Black Dog

Yeah, the people of Ontario learned their lesson by electing a series of governments, starting with Mike Harris, that was each worse than the one that came before it.

What do you suggest they were doing when they took him on an hour long tour of the city? Sightseeing?

Only if you think racism is exclusively a consciously held individual belief and not an unconscious set of assumptions that colour one's behaviours.

The fear of an armed uprising by black people has been a recurring fear. The terrorist KKK was founded on that very basis and the NRA has historically promoted gun control measures in response to those fears. But I suspect you know this.

I see you're retreating to your usual victim mode to distract from the fact you are completely incoherent. By "accusations of racism" you mean "actual racism" right? I never called you racist. Good lord. Where did I call you racist? I did no such thing. I have no idea what you're talking about here. At all. None of this has to do with carding. Stay on topic. You're off the rails again. Cite or GTFO.

I know they are different. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about perceptions. But yeah, since you mention it, I'm totally in favour of cranking up taxes on people's net worth to help create a more equitable society. Good for you.

And you still can't figure out the Quote function. Sigh. This response, like the original, has nothing to do with carding or this thread. But the idea that black people turn irrational and illogical when confronted by racism is an..interesting one. You know what else many members of the black community talk about? The fact that carding is racist. Someone is definitely not making sense in this exchange. No you just talked about how we shouldn't mention racism. Or something,. It's not too clear why you chose to wade in here because you don't seem to have much to actually say. Before you jumped in, the discussion was, quite specifically, about whether or not carding was, in practice, racist. It was not a discussion about "what we need to do to address issues of inequality or discrimination." Again: try reading the discussion, get a feel for what it is people are talking about before blundering in with this crapola. No, no it doesn't. I think a person can participate in a racist system without consciously harbouring racist feelings themselves. Semantics are actually very important. It's what gives words their meaning and enables people to communicate. That you reduce the concept of racism to a mere insult shows you're not on the same page as anyone else discussing this issue. And you should probably stop. I had no idea carding was the only investigative or community engagement tool available to police. Huh. And yet, you have said yourself that you don't support carding. Which begs the question of why you would also deprive police of their only crime solving and prevention tool. What professional reputation?

But but but mass protests don't work all those people who took to the streets would have been better off writing letters!

Can you two trolls take your "U.S.WORST/U.S. BEST!" debate elsewhere?

Couple things on the efficiency of this. There's no correlation between rates of carding and the rates of arrests and charges. This squares with what we saw in New York, where nine of 10 people detained in stop and frisk incidents were completely innocent. It didn't work there, I doubt it works here. It's incumbent on the supporters of this de facto racist policy to step up and show that it actually works. That includes the new TPS chief with his absurd claims that stopping carding will lead to an increase in crime.

I doubt anyone who is not a financial adviser would agree with you here. Income is not a measure of wealth, which is why the government doesn't tax it.

How, precisely?

Dunno. But I think that they were charged at all represents some kind of progress. Not to mention another dagger int the "Gray severed his own spine!!11one!!!" narrative.

All six cops involved are going to be charged in connection with Gray's death.

People capable of holding more than one thought in their heads at one time are able to understand that these issues are related and also distinct. Examining one in no way precludes examining the other. Now you're speaking for the whole black community now? lol This has nothing whatsoever to do with the racist practice of carding. Not when something is, you know, actually racist. What are you even on about here? I didn't call cops racist. I called the practice of carding racist. Pretty simple distinction. I have one in this case: stop detaining people who are not suspected of a crime or in the act of committing one. It's a simple and elegant solution to the issue of carding. What is it with Fake Internet Lawyers that they can't follow simple discussions without going off on unrelated tangents?

Sure. Read some history. Name a great power that has become so without doing some, any or all of the above. Pro tip: any regime with the word "Empire" somewhere in its title will qualify. You mistake me sir: I criticize all those things, I just don't do it in a way that makes people roll their eyes and reach for the ignore button (for example, by using specious and shopworn Nazi analogies).

"I don't understand why these people have to riot and steal things."- a citizen of a country founded in a violent revolution and built on the theft of land and human beings, probably.

Anecdote /= data Having worked shitty jobs and being born with certain unearned advantages aren't mutually exclusive things you know. Capitalism or the good ol' Protestant work ethic don't add up to equality of opportunity. Unless you really think the people who emptied your office trash at night were simply lazier than the people who signed your paycheques.

It's cute that people still believe this stuff. You're a product of a generation that received one of the greatest transfers of wealth in human history. Go easy on the bootstraps B.S. mmmkay?

Does this apply across the board or just to certain income brackets? Because my hypothetical profligate millionaire would probably be considered wealthy no matter his net worth.

Pretty garden variety stuff for an imperial power. So why the Nazis specifically as opposed to, say, Britain or Russia or France or any other global power from the last 200 years?

His regular season winning percentage is actually better than Babcock's. And he didn't have a perennial Norris trophy winner on the blueline for most of his tenure like Babcock did. I'm not sure what point you are arguing with, but it's not any one I made. I was saying that you can't necessarily judge individuals based on team success, especially in the post season. Think of how many great players, from Marcel Dionne to Jarome Iginla have never won Cups; does that make them bad players? And those are people with far more influence on what happens on the ice than coaches. And look what happened there. He's won one Cup and had one SCF appearance with a stacked Detroit team and an SCF appearance with a pretty solid Ducks squad; he has as many pro championships as McLellan. In the last six years he's had three first round and three second round exits. It's not all sunshine and unicorns. Point is, they'd both be solid choices.

I like McLellan a lot and I don't think you can judge a coach for not winning the big prize anymore than you can judge individual players. Maybe even less so. Babcock is obviously the sexy pick, but he did have a few Hall of Famers to work with in his heyday.

The lack of self awareness in this one is great. Point is "wealthy" is a relative and relatively meaningless term. The guy who has to fly first class probably doesn't see himself as wealthy compared to the guy who owns his own plane, but he's still ahead of the sucker back in coach. Income and networth are both indicators of wealth. Bemoaning the "wealthy" label while having a six figure income to play with is a nice problem to have.

The point here is your actual income puts you in a position to build up your net worth: in fact, that's your explicit goal. So you are in a position a great many people are not, which means you might not be wealthy, but you can see it from where you are. Big talk from a guy living in a basement suite. Anyway, by your own definition income is not irrelevant. I'd expect there's a fairly high correlation between net income and net worth, especially the further up the income ladder you go. Finally, no one is arguing it's the best or only measure. But a guy who makes a million a year and spends every last dime has as much as the guy whose net worth is million dollars, he's just not being very smart about managing his wealth.