John Fugelsang: Where are the white leaders decrying this white-on-white violence?

[Coventina]

"9 killed in Waco biker gang shootout - where are the white leaders decrying this white-on-white violence?" #stuffthemedianeversays


Just wanted to post Fugelsang's Tweet to point out that it's not just me asking this question......

John Fugelsang....

I wish he'd gotten the nod for The Daily Show....

[randys1]

1. Not necessary. White people make the rules for others, and dont follow them for themsleves

when they dont want to.

Been that way since day one

[Warren Stupidity]

15. FYI

On Tue May 19, 2015, 10:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Not necessary. White people make the rules for others, and dont follow them for themsleves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6696816

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Because all white people are evil, right?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 19, 2015, 10:42 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dear alerter: no, not because they are evil, right, but because for the last 300-400 years european powers have dominated the world. Stupidest alert here I've seen in a long time, and that is saying a lot. You don't get to make up words for the post you are alerting on and claim that the post should be hidden because of the words you made up. That makes this a "strawman alert".
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Looks like a broad brush smear to me.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well, randys1 is not wrong.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is pretty tame IMO. I've seen much worse.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm white. Post is silly, but not that offensive

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[randys1]

17. I knew it would be alerted on, I am surprised only two hides, the way shit happens around here

lately.

I guess I best not share my opinion on white people and racism, again.

amazing

[Augiedog]

38. Always share your honest opinion

Anyone who didn't or doesn't see the extreme disparity of treatment between citizens in Ferguson and Baltimore and the self declared non citizens (they self define as outlaws, thus declaring themselves as uncitizens) is looking at the world through their own version of beer goggles. If the police treated minority citizens with the same respect and dignity that these real anarchists received imagine how things just might improve. Then these self same uncitizens threaten the officers who may well have prevented greater carnage. And remember these same officers will have to respond to motorcycle vs car, truck, bus hell maybe even airplane crashes and try to save the lives of these uncitizens. One more note, these people are not bikers, they are criminals on motorcycles. I am a biker and have been one for 40 plus years and I am sick and tired of these clowns getting treated as if they are some sort of legitimate alternative life style. They are not!!!

[heaven05]

81. whoa!!!!

truth!!!!

[lovemydog]

94. Welcome here, good biker.

I like the way you express yourself. Welcome to DU. I look forward to hearing more from you.

We are getting there every day, slowly but surely, toward less disparity of treatment between citizens. Today's indictments in Baltimore, and more prosecutors like the great one there. Thanks to people like you. And thanks to anyone who actually learns about these extreme disparities throughout our nation's history, and who shines a light on them.



Bravo.

[lovemydog]

93. Au contraire mon frere.

Speak out about it even more.

Whoever alerted on that post and voted to hide it is hiding behind defensive indignation borne of ignorance and self-deception.

The only answer for that is more education.

[Sobax]

2. Why would they need to decry it?

[Coventina]

3. For the same reason it's demanded that black leaders decry it when a black person(s) misbehave

[Coventina]

5. Wow. Are you serious right now? Are you comparing police firing into an active gang gunfight

to shooting individual unarmed black youths?

Really?

And, the surrounding community's reaction to those events?

Really?

Seriously?

Wow.

[Sobax]

7. Being unarmed has nothing to do with it

Being unarmed doesn't mean you're not a threat, and the police can't be sure you're unarmed, so they have to treat you as if you are for their own safety. Unarmed or not, a criminal is a criminal, and nobody should be rioting when the police are forced to kill them in the line of duty.

[Coventina]

9. Uh, being unarmed has everything to do with it. Otherwise, the police would kill EVERYONE for their

own safety.




And, you might want to reread the Constitution, because, criminals still have rights, guaranteed by said Constitution. The Police are not Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

Nobody should be rioting. I never said they should be.
I just want to know why "white riots" don't get the same coverage as "black riots."

[seabeyond]

59. being unarmed has EVERYTHING to do with it. hey. so. blacks, check. women, check. black women,

check

you have insulted a good number of minorities in the very small time you have been here.

[treestar]

70. You do have a point that white people did not riot when white bikers were killed by cops

But then white people can feel more sure that the cops made the killings on more solid information and that the others arrested will get justice in the system.

Black people have less faith in that, or indeed, think it may be exercised against them much sooner. Shooting these bikers and shooting Michael Brown for instance, are not equivalent. Michael Brown was an unarmed 18 year old kid, not a biker with a gun already starting a shooting before police got there. So it seems to the black person that an unarmed 18 year old white kid might not have ended up shot, perceived as a threat so soon. Wilson might have talked to said white kid and defused the situation rather than killing him. Likewise, it would be likely for black persons to think black bikers who had already started a shooting would have been killed sooner and in greater numbers and that the remaining bikers might not get a fair trial.

[heaven05]

82. you are lost

and clueless. How can you justify shooting a man unarmed, running away, 8 times in the back. That's a threat? "Eyeballing" a white person and probably seeing something that caused fear, in this case a 'police officer', got a person POC a 40 minute ride in the back of a police wagon that ended up breaking his spine in eight places and crushing his trachea. He was a threat?

"Eyeballing" white people, especially white women was a hanging offense in my younger days, guess what, it's baaaccckkkk! Clueless. Period. You're REALLY in the wrong place to be spouting your type of BULLSHIT!

[cyberswede]

84. LOL.

Someone can't do shit. And it isn't MIRT.

[lovemydog]

95. Police must have probable cause that the person is a criminal before

arresting someone. If they arrest them with no probable cause, that's an illegal arrest.

I would rather have fewer police making these kinds of judgment calls than more of them. Because as it stands right now, they too often make horrendous decisions that lead to the deaths of unarmed civilians who have committed no crime and had no intention of committing any crime.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. I wonder what his/her name was in his/her previous DU life? ...

I have my guesses.

[treestar]

69. References to Chicago

are what my right winger friends resort to often.

[Human101948]

6. It is still white on white violence....

When various loudmouth racist critics like Sean Hannity yell about black on black violence there was not any rioting or police brutality context. Your post is just devoid of relevance.

[KamaAina]

10. O rly?

What color was Tim McVeigh?

[Coventina]

12. Are you sure you didn't get lost on the way to Stormfront?

[randys1]

21. Glad you said it, and thanks for saying it.

[Coventina]

22. I might get a hide - which would be my first ever, but I felt s/he had earned it!!!

Man!

Unbelievable!!

[randys1]

23. What is unbelievable is how sensitive white folks are , I myself am white but I am honest

about who we are as a whole, not individually.

And how atrocious our behavior has been and STILL is with minorities, especially Black folks

When you talk about people collectively, who are collectively responsible for historical and PRESENT DAY racism and white privilege, you get some people nervous.



What I just said CAN NOT BE CONTROVERSIAL on a board that alleges to be LIBERAL

it simply CANT BE

White liberals are supposed to be able to discuss this shit, it is what makes us different from teaparty assholes

[TeeYiYi]

29. I agree...

...that white liberals and everyone else should be able to discuss racism without a fainting couch at the ready.

Clearly, that's not the case here at DU. If DUers were able to have constructive discussions surrounding racism and race relations, Sobax wouldn't have two hides in this thread.

re: "White liberals are supposed to be able to discuss this shit, it is what makes us different from teaparty assholes"

Granted, sometimes the garbage gets so stinky that it just has to be taken out, however, that was a pretty quick cleanup today on aisles 4 and 8.

Too many alerts and subsequent hides tend to stifle discussion on this topic.

TYY

[7962]

45. You're absolutely right. Its a one way street in those discussions.

When it comes to race around here, it seems as though there is only ONE direction that is allowed or YOU are instantly deemed a racist (by people who obviously dont know the definition)
And if you dont have the pre requisite white guilt, you're called everything in the book.
This whole OP would be hidden if the race was reversed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. So define "Racism" ...

pre requisite white guilt

The only place I've seen that phrase is on racialist websites.

[7962]

61. Come on, you've seen it HERE!! Just type it into the search bar.

Its been brought up many times elsewhere in OPs and posts.

Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
That's the definition.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. That's so Websterism of you ...

how about you join the 21st century, and use the definition that academics have adopted more than a decade ago ... simply put: Racism = race-based bigotry + institutional/cultural power.

Though I fully expect you to reject to definition because Webster says ...

[7962]

63. Yes, those academics are good at changing things to fit what they want

I'll certainly agree on the bigotry; i've always considered the two interchangeable. I have little use for "academics" who take it upon themselves to change the meaning of a word. Academics take themselves too seriously. Thats how we end up with Hillary's list of words that shouldnt be used because NOW they will be considered sexist. (Yes, they do have a list!) But using that "new" definition, the only way a black person could be a racist would be for them to actually live in Africa, which is ridiculous. Racists of all colors are everywhere. Will you at least agree with that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Yes, those academics are good at changing things to fit what they OBSERVE ...

I'll certainly agree on the bigotry; i've always considered the two interchangeable.

Well, good for you! Unfortunately, your consideration is in the vast minority of academic thought ... but it DOES put you squarely in a rather unflattering camp.

I have little use for "academics" who take it upon themselves to change the meaning of a word. Academics take themselves too seriously.

Yes ... Damn that Newton; and, damn that Aristarchus, too.

Thats how we end up with Hillary's list of words that shouldnt be used because NOW they will be considered sexist. (Yes, they do have a list!)

Who is "they"?

But using that "new" definition, the only way a black person could be a racist would be for them to actually live in Africa,

LOL ... the more you talk; they more you expose how little you know about this particular topic.

Racists of all colors are everywhere. Will you at least agree with that?

No. No, we cannot agree on that ... and neither would anyone who understands/has studied the dynamics of racism.

And, yes ... this IS ridiculous ... an decidedly, non-"progressive".

[7962]

76. "They" refers to her team. You really havent seen it?

There was an OP about it as well http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026419733
The original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/the-13-words-you-cant-write-about-hillary-clinton-anymore/
Yes, it IS ridiculous, and non-progressive.
If institutional power can now be claimed as a harbinger of racism, then my statement about Africa is valid. In the us, the power structure, for the most part, has been white. In some major cities its been black for a long time, but nationally its white, even with a black president. In Africa, its black. So by your logic, blacks cannot be racist HERE, but certainly could in Africa, since they are in charge. I dont believe that, but if you want to follow the "new" expanded definition then you have to apply it equally.
And how is equating bigotry with racism a minority thought?

But if you cant agree that a black person can be a racist, then its you that is out of touch, not me. A simple search will show you many anti-white statements made by people that are obviously racist. The easiest way to tell is if the same statement were made using "black" instead of "white", how would it be taken?
We'll never truly progress past the problem if its only viewed as a one-way street. Its not. ALL racism has to be exposed in order to eliminate it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. Just stop, please ...

If institutional power can now be claimed as a harbinger of racism, then my statement about Africa is valid. In the us, the power structure, for the most part, has been white. In some major cities its been black for a long time, but nationally its white, even with a black president. In Africa, its black. So by your logic, blacks cannot be racist HERE, but certainly could in Africa, since they are in charge. I dont believe that, but if you want to follow the "new" expanded definition then you have to apply it equally.

The above betrays not only ignorance with respect to racism; but, also ignorance with respect to the historical and present power dynamics on the continent of Africa ... please stop.

And how is equating bigotry with racism a minority thought?

Because there are difference concepts ... bigotry is as different from racism as melanoma is from lymphoma.

But if you cant agree that a black person can be a racist, then its you that is out of touch, not me.

As a liberal, and an educated man, I am happy to be out of touch with folks that would remain willfully ignorant, in the face of easily assessable knowledge. Fortunately, for me and society, that segment of the population is dying, and educating, out.

[7962]

87. So then your answer is "no". Unbelievable.

For an "educated man" to think a black, Asian or hispanic man or woman cannot be a racist is totally unbelievable. And I know you ARE educated, as I've read your posts here for years.
I guess that might put me on your ignore list (although you dont seem to be that type), but I dont know any other way to see it.

"bigotry is as different from racism as melanoma is from lymphoma." Yet they are BOTH cancers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Yes, my answer is "No" ...

For an "educated man" to think a black, Asian or hispanic man or woman cannot be a racist is totally unbelievable.

I have said, and wholeheartedly believe, all people, without respect to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual/gender orientation, etc., can be bigots; but, those without institution/cultural power (i.e., institutionally the marginalized groups) cannot be racist, sexist, heterosexist, etc.

"bigotry is as different from racism as melanoma is from lymphoma." Yet they are BOTH cancers.

Yes ... and both have very different characteristics, origins, effects, and cures.

[7962]

90. Well, I'll still read your posts!

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. I would rather you read ...

the peer-reviewed works of 21st century social scientists writing on the topic of race.

[johnp3907]

31. That person has been here 3 days.

And all of their posts are like the ones in this thread. As of now their account staus reads: "flagged for review."

[JustAnotherGen]

32. I'll bring it up in the MIRT group

I believe in transparency.

[progressoid]

37. S/he already has three hides in 4 days of membership.

don't expect that one to last long.

[gollygee]

39. I was wondering how long it would take, TBH. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. LOL ...

That was my initial thought ... But the prose style doesn't match. From my early exchange, I can think of another reincarnated; and presently active, poster, who has been strangely silent, though.

[gollygee]

64. I always wondered

if he wrote like that to disguise his writing style.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. At any rate ...

it is clear, someone left the back door open.

[gollygee]

67. +1

[paleotn]

44. Ha! Excellent reply! (nt)

[Quackers]

13. I'll say this before it gets hidden.

You're comment is not ok! The comment above broad nrushing all white people is not ok! This whole damn thread is just flame-bait designed to divide.

[Coventina]

14. I merely posted what a well-known liberal commentator Tweeted.

Don't see how it should be divisive at all.

[lovemydog]

96. Calm down Quackers.

It's commentary that uses some sarcasm to raise a very valid point.

For example. When some radical jihadists do something violent, we always hear in the mainstream media stuff like 'Why don't the other muslims condemn their behavior?' When some radical christians bomb a federal building or an abortion clinic we don't hear that.

It's an issue worth raising.

It is ok!

[Quackers]

100. Umm, no it's not ok.

Using a persons skin color, heritage, religion, ethnicity, or any other attribute to marginalize them is wrong. People come from all backgrounds. It's what makes being human so great is our differences. Learning from and building on each other's history is what makes us the great melting pot. By looking at me, all people see is a white guy. They don't know that my grandparents on my father's side are Cherokee. They don't know that my great, great, grandmother is African-American. What happens when we as humans try to separate ourselves into groups based on the attributes I mentioned above? We become close-minded, suspicious of anyone that is different than us. I don't care what a person looks like or what their beliefs are, when any person tries to marginalize another,

it is not ok!

[lovemydog]

101. Well then we'll just agree to disagree.

I don't subscribe to the great melting pot view. I prefer to see us as a wonderful salad. Each ingredient is very distinct and very valuable.

[Quackers]

102. No harm in disagreeing

[fishwax]

18. your posts in this thread are disgraceful n/t

[randys1]

19. And it is my posts that get alerted on FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Cheer up - they're now 'flagged for review' after 2 hides in this thread

and a 3rd in another - about women of color. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=57279 Now there's a surprise ...

[randys1]

80. The sad thing is people like this arent trolls, per se, they are just

well, I cant say but we all know the words that apply

[frylock]

20. the fuck?!

oh, please do explain.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

16. All violence is wrong.

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)

And in many ways this outlaw gang violence is far worse than a lot of black violence we read about. Did you see how old those guys were? Waaaay too old to be taking this gang shit seriously.

By the way, I'm sure you are aware that the reason black violence is discussed is because of the amount of black violence compared to the number of blacks as a percentage of the population. It's obviously a serious problem when such a high percentage of black men are in prison, but hopefully, if we ever get rid of the war on drugs, that will allow more black men to live in and help rebuild strong black communities.

ETA - fixed "war on crime" to "war on drugs" - ugh don't know how that happened.

[TeeYiYi]

24. The "war on crime"...

...isn't the problem. It's the war on black skin that's offensive and needs to go away yesterday.

re: "...if we ever get rid of the war on crime..."

TYY

[7962]

46. Be careful bringing up statistics; you'll get in trouble. nt

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

48. Yeah. Forgot that.

Thanks.

[7962]

53. Well, unless they're the "proper" stats!

[LanternWaste]

72. That's a creative allegation you'll fail to support with valid evidence.

That's a creative allegation you'll fail to support with valid evidence.

[7962]

77. "Creative"? Create an OP discussing the violent crime stats.

You'll get your proof unless the whole thing is hidden. Just bringing up the fact that much more inter-racial violence is black on white than the reverse will get you accused of everything under the sun. But its a fact whether people like it or not.
Its just like the police abuse stories. Cops abuse people of all colors, but when its a white cop and a black victim the response is enormous. When its a white victim, if there's even an OP at all it will get less than half the replies. If its a black cop/ white victim, you probably wont see much said about it here at all. Yet both are equally disturbing and should be reported.

[lovemydog]

97. Did you mean to say the war on drugs?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

103. Oh, crap, yes.

Yikes. Yes, I did mean the "war on drugs."

[Tom Ripley]

47. Fuck off

[seveneyes]

11. where are the poets to breach the dawn of the sentimental mercenary

[okasha]

25. Who would qualify as appropriate white leaders

Last edited Tue May 19, 2015, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

for the purpose?

Where are the criminal leaders speaking out about this criminal-on-criminal violence?


We all know--we liberals and people of color, at any rate--that the number of young black men in prison is grotesquely out of proportion to actual damage done, and that they are routinely over-adjudicated and over-sentenced.

Almost no one besides other 1%ers thinks that taking some 200 murderers, drug and gun-runners, and rapists off the roads for several decades is unjust or disproportionate to the white population.

Edited to add: It seems that Sandy Rios of the AFA has spoken out.

[gordianot]

26. ...and no ones sports team lost or won a game.

[madokie]

27. Nothing says he might not

I agree with you.

[Binkie The Clown]

30. They weren't "white people"

They are "biker gangs". That makes them different from "us", so we can condemn them without implicating ourselves.

That's called hypocrisy.

The bad guys are always different in some identifiable way. They are a different color. They are a different religion. They are members of a different political party. They belong to a different social order. They live in a different part of the country, or worse yet, of the world. They are uneducated. they are poor. They are homeless. They speak a different language. But most important of all, they are different from us, because "we" would never do anything like that. Right?

[Igel]

41. A post in which you actually nail a good portion of the point.

Which is that when there's crime in one community, there's calls for understanding and a certain measure of defensiveness. That means that since "community" leaders try to protect and separate their group out and be spokesfolk for it, they get to issue moral judgments about violence.

It's not just a higher level of violent crime that's at issue. It's a race boundary that's at issue. Those who kill and rob are somehow still part of the collective and are defended against outsiders. Racists insist on lumping them in with the overall black community. But if you pay attention, you see a lot of activists also seem to want to hold them close and defend them against the outsider. Immediately it's not the rates of violence but the absolute numbers that matter; suddenly there's the realization that most murders and assaults are committed by people who know the perpetrator, so of course most crime is same-on-same. The cross-boundary crime rates are studiously ignored because they don't serve the purpose. Which is, of course, image, reputation, and the group. Outsiders can't condemn them; insiders don't want to, at least not in public. It's an internal matter rather too often.

It's a reflex. And a bad one, because the outsiders just see that the majority would rather defend than punish the bad guys. There's just that much distrust on the inside of the group, and it triggers even more distrust on the outside. Which is also a reflex. A bad one.

The biker gangs, even if all white, aren't defended or protected by anybody apart from perhaps close relatives. There's no sense of community with them. When you hear politicians decrying what happened--or police, or news media--that's pretty much what you get. Any black leader can get up and condemn them and call them whatever they want. Nobody's going to get defensive. Nobody calls for understanding their home life or upbringing. That's actually rather non-hypocritical. It may not be absolutely even-handed, but it's pretty much the same attitude across the board.

As far as I am concerned, those bikers are different from "us". That means "we" don't have to defend them, nor do we have to worry about them as constituting some sort of internal component that we need to deal with internally. The most important identifiable way that they differ is that they are bikers, sport the right tattoos, lifestyle, habits, and attitudes. Don't care about how closely they are related to me, or particularly what their skin color was. To be honest, I assumed that they were mostly white. Some were. Some weren't. Although that's using a left-of-center definition of "white", which is sort of a "splitter" viewpoint. In practice, I'd consider most of the bikers I've seen in pictures to be white, but I'm rather a "lumper". In both my former profession and former hobby, there were groups called splitters and lumpers: splitters want to divide up languages or cacti genera into ever smaller units based on differences, while lumpers tend to find commonalities that allow smaller regional varieties to be merged into larger units.

[Skittles]

49. excellent post

I don't see anyone defending these biker thugs

[7962]

51. And is it racist to assume they were probably white? No.

A point which is often ignored around here. Big Biker gangs have been part of the underground world for years, and they usually ARE white. So it wouldnt be racist to assume they were; previous knowledge taints your opinion. Just like when we hear about a big fight in a McDonalds most people react thinking "black". Racist? Not at all. Because most of these types of incidents are usually comprised of blacks. Its the reality of the world, like it or not. You mention the "cross boundary" crime rates; thats another topic that is usually taboo around here because its several times higher for one race than the other.
My opinion, these thugs got what was coming to them. And I'd bet many of those arrested go away for a long time.

[Cleita]

33. Twice this year predominantly white rabble rousers have pointed guns

at law enforcement, once at the Bundy Ranch and now this in Waco and frankly I think they are being treated with kid gloves. If Blacks or Mexicans had done the same both places would be leveled down to parking lots by now. But old Clive is still stealing grazing privileges from govt. owned land. None of the gun pointers are in jail from what I gather. Waco hasn't died down yet, but I don't think it will end well. But I do think the restaurant owner won't pay a big price in the end and will probably be back in business under a new name in very little time. I will be surprised if the community really buckles down and gets tough.

As to the bikers, they will move on and find another city to hang out in and continue their drug empire.

[napkinz]

34. ...

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

35. I believe four of the gang members were killed by cops

Now, officials are saying that we have to wait for autopsies to confirm, but that is what they believe at the time. I don't think anyone was treated with kid gloves. And many of them have had bail set at one million dollars.

And I'm not sure how the community can get tough when many of these gang members aren't from Waco. What can they do?

[BumRushDaShow]

42. "I don't think anyone was treated with kid gloves."

Did the arrested make it to their jail cells alive? If so, then they were "treated with kid gloves".

Did they have this type of reception - (Ferguson, MO)?



Or was it more "casual" - (Waco, TX)?

[okasha]

36. About 180 of the bikers

are now in jail with bail set at $1,000,000 each. Another 18 are in hospitals and under guard. These particular guys probably won't be moving on anytime soon.

That won't cripple the Bandidos, though it might affect the balance between them and the Cossacks. We'll know where it stands when they square off next time.

[Cleita]

40. Which is my point.

They shouldn't be able to square off in the future, especially in a family mall. Frankly, I think they'll find another town to regroup, Lubbock maybe since Texas has made it so easy for them to exist.

[okasha]

52. No, they shouldn't be able to, but they will

because the Cossacks are trying to join up with Hell's Angels, the Bandidos' real rivals. With luck, the next venue they try to book will say no, and the carnage will occur away from populated areas.

Not Lubbock. San Antonio because there's easy access to I 35 (DFW) and I 10 (Houston), which are both .major distribution centers.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. Rahm Emmanuel hates unarmed white people

I think his police state is getting short shrift this week.

[hughee99]

50. Not a peep so far from Joe Biden, the most powerful

White guy in the country.

[Coventina]

74. Yes, he clearly has a responsibility here.

He needs to explain to these guys that they need to get off their Harleys and start being responsible fathers and husbands.

[WillyT]

54. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[AgingAmerican]

56. About 1/3 of them are Hispanic

Hispanic on white on Hispanic crime??

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Do you have a link for that 1/3 statement? n/t

[Coventina]

75. There seems to be a new twist to the "one drop rule"

I've noticed it in this thread and in the thread I posted previously (before I saw Fugelsang's Tweet).

Apparently, having just one non-white member of a gang disqualifies it from being identified as a "white" gang (as most OMGs are).

Strangely enough, the reverse phenomenon does not keep the Crips or Bloods or other such gangs being identified as "black".

[AgingAmerican]

79. The Banditos are mixed white and hispanic

Bandidos MC

Established: 1966 in San Leon, Texas, United States
Founder: Donald Eugene Chambers
Years active: 1966-present
Territory: Chapters in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United States
Ethnicity: White and Hispanic
Membership: 2,000-2,500 full-patch members
Criminal activities: Drug dealing, arms dealing, extortion, murder, money laundering
Allies: Mongols, Outlaws and Vagos
Rivals: Comancheros, Hells Angels, and Sons of Silence

http://outlawbikergangs.blogspot.com/2010/04/bandidos-biker-gang.html

The mugshots of the arrested bikers are online. You can look at them yourselves if you don't believe me.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/us/gallery/texas-biker-mugshots/

Never assume without verification.

[Coventina]

83. If you are trying to prove that the Bandidos are not a

predominantly and historically white gang you are not going to succeed.

I posted a link in a previous thread to the Guardian where American Bandidos members are mostly white and often racist.

The mugshots are a selection of those arrested chosen for who knows what editorial reasons on CNN's part. They are not proof of the ethnic make up of overall Bandidos membership.

But I have to wonder why it is so important to you that the Bandidos NOT be identified as a "white" gang?

[TorchTheWitch]

99. they weren't a selection - they were all posted

Nothing with the photos mentions which gang they were affiliated with though. I'm not seeing that it matters or that it matters what race any of them are/were seeing as race had nothing to do with the violence in the first place. I'm not seeing why you're trying so hard to make the incident about race anyway.

[Coventina]

104. Maybe they've all been posted now. The original webpage I saw only had about a dozen or so.

And, it's not about race, it's about the media talking heads.

As I posted in the OP: When black people misbehave, the call goes out for "black leaders" (however that would be defined) to get involved and make statements. There is open wondering about "what is wrong" with the black community (read: what's wrong with black people?) and fingers are pointed at "rap music" "lack of fathers in the home" "baggy pants" etc. ad. nauseum.

John Fugelsang Tweeted the exact thing I'd been thinking about. With a massive (mostly) white gang eruption of violence, will these same sorts of questions be asked?

A rhetorical question, obviously.

[TorchTheWitch]

105. I saw that article when it first came out and all of the photos were there

You had to just scroll through them all.

So, again, why are you trying to make an event about race when it isn't? Race had nothing to do with the event, so what's your point other than to attempt to create more unnecessary divisive devision of races just as the media has done with other events that had nothing to do with race? Why are you asking race related questions about an incident that had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's race?

[Coventina]

106. *sigh* It's not the EVENT that Fugelsang & I commented upon, it's the DISCUSSION

surrounding the event.

Particularly those who pontificate in the media.

Hence, Fugelsang's hashtag.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Good news ...

by their standard, the Crips and Bloods are no longer to be referred to as "Black" gangs!

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=white+crips+and+bloods&qpvt=white+crips+and+bloods&qpvt=white+crips+and+bloods&FORM=IGRE

[Coventina]

92. I know, right?

Hooray!!

The post-racial society we've heard so much about is finally here!!

[Quayblue]

89. good observation nt

[AgingAmerican]

78. Yes, of course

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/us/gallery/texas-biker-mugshots/

Read the names under the mugshots. It might be more thatn 1/3.

[sendero]

57. I like this guy..

.... (John Fugelsang) and the country could use about 1,000 more like him, his words make idiocy obvious.

[randome]

71. Traditional family values would have stopped this.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

73. And so would prayer in the schools!

I have an aunt that is always forwarding right wing emails about that. I asked them honestly if merely reciting a prayer every day in school is going to change the behavior of young people - that alone.

[lovemydog]

98. Sure it will - as long as you back it up with guns to everyone's heads.

j/k

P.S. I love getting removed from those kinds of emails. I basically tell the person in no uncertain terms to never send me that kind of garbage ever again.