And those communities should be defended from mining.

What doesn't at all make sense is trying to create equality by fucking up all poor communities equally across race.

You're trying to fight the good fight, but you're doing it as ass-backward as you can manage.

You should go join one of the organizations that fight mining in impoverished areas, or groups that are fighting against mining special interests by trying to force them to extract resources using better techniques while holding them responsible for the environmental damage they create.

The reason people are against this is because in the current state the US doesn't penalize corporations for their bad mining practices - it actually heavily rewards them. So nobody wants them.

"American slaves had it sooooooo much better than other slaves. How can they complain!?"

-This guy, comparing micro-shades of grey.

You did, we're on ACT II or a three part play;

• Scammer picks targets out of a small community subreddit
• Small community subreddit notices and tells eachother
• Scammer flounders for bit before deleting account and going after different community.

Non-empathetic moderates voting with the MAGA crazies hoping to keep the stock market artificially high as they approached retirement.

"I believe that the ex-president has learned from this meal with white supremacist's."

If you can’t then please explain his billboard sign banning works…?

AirBnB vibes

No actually, the CDC says the misreporting of breeds makes pitbulls and Rottweilers abnormally higher in their statistics. Please go read it again, as the CDC specifically states it is against BLS.

CDC doesn’t gather the statistics, they analyze them. They’re pointing out that human bias ruins the data leading to incorrect conclusions on breeds.

If you can’t understand the study - apparently - you can read the analysis from one of the other major organizations.

Again, fault of the owner. Not the breeds.

> The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000).

As the American Veterinarian Medical Association explains;

> It is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds because the data reported is often unreliable. This is because:

>The breed of a biting dog is often not known or is reported inaccurately. The actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they don't result in serious injury. The number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed. Statistics often do not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal. Breed popularity changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable. However a review of the research that attempts to quantify the relation between breed and bite risk finds the connection to be weak or absent, while responsible ownership variables such as socialization, neutering and proper containment of dogs are much more strongly indicated as important risk factors

O you poor summer child, please go actually read the whole thing;

> The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). Specifically, the authors of this and other studies cite the inherent difficulties in breed identification (especially among mixed-breed dogs) and in calculating a breed’s bite rate given the lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community, especially when the injury is not deemed serious enough to require treatment in an emergency room (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006). Supporting the concern regarding identification, a recent study noted a significant discrepancy between visual determination of breed and DNA determination of breed (Voith et al., 2009).

The study points out specifically that it’s data is completely wrong, and recommends against Breed Specific Laws - attributing the issue to human error from unwarranted bias against specific breeds.

Now go read the other links too instead of cherry picking for a Hail Mary.

Here are the organizations that agree Breed Specific Laws are bullshit;

>American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the ASPCA, the CDC, the American Bar Association, the American Kennel Club, the National Animal Care & Control Association, the National Canine Research Council, the Humane Society.

So no, not sarcasm. Imagine disagreeing with this group on animal laws and right.

Nope, but you're blamed for not wanting to help them.

No, because them not having crack pipes doesn't stop them from smoking crack - which leads to exacerbated health problems which costs the government money.

All incredibly basic things that we've known for decades when you can learn about once you grasp basic literacy.

All of which is irrelevant because of how poor Maine's drug addiction social services are thanks to - you guessed it - people like you and LePage.

Also Maine mostly fucks overwhelmingly with opiates. And Mainers mostly mess with meth over cocaine, and rarely use crack.

>It's racist to automatically correlate crack to black people

Yes, thes the problem.

Conservatives spent a lot of time and money specifically correlating blacks to crack.

It is literally racist. Which is why LePage - a racist - is using the term despite crack usage be incredibly small in Maine.

Also an interesting read is the conservative US Government's relationship to (allegedly) importing crack specifically into black neighborhoods.

Don't breed blame. Its not the breed its the owners every time.

I guess "Enough is Enough" was, in fact, Not Enough.

Yes, it is the democratic holdouts, and not the entire republican half they vote with, that should be called out specifically. That's not silly at all.