<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Racial Profiling Goes Viral</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=22023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023</link>
	<description>Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love &#38; Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures,  Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:26:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michelle Moquin&#039;s &#34;A day in the life of&#8230;&#34; &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Republicans Unanimously Block Equal Pay Bill</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123225</link>
		<dc:creator>Michelle Moquin&#039;s &#34;A day in the life of&#8230;&#34; &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Republicans Unanimously Block Equal Pay Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123225</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] John:  Perhaps before you address the article you should actually read the article. The couple you are referring to is not the couple that is in the write that I posted. Just saying&#8230; [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] John:  Perhaps before you address the article you should actually read the article. The couple you are referring to is not the couple that is in the write that I posted. Just saying&#8230; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luie</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123224</link>
		<dc:creator>Luie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Finally some sensible talk about marijuana:
-----------------
&quot;Like most Americans, Ms. Dowd has probably seen countless silly anti-marijuana ads on TV, but she has never seen one that highlights the need to &#039;start low and go slow&#039; when choosing to consume marijuana edibles,&quot; Tvert said.

With edibles, it takes longer to feel the effects of THC, marijuana&#039;s psychoactive ingredient, which can lead people to eat too much, then being hit hard by serious side effects that include delirium and psychosis.
&quot;If you smoke (marijuana) it&#039;s in your brain almost immediately. So, the effects start very rapidly.

 You can have an edible and not feel much right away. Up to an hour or two hours, three hours later you can start feeling the effects. It&#039;s slower onset, and it lasts longer,&quot; said Paula Riggs, director of the division of substance dependence at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

Colorado state regulators are looking into stricter requirements for marijuana edible manufacturers that include better labeling and limiting each package to a single dose, about 10 milligrams of THC. Currently, marijuana dispensaries are selling recreational pot products that contain up to 100 milligrams of THC in a single candy bar.

Tvert said he hopes people see the billboard and take the time to really educate themselves about marijuana edibles. The billboard directs people to the campaign&#039;s website, consumeresponsibly.org, which has information about marijuana laws, products and their effects, including negative effects like &quot;increased heart rate and a sense of paranoia.&quot;

Campaign organizers also plan to put out print and online ads, along with educational materials in marijuana dispensaries.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/us/colorado-marijuana-edibles-billboard-maureen-dowd/index.html?hpt=us_c2]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finally some sensible talk about marijuana:<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
&#8220;Like most Americans, Ms. Dowd has probably seen countless silly anti-marijuana ads on TV, but she has never seen one that highlights the need to &#8216;start low and go slow&#8217; when choosing to consume marijuana edibles,&#8221; Tvert said.</p>
<p>With edibles, it takes longer to feel the effects of THC, marijuana&#8217;s psychoactive ingredient, which can lead people to eat too much, then being hit hard by serious side effects that include delirium and psychosis.<br />
&#8220;If you smoke (marijuana) it&#8217;s in your brain almost immediately. So, the effects start very rapidly.</p>
<p> You can have an edible and not feel much right away. Up to an hour or two hours, three hours later you can start feeling the effects. It&#8217;s slower onset, and it lasts longer,&#8221; said Paula Riggs, director of the division of substance dependence at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.</p>
<p>Colorado state regulators are looking into stricter requirements for marijuana edible manufacturers that include better labeling and limiting each package to a single dose, about 10 milligrams of THC. Currently, marijuana dispensaries are selling recreational pot products that contain up to 100 milligrams of THC in a single candy bar.</p>
<p>Tvert said he hopes people see the billboard and take the time to really educate themselves about marijuana edibles. The billboard directs people to the campaign&#8217;s website, consumeresponsibly.org, which has information about marijuana laws, products and their effects, including negative effects like &#8220;increased heart rate and a sense of paranoia.&#8221;</p>
<p>Campaign organizers also plan to put out print and online ads, along with educational materials in marijuana dispensaries.<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/us/colorado-marijuana-edibles-billboard-maureen-dowd/index.html?hpt=us_c2" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/us/colorado-marijuana-edibles-billboard-maureen-dowd/index.html?hpt=us_c2</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alphonso</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123223</link>
		<dc:creator>Alphonso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My question is why did the cop assume it was prostitution? If it were a white couple, he may have been inclined to charge them (by that I mean both) with lewd public conduct a far cry from accusing someone of being a prostitute, but he certainly wouldn’t have insulted a white woman with that accusation.

You on the other hand were perfectly at ease with that assumption by the cop. Why because whites with their superiority complex immediately assume the worst about blacks. You are a typical example of your race.

Just saying.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My question is why did the cop assume it was prostitution? If it were a white couple, he may have been inclined to charge them (by that I mean both) with lewd public conduct a far cry from accusing someone of being a prostitute, but he certainly wouldn’t have insulted a white woman with that accusation.</p>
<p>You on the other hand were perfectly at ease with that assumption by the cop. Why because whites with their superiority complex immediately assume the worst about blacks. You are a typical example of your race.</p>
<p>Just saying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helen</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123222</link>
		<dc:creator>Helen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John#15, I&#039;ve been reading some of the comments to you. The first two through me off. I was screaming in my head, &quot;Why are they entertaining that idiot? That isn&#039;t the same article.&quot;

I read on and noticed more astute readers caught your inane reference to the article Michelle posted. By now if you know how stupid you appear while attempting to be logically defending the behavior of that racist cop in the article you cited.

My question to you is, if the officer thought sex for money had occurred, why wasn&#039;t the male under arrest? If he was not going to take the male in just who was he going to accuse her of having had sex for money with?

And if you weren&#039;t a white man would you have accepted the cop&#039;s assumption that the woman was the prostitute?  Could it be because she was black?  Just saying.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John#15, I&#8217;ve been reading some of the comments to you. The first two through me off. I was screaming in my head, &#8220;Why are they entertaining that idiot? That isn&#8217;t the same article.&#8221;</p>
<p>I read on and noticed more astute readers caught your inane reference to the article Michelle posted. By now if you know how stupid you appear while attempting to be logically defending the behavior of that racist cop in the article you cited.</p>
<p>My question to you is, if the officer thought sex for money had occurred, why wasn&#8217;t the male under arrest? If he was not going to take the male in just who was he going to accuse her of having had sex for money with?</p>
<p>And if you weren&#8217;t a white man would you have accepted the cop&#8217;s assumption that the woman was the prostitute?  Could it be because she was black?  Just saying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rene</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123221</link>
		<dc:creator>Rene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22023#comment-123221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John#15, before you say anything it would be wise to make sure it is about the topic you are citing.  The couple in the above article were looking at cotton not humping in a car. 

But like most racists it doesn&#039;t matter what the particular black is being accused of, he/she is being charged in the racist white mind with whatever crime they image any black has done. After all blacks are not human beings with the individualities of such. 

In the racist minds they are just a collection of stereotypes. Hence if one did something somewhere, they all, as a race, are guilty of it, or would do it.  

Oh,don&#039;t take this as an admission that you were correct in your assumption of the event you erroneously cited as the one in this article.

Your assumptions bring up a whole new set of issues that white racists like you use to justify your bigotry. This is especially true of those who tell others and sometimes themselves that they are not racists or bigots.

Your assumption that the report was true implies that you are inclined to believe that a black actress would fuck in public in broad daylight. I can guarantee if she were a white actress of the same statue in the motion picture industry, your first inclination would be to say &quot;No way an actress would be doing that in public. in broad daylight&quot;

But since the lady in question was black, you immediately assumed she would. That is the reason racists with badges know they can get away with the lame excuses they use to justify their barbarism towards OTWs. 

They know that a white jury will instinctually accept the worst about blacks, when they would not accept that same story about a white person.  Hence in reality you were not &quot;just saying,&quot; rather you were, JUST SHOWING your white racist subconscious attitude that you think whites are better than OTWs because no decent white actress would do such a thing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John#15, before you say anything it would be wise to make sure it is about the topic you are citing.  The couple in the above article were looking at cotton not humping in a car. </p>
<p>But like most racists it doesn&#8217;t matter what the particular black is being accused of, he/she is being charged in the racist white mind with whatever crime they image any black has done. After all blacks are not human beings with the individualities of such. </p>
<p>In the racist minds they are just a collection of stereotypes. Hence if one did something somewhere, they all, as a race, are guilty of it, or would do it.  </p>
<p>Oh,don&#8217;t take this as an admission that you were correct in your assumption of the event you erroneously cited as the one in this article.</p>
<p>Your assumptions bring up a whole new set of issues that white racists like you use to justify your bigotry. This is especially true of those who tell others and sometimes themselves that they are not racists or bigots.</p>
<p>Your assumption that the report was true implies that you are inclined to believe that a black actress would fuck in public in broad daylight. I can guarantee if she were a white actress of the same statue in the motion picture industry, your first inclination would be to say &#8220;No way an actress would be doing that in public. in broad daylight&#8221;</p>
<p>But since the lady in question was black, you immediately assumed she would. That is the reason racists with badges know they can get away with the lame excuses they use to justify their barbarism towards OTWs. </p>
<p>They know that a white jury will instinctually accept the worst about blacks, when they would not accept that same story about a white person.  Hence in reality you were not &#8220;just saying,&#8221; rather you were, JUST SHOWING your white racist subconscious attitude that you think whites are better than OTWs because no decent white actress would do such a thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
