Good thing there's no question who accepts their lean drinkin/sellin' thug TM. Not only do they accept him, they want everyone to be like him.
Not really when you realize the circular logic you just employed, people got upset because of previous bias not because of rational thinking, you are excusing irrational behavior in a circular fashion, until we grow up as a society it will remain in this perpetual state because of race baiters that make an easy living and gain easy credibility from this attitude on non self reflection.
Depends on where - when I was living in the boonies we had probably two dozen homeless around that I knew of - and within walking distance - one soup kitchen, open ONCE a day, three days a week (Wed/Sat/Sun). And of course that soup kitchen was run by the local catholic church, so if you had a problem with the Catholic church - zero options.
Absolute starvation figures are out there, but separate - last I saw around 1.5% or something for the US for "starving" people versus the quoted higher amount for undernourished.
This is almost universally true, and it's not exclusive to Catholicism, the majority of places that offer help for the homeless only do so on the condition that they can repeatedly assault you with their beliefs, regardless of what yours may be.
SNAP maximum is higher than its ever been and to get that much you'd have to have literally TEN secondary people on the SNAP account. (Assuming it doesn't cap before that - not sure on any cap or not) So that figure is meaningless - average SNAP benefit in the US is $140.
Even the "just one" bit? After I left my parents home to join the real world in many urban/suburban areas between NYC suburbs, all damn over PA and Baltimore County, MD - the quantity of soup kitchens doesn't seem to be nearly as few. Although I will admit being that Towson, MD right next door to me appeared in a magazine as the "most lucrative panhandling place in the US" I'm likely a little jaded about it compared to my shiny eyed days of my youth too. [Also best pickup university in the US at TSU too - which has always been so relevant to me...]
Partially accurate, some of those "shall" and "may" issue states don't make it at all practical or frequent in issuing. MD has always been a "May-Issue" state on it (and was as far back as I'm aware) but there's very few (I want to say it was something like 20) issued a year, almost exclusive to retired police and military.There's a reason SYG and the carry laws are in place today. People are fed up with it.
It's pretty much expected that if Trayvon was replaced with a suit and tie wearing white man that Zimmerman wouldn't have given him a second glance. And even if that general expectation for this specific event would've been wrong - it's true in a large number of other cases which this has become a dialogue for sounding those complaints from the people against Z's innocence.
Sure, if he was a suit and tie wearing man, Zimmerman wouldn't have done anything. However, that is a ridiculous example because white people wearing suits and ties weren't breaking into houses in the neighborhood.
Depends on whom and the circumstance - are they critically watched on a daily basis, of course not - not nearly as frequently. But they still get critical looks/follows occasionally still.
If I saw a white man wearing a suit and a tie walking around in the rain at night in a neighborhood that had been the subject of multiple recent break-ins, I would call the cops on him. The fact that racism exists in the world should have nothing to do with this case, and racism never would have had anything to do with this case if it weren't for racist blacks doing everything in their power to try and create and inject a narrative about racism into the case.
I just made the "suit" part to make it clear that while perhaps he'd have done the same to a hoodie wearing white kid doing exactly the same behavior as Trayvon someone drastically different likely not so much. That appearance style whether from dress or skin color sets off some alarms to some people.
Why is that? Because RACISM, or because the propensity for a guy in a suit walking down the street to be generally engaged in potential breakings and enterings is far less common than a guy in a hoodie walking down the street to be generally engaged in potential breakings and enterings?
