Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

OPINION contradictions and lies! exposing the democratic party

itsupthere said:
- Recently, the city council dems in Minneapolis slashed the police funding. You should've heard about this due to George Floyd. Well the contradiction came after they slashed the funding and the same city council started crying about how the thugs were taking over and how there's been a surge in crime, as if they couldn't figure out why. They even had about a two hour zoom meeting w/ the police regarding the issue.
Click to expand...









minnesota.cbslocal.com

Minneapolis OK's $6.4M To Recruit More Police Officers, Amid Push To Replace MPD

The council voted unanimously on Friday to approve the additional funding, which was requested by police.
minnesota.cbslocal.com minnesota.cbslocal.com


Minneapolis OK’s $6.4M To Recruit More Police Officers, Amid Push To Replace MPD


MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO/AP) — Minneapolis will spend $6.4 million to hire dozens of police officers, even as some City Council members and activist groups are advocating to replace the police department following George Floyd’s death.

The council voted unanimously on Friday to approve the additional funding, which was requested by police.


The department says it only has 638 officers available to work, roughly 200 fewer than usual. An unprecedented number of officers quit or took extended medical leave after Floyd’s death and the unrest that followed.


The petition also call on city officials make long term investments in the programs organizers say keep residents safe.









Minneapolis to spend $6.4M to recruit more police officers


While there have been calls to dismantle the department after Floyd's death, some residents have begged the city to hire more officers, citing longer response times and an increase in violent crime.


“We have a policing system that doesn’t work for us and we need alternatives,” said Rachel Bean, who signed the petition Saturday. “I’m a social worker and I feel like we have lots of tools that we could try to create more community safety.
 
Disanthrope said:



Hilarious
Click to expand...









This is hilarious.



And I'm not talking about the preacher either. Especially considering how Democrats ushered in Doma and supported it to the fullest.








www.britannica.com

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), federal law in force from 1996 to 2013 that specifically denied to same-sex couples all benefits and recognition given to opposite-sex couples. Those benefits included more than 1,000 federal protections and privileges, such as the legal recognition of relationships,
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

Defense of Marriage Act
United States [1996]


President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law on September 21, 1996. After that time some 40 states enacted explicit bans on same-sex marriage in either state laws or state constitutions










www.businessinsider.com

Meet The Democrats Who Voted For DOMA Back When It Was Popular

www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com


5152f87f69bedd131800001b

Meet The Democrats Who Voted For DOMA Back When It Was Popular

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has its day in the Supreme Court Wednesday in what has been described as the "ideal" case for gay rights activists.
DOMA, which forbids the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex relationships defined by the states, has been a thorn in the side of the gay rights movement since its passage in 1996.











Don't ever let these confused/misled posters tell you the democrats are better than the other side and there's nothing wrong w/ them wagging they fingers at other nations.
 
itsupthere said:
This is hilarious.



And I'm not talking about the preacher either. Especially considering how Democrats ushered in Doma and supported it to the fullest.








www.britannica.com

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), federal law in force from 1996 to 2013 that specifically denied to same-sex couples all benefits and recognition given to opposite-sex couples. Those benefits included more than 1,000 federal protections and privileges, such as the legal recognition of relationships,
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

Defense of Marriage Act
United States [1996]


President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law on September 21, 1996. After that time some 40 states enacted explicit bans on same-sex marriage in either state laws or state constitutions










www.businessinsider.com

Meet The Democrats Who Voted For DOMA Back When It Was Popular

www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com


5152f87f69bedd131800001b

Meet The Democrats Who Voted For DOMA Back When It Was Popular

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has its day in the Supreme Court Wednesday in what has been described as the "ideal" case for gay rights activists.
DOMA, which forbids the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex relationships defined by the states, has been a thorn in the side of the gay rights movement since its passage in 1996.











Don't ever let these confused/misled posters tell you the democrats are better than the other side and there's nothing wrong w/ them wagging they fingers at other nations.
Click to expand...
I feel where you’re coming from, but this is like saying the US should be ok with a country having slaves because we once had slaves.

Countries and political parties, like people, grow and learn and change.

So yes, now that the Democrats have learned over the years and eventually legalized gay marriage they are better than the other side who would still have it be illegal.
 
TheNightKing said:
I feel where you’re coming from, but this is like saying the US should be ok with a country having slaves because we once had slaves.

Countries and political parties, like people, grow and learn and change.

So yes, now that the Democrats have learned over the years and eventually legalized gay marriage they are better than the other side who would still have it be illegal.
Click to expand...









Inaccurate.


Very inaccurate.


This acceptance of rainbows wasn't because of good will. It's not because they "grew and learned" either. The reason they accepted gays is simply because of $$. The rainbows got big bank. No, I won't name names or reveal who as of yet either, because of these democrat bend-overs that post over here will deny it or get offended.



And btw, about these slaves. We didn't get freedom because of good will or it was wrong to treat human beings like trash either. You should know that.
 
itsupthere said:
Inaccurate.


Very inaccurate.


This acceptance of rainbows wasn't because of good will. It's not because they "grew and learned" either. The reason they accepted gays is simply because of $$. The rainbows got big bank. No, I won't name names or reveal who as of yet either, because of these democrat bend-overs that post over here will deny it or get offended.



And btw, about these slaves. We didn't get freedom because of good will or it was wrong to treat human beings like trash either. You should know that.
Click to expand...
Eh, I can’t disagree that their motivations weren’t pure so I’ll concede that point. And yes I know the motivations for ending slavery weren’t altruistic.

But once we take a stand for any group’s rights, regardless of the motivation, we hold others to that standard as well. And why not if it’s positive.

My main point though was that there is a difference. At least dems would take their money and make changes for them. Republicans would never.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top