itry04

I've watched the videos and read some of the reports relative to the Alton Sterling, Philando Castille, Terrence Crutcher, and Keith Scott shootings. Each of them appear to have one thing in common. All four of those individuals failed to comply with express police commands. Does BLM suggest that they should not have had to comply with a police officer acting well within his/her authority? Is there some other explanation for the conduct of those individuals which would suggest that the use of force is not warranted? Is the position simply that police should use non-lethal force first regardless of their interpretation of the threat posed? If there is any possibility that they reasonably believed that their life was threatened, is it not ok for the police officers to have used the force used?

Initially, I was under the impression that BLM was opposed to police brutality against black people. This is understandable. Police brutality, period, is something we should all oppose. However, with all of the interviews in recent days, I hear a lot of rhetoric that has led me to question whether BLM is opposed to police brutality against blacks, or the use of any kind of force against blacks. Is the call to disarm the police a BLM message? How would BLM have police deescalate a situation involving a non-compliant suspect who the police are attempting to detain? Is non-lethal force ok? Is there ever a situation in which lethal force should be exercised?

I know that, inevitably, there will be an answerer or two, maybe even more, who doesn't read this section and, regardless of their position, will answer with a stupid comment or response that hasn't been thought out and won't even begin to intelligently answer the question but, for everyone else...What is the answer to the problem that BLM is currently protesting about? I think the first step that has to be taken is to identify the issue which, in this case, is clearly the use of deadly force by police officers against black men and women. Having established that, I think you have to add that BLM takes issue, usually, with white law enforcement officers using deadly force against black individuals. Please correct this observation in the event that I am wrong regarding there being a racial dynamic to the issue and, if possible, the basis for your explanation. In addition, it also appears that BLM takes the position with respect to the most recent shootings of black men by white officers (or officers of a race or ethnicity other than African-American or black) that the shootings were unjustified. So, for the purposes of this question, let's assume, whether you believe it to be the case or not, that there is an issue and that the issue is that white or non-black law enforcement officers are using deadly force against black individuals and the use of deadly force isn't justified. What is the answer or solution that BLM seeks that will resolve the issue?

I have become aware that, not only has our federal government decided to fund the "Ground Zero Mosque's Imam's trip, we are now giving him our vote of confidence to represent the United States in the region. This is incredibly unsettling in my opinion. If anyone is able to recall the last time our federal government funded a judeo-christian pastor or priest's trip anywhere please let me know.

I must add that I understand many believe this concept that we must reach out to Middle Eastern countries, which is apparently best done through religion. While I understand that many people believe the concept, I am not exactly sure how accurate it is. It is my understanding that, while the Middle Eastern population is more in tune with religion than we are here in the states, there are other means by which we, as the United States, could use to reach out to this region.

Here is my bottom line. With legislation like affirmative action, which in my opinion is completely outdated, and now allowing minority religious groups to represent the United States' interest, I believe we are moving away from our (that is the majority of Americans, not white people but members of every race) core principles. These principles have been inherited from those who founded, what is arguably, the greatest country in the history of the world. I would like to hear from a Middle Eastern scholar but I understand there may not be one on the website. Everyone else, since you must have read the whole post right, please leave your comments.

I want to provide two possible reactions. Shoot first and ask question later or would you attempt to find out the intruders inentions?

Here is the basis for this question. In a rural parish in southern Louisiana, a white female was denied a teaching job. She scored so well on all of the three praxis examinations that she recieved a certificate from the company that administers the exam. She graduated from a local university with honors. She sought employment in her home parish and was not selected due to a federal court ruling requiring the adminstrators of the school system to hire zero non-black employees. This decision came out of a case that was resurrected after it was initially filed in 1969. This individual is highly qualified judging by the information which we have. Is this not an injustice to the students of the school system, both black and white? Why is it that Rev. King's words don't apply today. We should judge people by who they are, their achievements, thier abilities, how they can help and not by the color of their skin. Why would this be ok?

It has been brought to my attention that many liberals tend to blame the economic situation we find ourselves in on President Bush. I am curious to see how much of the legislation passed during his last term was voted on by Senator Obama. From there, I would like to know how many of those bills Senator Obama voted for and against.

*I refer to President Obama as Senator Obama in this instance simply becuase at the time the legislation was being passed he was in fact a Senator.

If America is truly a "melting pot" how can someone tell me that different races and nationalities will reatain their distinct languages and mores?

According to the World Health Organization in 2000, the U.S. was ranked 37 overall for industrialized nation's health care systems.

There were five factors taken into consideration, they found the following problems:

The World Health Report says the main failings of many health systems are:

1.Many health ministries focus on the public sector and often disregard the frequently much larger private sector health care.

2.In many countries, some if not most physicians work simultaneously for the public sector and in private practice. This means the public sector ends up subsidizing unofficial private practice.

3.Many governments fail to prevent a "black market" in health, where widespread corruption, bribery, "moonlighting" and other illegal practices flourish. The black markets, which themselves are caused by malfunctioning health systems, and low income of health workers, further undermine those systems.

4.Many health ministries fail to enforce regulations that they themselves have created or are supposed to implement in the public interest.

I hope everyone really paid attention to their feelings towards the public health care sector.

Now, call me crazy, isn't it a fundamental principle that if you want the best quality you pay the most. Thus, taking statistics based on the efficiency of a healthcare system may not be the best way to judge one. If you judge our healthcare based on the amount of money spent (a concrete figure) and apply that to the "level of care" (an abstract figure) does the end result even matter if you are truly concerned with the quality? I don't understand how people can't see that "affordable health care" means "lower quality health care." Please Obamaites enlighten me.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_r...

Do you trust our elected officials to tell us the truth even though it may hurt them during election time?

Seriously, this dude is quite possibly one of the most obnoxious people in mainstream entertainment today. He has interrupted acceptance speeches before not to mention, his obnoxious accusation that "President Bush hates black people." I'm not racist and I don't want anyone to draw that conclusion but, it is apparent, based on his actions listed above, that West is. Is it time for everyone to condemn his actions and pay him no attention until he proves that he can stay within the societal rules of civility?

I just watched the video on youtube.com of the male and female posing as a man who planned on running for political office and a prostitute. An ACORN advisor or employee, I'm not sure of her role with ACORN, advised these individuals on "legitimizing" their prostitution business so that it appeared to be a completely legal one (whilst paying their taxes) and what to do with underage prostitutes once they were trafficked into the U.S. These individuals were also advised on how to launder money into a political campaign. I must add that I am not sure of the validity of this video but no question has been raised as of yet and it does appear to be legitimate. I understand that the President's ties to the organization are contested but he has admitted to having had "interacted" with the organization in the past. It would be greatly appreciated if you guys could inform me as to what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgqORp48uik

If so how long does the process usually take?

I would like to know where people stand on the following issues. If you could please add your political affiliation.Feel free to add comments.

1. Affirmative Action

2. Abortion

3. Health Care (are you for a public option)

4. 2nd Amendment

5. National Security (basically just trying to find out if you think we are safe)

6. Social Welfare

7. Government bailouts of Private Corporations

8. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

9. Mexico's legalization of several drugs which are illegal here in the U.S. (I am sure most of you have heard about this and I am unable, due to a lack of media coverage, to really feel out society's reaction)

10. Investigations of the CIA and some of its former leaders

Thanks

It appears to me that many here on Y!A tend to assume that, because I share many of the core values which Republican leaders claim to have, I am a racist, sexist, bigot. Is this the true societal conception of a Republican?

I really have not heard too much on this story. I did not think it would be a huge deal or anything, but I certainly thought we would hear a little more about it than we have.

http://military.rightpundits.com/2009/08/22/mexico...

Can any of you explain to me why it is that every time I happen to venture on to the politics section of this website, I see liberal posters talking about the ignorance and stupidity of those who disagree with their opinions. For example, moments ago I read an answer that stated, "It's unlikely that the idiot who called him a Nazi was a Democrat, and even if she was, she's as ignorant as a Republican." My question is this, what makes your opinion the not so ignorant or educated one? What or whom gives you the right to question, not only other people's judgement, but their core values and belief systems? I happen to be a fairly well educated conservative. I just can't understand why a person would answer a question in that manner. Essentially, this poster didn't answer the question and, without justification or reasoning added to his statement, clearly put into words that he feels that ALL Republicans are ignorant. I understand that not everyone on this site will be educated but would it be unreasonable to believe that everyone on this site has the ability to reason and provide logical responses to every question, even the ones that might seem a little well... ignorant?

I found, on the NCHC website, that 46 million americans do not have health insurance. I also found an article, on the Heritage.org website, which stated that in 2005 37 million americans were on welfare. I was curious as to what the users here on YA thought about this. I must add that this is in no way a partisan question. I am curious to know what both sides of this National Healthcare debate have to say.

While there has been a lot of talk about Bush "ripping apart" the Bill of Rights, I have seen no one explain exactly what they were referring to. I hope someone will help me out.

This system has been around for quite a while. It gives the uninsured an opportunity to recieve healtcare from qualified individuals. It is also used as an educational tool for Med. students.

http://www.lsuhospitals.org/About_LSU-HCSD/default...