for this claim, please.

The organization - Per CNN:
"$25,000 was earmarked for 'Assata's Daughters,' an organization honoring the daughters of convicted cop killer

Please don't use an Op-Ed as a source trying to present factual information. You realize that the "Op" in "Op-ed" refers to "opinion," right? The organization doesn't "honor the daughters." The author of that opinion is a retired FBI agent. Other retired FBI agents have gone on record stating that Shakur was a scapegoat the FBI used during that time and went after for numerous crimes they knew she wasn't a part of.
 
Let's see those stats from an objective source. Blacks are targeted by police for the same reason pit bulls are targeted: they have shown to have a greater inclination for violence.

Is BC writing these posts for you? I stated that you were wrong and claimed that blacks are targeted more. I stated that there is overwhelming evidence and research to support that stance.

Then, you asked for stats from an objective source as if to say my claim wasn't true. But, then, you admit that what I said was true by saying that "Blacks are targeted by police for the same reason pit bulls are targeted: they have shown to have a greater inclination for violence."

So lets review:

1) You claim that blacks aren't targeted unfairly by police
2) I claim you are wrong and that there is overwhelming evidence showing that blacks are targeted more and that blacks are beaten more
3) You ask for objective sources as a way to infer my claim is false
4) You then admit that blacks are targeted more

You should go back and edit your previous posts to try and make your argument consistent.


You seem to be confusing social liberty for social justice. Of course, you've been having a hard time with a lot of things lately.

As bad as your flip-flop in your first argument was, this one is even worse.

Do you not realize that social justice is a huge part of being socially liberal? Do you not realize that social justice includes giving all people in society the same rights, opportunities, benefits, and treatment? Do you not realize those are all a huge part of being socially liberal?

So when you admit that individual blacks are targeted more due to the color of their skin, and claiming it is just to do so due to "their inclination" to commit more violence, you are advocating for the complete opposite of a huge part of social liberalism.

At first I thought you went around claiming that you were socially liberal because it helped you fit in better at your cars and coffee events. Now, I realize that it's simply the fact that you have no idea what social liberalism encompasses.

Stop saying you are socially liberal. You're not. And stop hiding and being ashamed of your West Virginian roots. You can't escape those, and these recent discussions prove that.
 
this fvckin' lady was obviously a saint, being convicted once - wrongly, of course - of the multiple times charged. wrong place, wrong time. i mean, shit, she was obviously at the wrong place at the wrong time multiple times for things such as armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc. i'm just sure her hands were clean and she never did anything wrong. obviously conspiracies against her.
 
Is BC writing these posts for you? I stated that you were wrong and claimed that blacks are targeted more. I stated that there is overwhelming evidence and research to support that stance.

Then, you asked for stats from an objective source as if to say my claim wasn't true. But, then, you admit that what I said was true by saying that "Blacks are targeted by police for the same reason pit bulls are targeted: they have shown to have a greater inclination for violence."

So lets review:

1) You claim that blacks aren't targeted unfairly by police
2) I claim you are wrong and that there is overwhelming evidence showing that blacks are targeted more and that blacks are beaten more
3) You ask for objective sources as a way to infer my claim is false
4) You then admit that blacks are targeted more

You should go back and edit your previous posts to try and make your argument consistent.




As bad as your flip-flop in your first argument was, this one is even worse.

Do you not realize that social justice is a huge part of being socially liberal? Do you not realize that social justice includes giving all people in society the same rights, opportunities, benefits, and treatment? Do you not realize those are all a huge part of being socially liberal?

So when you admit that individual blacks are targeted more due to the color of their skin, and claiming it is just to do so due to "their inclination" to commit more violence, you are advocating for the complete opposite of a huge part of social liberalism.

At first I thought you went around claiming that you were socially liberal because it helped you fit in better at your cars and coffee events. Now, I realize that it's simply the fact that you have no idea what social liberalism encompasses.

Stop saying you are socially liberal. You're not. And stop hiding and being ashamed of your West Virginian roots. You can't escape those, and these recent discussions prove that.

Jesus, you really have no idea what you're talking about. "Social justice" does not give minorities the same rights as others, it gives minorities special privilege. Your position that you have to adopt collectivist social justice ideology to be socially liberal is retarded.

I'm not flip-flopping at all. Yes, blacks are objectively more violent than the rest of the population. Cops as well as regular, non-social justice warrior citizens recognize that. So while it would be understandable if they were targeted more often than other races, it's not supported by facts. Blacks are 12% of the population and over the past 30 years are responsible for 52% of homicides.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "being ashamed of being from WV" thing. I'm no more ashamed of being from WV as you are ashamed of wearing ill-fitting, outdated jeans when you beg celebrities to take a picture with you for social media.
 
this fvckin' lady was obviously a saint, being convicted once - wrongly, of course - of the multiple times charged. wrong place, wrong time. i mean, shit, she was obviously at the wrong place at the wrong time multiple times for things such as armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc. i'm just sure her hands were clean and she never did anything wrong. obviously conspiracies against her.

Well, that goes along with the retired FBI agents who said they went after her for everything.They used her as the poster child for the Black Liberation movement, and they wanted to tie her into everything.

I'm sure she wasn't an angel, but the fact that she was charged/arrested for so many crimes and only convicted on one incident is pretty telling. Further, the one incident she was charged with was ripe with questions, including her being charged for first-degree murder even though she didn't have any gun/shooting residue on her hands immediately after the shooting, none on her clothes, and having experts claim that the officer's testimony wasn't possible regarding her injuries/his story.

Again, she wasn't an angel, but there is a reason so many arrests led to acquittals/dismissals.
 
Where are you getting this info? A quote and direct source for this claim, please.



Please don't use an Op-Ed as a source trying to present factual information. You realize that the "Op" in "Op-ed" refers to "opinion," right? The organization doesn't "honor the daughters." The author of that opinion is a retired FBI agent. Other retired FBI agents have gone on record stating that Shakur was a scapegoat the FBI used during that time and went after for numerous crimes they knew she wasn't a part of.
I linked Wikipedia and FBI.org in the original.

It was an opinion piece, but the info about the group was accurate.
 
Well, that goes along with the retired FBI agents who said they went after her for everything.They used her as the poster child for the Black Liberation movement, and they wanted to tie her into everything.

I'm sure she wasn't an angel, but the fact that she was charged/arrested for so many crimes and only convicted on one incident is pretty telling. Further, the one incident she was charged with was ripe with questions, including her being charged for first-degree murder even though she didn't have any gun/shooting residue on her hands immediately after the shooting, none on her clothes, and having experts claim that the officer's testimony wasn't possible regarding her injuries/his story.

Again, she wasn't an angel, but there is a reason so many arrests led to acquittals/dismissals.
could be various reasons. sounds like she's pretty slick and wasn't an easy catch. after all, she did escape and get out of the country. there's probably a reason they tried their damnedest to do whatever they could to take her down . . . she was too smart for them.

when someone finds themselves in trouble time after time after time, well, they're probably just simply fvcking trouble. she was far from anything innocent and chances are she was guilty for something somewhere along the way, whether it be what she was convicted of, or not. she probably got off on shit she shouldn't have and this was their chance to nail her ass, so they did. she got the last laugh by escaping and getting out of the country.

what i don't get is how someone as educated/intelligent as you've told us you are actually coming across as sympathetic toward her situation . . . other than perhaps she serves as an example of the police fvcking with a black person, and it makes it even better that said black person is a woman. perhaps yore not, but that's how it appears.
 
Jesus, you really have no idea what you're talking about. "Social justice" does not give minorities the same rights as others, it gives minorities special privilege. Your position that you have to adopt collectivist social justice ideology to be socially liberal is retarded.
.

Your posts continue to get dumber and dumber with absolutely no facts behind them. Tell us all how social justice is intended to give minorities special privileges. Social justice is used in nursing/healthcare, education, criminal justice, social work, and other industries. In none of them is it intended to give minorities special privileges, but rather, equal privileges.

Here, let me enlighten your West Virginian education. Social justice in nursing:

Research College of Nursing believes Social Justice is, “acting in accordance with fair treatment regardless of economic status, ethnicity, age, citizenship, disability, or sexual orientation”

Where is the special privileges section for minorities?

Here is an in-depth discussion of social justice in education. It harps on making sure teachers don't give preferential treatment based on gender (boys get all of the engineering/building blocks/math toys while girls get the cooking and sewing toys), making sure equal treatment regardless of income level of the students, etc. Shockingly, the section calling for special privileges for minorities is missing:

https://study.com/academy/lesson/issues-definition-of-social-justice-in-education.html

Social justice in criminal justice and law:

Social justice is the overarching societal concern about what is right and wrong, fair and unfair. Social justice applies these concepts of correctness and fairness with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in society. Essentially, social justice ensures that every member of society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, education, etc., is afforded the same opportunities, privileges, and protections as everyone else. Some examples of social justice include equal opportunity employment, free public education, welfare programs, the universal right to vote in elections, etc. Social justice is vast and encompasses equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities for all.

Social justice is justice that follows the principle that all individuals and groups are entitle to fair and impartial treatment. Social justice attempts to prevent human rights abuses. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation. Social justice can also refer to advantages and disadvantages distributed in a society. Social justice derives its authority from the codes of morality in each culture and differs from culture to culture. United Nation’s objectives of social justice policies include social, economic and cultural rights, including right to an adequate standard of living; right to work and equal pay for equal work; right to education; and right of minorities to enjoy their own religion, language and culture.

No matter where you look, social justice doesn't claim to fight for special privileges for anyone.

Your position that you have to adopt collectivist social justice ideology to be socially liberal is retarded.
.

Your claim that social justice is intended to give minorities special privileges exempts you from calling even dherd "retarded." Its intent is the total opposite of giving anyone special privileges.

Claiming to be socially liberal but not support (or even understand) social justice is like claiming to be a Christian but not supporting the belief that salvation comes from Jesus . . . or like claiming to be socially liberal yet being against gay marriage and interracial dating. Social justice ideology is a large part of being socially liberal and in no way is it intended to give special privileges to anyone. That goes against its basic definition across all disciplines it is used in.


So while it would be understandable if they were targeted more often than other races, it's not supported by facts.

This is ignorance and lack of education to such a high degree that I can't believe you are being serious with this argument. This is an argument that isn't even presented anymore due to just about any reasonable person accepting the opposite as fact. Blacks are targeted far, far more by police than whites are.

Again, this isn't even disputed by a reasonable person. There are literally hundreds of studies which have shown that racial profiling is used by police throughout the entire country.

A Stanford University study:


In the Bay Area, black drivers were pulled over at about twice the rate that white drivers were, the data shows. In San Mateo County, police pulled over 23 black drivers for every 100 black drivers they encountered on the road, compared to just 12 white drivers for every 100 encountered. In San Francisco County, police pulled over 20 black drivers for every 100 they countered, compared to eight out of 100 white drivers. Santa Clara County officers pulled over 13 black drivers for every 100 compared to 7 percent of whites and in Contra Costa, 14 blacks for every 100 encountered were pulled over compared to 6 whites per 100.

“In general, we found evidence of discrimination and disparities to be across all states and across all geographies where we have the data,” said Phillips, adding that they found patterns of disparity even after taking into account gender, age and time of day in which the driver was stopped.


The stop-and-frisk policy in NYC took place from 2002-2017 until courts stopped it (more accurately, greatly changed it).This is police fvcking data! This isn't some ultra-liberal blog trying to guesstimate numbers. Again, this is police fvcking data:

From 2002-2017, over 5 million people were detained under stop-and-frisk. Of those 5 million, 89% were entirely accurate. Of those 5 million, 87% were black or Hispanic.

You simply cannot argue against the police's own data. 5 million people stopped and frisked for no reason other than looking like they could be criminals based on race/ethnicity/age. Of those 5 million, 87% were black or Hispanics. That is the complete fvcking definition of targeting. Of those 5 million, nearly 90% were completely innocent.


I'm not sure where you're going with the "being ashamed of being from WV" thing. I'm no more ashamed of being from WV
.

Oh, but you are. That's why you argue with people about, claim, and try not to have a West Virginian accent because you are ashamed of it. That's why every time you have to tell people that you live in West Virginia, you are self-conscious about it and already have your defense mechanism up. You're ashamed of being from and living in West Virginia. It's understandable.


as you are ashamed of wearing ill-fitting, outdated jeans
.

I know that you don't want to get into a clothing/appearance comparison, spandex-boy.


when you beg celebrities to take a picture with you for social media.

I never have to beg. Half of the time, I never get a picture. More than half of half of those times, I'm not the one who asks for a picture. Most of them have photographers/videographesr who want it captured. Over the last few weeks, I have been with Wiz Khalifa, Rae Sremmurd, Sisqo/Dru Hill, Alina Baraz, OT Genasis, Lil Skies, Riff Raff, Leon Bridges, and Paul Wall. I don't think I have a picture with any of them, and if I do, I know I haven't posted anything recently on social media. Likewise, I shy away from posting any pics of me on my bi-weekly beach trips.
 
I linked Wikipedia and FBI.org in the original.
.

Yeah, I saw the links. Neither of them claimed she was convicted for the things you said she was.

It was an opinion piece, but the info about the group was accurate.

Not true. The group isn't to honor her daughters like the guy claimed. What organization is set up to honor somebody's children instead of the person it is named after?
 
what i don't get is how someone as educated/intelligent as you've told us you are actually coming across as sympathetic toward her situation . . . other than perhaps she serves as an example of the police fvcking with a black person, and it makes it even better that said black person is a woman. perhaps yore not, but that's how it appears.

Getting out of the country in the late 70s on an airplane wasn't like it is today. Security was just a little bit different back then.

As I said, I am sure she wasn't Mother Theresa. But as the retired FBI guys said, she was used as the scapegoat and blamed for everything for a reason even when she was innocent of those things.

There is strong evidence disputing her role in the shooting incident. I am not necessarily sympathetic to her situation, but that doesn't mean it's fair to 1) charge her with things the police know she is innocent of 2) post bogus information about her on here that isn't supported by facts.
 
Your posts continue to get dumber and dumber with absolutely no facts behind them. Tell us all how social justice is intended to give minorities special privileges. Social justice is used in nursing/healthcare, education, criminal justice, social work, and other industries. In none of them is it intended to give minorities special privileges, but rather, equal privileges.

Here, let me enlighten your West Virginian education. Social justice in nursing:

Research College of Nursing believes Social Justice is, “acting in accordance with fair treatment regardless of economic status, ethnicity, age, citizenship, disability, or sexual orientation”

Where is the special privileges section for minorities?

Here is an in-depth discussion of social justice in education. It harps on making sure teachers don't give preferential treatment based on gender (boys get all of the engineering/building blocks/math toys while girls get the cooking and sewing toys), making sure equal treatment regardless of income level of the students, etc. Shockingly, the section calling for special privileges for minorities is missing:

https://study.com/academy/lesson/issues-definition-of-social-justice-in-education.html

Social justice in criminal justice and law:

Social justice is the overarching societal concern about what is right and wrong, fair and unfair. Social justice applies these concepts of correctness and fairness with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in society. Essentially, social justice ensures that every member of society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, education, etc., is afforded the same opportunities, privileges, and protections as everyone else. Some examples of social justice include equal opportunity employment, free public education, welfare programs, the universal right to vote in elections, etc. Social justice is vast and encompasses equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities for all.

Social justice is justice that follows the principle that all individuals and groups are entitle to fair and impartial treatment. Social justice attempts to prevent human rights abuses. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation. Social justice can also refer to advantages and disadvantages distributed in a society. Social justice derives its authority from the codes of morality in each culture and differs from culture to culture. United Nation’s objectives of social justice policies include social, economic and cultural rights, including right to an adequate standard of living; right to work and equal pay for equal work; right to education; and right of minorities to enjoy their own religion, language and culture.

No matter where you look, social justice doesn't claim to fight for special privileges for anyone.



Your claim that social justice is intended to give minorities special privileges exempts you from calling even dherd "retarded." Its intent is the total opposite of giving anyone special privileges.

Claiming to be socially liberal but not support (or even understand) social justice is like claiming to be a Christian but not supporting the belief that salvation comes from Jesus . . . or like claiming to be socially liberal yet being against gay marriage and interracial dating. Social justice ideology is a large part of being socially liberal and in no way is it intended to give special privileges to anyone. That goes against its basic definition across all disciplines it is used in.




This is ignorance and lack of education to such a high degree that I can't believe you are being serious with this argument. This is an argument that isn't even presented anymore due to just about any reasonable person accepting the opposite as fact. Blacks are targeted far, far more by police than whites are.

Again, this isn't even disputed by a reasonable person. There are literally hundreds of studies which have shown that racial profiling is used by police throughout the entire country.

A Stanford University study:


In the Bay Area, black drivers were pulled over at about twice the rate that white drivers were, the data shows. In San Mateo County, police pulled over 23 black drivers for every 100 black drivers they encountered on the road, compared to just 12 white drivers for every 100 encountered. In San Francisco County, police pulled over 20 black drivers for every 100 they countered, compared to eight out of 100 white drivers. Santa Clara County officers pulled over 13 black drivers for every 100 compared to 7 percent of whites and in Contra Costa, 14 blacks for every 100 encountered were pulled over compared to 6 whites per 100.

“In general, we found evidence of discrimination and disparities to be across all states and across all geographies where we have the data,” said Phillips, adding that they found patterns of disparity even after taking into account gender, age and time of day in which the driver was stopped.


The stop-and-frisk policy in NYC took place from 2002-2017 until courts stopped it (more accurately, greatly changed it).This is police fvcking data! This isn't some ultra-liberal blog trying to guesstimate numbers. Again, this is police fvcking data:

From 2002-2017, over 5 million people were detained under stop-and-frisk. Of those 5 million, 89% were entirely accurate. Of those 5 million, 87% were black or Hispanic.

You simply cannot argue against the police's own data. 5 million people stopped and frisked for no reason other than looking like they could be criminals based on race/ethnicity/age. Of those 5 million, 87% were black or Hispanics. That is the complete fvcking definition of targeting. Of those 5 million, nearly 90% were completely innocent.




Oh, but you are. That's why you argue with people about, claim, and try not to have a West Virginian accent because you are ashamed of it. That's why every time you have to tell people that you live in West Virginia, you are self-conscious about it and already have your defense mechanism up. You're ashamed of being from and living in West Virginia. It's understandable.




I know that you don't want to get into a clothing/appearance comparison, spandex-boy.




I never have to beg. Half of the time, I never get a picture. More than half of half of those times, I'm not the one who asks for a picture. Most of them have photographers/videographesr who want it captured. Over the last few weeks, I have been with Wiz Khalifa, Rae Sremmurd, Sisqo/Dru Hill, Alina Baraz, OT Genasis, Lil Skies, Riff Raff, Leon Bridges, and Paul Wall. I don't think I have a picture with any of them, and if I do, I know I haven't posted anything recently on social media. Likewise, I shy away from posting any pics of me on my bi-weekly beach trips.

I’ll read all of that later. But I would get into a clothing, appearance comparison with you anytime.
 
What the hell is wrong you two? Two dudes arguing over who looks the best and who wears the best looking jeans. I'm not saying that's queer, but it might be.
 
Ok, two sizes too big OVO t-shirt

Which part got you the maddest? The part about how you're ashamed of your West Virginia roots or the part where you foolishly argued that blacks are not targeted more than any other group?

I don't own anything OVO. If you're referring to the below-linked shirt, it is Knowledge. Neiman Marcus (and I believe Saks now) carries them. I think Huntington's mall has a Neiman Marcus in between the Aeropostale and Spencer's, right? Or maybe it is near the Bath & Body Works?

Knowledge is global organic textile standard certified clothing (GOTS). You wouldn't be concerned about stuff like that since it helps people other than you:

https://knowledgecottonapparel.com/...big-owl-printed-tee-gots-t-shirt-bright-white

The shirt isn't even slightly too big let alone two sizes too big. When my arm is straight, the sleeve ends about a third of the way up the bicep which is the highest any t-shirt or polo should go on a guy. Anywhere higher and you're simply trying too hard. It's like the girl who just gets new tits, the girl who loses weight to go from 350 lbs. to 250 lbs., or even the guy who didn't lift a weight in his life until he was in his thirties . . . they suddenly want to showoff and get attention that they have never received in their lives. Most of those people, after a few years of the attention, learn they are trying too hard and go back to being somewhat modest. The others continue to wear tank tops, sleeveless shirts, no shirt, and t-shirts/polos that go 2/3rd of the way up their arms for attention. The shirt length hits near the top of where the fly zipper would hit, which again, is completely acceptable and not anywhere close to too long.

The shorts, if you're wondering, are Armani. They hit at the bottom of the kneecap, which again is acceptable. Under no circumstance, should a straight guy wear shorts in public that exposes more than 50% of his thighs, let alone wear spandex shorts that hit right below his ass cheeks.

quEEBZM.jpg



Is that a Kangol hat?

Out of 30+ hats, not counting snowhats/beanies, two of them are Kangol. Speaking of which, I just bought a children's Kangol hat a few days ago along with an Adidas outfit to take over to the kids at the shelter. Each time I go to spend time with them, which is 1-2 times per week, I bring whichever child/children I will be spending time with some gifts:

J4FZvuB.jpg




with boot-cut jeans guy

This is where you start to look even more foolish than usual. First, you say the jeans are "ill-fitting." Then, you say that they are "boot cut." You realize that "boot cut" are straight jeans, right? They are straight jeans from the hips all the way to below the knee before they widen for boots. In other words, they are pretty tight until the boot area. So if my jeans are too big, like you have claimed before, they would be loose cut, comfortable cut, or baggy cut; totally different than the tight-fitting boot cut jeans.

Here are all of the pictures in jeans I have posted on social media over the last three years. Gray and Blue #2 are the only ones even remotely baggy. In the first one, my jeans are the same fit as a country singer's:

Dark blue:
muFFSCq.jpg


Blue #2:

PKkNr7q.jpg


Gray:

1A2JXmu.jpg


Black:

aH4NudX.jpg


Blue #2:

MwCyyIH.jpg


Light blue:

EcuxbBj.jpg


Blue #3:
6j2MztQ.jpg


Gray:

9KyOPGy.jpg


Blue #2 again:

JcJMgqE.jpg


Black again:

ihHwZ9P.jpg


Blue #2 again:

hOCF2Lx.jpg


Black:

THDJlMa.jpg


Gray again:

SPD2dV4.jpg


Blue #3:

H23yp5T.jpg


Dark blue again:

w4Whye3.jpg


Blue #2 again with this stunner:

HBVvl3A.jpg
 
I'm happy about two things. One...I neither understand nor have a desire to follow this conversation about jean cuts and hats with kangaroos. And two...rifle is visiting kids at the shelter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
I knew when I thought of this title that it would be a least a 2 pager.
 
Jesus, you really have no idea what you're talking about. "Social justice" does not give minorities the same rights as others, it gives minorities special privilege. Your position that you have to adopt collectivist social justice ideology to be socially liberal is retarded.

I'm not flip-flopping at all. Yes, blacks are objectively more violent than the rest of the population. Cops as well as regular, non-social justice warrior citizens recognize that. So while it would be understandable if they were targeted more often than other races, it's not supported by facts. Blacks are 12% of the population and over the past 30 years are responsible for 52% of homicides.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "being ashamed of being from WV" thing. I'm no more ashamed of being from WV as you are ashamed of wearing ill-fitting, outdated jeans when you beg celebrities to take a picture with you for social media.
And, he has a tendency to end sentences with prepositions. I noticed that by watching game film.
 
Blacks are targeted more than anyone. That's obvious but they are also the most violent group. More blacks are killed by other blacks than white cops x ten.They have a lot of the illegal guns in america
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT