Affluenza teen released after 2 years in jail

White privilege is obviously not real...

White privilege hasn’t been more real than this story.

There is no such thing as "white privilege", if you actually believe that than you are pretty misinformed.

Wow, you’ve convinced me!

@mighty-lu-bu: It wasn’t dumb. I’m sorry it offends you that white privilege is real, as evidenced by this very thread. You didn’t prove otherwise just because you listed a few examples of government policy trying to level the playing field with regards to black Americans.

Whites are still the richest and most powerful demographic in the US and have been since the US was founded. Stuff like affirmative action doesn’t exist in a vacuum, rather it’s a response to centuries of inequality in America and an attempt at equity and fairness. It’s funny that you list home loans as an example of black privilege - are you not aware that in some places blacks still get turned away from renting or buying property because they are black? What about the fact that schools in the US and certain neighborhoods are still segregated along racial lines? What about the fast that moving up an economic level is way more likely when you are a white male?

As well, invoking the “model minority” trope is pretty racist. Let me ask you this: how many Asians do you see in Congress?

Wrong, Asians are the richest in the United States and they have had the highest income since the 1990s. Also, affirmative action is an overtly racist ideal where you hire people based on skin color, not on the skills that they actually possess.

Keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. The difference between you and I is that when I make a statement there are certain amounts of evidence attached to it because I actually read books and do research. You couldn't be more wrong on this subject which actually proves your lack of knowledge in this matter.

So when people say white privilege, what they should be saying is Asian privilege. Asians earn the most money in America and are typically the most educated. What about blacks who get an extra 230 bonus points on the SATs, wouldn't that be considered black privilege? What about home loan programs that were specifically designed to cater to minorities?

White privilege doesn't exist, it is a bullshit leftist term that people use to make themselves look like victims when they don't succeed. Instead of taking individual responsibility for their failures, people within this victim hood culture (which is comprised of people on the left), blame their failures on vague terms like institutional racism and white privilege. These terms are nothing more than nonsense- I don't make excuses for failures, if one path is blocked I simply make another path.

How is it white privilege if the Asian guy sitting next to me is making more money and has more education? Explain this one to me.

The lack of individual responsibility is not limited to the left. We would not have a President Donald Trump if that were the case. If anything, it's more firmly entrenched with the right.

Rich, killed 4 people, fled to another country to avoid cops, released from jail after 2 years.

Did he serve the appropriate amount of time giving the crime?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-affluenza/affluenza-texan-who-killed-four-driving-drunk-to-be-released-idUSKCN1H90QU

Edit: changed link so it didn’t prompt through Facebook

There is no such thing as "white privilege", if you actually believe that than you are pretty misinformed.

Trump is President because of a lack of individual responsibility? I thought he was president because Hillary was one of the worst presidential candidates...

Anyways, the right believes that people need to have individual responsibility- the left consistently pushes socialists views that disregard the need for individual responsibility. As Americans, it is our responsibility to get our own health insurance and to pay to be educated because these are services- this isn't far fetched by any means. The left, however, believes that things like this education and healthcare are rights and if the government provides these things that it would solve problems. This actually creates more problems because now we are creating a self reliance on government and as a conservative, I never want to be in the position where I have to rely on the government because the government literally sucks at everything.

Anyways, back on topic. Yeah, this kid didn't get what he deserved, but this isn't a case of white privileged, this is really a case of rich privilege.

As Americans, it is our responsibility to get our own health insurance and to pay to be educated because these are services- this isn't far fetched by any means. The left, however, believes that things like this education and healthcare are rights and if the government provides these things that it would solve problems.

Trump is President because of a lack of individual responsibility? I thought he was president because Hillary was one of the worst presidential candidates...

Anyways, the right believes that people need to have individual responsibility- the left consistently pushes socialists views that disregard the need for individual responsibility. As Americans, it is our responsibility to get our own health insurance and to pay to be educated because these are services- this isn't far fetched by any means. The left, however, believes that things like this education and healthcare are rights and if the government provides these things that it would solve problems. This actually creates more problems because now we are creating a self reliance on government and as a conservative, I never want to be in the position where I have to rely on the government because the government literally sucks at everything.

Anyways, back on topic. Yeah, this kid didn't get what he deserved, but this isn't a case of white privileged, this is really a case of rich privilege.

@drunk_pi:

Do you even follow politics because it doesn't sound like you do. Hillary Clinton is a shrewd business woman and a known corrupt politician dating back to the Nixon Era where she was an aid. She sold guns to Saudi Arabia, had the slush fund which was the Clinton foundation, illegally setup private email servers and lied multiple times not only while under oath, but directly to the FBI. Her husband is a disgusting sexual predator who has had multiple rape and sexual misconduct allegations thrown at him and she defended him every step of the way. It absolutely infuriates me when people know next to nothing about the candidate they are voting for. When we compare Trump and Hillary, neither are ideal of course, but Trump is literally the lesser of two evils. If this is news to you then you are simply uneducated on the matter.

Also, the electoral college has been a very important part of our democracy- the popular vote means nothing and these are the laws that have been apart of our country always. We are still waiting on evidence that the election was fixed, but I hate to burst your bubble (because it wasn't fixed).

Trump won because Republicans and moderates alike were absolutely sick of the political correct culture that the left created and they wanted real change. Obama achieved next to nothing in his presidency yet he is glorified as a champion of Democrats... For what exactly? He was a mediocre president at best that failed to live up to expectations.

How has Trump led a very bad presidency? He has cut taxes across the board and he repealed the terrible original mandate of Obama Care so people who still can't afford health insurance wouldn't be gouged come tax time. I don't agree with everything Trump says or does, but the liberals predicted he would fail miserably and he has done anything, but fail and he has actually exceeded expectations on multiple fronts.

Also, you are heavily confusing social democracy with aspects of socialism. Socialism does NOT provide defense or maintenance to roads or infrastructure.

I can also see that you have never read the constitution because no where in the constitution does it say that healthcare or education will be provided by the government. These have always been individual responsibilities because they are services. When I get sick, I pay the doctor a service fee so that he can check me out and perscribe me medication. If I want to further my education, I pay a university for the service of teaching me. Saying these types of services are suddenly not commodities and they they are suddenly rights is behind idiotic.

Another brainwashed and uneducated leftist devoured, who's next?

@drunk_pi:

Do you even follow politics because it doesn't sound like you do. Hillary Clinton is a shrewd business woman and a known corrupt politician dating back to the Nixon Era where she was an aid. She sold guns to Saudi Arabia, had the slush fund which was the Clinton foundation, illegally setup private email servers and lied multiple times not only while under oath, but directly to the FBI. Her husband is a disgusting sexual predator who has had multiple rape and sexual misconduct allegations thrown at him and she defended him every step of the way. It absolutely infuriates me when people know next to nothing about the candidate they are voting for. When we compare Trump and Hillary, neither are ideal of course, but Trump is literally the lesser of two evils. If this is news to you then you are simply uneducated on the matter.

Are you referring to the time when Clinton was a director for a legal aid clinic? Because if that's the case, she was required (keyword, required) to serve as a defense counsel to a man accused of raping a 12 year old girl. While the case itself was horrible, everyone is entitled to a fair trail, as well as representation in the court of law. She did her job as it was assigned. But even then, she wasn't in politics during the Nixon era. She was involved in Democratic politics until she became the first lady of Arkansas.

Clinton didn't sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia has always been the case since when the U.S. normalized relations with Saudi Arabia. It's been going on for a while now so this isn't anything new. It's regrettable but if you're going to attack Clinton on that, perhaps you should look at the Trump Administration's arm sales to Saudi Arabia and its support for the War in Yemen.

Her husband is questionable. So should she suffer for the sins of her husband? No. Is it questionable that she defended him numerous times. Sure. I'll give you that. But that doesn't indicate that Hillary Clinton was an "evil woman."

Now lets go to Trump. Oh wait, there's this big list here, courtesy of Politico! LINK But wait, there's more! How about that time Trump didn't pay his workers! Or the numerous sexual assault and rape allegations! But please, tell me he's the "lesser of two evils." Because you know so much about politics! /sarcasm.

Also, considering the recent scandals that have occurred, it doesn't tell me that Trump was the "lesser of two evils." It just tells me that you hate this woman for no reason other than you watch too much right wing propaganda or you have problems. I'm going for the latter.

Also, the electoral college has been a very important part of our democracy- the popular vote means nothing and these are the laws that have been apart of our country always. We are still waiting on evidence that the election was fixed, but I hate to burst your bubble (because it wasn't fixed).

The electoral college is important when it's convenient. Reality is that it's anti democratic. Why? Because it really does discourage people from voting in solid blue/red states, as well as discourages the introduction of third parties. In other words, if California was 51% Democratic but 49% Republican, all the electoral points would go to the Democratic candidate. It's an unfair representation of the state as well as allocation of points rewarded to a candidate despite being a close race. So no, it's not democratic at all. And just because it has been a part of this country, doesn't mean it's "right." We've had slavery, barring women and minorities from voting, Jim Crow and other questionable laws and they were given the boot.

Trump won because Republicans and moderates alike were absolutely sick of the political correct culture that the left created and they wanted real change. Obama achieved next to nothing in his presidency yet he is glorified as a champion of Democrats... For what exactly? He was a mediocre president at best that failed to live up to expectations.

Or So it's the Obama Administration's fault despite the Republican party refusing to work with him on key issues, despite compromising on key issues on healthcare? But as I recall, the economy was doing better and the unemployment rate went down.

The Obama Administration was handed a shit card and allowed the country to progress economically and socially, which is more than I can say for the Bush Administration who fucked it all up and now the Trump Administration as it takes the credit despite dismissing Obama's successes.

How has Trump led a very bad presidency? He has cut taxes across the board and he repealed the terrible original mandate of Obama Care so people who still can't afford health insurance would be gouged come tax time. I don't agree with everything Trump says or does, but the liberals predicted he would fail miserable and he has done anything, but fail and he has actually exceeded expectations on multiple fronts.

Tax cuts aren't doing much right now Tax cuts generally don't do much. And while we're at it, he's failing to appoint people to important government posts and causing his own government to be unable to function properly. And even then, the ideas of small government and low taxes do not work. It didn't work in Kansas, it's not going to work in the U.S.

Also, you are heavily confusing social democracy with aspects of socialism. Socialism does NOT provide defense or maintenance to roads or infrastructure.

I suggest you look up the word "socialist."Even then, any hint of improving something is dismissed outright as "socialist" by nutters such as yourself so why bother defining terms anymore?

I can also see that you have never read the constitution because no where in the constitution does it say that healthcare or education will be provided by the government. These have always been individual responsibilities because they are services. When I get sick, I pay the doctor a service fee so that he can check me out and perscribe me medication. If I want to further my education, I pay a university for the service of teaching me. Saying these types of services are suddenly not commodities and they they are suddenly rights is behind idiotic.

People who say, "you never read the Constitution" are the same people who say, "you never read the Bible." I view these people as idiots because they most likely have never read either but like to scold others because they can't make a solid argument.

The Constitution is a piece of paper, written in the 1770s. It provided the best framework at the time to establish a workable government. Today, it's surprisingly still effective but contains outdated ideas that we don't follow. Like, only property-owning males can vote or that blacks are 3/5th human or that armies can only last two years. In addition, it didn't take into account of changing technology and the needs of the American people over time.

Universal healthcare works and is efficient. Providing affordable and/or free education, including college is now necessary due to the demands of the free market. The Constitution is a framework of government. It's not some divine piece of paper to be worshiped.

Another leftist devoured, next?

lol ok.

Wrong, Asians are the richest in the United States and they have had the highest income since the 1990s. Also, affirmative action is an overtly racist ideal where you hire people based on skin color, not on the skills that they actually possess.

Keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. The difference between you and I is that when I make a statement there are certain amounts of evidence attached to it because I actually read books and do research. You couldn't be more wrong on this subject which actually proves your lack of knowledge in this matter.

That whole family is fucked up. His daddy impersonated a police officer. His mommy took him to Mexico. He killed 4 people. I wonder how much more had to do with genetics and parenting versus wealth.

@perfect_blue: Again, Asians have the highest income and education in America and this has been the case for decades. This directly refutes your claims that white privilege exists because whites earn the most- this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Also, great argument shift by the way. When your first attempts were proven to be not true, you are now shifting the argument by saying white privilege exists because 7 out 10 fortune 500 companies are operated by white men. The reason this is bullshit is because if a white man is at the head of a company, this doesn't automatically imply that white privilege exists. Furthermore, there are way more then 10 fortune 500 companies out there so this is just another useless statistic.

I'm not denying that white privilege has existed in the past, but for the last 25+ years this has not been the case.

I have worked in a corporate environment for quite some time so I am fully aware of what affirmative action is. The best person for the job should be the person that has the most experience and is the most qualified, race or sex should have absolutely nothing to do with this.

My mom is a Polish American and when she was 18 years old she was a maid at a hotel cleaning rooms. Twenty years later, she was a corporate executive making well over 6 figures a year. This isn't due to white privilege, this is due to hardwork and a certain degree of individual responsibility.

People who lack a sense of invidual responsibility like to make excuses and white privilege is simply just one of these excuses. In this case, it seems more like an instance of rich pivlege, but you liberal morons had to make it racial by throwing out bogus terms like white privilege. This is absolutely disgusting.

There is no such thing as "white privilege", if you actually believe that than you are pretty misinformed.

@drunk_pi: In 1974, Hillary Clinton worked for the house judiciary committee which at that time was investigating Richard Nixon in regards to Watergate. According to her supervisor at the time, Hillary Clinton met with Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist which was indeed a violation of house rules. This was her first stint in known corruptness and it has just gotten worse from there.

This is false. LINK

Also, no I wasn't referring to the rapist she defended, I was referring to her husband who has had several rape allegations against him and he even had to settle out of court against civil sexual harassment charges. The list goes on and on and we can discuss who was the worst candidate all day long, but I think we can both agree that both candidates were pretty bad- I just happen to think Hillary was much worse. She was a terrible candidate since day one and if people disagree then they didn't do enough digging.

What list goes "on and on?" So Clinton was the worst because of her philandering husband? lol ok. Again, I'm not disagreeing that it was questionable for Clinton to defend her husband. However, she wasn't accused of raping or sexually assaulting others whereas Trump was. So how is Clinton worse than Trump on this issue?

Also, most of what you have posted about Trump is pure speculation- which is a bit of a shock since usually politico is pretty decent even though it leans to the left. Regardless, he definitely is a liar, but guess what? So is Hillary.

According to politifact, who lied the most? LINK I'll await your answer.

Also, are we already dismissing scandals and accusations because we assume it's "speculation?" If that's the case, the allegations towards Bill Clinton is now, according to your logic, "speculation."

The reality is that. Trump has faced sexual-assault allegations from the 1970s up to 2005; accusations of racism in beauty peagent showings and housing; ties to the mafia; Trump university ('nuff said); and many, many more. Will the Atlantic suffice; or will you continue to dismiss articles and publications b/c it's "left leaning." Btw, while Politico and the Atlantic can be "left-leaning" they still factually report the news.

The whole point of the electoral college was to give all states a voice regardless of size and we are the only democracy on the planet that uses it. At the time of it's establishment, there was a severe distrust of federal government and for good reason- the founding founders didn't simply build a government, they rebelled against one. The electoral college was regarded as a compromise to promote democracy while simultaneously allowing the government to function. Why is it that liberals are the ones who are always complaining about the electoral college? This is how we elect presidents in America and this is how we have always elected presidents in this country.

Again, just because we've being doing it forever, doesn't mean it's right. We've had slavery in the past; people under 21 couldn't vote; women couldn't vote; presidents could be elected indefinitely; and so on. Also, just because we're the only ones that use it, doesn't make us anything special. And again, the electoral college has issues. Complaining about it doesn't make oneself a "liberal." The reality is that it doesn't make sense for a candidate to receive all electoral points when a state is reporting 51/49%. The 49% who did vote were meaningless. You do realize that if the electoral college was done away or reformed so that the "winner-take-all" system was removed, it would also affect Democrats, right? It would affect both parties in that now they actually have to compete aggressively, country-wide to win the popular vote instead of relying on key states and ignoring the rest of the Republic.

Ever heard of Alexander Hamilton? John Adams? The Federalist Party? Yeah, those guys were big on establishing a strong central government. Ever heard of the Constitution? That established a centralized government after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The founding fathers weren't a hive mind. They were individuals who had different ideas who ended up compromising on key issues of state vs federal power. With that said, I suggest you read on Thomas Paine, a founding father who believed in very liberal, socialist beliefs.

Also the whole constitution argument was not meant to be an argument of authority, it just seems like you have a lack of understanding of what the U.S. constitution actually is. Sure it is a piece of paper, but the amendments in the constitution have created the country that we know and love today.

Like the 18th Amendment, right? The Constitution is a framework for a government. It's not absolute authority, as the founders made it so that it can be changed over time, hence why women can vote, minorities can vote, people 18 and older can vote.

There is no such thing has free healthcare and there is no such thing as free education- someone somewhere is having to pay for it. Also, Universal healthcare systems are anything, but efficient. These systems are plagued with astronomically high wait times, but in countries like Canada urgent care don't even exist. I mean look at the Nordic countries which have the highest tax rates in the developed world and everything is grossly inflated: the price for a pint of beer is about $18 and the price for a Honda Civic is almost double than what it is in the U.S.- the left never seems to mention these things.

Yeah, I already know. Same is said about infrastructure, military, the post office, etc. Again, we as a society agree on what's fundamentally important to the social good. Healthcare and education is starting to look like that due to the inefficiency of the private markets and the growing necessity of those services. This doesn't mean that markets are, as a whole, inefficient. It just means that relying solely on the markets for those particular services is no longer efficient due to exorbitant cost to the individual, their well-being and health, and the nation.

As for those "astronomically high wait times," yeah no. The wait times do go up but they're not astronomical. No system is perfect; however, the U.S. spends more than any other nation on healthcare; we have the poorest health and highest mortality rates compared to those with universal healthcare. But even then, the cost of care is astronomical in the U.S. and before the ACA, coverage was denied based on "pre-existing conditions."

As for education, we've subsidized college before and was affordable for Americans. It has become a necessity now. Either we can make it affordable through subsidy or make it free (and yes, I know, taxpayer will pay for it). But then again, it's economical to spend a low amount over time than spend a large amount and be unable to pay for it since your degree will be at the whims of the market's demands.

As for high taxation... okay... and? Would I rather have taxes that pay for necessary services; or would I rather have lower taxes but I have to pay for everything which will put me back in debt?

Yeah, taxes sure are scary. So is when I'll start paying my college tuition and when I use the toll roads and pay $30 b/c, god forbid, we raise the gas tax to fund infrastructure.

I know you liberals absolutely despise Ben Shapiro, but he breaks down the whole healthcare argument a lot better than most. Here is a video, I suggest that you watch it and then specifically tell me what is wrong with what he is saying because what is saying is actually pretty spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVb3DX85LA

lol sure thing... I'll make you listen to Cenk Ugur just as I'll listen to Ben Shapiro. Hint, I don't take any of them those two seriously. ;)

Regardless, I applaud you for the discussion- I wish more people on the left were like you are actually participated in debate instead of shutting it down.

When you spout nonsense, people don't want to debate you. It makes sense since it's a waste of their time.

@Nuck81: You can't argue with facts kid.

You use that word like you know what it means. You don't.

It took 25 posts before the first of 18 utterances of Hilary Clinton took place.

I think there needs to be a permanent amendment to Godwin's Rule instead of Hitler / Nazis we use Hilary Clinton / Benghazi.

@mighty-lu-bu: It wasn’t dumb. I’m sorry it offends you that white privilege is real, as evidenced by this very thread. You didn’t prove otherwise just because you listed a few examples of government policy trying to level the playing field with regards to black Americans.

Whites are still the richest and most powerful demographic in the US and have been since the US was founded. Stuff like affirmative action doesn’t exist in a vacuum, rather it’s a response to centuries of inequality in America and an attempt at equity and fairness. It’s funny that you list home loans as an example of black privilege - are you not aware that in some places blacks still get turned away from renting or buying property because they are black? What about the fact that schools in the US and certain neighborhoods are still segregated along racial lines? What about the fast that moving up an economic level is way more likely when you are a white male?

As well, invoking the “model minority” trope is pretty racist. Let me ask you this: how many Asians do you see in Congress?

@drunk_pi: In 1974, Hillary Clinton worked for the house judiciary committee which at that time was investigating Richard Nixon in regards to Watergate. According to her supervisor at the time, Hillary Clinton met with Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist which was indeed a violation of house rules. This was her first stint in known corruptness and it has just gotten worse from there.

Also, no I wasn't referring to the rapist she defended, I was referring to her husband who has had several rape allegations against him and he even had to settle out of court against civil sexual harassment charges. The list goes on and on and we can discuss who was the worst candidate all day long, but I think we can both agree that both candidates were pretty bad- I just happen to think Hillary was much worse. She was a terrible candidate since day one and if people disagree then they didn't do enough digging.

Also, most of what you have posted about Trump is pure speculation- which is a bit of a shock since usually politico is pretty decent even though it leans to the left. Regardless, he definitely is a liar, but guess what? So is Hillary.

The whole point of the electoral college was to give all states a voice regardless of size and we are the only democracy on the planet that uses it. At the time of it's establishment, there was a severe distrust of federal government and for good reason- the founding founders didn't simply build a government, they rebelled against one. The electoral college was regarded as a compromise to promote democracy while simultaneously allowing the government to function. Why is it that liberals are the ones who are always complaining about the electoral college? This is how we elect presidents in America and this is how we have always elected presidents in this country.

Also the whole constitution argument was not meant to be an argument of authority, it just seems like you have a lack of understanding of what the U.S. constitution actually is. Sure it is a piece of paper, but the amendments in the constitution have created the country that we know and love today.

There is no such thing has free healthcare and there is no such thing as free education- someone somewhere is having to pay for it. Also, Universal healthcare systems are anything, but efficient. These systems are plagued with astronomically high wait times, but in countries like Canada urgent care don't even exist. I mean look at the Nordic countries which have the highest tax rates in the developed world and everything is grossly inflated: the price for a pint of beer is about $18 and the price for a Honda Civic is almost double than what it is in the U.S.- the left never seems to mention these things.

I know you liberals absolutely despise Ben Shapiro, but he breaks down the whole healthcare argument a lot better than most. Here is a video, I suggest that you watch it and then specifically tell me what is wrong with what he is saying because what is saying is actually pretty spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVb3DX85LA

Regardless, I applaud you for the discussion- I wish more people on the left were like you are actually participated in debate instead of shutting it down.

@Nuck81: You can't argue with facts kid.

So if I made a thread about OJ getting away with murder, it proves black privilege?

Whats the difference between OJ and the average African American?

White privilege hasn’t been more real than this story.

Whats the difference between OJ and the average African American?

Whats the difference between OJ and the average African American?

He may be insinuating that money moreso than race bestows privilege.

That was exactly my point

I think everyone in this response is likely to agree that wealth bestows privilege. It's baked into the fundamental mechanisms of the US's judicial and economic systems.

So then everyone would agree that it is really dishonest to use the affluenza teen as definitive evidence of racial privilege within our justice system?

White privilege is obviously not real...

I pull my Hispanic card to either get benefits or to guilt white people.

The white people over at Cali working as service workers seem to have the greatest sympathy for me. Hell if I don't take advantage of that stupidity.