OT Portland hotel calls cops on black guest in lobby

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I'm torn. I don't mind people being mad about slavery or the holocaust. There are still holocaust survivors alive today if that means anything.

Whining about it? I don't even know who whines or what the whining would be.

The only thing that bothers me about either is that I had nothing to do with them. My grandpa fought in ww2 against the Germans so if anything my recent family is good to go.

I don't think my poor dairy farmer relatives from 100 -150 years ago had anything to do with either.

I would say without studying either closely that the holocaust seems worse but that's like the difference between getting your private parts cut off or tore off.

That's the problem. White people don't seem to understand they still benefit from this system that was setup after slavery.

Look up the 13th amendment. It was written that way to keep us enslaved.
 
Really quick tho....

Obamacare didn't do anything to change



He was a paying customer. There is video of him showing his room number.

He was expelled for being black.

Black people get the short, sharp end of the stick in this country.

Our white counterparts are content to sit idly by while this perpetuates itself.
I know they do and it happens all the time.

The argument I'm making is that Earl may just be a total asshole and the guy said something rude and he had a powertrip.

The Chipotle girl got saved by proof that the dudes that she wanted to make pay for their food dined and dashed all the time and bragged about it online.

Otherwise she's branded a racist for the rest of her life.

I linked a video of a verified racist psycho bitch in McMinnville I think it was. She gets what she deserves.

My wife has fought the soft racist shit on her own in the hair industry for fucks sake.

There was an old white supervisor at her old company that didn't want two black girls on the floor at the same time so they didn't talk "ghetto" or loud or some such bullshit.

I've been pushing my wife to be fair the entire time she's been in management and she has a great reputation because of it.

When she isn't sure about a disciplinary action she has to take I have her tell me all the relative info without telling me who did what and if they're her favorite or one she doesn't like.

She has simple rules about being on time and being professional. You fit in with that and you have a job forever.
 
That's the problem. White people don't seem to understand they still benefit from this system that was setup after slavery.

Look up the 13th amendment. It was written that way to keep us enslaved.
I know about this silly argument.

Unfortunately to have a society of laws we have to be able to put people in prison.

If you kill someone you don't get to sit in prison and read all day or play video games.

That amendment is written perfectly.

Now into reality, does that amendment leave it open to government making it a crime to be black and therefore blacks are slaves again? Sure if taken on its own.

The problem is laws being enforced unfairly, not the constitution.
 
I know they do and it happens all the time.

The argument I'm making is that Earl may just be a total asshole and the guy said something rude and he had a powertrip.

The Chipotle girl got saved by proof that the dudes that she wanted to make pay for their food dined and dashed all the time and bragged about it online.

Otherwise she's branded a racist for the rest of her life.

I linked a video of a verified racist psycho bitch in McMinnville I think it was. She gets what she deserves.

My wife has fought the soft racist shit on her own in the hair industry for fucks sake.

There was an old white supervisor at her old company that didn't want two black girls on the floor at the same time so they didn't talk "ghetto" or loud or some such bullshit.

I've been pushing my wife to be fair the entire time she's been in management and she has a great reputation because of it.

When she isn't sure about a disciplinary action she has to take I have her tell me all the relative info without telling me who did what and if they're her favorite or one she doesn't like.

She has simple rules about being on time and being professional. You fit in with that and you have a job forever.

There was no reason for Earl to begin questioning in the first place. The racial profiling began before Earl said one word. Skin tone brought about the confrontation.

Kudos to your wife. Her position is hard because being under an obvious racist of a manager and being the manager of those experiencing racism is a tough spot for one who actually cares.
 
Naw. It does not single you or any other out.

Correct. But what happened after it was enshrined?

Our prison population went from 80% white to 80% black.

I challenge you and every conservative in here to watch this:

13th. from Slave to Criminal in One Amendment

13th-Movie-Screening-Poster-1.jpg
 
From what ive read and know, which certainly isnt everything, the universal health care proposals have all included choice operations, not required.
Such as birthing. I havent seen anything on restrictions. Again, not interested in paying for someone else to pop out a dozen newbies into the world. Should be a limit.

Not interested in paying for someone rehab off drugs and alchohol and certainly not interested in paying for anyone elses persoanl choices that cause them harm. When the known outcome prior to the choice will be harmful (ie. not talking about situational circumstance like riding a motorcycle, while more dangerous, is not a mandate to be harmful. Accidents happen).

Leave charity to those who would like to help others how they see fit. Not mandate i provide charity to all.

I give alot, but more often on a personal level Nd not to some organization or group.

It prevents me from claiming a write off on what i give but that isnt the point of my giving so i dont care.


What i would be ailling to pay into is what i already do, but needs an overhaul.

Social security. Id also be willing to pay a tax that provides care for the elderly and the care of underage children without a parents to provide.

There has to be some sort of line drawn for having society pay for ones continual self destruction, Whichever form they deem most fits thier destructive needs.
 
I know about this silly argument.

Unfortunately to have a society of laws we have to be able to put people in prison.

If you kill someone you don't get to sit in prison and read all day or play video games.

That amendment is written perfectly.

Now into reality, does that amendment leave it open to government making it a crime to be black and therefore blacks are slaves again? Sure if taken on its own.

The problem is laws being enforced unfairly, not the constitution.

It most certainly is NOT. Slavery is cruel and unusual punishment.

The 13th Amendment, by definition, defies the 8th amendment of the constitution.
 
Not interested in paying for someone rehab off drugs and alchohol and certainly not interested in paying for anyone elses persoanl choices that cause them harm. When the known outcome prior to the choice will be harmful (ie. not talking about situational circumstance like riding a motorcycle, while more dangerous, is not a mandate to be harmful. Accidents happen).

You kinda seem to have an issue thinking that you're paying for other folks. You're not. You're paying a DRASTICALLY reduced cost for your care that is NOT given to an insurance cartel that makes every dollar through denial of care.

So you'd rather continue the FAILED war on drugs (something that we waste billions on) and spend that money policing people instead of rehabilitating them?

We completely disagree here.
 
Last edited:
You kinda seem to have an issue thinking that you're paying for other folks. You're not. You're paying a DRASTICALLY reduced cost that is NOT given to an insurance cartel that makes every dollar through denial of care.

So you'd rather continue the FAILED war on drugs (something that we waste billions on) and spend that money policing purple instead of rehabilitating them?

We completely disagree here.

No one can say that for sure without there being a test over time to determine the numbers, but i tend to disagree and feel thst if i only had to pay for myself, i would still be paying less than if i paid for everyone and im tossed in the middle, because i have been and plan on being very healthy overall(thankfully)

What i would like to see is some sort of drastic insurance sliding scale based on regularly mandated health checkups and lifesyles.

-If you drive x amount of miles a week.
-Do tou smoke, drink or do drugs
-reporting of diet and eating habits.
- Amount of excersize.
-how many children do you have.
-etc

Id like to have all of this tracked individually and cooporatively or you lose the ability to have insurance. If it is a government run system, id like the same.

Only then do i beleive any type of mass coverage would be fair. Until then there is no right answer, but im not interested in spending billions of dollars in changing a system that will still have Significant flaws.
 
No one can say that for sure without there being a test over time to determine the numbers, but i tend to disagree and feel thst if i only had to pay for myself, i would still be paying less than if i paid for everyone and im tossed in the middle, because i have been and plan on being very healthy overall(thankfully)

What i would like to see is some sort of drastic insurance sliding scale based on regularly mandated health checkups and lifesyles.

-If you drive x amount of miles a week.
-Do tou smoke, drink or do drugs
-reporting of diet and eating habits.
- Amount of excersize.
-how many children do you have.
-etc

Id like to have all of this tracked individually and cooporatively or you lose the ability to have insurance. If it is a government run system, id like the same.

Only then do i beleive any type of mass coverage would be fair. Until then there is no right answer, but im not interested in spending billions of dollars in changing a system that will still have Significant flaws.

So... More government control?

Bro... This doesn't make sense. You're asking the government to mandate that you exercise?

Make sense man...
 
Id like to have all of this tracked individually and cooporatively or you lose the ability to have insurance. If it is a government run system, id like the same.

Lol.

You're asking our government to monitor our eating and exercise habits? Besides the fact that that violates our 4th amendment right, but you're not even thinking about how much that's gonna cost....
 
It most certainly is NOT. Slavery is cruel and unusual punishment.

The 13th Amendment, by definition, defies the 8th amendment of the constitution.
I see your point that it says slavery is still legal for punishment of crime. I'd remove that I guess as long as people can still get life in prison for murder and such and be made to work to pay their way.

Luckily the 8th does rule out cruel and unusual punishment and I'm sure most people would consider slavery cruel and unusual.

On the other hand shooting up an elementary school seems like it would deserve any punishment known to man.

Either way it likely isn't getting repealed anytime soon.
 
So... More government control?

Bro... This doesn't make sense. You're asking the government to mandate that you exercise?

Make sense man...

That is not what i said. Please reread. i said id like an insurance run system. Not government.
I said If its a government op then o want it run the same. This is why im against universal health care.

Lol.

You're asking our government to monitor our eating and exercise habits? Besides the fact that that violates our 4th amendment right, but you're not even thinking about how much that's gonna cost....

Man, again i didnt say that. Go reread my post from beginning to end.
As far as cost, insurance companies can eat it or write the cost into the policy or offer thier customers the ability to self track and provide verifiable data.
 
I see your point that it says slavery is still legal for punishment of crime. I'd remove that I guess as long as people can still get life in prison for murder and such and be made to work to pay their way.

Luckily the 8th does rule out cruel and unusual punishment and I'm sure most people would consider slavery cruel and unusual.

On the other hand shooting up an elementary school seems like it would deserve any punishment known to man.

Either way it likely isn't getting repealed anytime soon.

That's all I'm talking about. Remove the:

"except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

This was added for a reason and that reason was to keep black people subjugated.
 
Last edited:
That is not what i said. Please reread. i said id like an insurance run system. Not government.
I said If its a government op then o want it run the same. This is why im against universal health care.



Man, again i didnt say that. Go reread my post from beginning to end.

We can control politicians faster than we can corporations.

The corporations are the ones who RIGHT NOW want to get rid of coverage for pre-existing conditions. You cannot vote out an insurance company...

We've done it their way since Nixon and Kaiser FUCKED us in 73' with the HMO act.

Healthcare should NOT have a profit motive.

The way you want it does not solve the problem with access to the system.
 
I see your point that it says slavery is still legal for punishment of crime. I'd remove that I guess as long as people can still get life in prison for murder and such and be made to work to pay their way.

Luckily the 8th does rule out cruel and unusual punishment and I'm sure most people would consider slavery cruel and unusual.

On the other hand shooting up an elementary school seems like it would deserve any punishment known to man.

Either way it likely isn't getting repealed anytime soon.

You also gotta understand the profit motive from having prisoners work.

Right now, we have for profit prisons and our executions are privatized.

Fucking SHAMEFUL.
 
Replacing the Insurance company in the system with the government will not improve the system, it is illogical with no rational
explanation for what would reduce cost.

The government wouldn't need to advertise for new clients. The government wouldn't need to make a profit. The government wouldn't need multiple different record systems. The government wouldn't need to negotiate multiple contracts with each provider.

Realizing those savings would depend on an efficient implementation, which is of course not guaranteed - but there are savings to be had.

barfo
 
We can control politicians faster than we can corporations.

The corporations are the ones who RIGHT NOW want to get rid of coverage for pre-existing conditions. You cannot vote out an insurance company...

We've done it their way since Nixon and Kaiser FUCKED us in 73' with the HMO act.

Healthcare should NOT have a profit motive.

The way you want it does not solve the problem with access to the system.

Good points regarding the profit agenda of the private vs government
 
Really quick tho....

Obamacare didn't do anything to change that.



He was a paying customer. There is video of him showing his room number.

He was expelled for being black.

Black people get the short, sharp end of the stick in this country.

Our white counterparts are content to sit idly by while this perpetuates itself.

Again, we don't know what went down. I have been ejected from a bar by cops. Leave or be arrested on criminal trespass. Once the call has been made most places will not back down. I worked where we did it many nights a week usually call the police when they were out on the sidewalk
to keep them from coming back. Next day new game. People learn, some don't.
 
The government wouldn't need to advertise for new clients.

>>>No and the insurance company does not either when managing a Self Insured Employers system

The government wouldn't need to make a profit.

>>> My guess is this is not so. I imagine the the government GSA personnel are more costly than the Insurance company clerical personnel.
No doubt better benefits too.

The government wouldn't need multiple different record systems.

>>> Don't know.

The government wouldn't need to negotiate multiple contracts with each provider.

>>>When I was covered, we had no contracted providers. My coverage was good world wide, what ever provider. I might have to pay them directly, but I had a reimbursement path.
 
The government wouldn't need to negotiate multiple contracts with each provider.

I am not at all sure what the government does here.
I got a summary of all the charges the VA payed on my behalf to provider this past summer for a vist to the emergency room at the Bandon Hospital.

Many of the charges stated the "contract" amount payed. Which was to be considered full payment, none to be passed on the the Vet.
I have to say though, I imagine the $5800+ was cost shifted well above cost to make up for the 40% that pay nothing.
 
>>>No and the insurance company does not either when managing a Self Insured Employers system

Ok, better to call it cost of customer acquisition instead of advertising. The insurance companies still have to compete against each other for business, and that costs money.

>>> My guess is this is not so.

You think the government is a for-profit entity?

I imagine the the government GSA personnel are more costly than the Insurance company clerical personnel.
No doubt better benefits too.

That is possible - but not necessarily true.

barfo
 
How can you blackmail someone without having some inconvenient truth about them?

Just make up shit, as disgraced British spy Christopher Steele and Dem's GPS Fusion did.

In the court of public opinion, no proof is needed. Just make it salacious. It's like tossing red meat to a pack of hyenas.

Half the posters here actually believe, or claim to believe, that Donald Trump went to Russia to pay some hookers to pee on a mattress.

I think it was you who posted the Gary Hart was framed story, yet you swallow every absurd lie about Trump that sees print.
 
Lol.

You're asking our government to monitor our eating and exercise habits? Besides the fact that that violates our 4th amendment right, but you're not even thinking about how much that's gonna cost....

You do realize that this is an ultimate goal of Democratic Socialism, along with the dismantling of the other Amendments and the dissolving of the US Constitution?
 
You think the government is a for-profit entity?
barfo

Absolutely. What did you think happened to our tax dollars?

Pelosi profited enough to layoff government workers but then take an all expense-paid Kona vacation on the tax dollars from those laid-off workers. Gave herself a $20,000 raise on top of it.

If it weren't a for profit entity we'd have free healthcare, food, shelter...

Like in China, or in prison.

Not a fan of either form of rape, I just want to keep most of my money and fend for my family and myself.

The part-time job of a Congressman/woman is worth about $40 an hour, and only for hours actually working, not campaigning. There should be a test to be certain they are qualified to make decisions for the country, regardless of buying/winning an election. Few of our current reps in DC have any real knowledge of the foundations of our government, our country's history and place in the world, rudimentary math, or basic negotiating skills. Most have allegations of fraud or infidelity, and many merely serve the corporations that bought them their seat.

Drain the entire swamp (bureaucratic and administrative), slash agency budgets 30%, replace the Deep State-controlled FBI and DOJ with a single agency staffed with all new employees from our military, and eliminate all grants, loans, and matching funds of any kind to anyone.
 
Ah, now we're talking about slavery, the British Blemish on our early days as a Nation.

Some very brave men stood up against titans of industry, against the Democratic Party, against some of their own party, to demand all men be treated as equals.

Who were these heroes of equality in America? :dunno:

That's right.

A bunch of Caucasian Republicans.

The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals" with a sense of a complete permanent eradication of slavery and secessionism, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), by the conservative Republicans, and by the anti-abolitionist and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as by conservatives in the South and liberals in the North during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures resulted in 1866 in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederates officers to retake political power in the south, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedpeople", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.[1]

During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and his efforts to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own reconstruction plan through the Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own presidential policies in effect by virtue as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865.[2] Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed US slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought U.S. President Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After he vetoed various Congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican
 
Ah, now we're talking about slavery, the British Blemish on our early days as a Nation.

Some very brave men stood up against titans of industry, against the Democratic Party, against some of their own party, to demand all men be treated as equals.

Who were these heroes of equality in America? :dunno:

That's right.

A bunch of Caucasian Republicans.

The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals" with a sense of a complete permanent eradication of slavery and secessionism, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), by the conservative Republicans, and by the anti-abolitionist and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as by conservatives in the South and liberals in the North during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures resulted in 1866 in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederates officers to retake political power in the south, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedpeople", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.[1]

During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and his efforts to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own reconstruction plan through the Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own presidential policies in effect by virtue as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865.[2] Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed US slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought U.S. President Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After he vetoed various Congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

The republican party of today is a far cry of what the party use to be. The Tea Party and now the Freedom Caucus are blood sucking parasites that only look out for themself and not the majority of Americans. Is that why you are such a head in the sand die hard republican?
 
Absolutely. What did you think happened to our tax dollars?

Pelosi profited enough to layoff government workers but then take an all expense-paid Kona vacation on the tax dollars from those laid-off workers. Gave herself a $20,000 raise on top of it.

Pretty sure Trump gave it to the large corporations and the 1% rich people. Everyone else got peanuts or less.
McConnell made enough money that his in laws were able to invest in the cocaine business.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top