https://www.facebook.com/starkstv/videos/10153461544946347/

>https://www.facebook.com/starkstv/videos/10153461544946347/

Love it. Darkness is spreading! It has been a think for like a decade but it is great that folks address it now.

That was great.

.

always on the sidelines with the stars.

^^^^^correct answer.....

So that would explain why she had no problem when Chael Sonnen touched her hair on national television about a year or two ago.

and dam proud of it too...

>So that would explain why she had no problem when Chael
>Sonnen touched her hair on national television about a year or
>two ago.

And Chael is very publican.

at the woman because I think she does a decent enough job for ABC and she's allowed to have her opinions regarding politics, but I seem to remember Sage either bowing her head or crooking her neck when Chael grabbed her hair. Seemed so odd to see a grown woman allow someone else to grab in their hair; even more dubious given the racial dynamics involved. Her political leaning makes some sense in the regard for what went down.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9203495

it's a dear white people moment, tbh

but IRT repubs

it's an illustration of not knowing enough black women in your personal life.

i'm well aware of the "white people thinking it's okay to touch a minority's hair" issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXY6PXn-IdM

i was joking that her allowing her hair to be touched was a republican thing because that's what someone else suggested, i didn't expect this many serious responses.

probably plays with her hair like a chia pet

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxT8A32WgAEYUeI.jpg

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCcqtkRSB60

1) https://twitter.com/sagesteele/status/798003694436392960

2) https://twitter.com/sagesteele/status/798403548576940033

and this motherfucker letting foes touch her hair on TV?

should have peeped the rub-sign. Decepticon ass.

and just said fuck it.

Also Simmons having no clue what was going on but trying to pretend like he did.

>Also Simmons having no clue what was going on but trying to
>pretend like he did.

.

"Alton Pettijohn An old white man saying BOY about a black man is funny? Come to the South and see if you laugh then"

i'm dying.

-->

Just to see how much the guy knew about what was going on there.

but then I deleted it.

not worth the hastle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9LdMPUWV-Q

Better captures the look of complete confusion on Steele's face.

I'd love to know what the producers were saying in each person's headset when that went down.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/sage.steele/posts/10210567470721497

Swipe: DIVERSITY

As a self-proclaimed, proud bi-racial woman — my father is black and my mother is white — the word “diversity” is fascinating. These days, I call it “the D word”. Why? Because everyone likes to say it. At work, at home, at the podium, at colleges and universities. Diversity. EMBRACE DIVERSITY! Fortunately, millions of Americans of all races, religions and cultures do just that. But, how many of us actually mean it? Specifically, how many people of color actually mean it? Or is it simply a socially acceptable, politically correct term that just sounds good, and feels good to say, or to demand? Unfortunately for way too many African-Americans and people of color, I believe it’s the latter. I’ve actually believed this for years and have spoken publicly about it a few times recently, contemplating when the best time would be to fully “go there”. In light of recent events around the country and personally, I feel the time is now.

We — as people of color — continue to cry for racial equality, diversity and acceptance, and rightfully so. That said, why must we continue to tear down those within our own race? Why must we shun those within our own race who think differently? Or marry outside of our race? Or vote differently? Or have “good hair”? Or speak differently? Shouldn’t we instead be offering up praise for our wonderful diversity?

My mother is a perfect example. Raised by an Irish father and an Italian mother in a small Massachusetts town, she went against her parents’ wishes and married the black man she fell in love with. What she dealt with fresh off of the tumultuous civil rights era was horrific in so many ways — which is one of many reasons why she is the strongest, bravest woman I know. So, instead of rolling your eyes at my black father for “selling out”, shouldn’t you be praising my white mother for following her color-blind heart and not succumbing to the pressures of American society back then? Apparently not. How about now, more than 4 decades later? Instead of giving me those all-knowing looks of disgust and calling me a sell-out when you see pictures of me with my white husband, or see me with my very light-skinned bi-racial children, shouldn’t you be praising that “white boy” from Indiana who followed his color-blind heart and married into a bi-racial culture completely different from his own, to help create a beautiful, color-blind family? Apparently not. Sadly, the list goes on and on, seeping into just about every social and political issue.
Instead of praising or uplifting each other, way too many people of color choose to tear down, mock and spew hatred at other blacks who feel differently, think differently, or make decisions that are different from theirs. That, my friends, is hypocrisy at its best. Or should I say, its hypocrisy at its worst. Here’s the thing:

You don’t get a hall-pass just because you’re a minority. Racism is racism, no matter what color your skin is. So when you call me a sell-out, or a coon, or an Uncle Tom, or any other derogatory term to let me know that you disagree with me, you lose every ounce of credibility with those whom you deem racist at the drop of a hat. Does racism against African-Americans/people of color exist? Of course! It disgusts me more than anyone knows and as far as we have come, there is still such a long way to go. I have personally felt it on too many occasions to count, and I will continue to fight it for me, my family and everyone else out there who truly does believe in diversity. But the fact that so many of us actually have to fight back against other within our own race, is incomprehensible and frankly, it’s pathetic. So go ahead. Keep on keepin-on with that double-standard. That hypocrisy. Just know that every time you do, its sets us back even further, and I refuse to be a part of it. Instead, isn’t it time to look ourselves in the mirror and be accountable for our own actions, and not just point the finger at others? Isn’t it time to truly celebrate how beautifully diverse African-Americans are? Believe it or not, we can disagree and still be civil. Respectful. Kind. Accepting of our differences. Isn’t that what DIVERSITY is all about? EMBRACE DIVERSITY…but mean it. All the time, not just when it’s convenient for you. I pray that we can all begin to have more open-minded, non-judgmental, healthy conversations to ensure that diversity applies to ALL Americans, all of the time.


What do you folks think?

she digging herself deeper trying to dig herself out.

I agree that the self-limiting and devaluing language that people of color use towards each other in the name of self-policing the race is counter-productive and in a way is preventing a more shaky but authentic sense of unity.

I do think her statement could have been made to give a more in-depth history of the dynamics of self-policing, it's purpose, and suggest the potential benefit of folks, whether socially or politically conservative or otherwise, working through their differences.

But in the end, she is entitled to her opinion and her stance on race relations seem to reflect her personal experiences. She isn't less Black because she's married to a White guy or is bi-racial, she just shouldn't be counted on to speak to issues that affect most people.

She does have a right to her opinions even if nobody agrees with them.

This Trump presidency is vindicating the black conservative. So I guess for her and the Jason Whitlocks of the world, this is the time for them to speak about the inequalities they feel within black circles.


But if she think folks is gonna listen to her pine about acceptance from the black community when folks is out here fighting for their lives, she is sadly mistaken....

And it's about how she gets attacked by black folks.

These type of negroes are going to run shit post-Obama.

They are more effective anti-black tropes because they
aren't the JC Watts' of old.


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>And it's about how she gets attacked by black folks.
>
>These type of negroes are going to run shit post-Obama.
>
>They are more effective anti-black tropes because they
>aren't the JC Watts' of old.
>

.

>And it's about how she gets attacked by black folks.
>
>These type of negroes are going to run shit post-Obama.
>
>They are more effective anti-black tropes because they
>aren't the JC Watts' of old.

When I first saw her response, I was surprised ABC/Disney allowed her to be so open with her response, since she is still a reflection of those networks although this was done off air.

I think your response there helped to quell my sense of surprise.

I wonder with Trump's victory if ESPN will get even more repugnant in terms of espousing political views with their brand of sports journalism.

and...oh, yeah...immigrants
https://www.instagram.com/p/BP4TLbAFYiG/

>and...oh, yeah...immigrants
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BP4TLbAFYiG/


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

No you don't. Stop it.

how do you type all that up and be like "yeah imma send this. this is gonna go over super"

Ma’am we don’t have time for this, some of us are trying to get home” – sage steele to Rosa parks

— Desus Nice (@desusnice) January 30, 2017

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

shutting down LAX?

I'd be pissed too if I had to walk 2 miles with luggage to airport and miss my flight.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>shutting down LAX?
>
>I'd be pissed too if I had to walk 2 miles with luggage to
>airport and miss my flight.

Let me 'splain this to you

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

collecting 6 figures from NYPD. Darren Wilson is still walking around free. George Zimmerman still out here kicking it. Jeronimo Yanez is still out there. Blane Aalamoni & Howie Lake still on the job.

>collecting 6 figures from NYPD. Darren Wilson is still
>walking around free. George Zimmerman still out here kicking
>it. Jeronimo Yanez is still out there. Blane Aalamoni & Howie
>Lake still on the job.

You ain't lying

We gotta let motherfuckas know how we feel, though

Facebook is stupid, and elections are only every so
often

So protest is how you let the world know how you feel
in a free democracy


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>>collecting 6 figures from NYPD. Darren Wilson is still
>>walking around free. George Zimmerman still out here kicking
>>it. Jeronimo Yanez is still out there. Blane Aalamoni &
>Howie
>>Lake still on the job.
>
>You ain't lying
>
>We gotta let motherfuckas know how we feel, though
>
>Facebook is stupid, and elections are only every so
>often
>
>So protest is how you let the world know how you feel
>in a free democracy

That's the thing, people like to protest to feel good about themselves and feel like they're doing something when they're not. Those 1960's tactics don't work in 2017.

And then there are people that support protesting from afar as long is doesn't affect them directly. During the Ferguson shit there were people on here in GD talking about "burn that mf down!" Why? Would you say that if it was your community that you have to live in? The shut down of LAX caused a lot people to miss flights which can cost them money, money that they may not have. And at LAX I'm sure a lot of those folks were immigrants that their supposed to be protesting for. They prevented a lot regular folk that earn a hourly wage from getting to work. All these people trying to go in on Sage wouldn't be so happy if their they life was affected and protesting was costing them money and disrupting their lives.

Meanwhile the people that are supposed to be the target of the protests are rarely affected and don't care.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>>>collecting 6 figures from NYPD. Darren Wilson is still
>>>walking around free. George Zimmerman still out here
>kicking
>>>it. Jeronimo Yanez is still out there. Blane Aalamoni &
>>Howie
>>>Lake still on the job.
>>
>>You ain't lying
>>
>>We gotta let motherfuckas know how we feel, though
>>
>>Facebook is stupid, and elections are only every so
>>often
>>
>>So protest is how you let the world know how you feel
>>in a free democracy
>
>That's the thing, people like to protest to feel good about
>themselves and feel like they're doing something when they're
>not. Those 1960's tactics don't work in 2017.

They don't? Where is the proof? And what does work? And what would happen if no one protested in the streets anymore?

>
>And then there are people that support protesting from afar as
>long is doesn't affect them directly. During the Ferguson shit
>there were people on here in GD talking about "burn that mf
>down!" Why? Would you say that if it was your community that
>you have to live in?

Those people are reactionary idiots who didn't even leave their houses. None of that has anything to do with these protests, where no one is burning anything and it's not in anyone's community, for that matter.

The shut down of LAX caused a lot people
>to miss flights which can cost them money, money that they may
>not have.

Every protest ever cost people money. That's the point.

And at LAX I'm sure a lot of those folks were
>immigrants that their supposed to be protesting for. They
>prevented a lot regular folk that earn a hourly wage from
>getting to work.

They are all union and still get paid, so this is a red herring

All these people trying to go in on Sage
>wouldn't be so happy if their they life was affected and
>protesting was costing them money and disrupting their lives.

I live in New York City and lived in DC before that. My life has been disrupted by protests many times. Put your big girl skirt on, you'll be aiite.

>
>Meanwhile the people that are supposed to be the target of the
>protests are rarely affected and don't care.

Oh? Cause it seems like the protests actually have greatly affected this administrations first ten days. For better or worse, we will see but I guarantee you they have been affected and FORCED to care.

Basically, I disagree with 90% of what you said and it seems demonstrably irresponsible to suggest that public protests should be abandoned because they inconvenience people, whether airport employees or millionaires.

>>>>collecting 6 figures from NYPD. Darren Wilson is still
>>>>walking around free. George Zimmerman still out here
>>kicking
>>>>it. Jeronimo Yanez is still out there. Blane Aalamoni &
>>>Howie
>>>>Lake still on the job.
>>>
>>>You ain't lying
>>>
>>>We gotta let motherfuckas know how we feel, though
>>>
>>>Facebook is stupid, and elections are only every so
>>>often
>>>
>>>So protest is how you let the world know how you feel
>>>in a free democracy
>>
>>That's the thing, people like to protest to feel good about
>>themselves and feel like they're doing something when
>they're
>>not. Those 1960's tactics don't work in 2017.
>
>They don't? Where is the proof? And what does work? And what
>would happen if no one protested in the streets anymore?

Post #74

>>And then there are people that support protesting from afar
>as
>>long is doesn't affect them directly. During the Ferguson
>shit
>>there were people on here in GD talking about "burn that mf
>>down!" Why? Would you say that if it was your community that
>>you have to live in?
>
>Those people are reactionary idiots who didn't even leave
>their houses. None of that has anything to do with these
>protests, where no one is burning anything and it's not in
>anyone's community, for that matter.

Every protest are different and include different people with different agendas.


>The shut down of LAX caused a lot people
>>to miss flights which can cost them money, money that they
>may
>>not have.
>
>Every protest ever cost people money. That's the point.

I usually doesn't cost money to the people that are the real target of the protest, they're usually not affected.

>And at LAX I'm sure a lot of those folks were
>>immigrants that their supposed to be protesting for. They
>>prevented a lot regular folk that earn a hourly wage from
>>getting to work.
>
>They are all union and still get paid, so this is a red
>herring

Everyone that works at an airport isn't union and the ones that are don't automatically get paid in situations like this I don't know where you got that from lol


>All these people trying to go in on Sage
>>wouldn't be so happy if their they life was affected and
>>protesting was costing them money and disrupting their
>lives.
>
>I live in New York City and lived in DC before that. My life
>has been disrupted by protests many times. Put your big girl
>skirt on, you'll be aiite.

Would you like a cookie?

>>
>>Meanwhile the people that are supposed to be the target of
>the
>>protests are rarely affected and don't care.
>
>Oh? Cause it seems like the protests actually have greatly
>affected this administrations first ten days. For better or
>worse, we will see but I guarantee you they have been affected
>and FORCED to care.

Please tell me how the protests affected this administration?

>Basically, I disagree with 90% of what you said and it seems
>demonstrably irresponsible to suggest that public protests
>should be abandoned because they inconvenience people, whether
>airport employees or millionaires.

Can you tell me what protests have accomplished in this decade?

>>>
>>>That's the thing, people like to protest to feel good about
>>>themselves and feel like they're doing something when
>>they're
>>>not. Those 1960's tactics don't work in 2017.
>>
>>They don't? Where is the proof? And what does work? And what
>>would happen if no one protested in the streets anymore?
>
>Post #74

LOL

Okay, I'll give it a go. After all the hubbub, the killers of Emmett Till walked free. The Vietnam War didn't stop in the 60s. Martin Luther King still got shot dead in his head. So clearly, nothing was solved and it was a waste of time.

>
>>>And then there are people that support protesting from afar
>>as
>>>long is doesn't affect them directly. During the Ferguson
>>shit
>>>there were people on here in GD talking about "burn that mf
>>>down!" Why? Would you say that if it was your community
>that
>>>you have to live in?
>>
>>Those people are reactionary idiots who didn't even leave
>>their houses. None of that has anything to do with these
>>protests, where no one is burning anything and it's not in
>>anyone's community, for that matter.
>
>Every protest are different and include different people with
>different agendas.

Okay. Not sure what this means but it's too banal a statement to disagree with.


>
>
>>The shut down of LAX caused a lot people
>>>to miss flights which can cost them money, money that they
>>may
>>>not have.
>>
>>Every protest ever cost people money. That's the point.
>
>I usually doesn't cost money to the people that are the real
>target of the protest, they're usually not affected.

When Rosa Parks wouldn't get off the bus did George Wallace net worth instantly dip? Did he lose his home?

After all those Vietnam War protests did the military industrial complex shut down? Did arms markers go broke?

Okay, so it was a waste of time.

>
>>And at LAX I'm sure a lot of those folks were
>>>immigrants that their supposed to be protesting for. They
>>>prevented a lot regular folk that earn a hourly wage from
>>>getting to work.
>>
>>They are all union and still get paid, so this is a red
>>herring
>
>Everyone that works at an airport isn't union and the ones
>that are don't automatically get paid in situations like this
>I don't know where you got that from lol

Show me proof that people didn't get paid. Then show me that their need to be paid is paramount to all other needs. Then show me further proof of your concern for low wage employees being inconvenienced or losing pay outside of the context of people expressing their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

>
>
>>All these people trying to go in on Sage
>>>wouldn't be so happy if their they life was affected and
>>>protesting was costing them money and disrupting their
>>lives.
>>
>>I live in New York City and lived in DC before that. My life
>>has been disrupted by protests many times. Put your big girl
>>skirt on, you'll be aiite.
>
>Would you like a cookie?


You are the one suggesting these absurd canards. I am merely responding to them. And your response is, of course, without any substance.

But yeah, send me a cookie please. I deserve it for reading your drivel.


>>>
>>>Meanwhile the people that are supposed to be the target of
>>the
>>>protests are rarely affected and don't care.
>>
>>Oh? Cause it seems like the protests actually have greatly
>>affected this administrations first ten days. For better or
>>worse, we will see but I guarantee you they have been
>affected
>>and FORCED to care.
>
>Please tell me how the protests affected this administration?

Pick up a newspaper. It could prove to be an enlightening experience.


>
>>Basically, I disagree with 90% of what you said and it seems
>>demonstrably irresponsible to suggest that public protests
>>should be abandoned because they inconvenience people,
>whether
>>airport employees or millionaires.
>
>Can you tell me what protests have accomplished in this
>decade?

Sure…although this decade is not even over so that's weird. If you asked someone in 1967 if protests had succeeded in stopping the war or ending Jim Crow the answer would be no. What would that prove.

Protests and town hall meetings against Obamacare galvanized the Tea Party Movement, and helped lay the groundwork for them to force a more radical republican agenda to the forefront, which altered the Obama presidency.

Protests about police shootings have inspired much discussion and some action regarding police and community relations, the use of body cameras, and a search for more solutions to conflict resolution by police.

The protests in Tunisia, for better or worse, upended the prevailing order in much of the middle east and certainly in Tunisia.

And that is off the top of my head, because the premise you are working with is too flimsy to warrant real research. Especially since you make no suggestion as to what people SHOULD do instead of protesting in this brave new world you imagine we live in.

Also, please pinpoint exactly when protesting became ineffective in this modern context. A date would be nice.

Either way, this is all a red herring. People have the right to protest and SHOULD if they feel compelled to do so. This country is not the property of the government, it is of the citizens. Boston Tea Party to the Women's March last week, it matters. Even if it just means people coming together and forming links that allow them to better organize AFTER the protest is over. Or just to be heartened that there are like minded people and that we all don't live in the world you imagine we do.

There will never be a time when coming together in solidarity in the streets can be said to be completely ineffective. It's literally been a crucial mechanism for change- for better or worse- since the beginning of modern society and will be until we don't have streets or people.

Have a good day

salute.

>salute.


Yeah , that was solid

>
>When Rosa Parks wouldn't get off the bus did George Wallace
>net worth instantly dip? Did he lose his home?
>
>After all those Vietnam War protests did the military
>industrial complex shut down? Did arms markers go broke?
>
>Okay, so it was a waste of time.

I thought we were talking about the results of protests in modern times so I'm not sure what Rosa Parks and Vietnam have to do with that.


>Show me proof that people didn't get paid.

How about YOU show proof that they did? lol

>Then show me that
>their need to be paid is paramount to all other needs.

I don't have their bills in front of me but most people that work low wage jobs at or around airports probably don't have a whole lot of extra cash lying around.

>Then
>show me further proof of your concern for low wage employees
>being inconvenienced or losing pay outside of the context of
>people expressing their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

That sentence doesn't make sense.


>
>You are the one suggesting these absurd canards. I am merely
>responding to them. And your response is, of course, without
>any substance.

You're statement wasn't of any "substance", you seem to think you did something special because you've lived in cities where protests occur, lol.



>Pick up a newspaper. It could prove to be an enlightening
>experience.

How about you post one link that shows protests are affecting the Trump administration. Or that anybody in the Trump administration even cares.



>Sure…although this decade is not even over so that's weird.
>If you asked someone in 1967 if protests had succeeded in
>stopping the war or ending Jim Crow the answer would be no.
>What would that prove.
>
>Protests and town hall meetings against Obamacare galvanized
>the Tea Party Movement, and helped lay the groundwork for them
>to force a more radical republican agenda to the forefront,
>which altered the Obama presidency.
>
>Protests about police shootings have inspired much discussion
>and some action regarding police and community relations, the
>use of body cameras, and a search for more solutions to
>conflict resolution by police.

body cameras? really? that's all you can come up with?

>
>The protests in Tunisia, for better or worse, upended the
>prevailing order in much of the middle east and certainly in
>Tunisia.

Let's keep it in the U.S.


>And that is off the top of my head, because the premise you
>are working with is too flimsy to warrant real research.
>Especially since you make no suggestion as to what people
>SHOULD do instead of protesting in this brave new world you
>imagine we live in.

People need to vote, not just for national elections but local state/county/city elections because those people have more effect on our day to day lives than the president. But turnout in those types of elections is usually poor. Most people can even name most of the key figures in their local government.

>Also, please pinpoint exactly when protesting became
>ineffective in this modern context. A date would be nice.

No idea, I just know its not working NOW for anything people have protested over in this country over the last few years.


>Either way, this is all a red herring. People have the right
>to protest and SHOULD if they feel compelled to do so. This
>country is not the property of the government, it is of the
>citizens. Boston Tea Party to the Women's March last week, it
>matters. Even if it just means people coming together and
>forming links that allow them to better organize AFTER the
>protest is over. Or just to be heartened that there are like
>minded people and that we all don't live in the world you
>imagine we do.

Fuck that women's march, over half of those bitches voted for Trump.

>There will never be a time when coming together in solidarity
>in the streets can be said to be completely ineffective. It's
>literally been a crucial mechanism for change- for better or
>worse- since the beginning of modern society and will be until
>we don't have streets or people.
>
>Have a good day
>

*slow claps* *eye roll emoji*

I''m not gonna copy and go through each answer because most of them do not really address my points or do so with faulty logic.

For example, by limiting the window of time we can examine to the last 6 or 7 years demands that history/change/society operate at a pace that is unrealistic. As I pointed out in my example, all the protesting of the 60s (THE protest decade, if there ever was one) didn't bear a lot of "substantive change" within the first 3/4 of that same decade.

You want me to point out how protests against police use of force in the last couple years have radically changed the playing field, as though that were a reasonable request. Change, in a democracy, rarely ever comes that swiftly. Let alone when it's a minority group trying to effect change within a wider society. I honestly think that you must know nothing about history or social movements to make this argument.

You say, "let's keep it in America" to one of my examples without explaining why…except that it's convenient for your previous position that there were no examples of protests yielding real world results. Mind you, that position said nothing about "in the United States" but moving goalposts is nothing new around these parts.

Also, when I ask you to point out exactly WHEN when "protesting stopped working" you ignore that and just take it as a given that there is some proof of this. As far as I am concerned, the onus is on you to show me something, since protests have effected change throughout modern human history, and at a pace often SLOWER than what is happening now.

You ignore the role protests play in organizing by saying that instead those people have to vote. Well, surely organizing and voting can be connected with use of a pretty straight line? Right? This is not exactly new math. You also ignored examples of how anti-health care protests, at the beginning of the Obama presidency formed the underpinnings of the Tea Party movement, that eventually morphed into our present day orange ruler.

You don't actually have an argument, you have a personal point of view supported by conjecture, insults and "hey, look over there!" deflections. You are certainly entitled to your enmity towards women, and your surliness at being inconvenienced but laughably speculative misogyny like "half those bitches voted for trump" does not a debate point make.

Even if they had (an idiotic presumption), how would that serve to prove anything about whether a protest could achieve any goals? All it shows us is your character and the level of your intellectual discourse.

And by asking someone to show you that the administration has been affected by/noticed or cares about protests you really show that you are either mentally enfeebled, blinded by rage or kept in seclusion from all sources of current events. Suffice it to say, I am not going to bother jumping through that particularly sad hoop.

Even if it just means people coming together and
>forming links that allow them to better organize AFTER the
>protest is over. Or just to be heartened that there are like
>minded people and that we all don't live in the world you
>imagine we do.

Protests are often the spark that lead to action.
People in the community gathering force hands of local leaders.
That pressure goes up.

And ALL of this:

>There will never be a time when coming together in solidarity
>in the streets can be said to be completely ineffective. It's
>literally been a crucial mechanism for change- for better or
>worse- since the beginning of modern society and will be until
>we don't have streets or people.

Props.

>Protests are often the spark that lead to action.
>People in the community gathering force hands of local
>leaders.
>That pressure goes up.

People VOTING in local elections forces the hands of local leaders.

>And ALL of this:
>
>>There will never be a time when coming together in
>solidarity
>>in the streets can be said to be completely ineffective.
>It's
>>literally been a crucial mechanism for change- for better or
>>worse- since the beginning of modern society and will be
>until
>>we don't have streets or people.
>
>Props.

It's a great speech just not accurate. Half the time the people protesting aren't even on the same page.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

hasn't really happened where a guy has become president and damn near everyday people are in the streets protesting....

it's a unique situation...

I'm having a parallel conversation with someone who thinks very similar; like shit happens within a days time. People should be forced to at least minor in history to prevent these hypothesis from being voiced until you at least do your own research instead of asking others to give you examples.

The tea party was started how long ago? When did they get their pay off?

This shit been a war and it will stay a war. There are no kill shots. Its just constance positioning.

Catch your flight though

being somebody who is at LAX often

I thought to myself...how can the LAX experience be made any worse = active protests at the terminals...LOL

but even I, a private citizen know better than to post that reaction on any of my social media outlets

so that should give you some insight into her inner circle, that she could post that with the expectation of not offending anybody she considers a friend

auntie woulda clapped back at me for posting that BS

and she's a public figure but didn't see that ending badly

shouts to Desus, that reply was perfect.

See if the outrage matches up

bitch-ass John Cocker wanna be

been trash