Race Card? Go Fish...

[MISFITS_Fiend]

Give me a fuckin' break.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/21/obama-suggests-gop-will-use-race-to-scare-voters/

[electriclite]

Do we need to bring up West Virginia again? I mean, those folks couldn't have been more obvious.

He didn't just mention the race card being used in the election, but a plethora of other potential issues his rival can bring up:

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.”

[Homyrrh]

So...Tim Russert died last week.

[MISFITS_Fiend]

Do we need to bring up West Virginia again? I mean, those folks couldn't have been more obvious.

He didn't just mention the race card being used in the election, but a plethora of other potential issues his rival can bring up:

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.”

Maybe so, but what was the point of bringing up that he's black, other than to play to the sympathies of the crowd? McCain hasn't said anything about race. The other topics? Some of them are ridiculous (feisty wife? Yeah, I know he was making a joke), but some of them are valid (youth, experience level, etc.), so of course they will be brought up. Just like McCain's age and flip-flopping tendencies have been raised as issues, as well they should be.

[Elgyn]

If you think Obama`s race won`t be a factor, then you`re living in Fantasy Land.
It`s sad, but true.
I have literally heard people say "I ain`t votin` for no nigger".

[MISFITS_Fiend]

If you think Obama`s race won`t be a factor, then you`re living in Fantasy Land.
It`s sad, but true.
I have literally heard people say "I ain`t votin` for no nigger".

But what was the point of saying the GOP was going to bring up his being black as a negative? I would think the LAST thing they would do would bring race into it; it would backfire instantly.

[Homyrrh]

Overall, he shouldn't have said it, and instead kept the ambiguity of the consequences in mind. The GOP has not said anything like this, but while he can warn not to believe it or to try to pitch some character flaw in the party in saying this, now the GOP can, as mentioned, wipe their asses with it and throw it back at him, deeming it some base pity party.

[The Heart Collector]

Maybe so, but what was the point of bringing up that he's black, other than to play to the sympathies of the crowd? McCain hasn't said anything about race. The other topics? Some of them are ridiculous (feisty wife? Yeah, I know he was making a joke), but some of them are valid (youth, experience level, etc.), so of course they will be brought up. Just like McCain's age and flip-flopping tendencies have been raised as issues, as well they should be.


oh boo hoo poor gop being accused of being the disgusting racist pieces of garbage that they are waah waaah mooooommmy why is the uppity negro mentioning his race waaaah waaaah moooommmmyyyyyy waaaaah why can he bring his race up waaaaaahhahaha what, baby mama / terrorist fist jab / manchurian candidate NOEN OF THAT HAPPENED NONE OF THAT EVER HAPPENED I WILL IGNORE THAT TO STAND IN MY SOAPBOX AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS INSOLENT NEGRO BRINGING UP HIS RACE



























why cant i say nigger, huh?

[Homyrrh]

oh boo hoo poor gop being accused of being the disgusting racist pieces of garbage that they are waah waaah mooooommmy why is the uppity negro mentioning his race waaaah waaaah moooommmmyyyyyy waaaaah why can he bring his race up waaaaaahhahaha what, baby mama / terrorist fist jab / manchurian candidate NOEN OF THAT HAPPENED NONE OF THAT EVER HAPPENED I WILL IGNORE THAT TO STAND IN MY SOAPBOX AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS INSOLENT NEGRO BRINGING UP HIS RACE



























why cant i say nigger, huh?
Like they say; If you're not a liberal at 18, you have not heart. If you're not a conservative at 35, you no intelligence.

To think I though it was subjective blasphemy :rolleyes:

You're not white, and most Hispanics I know feel entitled to some degree to have the right to say "nigger".

[Elgyn]

Oh my God Heart Collector I must admit that was fucking HILARIOUS!!!

Kudos, sir!:D

[MISFITS_Fiend]

Oh my God Heart Collector I must admit that was fucking HILARIOUS!!!

Kudos, sir!:D

Maybe if you're 10.

[Squid Vicious]

Like they say; If you're not a liberal at 18, you have not heart. If you're not a conservative at 35, you no intelligence.

So, in other words, Sean Hannity is smarter than Noam Chomsky.

Back to the subject, though...

While I don't think it's likely that John McCain will try to use race against Obama, the GOP's lapdogs on Fox News and talk radio certainly will, and, as The Heart Collector pointed out, they currently are.

[MISFITS_Fiend]

...as The Heart Collector pointed out, they currently are.

Where did he point anything out? I just see him trying to be funny.

I haven't seen/heard anything about any media portraying Obama's race as a negative. I'm not saying it isn't happening, but I haven't encountered it.

[Bourne101]

Look, Obama is going to do whatever he has to do to win, as will McCain. If that means that Obama has to undermine McCain and keep emphasizing that he's racist then so be it, if McCain actually does that (which I can 100% guarantee he won't), then so be it.

But that statement by Obama was unnecessary and is not doing him any favors. If anything it's having a negative impact. For such a well-spoken person Obama does occasionally slip up and when he does he does it badly.

You guys can bitch all you want about how Obama should defend and bring up the race card every single time he speaks, but just know it is not getting you or him anywhere.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Like they say; If you're not a liberal at 18, you have not heart. If you're not a conservative at 35, you no intelligence.

If by "they," you mean Winston Churchill, and those were not his words. He said that if you're young and not a liberal you have no heart and if you're old and not conservative you have no brain. Something like that. Both lack essential organs.

[electriclite]

You're not white, and most Hispanics I know feel entitled to some degree to have the right to say "nigger".

That's cause we're actually further up in the line to be qualified to use it. However only when its being used "friend-like". Any other use = Race War.

[electriclite]

...bug

[electriclite]

Yeah but Bush didn't have to bring up the Swift Boat veteran charge against Kerry. Other people for his re-election handled that for him.

I'm sure some nasty little third party will hold their end. Its only a matter of time.

Remember: "Macaca"?

[Homyrrh]

That's cause we're actually further up in the line to be qualified to use it. However only when its being used "friend-like". Any other use = Race War.
Yeah, I realize this. I was basically saying that, in certain cases, he is allowed to use the term, though msot likely ending in "-a" rather than "-er".

Hell, I even know some white dudes from East Oaks, Baltimore who throw "nigga" around like it's the equivalent to me saying "dude" or "man"...and not get any reaction from the three black guys sitting across the room.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah but Bush didn't have to bring up the Swift Boat veteran charge against Kerry. Other people for his re-election handled that for him.

I'm sure some nasty little third party will hold their end. Its only a matter of time.

Remember: "Macaca"?
Yes, base in its morality but ingenius in application. Politics is often as much, a war or the words instead of a war of principle; if the latter were the case, there'd be no ammunition.

Also, in reference to that stupid little jingle I noted, I read it on some bumper sticker and honestly didn't know the context beyond that. I just found irony in THC's "remark" about whiny Republicans when the entire thrad, article, issue, etc., is about Barack Obama crying and pandering about his race being thrown in his face.

[Elgyn]

Maybe if you're 10.

You think what THC said was immature?
Well then check THIS out:

McCain eats his own poopies!!

:D:D:D
Bwaaahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Immature enough for you ???

[QUENTIN]

But what was the point of saying the GOP was going to bring up his being black as a negative? I would think the LAST thing they would do would bring race into it; it would backfire instantly.

That's true. Like remember back in 2000 when McCain had just won New Hampshire by 19% and was 8 points ahead of Bush in the South Carolina primary a week before the vote, so Karl Rove push polled thousands of callers asking if they would be less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had an illegitimate black child? Then the Bush campaign mass flyered the state with black and white photos of McCain with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter claiming she was a black "lovechild". Man that backfired so bad, McCain won the primary and then the presidency and Bush's political career was totally over. That's a good example of how the GOP would never capitalize on the racism of its base and proof that it just doesn't work.

[Homyrrh]

That's true. Like remember back in 2000 when McCain had just won New Hampshire by 19% and was 8 points ahead of Bush in the South Carolina primary a week before the vote, so Karl Rove push polled thousands of callers asking if they would be less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had an illegitimate black child? Then the Bush campaign mass flyered the state with black and white photos of McCain with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter claiming she was a black "lovechild". Man that backfired so bad, McCain won the primary and then the presidency and Bush's political career was totally over. That's a good example of how the GOP would never capitalize on the racism of its base and proof that it just doesn't work.
Once this last generation dies out---20 years or so--you'll see the new, less stereotypically-'racist' GOP...

[SpoonMan999]

Once this last generation dies out---20 years or so--you'll see the new, less stereotypically-'racist' GOP...

Yes.

That's true. Like remember back in 2000 when McCain had just won New Hampshire by 19% and was 8 points ahead of Bush in the South Carolina primary a week before the vote, so Karl Rove push polled thousands of callers asking if they would be less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had an illegitimate black child? Then the Bush campaign mass flyered the state with black and white photos of McCain with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter claiming she was a black "lovechild". Man that backfired so bad, McCain won the primary and then the presidency and Bush's political career was totally over. That's a good example of how the GOP would never capitalize on the racism of its base and proof that it just doesn't work.

The situation you mention was orchastrated by Karl Rove, a man I think we can all agree would sell his mother into slavery to win a primary, and does not represent the entire GOP.

[QUENTIN]

Yes.



The situation you mention was orchastrated by Karl Rove, a man I think we can all agree would sell his mother into slavery to win a primary, and does not represent the entire GOP.

...and is advising John McCain

[Vong]

It wouldn't be American politics if race wasn't involved. :rolleyes:

[QUENTIN]

So in 20 years, we can stop having this discussion. But right now, to pretend like the GOP won't insidiously use Obama's race against him in the general election, or like Obama is "playing the race card" here is fucking ridiculous and willfully denying how dirty politics are and how racist many, many Americans are.

[QUENTIN]

I'm not crying racism at the entire GOP, but the OP is trying to call out Obama for, in a list of things that will be used against him by McCain in the general, mentioning race. Obama isn't playing the race card and he's not whining and he wasn't wrong to "bring it up," as though he was announcing for the first time that he was black. It will be used against him because it will get the other side votes and denying that is just pretending.

[countchocula]

I ain't votin' for no cracker.

[SpoonMan999]

I'm not crying racism at the entire GOP, but the OP is trying to call out Obama for, in a list of things that will be used against him by McCain in the general, mentioning race. Obama isn't playing the race card and he's not whining and he wasn't wrong to "bring it up," as though he was announcing for the first time that he was black. It will be used against him because it will get the other side votes and denying that is just pretending.

He shouldn't mention it at all to be honest. If he wants to not be accused of whining then he should just ignore any comments about his race. John McCain is above using racism in his campagin, I doubt he would have adpoted a black child if he were racist. Despite my opinion of his policies and claims of being Conservative I respect the hell out of the man and can't see him doing any thing like this, though I have no doubt some of his supporters or campagin staff might.

[Homyrrh]

I ain't votin' for no cracker.
In a nutshell, exactly; race works both ways.

AT LEAST the same number of low-income, inner-city minorities will vote Democrat this year becasue of Black Barack as white racist, mostly Southern voters will not vote for him because he is Black Barack.

Consequently, it'd be wise to nullify any argument of him being a comapliner by not mentioning his race.

[QUENTIN]

He shouldn't mention it at all to be honest. If he wants to not be accused of whining then he should just ignore any comments about his race. John McCain is above using racism in his campagin, I doubt he would have adpoted a black child if he were racist. Despite my opinion of his policies and claims of being Conservative I respect the hell out of the man and can't see him doing any thing like this, though I have no doubt some of his supporters or campagin staff might.

That makes no sense. You have "no doubt" that some of McCain's campaign staff (like Karl Rove perhaps, who has effectively used it before against none other than McCain) will resort to playing on the racism of voters, but for Obama to mention that is "whining"? What the hell? So if Obama's staffers push polled that McCain was secretly a communist and he'd been turned into a Manchurian Candidate in the Vietnam POW camp, and McCain said they're using my military service against me, he'd be whining?

And by the way, apparently Rove was really effective even 8 years later. McCain's adopted child is Bangladeshi, not black.

[QUENTIN]

In a nutshell, exactly; race works both ways.

AT LEAST the same number of low-income, inner-city minorities will vote Democrat this year becasue of Black Barack as white racist, mostly Southern voters will not vote for him because he is Black Barack.

Consequently, it'd be wise to nullify any argument of him being a comapliner by not mentioning his race.

Eh, not so fast. Low-income, inner-city minorities who vote (and very few of them do) tend to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is. It wouldn't matter if it was black Barack, or uber-white John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. The Republican party has completely abandoned them and given up on ever being able to get that vote because it always goes Democrat, regardless of the candidate's race.

But there are a decent amount of Southern democrats who are racist and won't vote for Obama strictly because he's black, the same with generally left-leaning independents whose unions or pay bracket will make them want to go Obama, but their racism effectively pandered to, may go McCain. I really don't think race will play evenly here.

[SpoonMan999]

That makes no sense. You have "no doubt" that some of McCain's campaign staff (like Karl Rove perhaps, who has effectively used it before against none other than McCain) will resort to playing on the racism of voters, but for Obama to mention that is "whining"? What the hell? So if Obama's staffers push polled that McCain was secretly a communist and he'd been turned into a Manchurian Candidate in the Vietnam POW camp, and McCain said they're using my military service against me, he'd be whining?

And by the way, apparently Rove was really effective even 8 years later. McCain's adopted child is Bangladeshi, not black.

As I recall Rove is not actually on McCain's staff, though he is a supporter. And once again you're putting wrods in my mouth I didn't say he was whining, I merely made a suggestion of what he should have done to avoid those accusations.

I didn't know that, and I actually hadn't heard of the incident until you mentioned it so Rove had nothing to do with.

[SpoonMan999]

Eh, not so fast. Low-income, inner-city minorities who vote (and very few of them do) tend to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is. It wouldn't matter if it was black Barack, or uber-white John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. The Republican party has completely abandoned them and given up on ever being able to get that vote because it always goes Democrat, regardless of the candidate's race.

But there are a decent amount of Southern democrats who are racist and won't vote for Obama strictly because he's black, the same with generally left-leaning independents whose unions or pay bracket will make them want to go Obama, but their racism effectively pandered to, may go McCain. I really don't think race will play evenly here.

I don't think race will have as big of an effect as everyone thinks. There will be plenty of KKK and neo-Nazis who refuse to vote for Obama but there will be plenty of African-Americans who never vote coming out to do so this year.

[MadsenOMC]

As I recall Rove is not actually on McCain's staff, though he is a supporter. And once again you're putting wrods in my mouth I didn't say he was whining, I merely made a suggestion of what he should have done to avoid those accusations.

I didn't know that, and I actually hadn't heard of the incident until you mentioned it so Rove had nothing to do with.

Rove is not just a McCain supporter. He is an adviser to his campaign.

[SpoonMan999]

Rove is not just a McCain supporter. He is an adviser to his campaign.

Well, you can't blame him, the man does know how to win elections.

[MadsenOMC]

Well, you can't blame him, the man does know how to win elections.

Sure, decency and decorum be damned.

[SpoonMan999]

Sure, decency and decorum be damned.

With the kind of people Obama has had around him I'm surprised that one man being shady is an issue for you.

[MadsenOMC]

With the kind of people Obama has had around him I'm surprised that one man being shady is an issue for you.

Oh right all the "terrorists" and "crazy preachers." Let me go turn on Fox News and find out other reasons I should fear Obama.

[Elgyn]

Let me go turn on Fox News and find out other reasons I should fear Obama.



Hehehehehe.....:D

[SpoonMan999]

Oh right all the "terrorists" and "crazy preachers." Let me go turn on Fox News and find out other reasons I should fear Obama.

See, here you are criticizing McCain for having Rove on staff but dimissing that Obama surrounds himself with racist, anti-american, and extremist preachers...not to mention he puts a man involved in a financial scandal in charge of finding him a Vice President. He's Barack Obama though, so it's fine. I can't believe the amount hypocrisy coming from you today.

[MadsenOMC]

See, here you are criticizing McCain for having Rove on staff but dimissing that Obama surrounds himself with racist, anti-american, and extremist preachers...not to mention he puts a man involved in a financial scandal in charge of finding him a Vice President. He's Barack Obama though, so it's fine. I can't believe the amount hypocrisy coming from you today.

You are just making shit up as you go along. I can't believe the statements you are pulling out of your ass today. First of all, I did not initially mention Rove. I merely stated that he indeed is an adviser to McCain. I then added that he finds nasty ways to win. You, then, ran with that and made the Obama comment and then in your last post to me when totally of the rails. I never said anything about the VP guy.

Dude, anti-American? You're smarter than that. Someone who criticizes America doesn't hate America. That is Fox News thinking right there.

[SpoonMan999]

You are just making shit up as you go along. I can't believe the statements you are pulling out of your ass today. First of all, I did not initially mention Rove. I merely stated that he indeed is an adviser to McCain. I then added that he finds nasty ways to win. You, then, ran with that and made the Obama comment and then in your last post to me when totally of the rails. I never said anything about the VP guy.

Dude, anti-American? You're smarter than that. Someone who criticizes America doesn't hate America. That is Fox News thinking right there.

I've heard the clip of him screaming "Goddamn America!" That's a pretty anti-America mentality.

Sure, decency and decorum be damned.

This was criticizing McCain and I responded. You've defended Obama in another thread for this same type of thing and then criticized McCain for it. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

[MadsenOMC]

I've heard the clip of him screaming "Goddamn America!" That's a pretty anti-America mentality.

I've said the same thing during the last seven years, and I love this country.

This was criticizing McCain and I responded. You've defended Obama in another thread for this same type of thing and then criticized McCain for it. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

No, that, my friend, was not criticizing McCain. That was criticizing Karl Rove. I can't believe that wasn't clear. If it wasn't clear, don't just assume and call me a hypocrite.

[SpoonMan999]

I've said the same thing during the last seven years, and I love this country.



No, that, my friend, was not criticizing McCain. That was criticizing Karl Rove. I can't believe that wasn't clear. If it wasn't clear, don't just assume and call me a hypocrite.

You need to be more specific because I just look like an ass when this happens. It looked like the "decency and decorum be damned" comment was referring to McCain.

[MadsenOMC]

You need to be more specific because I just look like an ass when this happens. It looked like the "decency and decorum be damned" comment was referring to McCain.

Fair enough. It was for Rove, not McCain.

[MadsenOMC]

Grover Norquist called Obama "John Kerry with a tan." Karl Rove called him "arrogant," code for uppity. That damn Obama, playing the race card.

[Homyrrh]

Grover Norquist called Obama "John Kerry with a tan." Karl Rove called him "arrogant," code for uppity. That damn Obama, playing the race card.
I feel he may a bit arrogant, especially after that whole faux presidential seal fiasco. Do I know? Not at all. Hell, John McCain may have a shrine of himself in his Arizona office.

BUT they're politicians who've made it far enough in a system that all but mandates seething "self-confidence".

[boombche_stum]

I've heard the clip of him screaming "Goddamn America!" That's a pretty anti-America mentality.



This was criticizing McCain and I responded. You've defended Obama in another thread for this same type of thing and then criticized McCain for it. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

How many churches have you been to? I'm not trying to be mean, but as someone who grew up in a quite strict, more Conservative Christian atmosphere, I can attest to the fact that I have seen multitudes of White Conservative Pastors/Preachers say America is being damned/judged, etc. I may not have agreed with them (Especially considering most of them constantly blamed America's damnation on Minorities such Gays, Abortionists, Muslims, etc.) but I would never say they were "anti-American." That's why I just had to laugh at all this pompous outrage over the Wright comments... of all groups to get angry the group who most often courts religious nut jobs gets bent out of shape? :confused:........

Either way, "Damning America" is nothing more than an age old Biblical ideal, it's preached by damn near every Pastor I've come into contact with. It says nothing of that persons love of his country however.

[The Heart Collector]

In a nutshell, exactly; race works both ways.

AT LEAST the same number of low-income, inner-city minorities will vote Democrat this year becasue of Black Barack as white racist, mostly Southern voters will not vote for him because he is Black Barack.

Consequently, it'd be wise to nullify any argument of him being a comapliner by not mentioning his race.


Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate because you identify with him (because of his race) is morally equal to voting against a candidate/not voting for a candidate because of his race?










it's not.

[Homyrrh]

Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate because you identify with him (because of his race) is morally equal to voting against a candidate/not voting for a candidate because of his race?

it's not.

Npot suggesting. Noting.

I would not vote for John McCain solely because he's Caucasian as am I. Likewise, I will not vote for Obama, but for every other reason other than his race.

I don't think you understand the concept. It's one thing to say you can relate to him on his stances--maybe it's because he's black that he promotes inner-city literacy programs or condemns gun rights or promotes advancement of affirmative action, etc. (hypothetically at least).

HOWEVER, the reality is that Obama will will this election in large part because plenty of minorities (specifically) who, as noted earlier, normally never vote for likely reasons of indifference, will match black and black and interpret Obama's change campaign as primarily an issue of skin pigmentation.

This is as wrong as voting for McCain because he's not the "nigger".

[Homyrrh]

There's a difference between Pastor X saying "The Lord is disgruntled with our nation for whatever reason" and Barack Obama saying "Goddamn America" and Pastor Crazy saying "The LORD bestowed Katrina and 9/11, etc., out of spite for the homosexuals and premarital sex." Not only is this biblical but attention-whoring.

They're also not running for office.

[MadsenOMC]

HOWEVER, the reality is that Obama will will this election in large part because plenty of minorities (specifically) who, as noted earlier, normally never vote for likely reasons of indifference, will match black and black and interpret Obama's change campaign as primarily an issue of skin pigmentation.

Um, no, the reality is that Obama will win because he is the stronger overall candidate, the one with better ideas for restoring America's greatness. It's a simple concept. McCain represents the same old shit from an extremely unpopular party that most Americans are sick of. Those are the real reasons Obama will win.

[Homyrrh]

Um, no, the reality is that Obama will win because he is the stronger overall candidate, the one with better ideas for restoring America's greatness. It's a simple concept. McCain represents the same old shit from an extremely unpopular party that most Americans are sick of. Those are the real reasons Obama will win.

HOWEVER, the reality is that Obama will will this election in large part because plenty of minorities (specifically) who, as noted earlier, normally never vote for likely reasons of indifference, will match black and black and interpret Obama's change campaign as primarily an issue of skin pigmentation.

I'll overlook the content of the rest of your post in the interest of the thread, but you're eluding my point. To restate in a different wording, the margin by which Obama wins the general election will be increased by minority urban voters historically indifferent to voting. Though I avoid blanketing this demographic, it is safe to say the majority, vast as it likely may be, cares little about anything other than race. The "Hope" and "Change" in Obama's campaign may manifest itself in the minds of these voters as simply race, a matter literally of black white, void of consideration of other issues or events and histories; I make no inference to any of these in my point either. It is a matter of demographics over dimplomacies.

[MadsenOMC]

ITo restate in a different wording, the margin by which Obama wins the general election will be increased by minority urban voters historically indifferent to voting. Though I avoid blanketing this demographic, it is safe to say the majority, vast as it likely may be, cares little about anything other than race.

This is an overly broad generalization and I would love to know what evidence you are using to support these claims. Specifically, how do you know the majority is voting for Obama because they care about little other than race? And how do know the anticipated increase of minority urban voters is historically indifferent to voting?

The fact is, white or black, Obama would be a superior candidate to McCain, and that is why he will win.

[Homyrrh]

How do I know they're indifferent to voting? Well, for one, they don't vote. Simply, if I care, I vote, and if I don't care--I'm definitively indifferent--then I do vote.

I am making generalizations. There are a bunch of "theoretical facts" to consider in making this hypothesis. For one, like I said, this demographic typically doesn't vote, and I know there's someone here willing to second that. Also, and this is rather unfortunate, these voters haven't the same oppurtunity or experience with education as they're suburban countrparts. Take a gander at the high school dropout rates in large southern cities like Atlanta or New Orleans (friend's cousin in Mississippi was one of the six kids to graduate in his homeroom of 20+). Both of these cities are very black, very poor, and well behind their age-similar counterparts in education. Economics, foreign policy, and the understanding of many of these issues, especially policy-related but otherwise as well, are frankly beyond the care of most of this demographic,

The superior candidate, whoever that may be, does not win for such a reason as this. The vcitorious president-elect takes office because he is the superior campaigner. So, objectively, if Bob Barr is irrefutably the best all-around candidate, he isn't going ot win because he is incapable of the genius, resourcefulness or funding of the Obama campaign. This is reality. Regardless, you're still missing my point; there's nothing in my argument pertaining to anything other than race, and I in fact deliberately made note that the issues aren't concerned.

How many white backwoods Pennsyltuckians will vote McCain simply because he's white? Here are low income, poor education voters with little concern other than making sure the "nigger" doesn't take office.

[MadsenOMC]

I am making generalizations. There are a bunch of "theoretical facts" to consider in making this hypothesis. For one, like I said, this demographic typically doesn't vote, and I know there's someone here willing to second that. Also, and this is rather unfortunate, these voters haven't the same oppurtunity or experience with education as they're suburban countrparts. Take a gander at the high school dropout rates in large southern cities like Atlanta or New Orleans (friend's cousin in Mississippi was one of the six kids to graduate in his homeroom of 20+). Both of these cities are very black, very poor, and well behind their age-similar counterparts in education. Economics, foreign policy, and the understanding of many of these issues, especially policy-related but otherwise as well, are frankly beyond the care of most of this demographic,


Does this voting block you are talking about have significantly lower turnout than other groups? Considering only about 50% voting-age Americans actually vote in presidential elections, do they vote less than other groups?

Better economic and educational opportunities does not make for better or more informed voters. Exhibit A: Years after 9/11, something like 75% of Fox News viewers still believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

[Homyrrh]

Yes.

Yes.

Irrelevant. All that matters is that Obama is black and will get the votes from him. Same with my objective explanation regarding McCain.

You're arguing something that is objective, nonpartisan, and essentially factual (unlike that 7% figure you threw down).

[MadsenOMC]

Yes.

Yes.

Irrelevant. All that matters is that Obama is black and will get the votes from him. Same with my objective explanation regarding McCain.

You're arguing something that is objective, nonpartisan, and essentially factual (unlike that 7% figure you threw down).

Please provide evidence backing up your claims. I'd like to have a look at it.

I didn't pull that figure from the sky. That is a real poll number.

[Homyrrh]

Please provide evidence backing up your claims. I'd like to have a look at it.

I didn't pull that figure from the sky. That is a real poll number.
It's, like I said, deduction from experience and logic.

[SpoonMan999]

How do I know they're indifferent to voting? Well, for one, they don't vote. Simply, if I care, I vote, and if I don't care--I'm definitively indifferent--then I do vote.

I am making generalizations. There are a bunch of "theoretical facts" to consider in making this hypothesis. For one, like I said, this demographic typically doesn't vote, and I know there's someone here willing to second that. Also, and this is rather unfortunate, these voters haven't the same oppurtunity or experience with education as they're suburban countrparts. Take a gander at the high school dropout rates in large southern cities like Atlanta or New Orleans (friend's cousin in Mississippi was one of the six kids to graduate in his homeroom of 20+). Both of these cities are very black, very poor, and well behind their age-similar counterparts in education. Economics, foreign policy, and the understanding of many of these issues, especially policy-related but otherwise as well, are frankly beyond the care of most of this demographic,

The superior candidate, whoever that may be, does not win for such a reason as this. The vcitorious president-elect takes office because he is the superior campaigner. So, objectively, if Bob Barr is irrefutably the best all-around candidate, he isn't going ot win because he is incapable of the genius, resourcefulness or funding of the Obama campaign. This is reality. Regardless, you're still missing my point; there's nothing in my argument pertaining to anything other than race, and I in fact deliberately made note that the issues aren't concerned.

How many white backwoods Pennsyltuckians will vote McCain simply because he's white? Here are low income, poor education voters with little concern other than making sure the "nigger" doesn't take office.

I'll second your point for what good it's worth, I don't think they've ever agreed with a word I've said.

[MadsenOMC]

It's, like I said, deduction from experience and logic.

So you're saying that you don't know for sure? It's just your opinion.

[SpoonMan999]

So you're saying that you don't know for sure? It's just your opinion.

Everything about the outcome of the election and who will vote for who is speculation at this point. Not everything needs a CNN article to be a legitimate point.

[MadsenOMC]

Everything about the outcome of the election and who will vote for who is speculation at this point. Not everything needs a CNN article to be a legitimate point.

Thanks for stating the obvious. However, he is stating certain things as fact, and I disagree, so I asked him for some supporting evidence. That's hardly unreasonable.

[SpoonMan999]

Thanks for stating the obvious. However, he is stating certain things as fact, and I disagree, so I asked him for some supporting evidence. That's hardly unreasonable.

The fact that areas that tend to have a lower level of education tending to have fewer voters is generaly common knowledge yes? And, you can call me racist if you like but it's true, most of these areas tend to have more African-Americans than Caucasians is also pretty common knowledge. Then he proposes that many of these people will vote for Obama simply because they can relate to him on a racial level. The same goes for poor white-trashy areas being more likely to vote for McCain. Granted those two ideas are speculation but most people would agree it will happen.

[MadsenOMC]

The fact that areas that tend to have a lower level of education tending to have fewer voters is generaly common knowledge yes? And, you can call me racist if you like but it's true, most of these areas tend to have more African-Americans than Caucasians is also pretty common knowledge.

Is that all common knowledge? I was merely asking for some evidence. If it's common knowledge, it should not be difficult to provide some.

[The Heart Collector]

This is as wrong as voting for McCain because he's not the "nigger".

No, it isn't. You are wrong. No sane person argues this.

[SpoonMan999]

Voting for someone based on race is completely wrong.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The race card will be played in this election. It's hilarious how at the beginning of the year people were saying that this election would be the dawn of a new era in race relations. It won't be. Just because a black man will probably be our next president does not mean anything has changed. For every West Virginia vote he loses because he's black he'll gain another for whatever reason.

[Homyrrh]

No, it isn't. You are wrong. No sane person argues this.
So if you vote for Obama only because he's black, and I vote for McCain simply because he's not black, then only you're justified? We're nto past racism, but I don't get how you can't realize the incredible lapse in logic of this statement, that race can be not jsut the most imortant, but the ONLY factor is casting a vote.

That is what you mean, right? Paraphrasing what Brando said, the "honkeys" will vote for McCain and the "niggers" will vote for Obama. Why? Because race plays a bit of a role in elections...

[MadsenOMC]

So if you vote for Obama only because he's black, and I vote for McCain simply because he's not black, then we're both justified? We're nto past racism, but I don't get how you can't realize the incredible lapse in logic of this statement, that race can be not jsut the most imortant, but the ONLY factor is casting a vote.

That is what you mean, right? Paraphrasing what Brando said, the "honkeys" will vote for McCain and the "niggers" will vote for Obama. Why? Because race plays a bit of a role in elections...

I don't think there are many voting for either candidate solely because of their race. I'm not saying voters like that don't exist, but I don't believe there are a lot of them.

[Homyrrh]

Is that all common knowledge? I was merely asking for some evidence. If it's common knowledge, it should not be difficult to provide some.
Evidence that Jamal will vote for Barack because he's "black like me"... in five months.

I'm not going to inconvenience myself to prove to you a commonly-accepted fact about minority voters.

This "premonition" of mine, after calling it "theroetical facts" and "logic and deduction" has not been said to be fact, but bump this thread after November and I'll be interested.

[Homyrrh]

I don't think there are many voting for either candidate solely because of their race. I'm not saying voters like that don't exist, but I don't believe there are a lot of them.
But see both of our arguments are pure speculation (with a basis on reason). I feel that because a black candidate is the presumed nominee, he'll get the apolitical black vote.

[MadsenOMC]

Evidence that Jamal will vote for Barack because he's "black like me"... in five months.

I'm not going to inconvenience myself to prove to you a commonly-accepted fact about minority voters.

This "premonition" of mine, after calling it "theroetical facts" and "logic and deduction" has not been said to be fact, but bump this thread after November and I'll be interested.

Well I sure would hate to inconvenience you. It must be nice to have the ability to label whatever you want fact without having to use any evidence.

[MadsenOMC]

But see both of our arguments are pure speculation (with a basis on reason). I feel that because a black candidate is the presumed nominee, he'll get the apolitical black vote.

You are right I am speculating that most minority voters are not voting Obama ONLY because he's black, the same way I assume that most white voters who vote McCain are ONLY voting McCain because he's white.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Paraphrasing what Brando said, the "honkeys" will vote for McCain and the "niggers" will vote for Obama. Why? Because race plays a bit of a role in elections...

That wasn't what I meant. What I was saying is that the number of people voting based on race does not make a difference. For every person who doesn't vote for Obama on the basis of his race, there will be someone who does vote for him based on his choice of ties or something stupid like that.

[SpoonMan999]

That wasn't what I meant. What I was saying is that the number of people voting based on race does not make a difference. For every person who doesn't vote for Obama on the basis of his race, there will be someone who does vote for him based on his choice of ties or something stupid like that.

The point I'm making though, and I belive Hom is making, is that many of the people who would vote Obama just because he's black are people who normaly wouldn't vote at all. Again, it's purely speculation but it'll be a decent chunk of people, enough to win? The popular vote maybe, but I don't think it'll have a large effect when it comes to the elctoral college.

[QUENTIN]

Negative racism is worse than positive racism.

"I will not vote for a black person because I have a low opinion of blacks" is worse than "I will vote for a black person because as a black person I feel they'll represent me".

Neither is a decent or laudable reason to vote for someone, they're both ignorant and not about the issues, but they're not equal.

[MadsenOMC]

The point I'm making though, and I belive Hom is making, is that many of the people who would vote Obama just because he's black are people who normaly wouldn't vote at all. Again, it's purely speculation but it'll be a decent chunk of people, enough to win? The popular vote maybe, but I don't think it'll have a large effect when it comes to the elctoral college.

Does that mean there are white voters out there who normally wouldn't vote but will gladly head to the polls and vote McCain simply to try and stop a black man from winning?

[SpoonMan999]

Does that mean there are white voters out there who normally wouldn't vote but will gladly head to the polls and vote McCain simply to try and stop a black man from winning?

I'm sure there are, but I doubt there are nearly as many. I've heard many calling in to radio shows and such saying they'll vote because of the "progress" that this will make in race relations. Of course, everytime I've heard one of these calls it's been an African-American and more often than not one that admits he/she does not usually vote.

[MadsenOMC]

I'm sure there are, but I doubt there are nearly as many. I've heard many calling in to radio shows and such saying they'll vote because of the "progress" that this will make in race relations. Of course, everytime I've heard one of these calls it's been an African-American and more often than not one that admits he/she does not usually vote.

Why do you doubt there will be less white voters doing what you assume many black voters will be doing? If there are that many black people who will vote for Obama only because he is black, why would there be far less white people voting for McCain only because he is white?

What radio shows? Are those reliable sources?

[SpoonMan999]

Why do you doubt there will be less white voters doing what you assume many black voters will be doing? If there are that many black people who will vote for Obama only because he is black, why would there be far less white people voting for McCain only because he is white?

What radio shows? Are those reliable sources?

Sources? For what my prediction? I'm just saying that I've heard it more from blacks than whites which leads me to belive there are more on one side than the other. That's all I'm saying. Why do you need sources for every single little statement we make? If I said peanut butter is delicious should I link you to a survey?

[Homyrrh]

Does that mean there are white voters out there who normally wouldn't vote but will gladly head to the polls and vote McCain simply to try and stop a black man from winning?
Exactly.

[MadsenOMC]

Sources? For what my prediction? I'm just saying that I've heard it more from blacks than whites which leads me to belive there are more on one side than the other. That's all I'm saying. Why do you need sources for every single little statement we make? If I said peanut butter is delicious should I link you to a survey?

But the issue is not peanut butter. I don't understand why you get so defensive when asked to back up statements you make about serious issues. I am curious about the radio shows you mentioned, and if those can really accurately represent an entire race of people and their voting attitudes.

[MadsenOMC]

Exactly.

Thank you for answering.

[SpoonMan999]

But the issue is not peanut butter. I don't understand why you get so defensive when asked to back up statements you make about serious issues. I am curious about the radio shows you mentioned, and if those can really accurately represent an entire race of people and their voting attitudes.

Sorry, my boss just accused me of doing nothing while I was just printing out a report on literally over 1000 reports that I reviewed just today, all done before he even got into the office >.> I didn't mean to jump down your throat on it.

The radio shows I listen to are typically whatever is on when I happen to leave work. I have listened to NPR (a very liberal station) as well as KABC ( a very conservative station) but most often I listen to Michael Medved (a conservative). Many of these calls I mention tend to come in on "disagreement day" it's one day a week where anyone can call in and tell him why he's wrong on any subject they want. Medved believe Obama wont get elected and many have called in to talk about the "unity" in the black community to get him elected.

[MadsenOMC]

Sorry, my boss just accused me of doing nothing while I was just printing out a report on literally over 1000 reports that I reviewed just today, all done before he even got into the office >.> I didn't mean to jump down your throat on it.

The radio shows I listen to are typically whatever is on when I happen to leave work. I have listened to NPR (a very liberal station) as well as KABC ( a very conservative station) but most often I listen to Michael Medved (a conservative). Many of these calls I mention tend to come in on "disagreement day" it's one day a week where anyone can call in and tell him why he's wrong on any subject they want. Medved believe Obama wont get elected and many have called in to talk about the "unity" in the black community to get him elected.

That's OK. It's cool. I appreciate you elaborating on the radio station (though I disagree that NPR is "very liberal," but that's another topic).

I don't think Medved's radio show accurately represents an entire race of voters, white or black.

[SpoonMan999]

That's OK. It's cool. I appreciate you elaborating on the radio station (though I disagree that NPR is "very liberal," but that's another topic).

I don't think Medved's radio show accurately represents an entire race of voters, white or black.

I didn't say the entire race, just that I've heard this point of view from blacks and have not heard it from whites. Though I'm sure groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis and what not will vote against him for that reason.

[shoe1985]

Someone was going to play the race card, might as well get it done and over with now. There will be many people going out to vote for McCain because of Obama's race. Then you will have many african americans going out to vote because of the same race as theirs. Is there anything wrong with that? Yes, you should vote for the person that fits you the best, not by race. Which candidate will help you get farther in life? Which one will help you do better?

People are too worried about race and party. People want change, they want progress, but they vote by one issue. I know gun owners who will vote for the person that supports guns. They could care less about anything else.

Race shouldn't play a role in this election, just like gender shouldn't if Hillary had one the nomination. We should be above that.

[boombche_stum]

There's a difference between Pastor X saying "The Lord is disgruntled with our nation for whatever reason" and Barack Obama saying "Goddamn America" and Pastor Crazy saying "The LORD bestowed Katrina and 9/11, etc., out of spite for the homosexuals and premarital sex." Not only is this biblical but attention-whoring.

They're also not running for office.

Wait... hold up, Obama said God Damn America HIMSELF? Really? Ya know, I could've SWORN it was Reverend Wright, but maybe my vision isn't quite what it used to be.

And I was simply making a general observation that each and every Pastor/Peacher, at one time or another, has said America is being judged/damned or will be. They have different reasons sure, but the premise is the same. So why exactly were so many people in an uproar?

[Homyrrh]

Wait... hold up, Obama said God Damn America HIMSELF? Really? Ya know, I could've SWORN it was Reverend Wright, but maybe my vision isn't quite what it used to be.

And I was simply making a general observation that each and every Pastor/Peacher, at one time or another, has said America is being judged/damned or will be. They have different reasons sure, but the premise is the same. So why exactly were so many people in an uproar?
Yeah my bad with mincing my own words there.

Anyhow, Madsen, you rhetorical question above echoes my thinking. I still feel Obama will win at this point barring some ridiculous scandal (don't worry I'm working on it), but there wil be a lot of voters who will vote for him ONLY because he's black. Likewise, many will try to elect McCain to keep the black out of office.

[Criminal Rock]

ONLY because he's Black? Somehow I doubt there will be a valuable percentage of voters who vote Obama only for the 'colour of his skin', and nothing more...

Sure, people tend to identify with others of the same color, but I don't believe people are that generically predictable when it comes to their voting habits. (like me, perfect example, the whitest man on earth voting for Obama)

Yes. There are people who vote for the black man or the white man for those reasons, but not enough for it to matter.

[Homyrrh]

ONLY because he's Black? Somehow I doubt there will be a valuable percentage of voters who vote Obama only for the 'colour of his skin', and nothing more...

Sure, people tend to identify with others of the same color, but I don't believe people are that generically predictable when it comes to their voting habits. (like me, perfect example, the whitest man on earth voting for Obama)

Yes. There are people who vote for the black man or the white man for those reasons, but not enough for it to matter.
I think it might not be the biggest influence, but it could be very significant. Ultimately, I feel the amount of new minority voters will counter the amount of voters voting only for the non-minority (i.e.--Aryan racists).

Again, this is significant, but not decisive.

[SpoonMan999]

Every vote counts, ask Al Gore.

[Cop No. 633]

The way I see, the fact that Obama is black will be taken into account by voters. But to say it's the only reason is a poor insight into how minorities see him as a candidate. Most minorities outside of the religious ones tend to vote for Democrats because they often champion programs that have helped minorities since the Civil Rights movement. The fact that Obama is black is the cherry on the sundae for a lot of people. If Obama was like McCain you can bet your ass people would have voted for Clinton in a heart beat. Race isn't the first deciding factor for a lot of people.

It's like when Sydney Poitier won Best Actor for Lilies On the Field. It was a big deal because they Academy never saw a black actor as a leading man. A lot of people saw that not only as a win for a good actor, but as a sign that that Academy and the institution matured and crossed over their own racial boundaries. People are seeing Obama in a similar light. He has Presidential qualities, and he's the first black man to ever run under a major political party. Aside from being a viable candidate that he is, he's also become a symbol for minorities because let's face it, in the 200+ years of this country, there never has been a candidate who wasn't white. So it is a big deal to see a black man running for President. It would almost be as important as seeing a superstar black Hockey player.

It's a big deal anyway you want to slice or dice it. It's only been 44 years since the Civil Rights Act passed. That isn't much time at all if you think about it. There's many people who grew up in that era who never would have thought a black man could run as President. Now people have a candidate who is qualified and will probably win it because of his intelligence, charm and eloquent speeches. I assure you, if he had none of those qualities, nobody would even consider him as a candidate.

[SpoonMan999]

The way I see, the fact that Obama is black will be taken into account by voters. But to say it's the only reason is a poor insight into how minorities see him as a candidate. Most minorities outside of the religious ones tend to vote for Democrats because they often champion programs that have helped minorities since the Civil Rights movement. The fact that Obama is black is the cherry on the sundae for a lot of people. If Obama was like McCain you can bet your ass people would have voted for Clinton in a heart beat. Race isn't the first deciding factor for a lot of people.

It's like when Sydney Poitier won Best Actor for Lilies On the Field. It was a big deal because they Academy never saw a black actor as a leading man. A lot of people saw that not only as a win for a good actor, but as a sign that that Academy and the institution matured and crossed over their own racial boundaries. People are seeing Obama in a similar light. He has Presidential qualities, and he's the first black man to ever run under a major political party. Aside from being a viable candidate that he is, he's also become a symbol for minorities because let's face it, in the 200+ years of this country, there never has been a candidate who wasn't white. So it is a big deal to see a black man running for President. It would almost be as important as seeing a superstar black Hockey player.

It's a big deal anyway you want to slice or dice it. It's only been 44 years since the Civil Rights Act passed. That isn't much time at all if you think about it. There's many people who grew up in that era who never would have thought a black man could run as President. Now people have a candidate who is qualified and will probably win it because of his intelligence, charm and eloquent speeches. I assure you, if he had none of those qualities, nobody would even consider him as a candidate.

Didn't say all, just some.

[The Postmaster General]

Kudos to Obama for keeping race issues in the spotlight. We have a lot that needs to be discussed and put out into the open, and it IS an issue in America because we are a Melting Pot, except in our case, the different components of the pot have started to layer and separate because it's been sitting unstirred for too long.

By-and-large, the only people who don't want race to be made an issue of are the only people who have no issues with their race. Stupid Human Logic has dictated that the best response to black suffering is to try and make it seem like White Males are the most discriminated against class on the planet... It's largely the same people who feel entitled to say, "My niggas." when referring to the guys who would have been their slaves 100 years ago, and think they are being progressive while doing it. As if, we can pretend the world is in harmony because some white jackass thinks the final goal will be accomplished when they can say, "Hey my nigga, we have it just as bad as you, maybe even worse!!!"

Ah, the brilliance of the elite... Tis better to slum than to share what's ours.

[Homyrrh]

Every vote counts, ask Al Gore.
No. Every vote doesn't count. In fact, none of them did :D:(

Cosmic, to rephrase my point, I feel a solid poriton of new minority voters, especially African-Americans, see Obama's race as the primary, possibly single, manifestation for his Change Dotrine.

[MadsenOMC]

Cosmic, to rephrase my point, I feel a solid poriton of new minority voters, especially African-Americans, see Obama's race as the primary, possibly single, manifestation for his Change Dotrine.

How many new minority voters are there? I think it's really hard to fault them for being enthused about Obama's candidacy. I would be too if I were them.

[The Postmaster General]

Part of the president's job is to be the face of our nation. There is just reason to feel that Obama's race will indicate a large symbolic change of direction for our country. It's pretty amazing considering 50 years ago he may not have been able to shit in the same place white people can, and now he'll be the face of our nation, well, possibly at least... Let's see where the roadblocks end up in November...

[Homyrrh]

How many new minority voters are there? I think it's really hard to fault them for being enthused about Obama's candidacy. I would be too if I were them.
That would be progressive. For me to vote for because you're, theoretically, the new white guy is racist.

[Homyrrh]

Part of the president's job is to be the face of our nation. There is just reason to feel that Obama's race will indicate a large symbolic change of direction for our country. It's pretty amazing considering 50 years ago he may not have been able to shit in the same place white people can, and now he'll be the face of our nation, well, possibly at least... Let's see where the roadblocks end up in November...
Should've been Alan Keyes.

[MadsenOMC]

That would be progressive. For me to vote for because you're, theoretically, the new white guy is racist.

You are the one who seems to believe that many politically ambivalent African-Americans will be voting for Obama in November only because he is black. I do not agree with you there. And you don't think it's understandable and acceptable for African-Americans to be enthused about Obama being the nominee? That is very different from voting for him based solely on his race.

[Homyrrh]

You are the one who seems to believe that many politically ambivalent African-Americans will be voting for Obama in November only because he is black. I do not agree with you there. And you don't think it's understandable and acceptable for African-Americans to be enthused about Obama being the nominee? That is very different from voting for him based solely on his race.
You're explanation of new minority voters realizing some progressive new shift in American politics differs from what I had hypothesized.

Were an individual of said new minority voting demographic to say "Hm, Barack Obama is that black candidate. It'd be good to see one of my brothers in office," it's be a crooked line of thinking. Were he/she to say "Well, this Obama guy represents a progressive new shift in American politics toward an environment of unadulterated political and social acceptance," then I'd have no issue.

[MadsenOMC]

Were an individual of said new minority voting demographic to say "Hm, Barack Obama is that black candidate. It'd be good to see one of my brothers in office," it's be a crooked line of thinking. Were he/she to say "Well, this Obama guy represents a progressive new shift in American politics toward an environment of unadulterated political and social acceptance," then I'd have no issue.

And do you believe the first or second line of thinking to be more prevalent?

[Homyrrh]

And do you believe the first or second line of thinking to be more prevalent?
Amongst...new minority voters, specifically in urban centers? Probably the former.

[MadsenOMC]

Amongst...new minority voters, specifically in urban centers? Probably the former.

Why?

[The Postmaster General]

Should've been Alan Keyes.

That line of thinking only holds when you're talking about Kubrick and the Oscar. ;)

[Homyrrh]

Why?
'Cause I said so. Literally.
That line of thinking only holds when you're talking about Kubrick and the Oscar. ;)
Should've added the :D or the :rolleyes:

[MadsenOMC]

'Cause I said so. Literally.

Pretty flimsy.

[Homyrrh]

Yup.

If someone is perpetually indifferent to politics as a whole, how much of a grasp can one have come election time? It kind of boils down to that, but my argument is purely an educated hypothesis.

Like I said, this will work out both ways and ultimately have little effect come election time, though obviously won't hurt Obama a bit.

[MadsenOMC]

If someone is perpetually indifferent to politics as a whole, how much of a grasp can one have come election time?

I don't disagree with this. However, I do believe it is extremely presumptuous and insulting to assert that previously ambivalent African-Americans living in urban areas will go out and vote Obama only because he is black.

[Homyrrh]

Most likely it's insulting, but just read the polling stats to paint yourself an honest portrait of how "understanding" the general public is of elections. Guarantee half of Hollywood is on Obama for exposure.

[MadsenOMC]

Most likely it's insulting, but just read the polling stats to paint yourself an honest portrait of how "understanding" the general public is of elections. Guarantee half of Hollywood is on Obama for exposure.

Well Hollywood is an entirely different beast.

[Homyrrh]

Just making a point, you know? Everyone has an agenda, especially in Tinseltown.

[Cop No. 633]

I like how you jump from one hurdle to another on nothing but steam. It'd be nice to see some effort in backing up your facts other than your 18 years of life experience which I'm sure exceeds everyone else here.

The fact that Alan Keyes never came close to being President proves that being black has nothing to do with getting the black vote. People look at political ideology before race in politics. It's that simple. If Obama was saying 4 more years of war, more tax cuts for corporations and making accusations about going to Iran, he wouldn't have the support of the black community like he does... because of his political leanings.

[Homyrrh]

I like how you jump from one hurdle to another on nothing but steam. It'd be nice to see some effort in backing up your facts other than your 18 years of life experience which I'm sure exceeds everyone else here.

The fact that Alan Keyes never came close to being President proves that being black has nothing to do with getting the black vote. People look at political ideology before race in politics. It's that simple. If Obama was saying 4 more years of war, more tax cuts for corporations and making accusations about going to Iran, he wouldn't have the support of the black community like he does... because of his political leanings.
You take my Keyes comment seriously? Please read further. Just don't burn yourself in the steam. Truth hurts.

[Cop No. 633]

You take my Keyes comment seriously? Please read further. Just don't burn yourself in the steam. Truth hurts.

I can tell that it does.

[SpoonMan999]

I like how you jump from one hurdle to another on nothing but steam. It'd be nice to see some effort in backing up your facts other than your 18 years of life experience which I'm sure exceeds everyone else here.

The fact that Alan Keyes never came close to being President proves that being black has nothing to do with getting the black vote. People look at political ideology before race in politics. It's that simple. If Obama was saying 4 more years of war, more tax cuts for corporations and making accusations about going to Iran, he wouldn't have the support of the black community like he does... because of his political leanings.

Hom and I are making predictions based on what we've seen and heard from people over the years. We're not saying it's a fact but to deny that at least some people will be voting with race in mind is just ignorant.

[MadsenOMC]

Hom and I are making predictions based on what we've seen and heard from people over the years. We're not saying it's a fact but to deny that at least some people will be voting with race in mind is just ignorant.

Voting with race in mind is a far cry from voting only because of race.

[Homyrrh]

I can tell that it does.
Alright, this is just petty on both sides.

My point is that there are many voters, especially minorities in urban low-income areas, casting votes for the first time, and not because of eligibility. The motivation for such a phenomenon is a majority, amongst the demographic, desire for political change manifested in ways that transcend social issues; this is inclusive of race, and especially the first minority president. However, I project a significant minority will vote for who they desire to be the first minority president only because he is the first minority president, and not consider the aforementioned social issues, diplomacies, and/or foreign policies. A like argument can be made for those not willing to see the advancement of minorities in American politics, specifically amongst Caucasian supremacists in southern regions voting alongside the black population that comprises, in eleven Confederate states, roughly half of the US black population.

Cynnical, possibly offensive, but I feel legitimate.

[Homyrrh]

Voting with race in mind is a far cry from voting only because of race.
He minced his words, the meaning was there.

[SpoonMan999]

He minced his words, the meaning was there.

Thank you, I meant race being their big issue. You know, other than real issues like the economy or foreign relations.

[Cop No. 633]

Alright, this is just petty on both sides.

My point is that there are many voters, especially minorities in urban low-income areas, casting votes for the first time, and not because of eligibility. The motivation for such a phenomenon is a majority, amongst the demographic, desire for political change manifested in ways that transcend social issues; this is inclusive of race, and especially the first minority president. However, I project a significant minority will vote for who they desire to be the first minority president only because he is the first minority president, and not consider the aforementioned social issues, diplomacies, and/or foreign policies. A like argument can be made for those not willing to see the advancement of minorities in American politics, specifically amongst Caucasian supremacists in southern regions voting alongside the black population that comprises, in eleven Confederate states, roughly half of the US black population.

Cynnical, possibly offensive, but I feel legitimate.

One thing I don't get about your argument is that you go back and forth from saying it won't be a significant group to saying that it will be. What you posted comes off like you're saying a significant group will vote solely based on race.

" However, I project a significant minority will vote for who they desire to be the first minority president only because he is the first minority president, and not consider the aforementioned social issues, diplomacies, and/or foreign policies."

But then a few posts before, you said it would have little impact on Obama. So which is it? If it's not significant, why make a big deal about it as if it is/isn't an important issue?

I know there will be people who will vote solely on race, but I assure you that the numbers are far greater on that scale for caucasians than black people. It's not even supremacists like people seem to think. I'm curious if you've talked to black voters about politics concerning Obama or the election first hand. Growing up in LA, I've had the privilege to have many conversations with even random people I've met on the bus about politics and I have to say, most of the people I met were educated or at least had some knowledge about it and were more interested in getting universal health care and cheap education compared to a politician's background or race.

[MadsenOMC]

Thank you, I meant race being their big issue. You know, other than real issues like the economy or foreign relations.

How many Americans, regardless of race, do you honestly believe are informed voters?

[SpoonMan999]

How many Americans, regardless of race, do you honestly believe are informed voters?

Percentage wise I'd say only about 15% are really informed but I'd at least 40% of voters out there have an at least basic understanding of the cnadidates and where they stand. While the rest either vote for their party or listen to one biased radio show, read one paper, or watch one channel and vote based on the select information they've seen.

[Homyrrh]

How many Americans, regardless of race, do you honestly believe are informed voters?
Fewer than should be.

Cosmic, if I sent mixed messages, my bad. It is not enough to adversely affect either campaign, and will obviously help Obama. Relatively speaking, it's a significant number of people I feel, but not significant in ultimate effect.

Based on experience, well, mine are different. MAybe it was geographics, but I shot the breeze with some friends from Baltimore. Honestly, they didn't give a shit beyond race.

[SpoonMan999]

Fewer than should be.

Cosmic, if I sent mixed messages, my bad. It is not enough to adversely affect either campaign, and will obviously help Obama. Relatively speaking, it's a significant number of people I feel, but not significant in ultimate effect.

Based on experience, well, mine are different. MAybe it was geographics, but I shot the breeze with some friends from Baltimore. Honestly, they didn't give a shit beyond race.

It's not geographical, I live in the same area as he does. I'm about an hour away from LA and I work in Santa Monica and to top it off I work in construction, I talk to a lot minority voters and I talk to a lot of white voters. I have never heard a white man say he wasn't going to vote for Obama because he was black, yet I have heard more than one black voter say he will vote solely on that premise. And once again I'll mention I've heard callers make the same claim on the radio as well.

[MadsenOMC]

It's not geographical, I live in the same area as he does. I'm about an hour away from LA and I work in Santa Monica and to top it off I work in construction, I talk to a lot minority voters and I talk to a lot of white voters. I have never heard a white man say he wasn't going to vote for Obama because he was black, yet I have heard more than one black voter say he will vote solely on that premise. And once again I'll mention I've heard callers make the same claim on the radio as well.

I have yet to hear a single black person say they will vote for Obama only because he is black, yet I have family members who will vote McCain only because he is white (they really don't even like him that much).

[SpoonMan999]

I have yet to hear a single black person say they will vote for Obama only because he is black, yet I have family members who will vote McCain only because he is white (they really don't even like him that much).

I take it back actually, I have heard one white man against Obama because of his race but he justifies it as, "We just aren't ready for a black president." Which I think is still a bullshit reason but at least he didn't start sling the "n word."

[MadsenOMC]

I take it back actually, I have heard one white man against Obama because of his race but he justifies it as, "We just aren't ready for a black president." Which I think is still a bullshit reason but at least he didn't start sling the "n word."

My relatives and my wife's relatives do sling the N word, quite frequently.

[SpoonMan999]

My relatives and my wife's relatives do sling the N word, quite frequently.

Well, they're among that group of racists I mentioned earlier. Though I still think the other side of the racist spectrum will be a larger group.

[MadsenOMC]

Well, they're among that group of racists I mentioned earlier. Though I still think the other side of the racist spectrum will be a larger group.

And they are spread out all over: Wisconsin, Alabama, Michigan, and Delaware. Since whites outnumber blacks in this country, I seriously doubt "the other side of the racist spectrum" will be larger.

[SpoonMan999]

And they are spread out all over: Wisconsin, Alabama, Michigan, and Delaware. Since whites outnumber blacks in this country, I seriously doubt "the other side of the racist spectrum" will be larger.

In my experiences I've met more racist black than I have whites. In fact I've had a black man serving me at a fast food resteraunt actually call me a "cracker" when I came up to get my food. This bullshit that whites are the racists is total bullshit. If I were to say "nigga," "nigger," or "spook" to a black man I would get my ass stomped into the ground by more than just any black people within ear shot. If a black man were to come up to me and call me a "cracker" or a "honkey" then most people wouldn't even bat an eye.

Yeah we have our fair share of racists but how many black people are out there screaming about how white people are holding them down and still bringing up slavery. Slavery? Come on, nobody alive in the world today is old enough to have been a slave in the US...we abolished it and years later made you equals in the eyes of the law and even gave you special privledges. It's to move forward as a race and fend for yourselves in the world.

[/rant]
Sorry, but when I see shit like "BET Movies" and "Black Starz" I get pissed. I'm going to make "White Starz" and see how many law suits I have to fight off. Anyway, this rant wasn't really directed at anyone just how I feel in general.

[MadsenOMC]

In my experiences I've met more racist black than I have whites. In fact I've had a black man serving me at a fast food resteraunt actually call me a "cracker" when I came up to get my food. This bullshit that whites are the racists is total bullshit. If I were to say "nigga," "nigger," or "spook" to a black man I would get my ass stomped into the ground by more than just any black people within ear shot. If a black man were to come up to me and call me a "cracker" or a "honkey" then most people wouldn't even bat an eye.

Yeah we have our fair share of racists but how many black people are out there screaming about how white people are holding them down and still bringing up slavery. Slavery? Come on, nobody alive in the world today is old enough to have been a slave in the US...we abolished it and years later made you equals in the eyes of the law and even gave you special privledges. It's to move forward as a race and fend for yourselves in the world.

[/rant]
Sorry, but when I see shit like "BET Movies" and "Black Starz" I get pissed. I'm going to make "White Starz" and see how many law suits I have to fight off. Anyway, this rant wasn't really directed at anyone just how I feel in general.

Of course anyone of any race can be a racist, but there are still far more white racists in this country than black. Between my family and my wife's family, there are dozens of them, and they make no attempt to hide it.

There already is a White Starz. It's called Starz.

It is very easy for a white person to tell others to "get over slavery" and fend for themselves. That would be great if the world we live in worked that way, but it does not.

When will you start telling Jews to get over the Holocaust?

[SpoonMan999]

Of course anyone of any race can be a racist, but there are still far more white racists in this country than black. Between my family and my wife's family, there are dozens of them, and they make no attempt to hide it.

There already is a White Starz. It's called Starz.

It is very easy for a white person to tell others to "get over slavery" and fend for themselves. That would be great if the world we live in worked that way, but it does not.

When will you start telling Jews to get over the Holocaust?

Jews don't bitch about the Halocaust very often, except when some asshole tries to claim it didn't happen, and receive no special treatment from it. Many black men and women out there have proved that they can succeed if they just stop bitching and get out there and do something, and quite frankly Barack and Michelle Obama are prime examples of this.

[MadsenOMC]

Jews don't bitch about the Halocaust very often, except when some asshole tries to claim it didn't happen, and receive no special treatment from it. Many black men and women out there have proved that they can succeed if they just stop bitching and get out there and do something, and quite frankly Barack and Michelle Obama are prime examples of this.

Yes but as that article I posted a link to clearly pointed out, racism is alive and well in America today. It often isn't as overt as it used to be, but it hasn't gone away. Not even close. I have gone to school with and worked with and known black people my entire life, and I have never heard any of them complain about slavery. It is an overly broad generalization to say that many black people bitch about slavery. And again, very easy for a white male to say.

[The Postmaster General]

Back in 2000, I knew someone who voted for Bush because he was "cute" and another person entirely who voted for him because he was from Texas -- seriously. Many people voted for him because they liked his dad. Many voted for him because of his religious beliefs.

What I find interesting is that there was no huge uproar, or issue made of those people, even though pretty much everyone had similar stories --- and it led to arguably to worst president ever. Then when the same thing happens based on someone being black --- Ah sheeeit, muthafucka! We gots issues here! ------ Yeah, and we are still numb enough to say race is no issue for people, when it's made an issue of by even those claiming to not have racial issues.

This thread harkens what some people said about Rosa Parks - "Bitch just stirrin' up trouble."

Sorry, but when I see shit like "BET Movies" and "Black Starz" I get pissed. I'm going to make "White Starz"...

They already have those channels except they're called the Hallmark Network, USA, TBS, and AMC, among many, many others.

Still though, let me know when you start you cable TV station because I have a few shows I'd like to pitch for broadcast. CHEAP!

[SpoonMan999]

Yes but as that article I posted a link to clearly pointed out, racism is alive and well in America today. It often isn't as overt as it used to be, but it hasn't gone away. Not even close. I have gone to school with and worked with and known black people my entire life, and I have never heard any of them complain about slavery. It is an overly broad generalization to say that many black people bitch about slavery. And again, very easy for a white male to say.

I've heard slavery brought up in comedy acts more than once, I've heard from people I talked to personally, and I've seen it played off in movies as well. Just because you're not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

And how does me being a white male have anything to do with it? Because I'm a stereotypical right winger in that regard? I'm sorry, but people using their ancestry as an excuse to whine and get special treatment pisses me off. Just like when people like Paris Hilton get these boat loads of money for simply being born into the right family, despite that they do not deserve a penny of it.

[Cop No. 633]

And how does me being a white male have anything to do with it? Because I'm a stereotypical right winger in that regard? I'm sorry, but people using their ancestry as an excuse to whine and get special treatment pisses me off. Just like when people like Paris Hilton get these boat loads of money for simply being born into the right family, despite that they do not deserve a penny of it.

Our race/ethnicity has a lot to do with who we are and how we can see politics. Black people have often gotten the short end of the stick even after the Civil Rights movement. Affirmative action isn't going to cure the problem of a racist institute in a week. Politics can often be formed due to race especially when the government enforces racist tactics against its own citizens simply because they aren't part of the majority. See: percentages of minorities in prison compared to white people, gentrification of urban cities, or even recently, how black voters' votes were discredited in Florida. There's many reasons why black or brown people have a chip on their shoulder.

It's because you've grown up privileged and a part of the majority that you can't see why black people would make a big deal about Obama running for President. It goes back to what I said about Sidney Poitier winning Best Actor. For many people, it adds a sense of pride to their ethnicity not because they want to "prove how much better they are" but because they are finally being accepted into the main stream. I think it's sad it took this long for a black man or woman to even be considered Presidential material and it's still isn't enough in my eyes because you have pundits who crack jokes about baby mama's and can she run things if she gets too emotional (meaning, when she gets a period). It's insulting and frankly appalling that it's okay to "joke" about that stuff on national TV when it shows how these people really think.

Racism today isn't as black and white as somebody saying "nigger." It's more secretive and passed off as "jokes" when it comes to white people in the U.S. or the media. I've met my share of closet racists who cracked jokes to me because they thought I was a white. Or they knew I was Mexican but thought it might be funny to talk about "other people." And usually, it came from people of higher class. I believe racism in the lower class is actually just a brainwashing tactic used by the higher class since the days of slavery.

Here's an interesting fact: when the Conquistadors took over Latin America, they eventually brought African slaves to mine for gold and silver. You know what they told the Natives people? That the Africans were stealing their jobs. I find this ironic, given that this same tactic is being used to against immigrants.

As for your war stories about meeting more black people being racists, of course you're going to find that! That's like me saying I've met more racist white people than Mexicans. How could you experience racism without it being from another ethnicity? I think almost everyone in America has encountered racism.

Racist experiences don't add up to concrete evidence of which side has more racism. But you can find evidence in institutionalized racism, which is abundant in this country.

[Homyrrh]

Here's an interesting fact: when the Conquistadors took over Latin America, they eventually brought African slaves to mine for gold and silver. You know what they told the Natives people? That the Africans were stealing their jobs. I find this ironic, given that this same tactic is being used to against immigrants.

Except...they want to be here but we don't want them;)

[Cop No. 633]

Sure, many people hate immigrants. You have people complaining about not losing their jobs but how many of those people would honestly like to work for $3.50 an hour or less doing manual labor like picking fruits or washing dishes all day at a hotel? Some people are benefiting from immigrants and it's the owners of businesses who employ them because they know they can violate worker's right and not get caught. I think once you smoke them out first, then you can start having immigration reform because how many people would stick around if they had to go through the proper channels to get work? The problem isn't immigrants, it's management.

[Homyrrh]

Sure, many people hate immigrants. You have people complaining about not losing their jobs but how many of those people would honestly like to work for $3.50 an hour or less doing manual labor like picking fruits or washing dishes all day at a hotel? Some people are benefiting from immigrants and it's the owners of businesses who employ them because they know they can violate worker's right and not get caught. I think once you smoke them out first, then you can start having immigration reform because how many people would stick around if they had to go through the proper channels to get work? The problem isn't immigrants, it's management.
It's not that there are immigrants, it's the voulme of immigrants and the unnecessary and excessive expenditures inherent of maintaing so many million (12?) illegal aliens.

And these "war stories" are becoming too broad, uncredible and subjective. Then again, the argument presented on both sides is based off of projection and hypotheses.

[The Postmaster General]

And these "war stories" are becoming too broad, uncredible and subjective. Then again, the argument presented on both sides is based off of projection and hypotheses.


I was going to guess, but then checked your location. Based on this statement, I wagered that you were living in the north-east. "Parking lot labor" is even becoming common in the midwest, and is extremely common in Florida. I can imagine California, and other states along the border.

[Cop No. 633]

And these "war stories" are becoming too broad, uncredible and subjective. Then again, the argument presented on both sides is based off of projection and hypotheses.

When you learn to speak Spanish and hear people bitching about their shitty job, you'll realize they're not just making it up to make their lives sound like a statistic. It'd be nice to say it's all a fantasy that's being made up by the liberal media so they can have a few sympathic stories. LA's a huge city with so many kinds of people. My father worked in the restaurant industry and that thrives on immigrant workers. Having a citizenship is what separates the busboy from the maître d'. It's extremely common. I guess only hearing about it in the news can persuaded somebody to think it's a farce.

[Homyrrh]

I was going to guess, but then checked your location. Based on this statement, I wagered that you were living in the north-east. "Parking lot labor" is even becoming common in the midwest, and is extremely common in Florida. I can imagine California, and other states along the border.
Jersey, and the general region around it, is actually incredibly diverse, statistically one of the most in the nation. The nation's majority of urban residents is centered within 400-500 miles of me. Didn't really understand your post.

In reference to CP's post, I'm really not sure what you're trying to convey, nor how it is a direct response/criticism of mine. My point is that we all can have stories, and I do both appreciate the sharing and realize the honesty, but with the argument as both sides as factually ambiguous as they are, it's vain to go back and forth with experiences any of us have had that support an argument in any way.

I realize your experience in LA and throughout life talking with immigrants and otherwise has formed a certain viewpoint, just like my own on the other coast have formed mine. IT's futile for me to support this with eleven facts and a diagram.

[The Postmaster General]

Jersey, and the general region around it, is actually incredibly diverse, statistically one of the most in the nation. The nation's majority of urban residents is centered within 400-500 miles of me. Didn't really understand your post.


I don't deny the Northeast is diverse, but we aren't talking about diversity, we are talking about illegal immigrants looking for job. I'm not sure I understand your equating there.

I believe NYC is the most diverse place in the world, but that doesn't mean they have a lot of illegal immigrants looking for jobs. The same follows with New Jersey. There's no borders to easily cross. Florida, we had Haitians and Cubans --- If illegals are getting across the Atlantic on a door, and arriving on the Jersey shores looking for work so they can send for their family, then I apologize for my misconceptions of the illegal immigrant flux in Jersey.

It's my understanding that people living closer to foreign borders are more likely to encounter illegals. I don't doubt the Northeast has some illegals. What I highly doubt is that it's comparable to states along the Mexican border or on the Southern Peninsula.

The final line was that when you said you think the illegal immigrates getting exploited is something of an exaggeration, I pretty much instantly knew that it was likely you lived in an area that doesn't experience a large population of illegals working.

[Homyrrh]

I don't deny the Northeast is diverse, but we aren't talking about diversity, we are talking about illegal immigrants looking for job. I'm not sure I understand your equating there.

I believe NYC is the most diverse place in the world, but that doesn't mean they have a lot of illegal immigrants looking for jobs. The same follows with New Jersey. There's no borders to easily cross. Florida, we had Haitians and Cubans --- If illegals are getting across the Atlantic on a door, and arriving on the Jersey shores looking for work so they can send for their family, then I apologize for my misconceptions of the illegal immigrant flux in Jersey.

It's my understanding that people living closer to foreign borders are more likely to encounter illegals. I don't doubt the Northeast has some illegals. What I highly doubt is that it's comparable to states along the Mexican border or on the Southern Peninsula.

The final line was that when you said you think the illegal immigrates getting exploited is something of an exaggeration, I pretty much instantly knew that it was likely you lived in an area that doesn't experience a large population of illegals working.
Ah, alright, I think we misunderstood.

MY point was that people telling stories to establish their credibility is trivial. While the 100% truth is likely present, one isolated incident does little to persuade.

As for life north Jersey, I am surprised at how far illegals travel. I point out my county, Morris, is (*grumble*) the third richest in the nation, right behind our neighbor, Somerset (a couple years back, boht at least top 5 now). Every acre-sized front lawn here has a half-dozen illegals cutting it, every $200k house addition has them working on it, etc. The more urban areas--Morristown, especially Dover (80% legal Hispanic, of which 70% is Puerto Rican)--house enormously Latin populations.

As a cruel aside, on May 30 a couple years back, some people started spreading rumors that the next day (April 1...hint) would be an INS raid day (never happens here...whose gonna cut my lawn? bus my table? build my deck?). So on April Fool's Day that year (maybe '04), Dover streets were completely empty, and all the landscaping companies lost a day of work. See if I can find the article from the daily paper later.

So true, not as many, but definitely a much greater percentage than one would think. Comparably, there's nothing quantitatively, but percentage-wise, I figure I'd have a case.

[The Postmaster General]

Ah, alright, I think we misunderstood.

MY point was that people telling stories to establish their credibility is trivial. While the 100% truth is likely present, one isolated incident does little to persuade.

As for life north Jersey, I am surprised at how far illegals travel. I point out my county, Morris, is (*grumble*) the third richest in the nation, right behind our neighbor, Somerset (a couple years back, boht at least top 5 now). Every acre-sized front lawn here has a half-dozen illegals cutting it, every $200k house addition has them working on it, etc. The more urban areas--Morristown, especially Dover (80% legal Hispanic, of which 70% is Puerto Rican)--house enormously Latin populations.

As a cruel aside, on May 30 a couple years back, some people started spreading rumors that the next day (April 1...hint) would be an INS raid day (never happens here...whose gonna cut my lawn? bus my table? build my deck?). So on April Fool's Day that year (maybe '04), Dover streets were completely empty, and all the landscaping companies lost a day of work. See if I can find the article from the daily paper later.

So true, not as many, but definitely a much greater percentage than one would think. Comparably, there's nothing quantitatively, but percentage-wise, I figure I'd have a case.



That's part of the thing, though, because I know illegals are everywhere, I just tend to be pretty sure that along border states, you see more examples of ones not making it, struggling, doing anything they can to make it, and so on.

We have illegals in Minnesota, but it's not like it is down south. It's just not.

[Jon Lyrik]

In my experiences I've met more racist black than I have whites. In fact I've had a black man serving me at a fast food resteraunt actually call me a "cracker" when I came up to get my food. This bullshit that whites are the racists is total bullshit. If I were to say "nigga," "nigger," or "spook" to a black man I would get my ass stomped into the ground by more than just any black people within ear shot. If a black man were to come up to me and call me a "cracker" or a "honkey" then most people wouldn't even bat an eye.

Yeah we have our fair share of racists but how many black people are out there screaming about how white people are holding them down and still bringing up slavery. Slavery? Come on, nobody alive in the world today is old enough to have been a slave in the US...we abolished it and years later made you equals in the eyes of the law and even gave you special privledges. It's to move forward as a race and fend for yourselves in the world.

[/rant]
Sorry, but when I see shit like "BET Movies" and "Black Starz" I get pissed. I'm going to make "White Starz" and see how many law suits I have to fight off. Anyway, this rant wasn't really directed at anyone just how I feel in general.

Oh god, not this "why can't I say 'nigger'?" bullshit again...

What the hell is wrong with the forum lately?

[The Heart Collector]

Slavery? Come on, nobody alive in the world today is old enough to have been a slave in the US...we abolished it and years later made you equals in the eyes of the law and even gave you special privledges. It's to move forward as a race and fend for yourselves in the world.


http://www.dvdbeaver.com/FILM/DVDReviews22/a%20Michael%20Haneke%20Cach%C3%A9%20Hidden%20Julie tte%20Binoche/a%20Michael%20Haneke%20Cach%C3%A9%20Hidden%20Julie tte%20Binoche%20HIDDEN-7.jpg

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/03/02/hidden460.jpg

[Homyrrh]

Oh god, not this "why can't I say 'nigger'?" bullshit again...

What the hell is wrong with the forum lately?
I think he was implying the inverse actually. As in, he's fine with not saying "nigger" but what allows bblacks to "rightfully" call whites "honkeys" or "crackers".

[QUENTIN]

In my experiences I've met more racist black than I have whites. In fact I've had a black man serving me at a fast food resteraunt actually call me a "cracker" when I came up to get my food. This bullshit that whites are the racists is total bullshit. If I were to say "nigga," "nigger," or "spook" to a black man I would get my ass stomped into the ground by more than just any black people within ear shot. If a black man were to come up to me and call me a "cracker" or a "honkey" then most people wouldn't even bat an eye.

Yeah we have our fair share of racists but how many black people are out there screaming about how white people are holding them down and still bringing up slavery. Slavery? Come on, nobody alive in the world today is old enough to have been a slave in the US...we abolished it and years later made you equals in the eyes of the law and even gave you special privledges. It's to move forward as a race and fend for yourselves in the world.

[/rant]
Sorry, but when I see shit like "BET Movies" and "Black Starz" I get pissed. I'm going to make "White Starz" and see how many law suits I have to fight off. Anyway, this rant wasn't really directed at anyone just how I feel in general.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, that's great, just great. Funniest non Orson-Cockart post of the year. You should tour with Larry The Cable Guy and David Duke.

"White guys are oppressed because they can't say nigger in public, get over slavery!" Solid gold.

[The Heart Collector]

I think he was implying the inverse actually. As in, he's fine with not saying "nigger" but what allows bblacks to "rightfully" call whites "honkeys" or "crackers".


.... nothing?

A black politician isn't just going to be able to spout racial insults without getting bitched at. Blacks in many parts of the country aren't going to be able to say "cracker" or "honky" without getting killed. Similarly, in many parts of the country you can be racially offensive towards blacks and not have any consequences.

[Homyrrh]

.... nothing?

A black politician isn't just going to be able to spout racial insults without getting bitched at. Blacks in many parts of the country aren't going to be able to say "cracker" or "honky" without getting killed. Similarly, in many parts of the country you can be racially offensive towards blacks and not have any consequences.
Like I said, "I think he...".

You are correct in some instances. I was around two friends of mine when one, a reddish Irish kid from East Oaks, Baltimore, threw "nigga" around like it was "dude" or "man", and the other, a menancing black dude from Southeast, DC, couldn't have cared less.

[Jon Lyrik]

Nobody's arguing about context here.

[SpoonMan999]

I think he was implying the inverse actually. As in, he's fine with not saying "nigger" but what allows bblacks to "rightfully" call whites "honkeys" or "crackers".

This is exactly what I meant, and once again you're the only one not blowing my statements out of proportion.

My point is many times have I seen a black person use a racial slur against a white and have had nothing happened, hell I hardly ever see kids punished by their parents for it. Yet, as a white man if I say something racist I'll have everyone in ear shot, including the whtie people, busting my ass if not beating it. It's a bull shit double standard and nobody should be talking like that of another race. If a black man wants to call his buddy his "nigga" then whatever, I couldn't care less, but when he calls me honkey and I can't retaliate cause I'd get my ass beat by his "niggas" backing him up it's just down right bull shit. Maybe this is because I'm in the LA area that I see this a lot, we have a lot of gangs that do tend to be more racist than your average person.

Also, I never suggested white people are oppressed. My rant was about people wanting to be treated equally as a race but then demand special treatment and considerations. And this goes for me too, I'm part American Indian (Gaining me special money grants for college and what not) yet I have not asked the government for a dime, or held the trail of tears against anyone, or claimed I didn't get hired because they don't like us "reds," or demanded any government aid. Hell, I even voted for the Indian Casinos paying more taxes to help California.

And furthermore my race should not define me or my politics. My values and ideals are what defines me and my beliefs, for some those values may be racially charged but to assume I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm a white male is just stereotyping and adding to the problem.

[QUENTIN]

Black people never owned all the white people in the U.S. Black people didn't profit off of the slave labor of all the white people in the country and that's not why we're now a wealthy nation. White people aren't here because black people kidnapped us from Europe and brought us over en masse in the bottoms of boats. "Honkey" wasn't a derogatory slur all the white Americans were referred to as by all the black people who treated us like cattle they could beat, rape, or kill with impunity. White people didn't have a hundred years after they were supposed to be free where they were constantly under the serious threat of being murdered for the slightest offense by people who called them "honkeys". Murdered by big mobs of people in town squares no less, people who thought "honkeys" weren't really humans. White people didn't just begin to have the possibility of equal opportunities only 40 years ago (opportunities that to this day are not made available to the majority of whites), when the blacks finally made good on their word. Whites don't still face discrimination as a daily reminder that the color of their skin makes them different.

Sorry, but they're just not equal. No one should call you honky, anyone who does is probably a jerk. If he's in a gang then I'm sure he's a jerk. Anyone who judges anyone else on the basis of their skin color is a racist and by definition an ignorant asshole. But "honky" doesn't carry one scintilla of the weight and offense that "nigger" does. It is not the most hateful, vile, blood-soaked word in the English language. Is there a double standard in this country about who gets to use racial slurs? Yup. Is it understandable why? Yup.

Besides, in your post you also said people need to just "get over" slavery already and complained about black-targeted programming (ALL programming not targeted towards a minority is targeted towards whites, duh) so it's pretty deserving of derision.

[SpoonMan999]

Black people never owned all the white people in the U.S. Black people didn't profit off of the slave labor of all the white people in the country and that's not why we're now a wealthy nation. White people aren't here because black people kidnapped us from Europe and brought us over en masse in the bottoms of boats. "Honkey" wasn't a derogatory slur all the white Americans were referred to as by all the black people who treated us like cattle they could beat, rape, or kill with impunity. White people didn't have a hundred years after they were supposed to be free where they were constantly under the serious threat of being murdered for the slightest offense by people who called them "honkeys". Murdered by big mobs of people in town squares no less, people who thought "honkeys" weren't really humans. White people didn't just begin to have the possibility of equal opportunities only 40 years ago (opportunities that to this day are not made available to the majority of whites), when the blacks finally made good on their word. Whites don't still face discrimination as a daily reminder that the color of their skin makes them different.


Again, slavery happened so long ago that for any current African-American to use it as an excuse to receive special treatment is bull shit. Again I'll mention that as an American Indian I don't sit here and demand that I get this job over that 100% white guy because this government stole my ancestors homes, drove them across the continent, starved them, hunted them for sport, and completely wiped out some tribes. Why don't I do this? Because I wasn't alive when this happen and the people currently living here and running this government were not responsible for it. Just like with slavery, I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud of where you come from or remember your people's history but to try and guilt trip me or try to get something out of me because of what some random ancestor did 100+ years ago is complete shit.

Sorry, but they're just not equal. No one should call you honky, anyone who does is probably a jerk. If he's in a gang then I'm sure he's a jerk. Anyone who judges anyone else on the basis of their skin color is a racist and by definition an ignorant asshole. But "honky" doesn't carry one scintilla of the weight and offense that "nigger" does. It is not the most hateful, vile, blood-soaked word in the English language. Is there a double standard in this country about who gets to use racial slurs? Yup. Is it understandable why? Yup.


When some asshole calls me a honkey it probably isn't filled with the same hate that "nigger" is but you know what? It's the same goddamn effect, you just singled me out because of my race and tried to make me feel inferior because of my race. So no, it's not understandable.

Besides, in your post you also said people need to just "get over" slavery already and complained about black-targeted programming (ALL programming not targeted towards a minority is targeted towards whites, duh) so it's pretty deserving of derision.

All non-black programming is white programming? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[QUENTIN]

Again, slavery happened so long ago that for any current African-American to use it as an excuse to receive special treatment is bull shit. Again I'll mention that as an American Indian I don't sit here and demand that I get this job over that 100% white guy because this government stole my ancestors homes, drove them across the continent, starved them, hunted them for sport, and completely wiped out some tribes. Why don't I do this? Because I wasn't alive when this happen and the people currently living here and running this government were not responsible for it. Just like with slavery, I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud of where you come from or remember your people's history but to try and guilt trip me or try to get something out of me because of what some random ancestor did 100+ years ago is complete shit.



When some asshole calls me a honkey it probably isn't filled with the same hate that "nigger" is but you know what? It's the same goddamn effect, you just singled me out because of my race and tried to make me feel inferior because of my race. So no, it's not understandable.



All non-black programming is white programming? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Nevermind. I'm at fault for addressing you in the first place.

[The Heart Collector]

Again, slavery happened so long ago that for any current African-American to use it as an excuse to receive special treatment is bull shit.
Get out of this forum.

[SpoonMan999]

You, know you guys are so completely insulting when I disagree with you and yet I try to be as respectful as possible. Trying to gain sympathy for something that happened to someone else 100+ years ago is crap. That's how I feel. If you guys don't want to hear an alternative opinion then stay out of debates or anything political.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Besides, in your post you also said people need to just "get over" slavery already and complained about black-targeted programming (ALL programming not targeted towards a minority is targeted towards whites, duh) so it's pretty deserving of derision.

It's useless complaining about race-targeted programming, but to say that anything without Redman and Method Man is targeted towards whites is ridiculous. It's all culture. It's the same reason you're more likely to see Jay Z on BET than Wynton Marsalis.

As for this "special treatment" shit, people need to start reading history books. Their troubles didn't end when the Civil War ended. It's not easy being the first college or high school graduate in your family's history. It's fucking hard. It's not "special treatment," it's a more like a slight push in the right direction. And it's not even that much of a push. Like an apathetic dad teaching his kid to ride a bike.

[Cop No. 633]

Well, Brando, we all know CBS is the Caucasian Broadcasting Network. You can't debate that, that's a fact! ;)

Also, I keep hearing the word special treatment. I'm intrigued by its meaning. I believe I received special treatment from the police before. Bunch of swell guys they are. Or when some woman asked if I knew how to speak English properly at a job once because of her mistake. Yeah, special treatment, I know that word all too well.

[Homyrrh]

It's not easy being the first college or high school graduate in your family's history. It's fucking hard. It's not "special treatment," it's a more like a slight push in the right direction. And it's not even that much of a push. Like an apathetic dad teaching his kid to ride a bike.
Really? A lot of schools give monstrous aid to not only minorities and internationals, but to first-gens. I can't speak on experience--longstanding Ivy League background on my father's side--but based on the entire process and in asking around, I would think it'd be great to be a metaphoric symbol of progress and establishment for your newly-American family.



Also, I keep hearing the word special treatment. I'm intrigued by its meaning. I believe I received special treatment from the police before. Bunch of swell guys they are. Or when some woman asked if I knew how to speak English properly at a job once because of her mistake. Yeah, special treatment, I know that word all too well.
Be completely honest with you, I'd immediately tolerate some slurs or parking tickets for a college tuition discount; that's the context of my present situation though.

At the end of the day, it's all in context. It's heinous to reduce the African-American race's slave period to nothing, but it must currently be realized that, especially in light of some very leftward decisions in recent Supreme Court decisions, there is a dinstinct movement towad some amount of restitution.

[MadsenOMC]

For three years I taught and worked with an entire staff of African-Americans (for a while I was literally the only white staff member). There were about 15 of them. None of them ever mentioned slavery, unless we were talking about history. None of them ever mentioned reparations. In my experience black people are not griping about slavery and demanding restitution for it and refusing to let it go.

I did, however, hear countless stories about being pulled over for no reason or followed around department stores by store employees or security. Black people are still dealing with prejudice on a daily basis.

The "slavery happened a long time ago so get over it" argument is simplistic and foolish, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that we still live in a society full of racism and inequality.

[SpoonMan999]

For three years I taught and worked with an entire staff of African-Americans (for a while I was literally the only white staff member). There were about 15 of them. None of them ever mentioned slavery, unless we were talking about history. None of them ever mentioned reparations. In my experience black people are not griping about slavery and demanding restitution for it and refusing to let it go.

I did, however, hear countless stories about being pulled over for no reason or followed around department stores by store employees or security. Black people are still dealing with prejudice on a daily basis.

The "slavery happened a long time ago so get over it" argument is simplistic and foolish, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that we still live in a society full of racism and inequality.

The racism goes both ways, again I'll mention me being called a "cracker" by someone who was providing a service to me. Everyone faces racism but you know what? There are tons of people who over come it and succeed anyway. I don't think that people who had nothing to do with slavery or any of that crap that happened 100 years ago should be held accountable for it.

My father is a reasonably successful man and knows plenty of people in high places, a good number of them are black and got there through hard work. Hell, one of the guys at our annual 4th of July party who not only makes a hell of a lot more than my father but is a big figure in the state for his field...guy doesn't even have an AA. How did he do it? He worked his ass off. If you truly want to be an equal in my eyes you have to asking for hand outs and work. Granted, if someone offers me free college money I wouldn't turn it down.

I think the fact that people have this mentality of, "Oh, but when you're the first in your family to go to college it's tough," or "They get followed around department stores and pulled over for no reason!" Ok firstly, there are plenty of white families that are just sending their kids to college for the first time and they deserve the exact same government assistance that any black kid might get in that situation damnit. Secondly, they get stereo typed as criminals? Oh boo hoo, I get stereo typed as being part of the majority and therefor have no clue about anything not white. As is the case in this thread, because I'm a white male in the middle class and to top it off I'm young so my opinion on this subject is just wrong under these circumstances.

Personaly, I think it's deplorable to ask me to pay taxes and have those taxes go into a college fund for a kid who didn't really work harder than anyone else or get better grades than anyone else but he's black so here's your check. Yet, I had nothing to do with what happened to his ancestors, disgusting as it was and as disgusted with me as you may be, I am no slaver and it is not fair to ask me to pay for it. It's like having a loved one pay off your credit card debt after you've died, it sickens me that they would continue to seek payment from the next person down the line.

Oh, and to say that they're still feeling the effects of slavery is pretty much bull. Being stereo typed as criminals is from people's personal misgivings and the observation of where crime rates are highest. It has nothing to do with what happened to their ancestors. It has to do with the reputation of their culture. And hey, you're black and you're sick of it? Fucking do something about it then, don't sit back and wait for people change so them how you as a whole have changed.

[Cop No. 633]

The racism goes both ways, again I'll mention me being called a "cracker" by someone who was providing a service to me. Everyone faces racism but you know what? There are tons of people who over come it and succeed anyway. I don't think that people who had nothing to do with slavery or any of that crap that happened 100 years ago should be held accountable for it.

I think you're mistaking individual racism for institutionalized racism. Black people have to deal with institutionalized racism on a far greater scale than any white person. That is why we have more minorities than in prison. It isn't because they commit more crimes. It's because cops pay more attention (again giving "special treatment") to people with darker skin or a shaved head. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a cop having stopped a person with dark skin who shaved their head. Not every one of them are gangsters, a lot of men do it because they're going bald. But to a cop, it's an excuse to stop the person because many of them stereotype like they breathe air. That's institutionalized racism and I've dealt with it first hand in not only a straight forward way, but even in a situation I found incredibly insulting because they thought I was white (because I sounded American... I am American for Christ's sake!)

That is the racism I've heard black people complain about like Madsen spoke of. It's not slavery that bugs black people today. Dealing with somebody who calls you a cracker is one thing, but dealing with it through a professional level like at work or like Madsen said, somebody following you around a store is a different kind of racism. It's the kind of racism people have because they think, "Oh, he's black, he might steal. Everybody knows black people like to steal. I better watch him."

Racism today goes beyond simply calling somebody a name. It's institutionalized and passed down unknowingly to a lot of people. We may try to act holier than thou about it, but it's an invisible elephant in this country. Hell, when Obama said that some white people can try to avoid a black man while passing, look at how pissed off those pundits at Fox became over it, denying that it's not true. That "nobody" who is white is like that... when it's pretty obvious they're simply trying hard to hide the truth. The lot of those pundits come off as ignorant, racist and the kind who say I'm not racist because they have that one black friend.

[MadsenOMC]

In Virginia, More to 'Get Over' Than Slavery

By Colbert I. King (Washington Post)

Saturday, January 20, 2007

On last Monday's Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Frank D. Hargrove, a Republican lawmaker in Virginia's House of Delegates, said that instead of seeking a formal apology from the commonwealth for slavery, "black citizens should get over it." Hargrove also reportedly wondered how far such apologies should go. "Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?"

Frank Hargrove is one reason that young African Americans should never take their hard-won rights for granted. His outlook is also a wake-up call to some of my Jewish friends who think they have it made.

He has nothing I want, including an apology. But I'm not getting over slavery.

There's nothing quite like going to a county office building down in Culpeper County, Va., and finding evidence of your family's enslavement. I did that several years ago.

Pages of land records confirmed the story I had heard since I was a young boy: that my late mother's maiden name, Colbert (my first name), was taken from a white Culpeper County family that had the last name Colbert and that owned my great-grandfather and his siblings before the Civil War.

The documented portrayal of my bloodline isn't easily forgotten. Those relatives of mine were considered legal property, which explains why they were listed by name, with individually assigned monetary value, among the inventory of farm implements, barnyard animals and other Colbert-owned assets.

"Get over it." Not likely.

Hargrove was correct when he told the House of Delegates on Tuesday that "not a soul in this legislature" had anything to do with slavery. It was before their time. But Virginia's shameful history on race is not limited to slavery.

Hargrove, who will be 80 next week, cannot escape the fact that he and many white Virginians alive today were present when the spirit of Jim Crow reigned supreme in the Old Dominion.

Hargrove was 17 when the Virginia legislature passed a law requiring separate white and black waiting rooms at airports. Surely he must have heard about that.

When Hargrove was 29, Sen. Harry Byrd declared massive resistance to the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown decision desegregating public schools. Did he miss that?

What did 31-year-old Hargrove think in 1958 when the General Assembly passed a series of laws to prevent school desegregation, including a measure forbidding state funds to be spent on integrated schools? That was a memorable year. And the next year, Prince Edward County went to an extreme to protect lily-white education. It closed the school system rather than integrate.

Recall (courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society) this repugnant chapter of Virginia's racial history that occurred in Hargrove's time:

? On Feb. 20, 1960, students from the historically black Virginia Union University entered Woolworth's department store on Broad Street in Richmond, sat at the lunch counter and patiently waited to be served. Instead, the management closed the store.

? On June 9, 1960, an integrated group of youths sat at a Peoples Drug store lunch counter in Arlington. Waitresses served the whites, then walked away. A few minutes later, the lunch counter was closed.

? In 1963, protesters gathered in front of the College Shoppe Restaurant on Main Street in Farmville. Management refused to serve blacks. Sheriff's deputies, in keeping with Virginia's Jim Crow laws, forcibly removed them.

Today, black Virginians no longer must ride in the backs of buses. They aren't confined to theater balconies or other designated areas. Their visits to restrooms, parks, beaches and swimming pools are not blocked by "White Only" signs.

Most changes didn't result from state action. Virginia's Jim Crow system was brought down by a combination of lawsuits, a courageous civil rights movement, people such as Elaine R. Jones and Oliver W. Hill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and federal civil rights laws.

And contrary to what Frank Hargrove and others may wish to believe, the state's legacy of segregation and discrimination in education and employment has harmed many black Virginians, depriving them of the tangible benefits enjoyed by their white counterparts.

Professor Richard F. America put it this way in his book "Paying the Social Debt: What White America Owes Black America": "Discrimination is good for someone, but most people have chosen to think of it merely as unkind or socially unfair. . . . Restitution theory strips away the pretense. It lets us see how discrimination has indirectly enriched millions of people relative to those who have been excluded."

Now chill. This piece isn't about reparations. It is, however, a reminder -- as if one is needed -- that the Emancipation Proclamation did not remove the shackles from the descendants of slaves; that injustice and inequality were an integral part of Virginia during the adult life of Frank Hargrove.

Which gets me to the source of his consternation: the legislative proposal for Virginia to issue an apology for slavery. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. But if the effort must be made, why should the apology be limited to involuntary servitude? Why not include the sins of segregation and discrimination? Unlike slavery, those are sins that loads of Virginians, alive and well today, had something to do with.

And this:

I'll Get Over Slavery After Y'all Apologize For It

I've observed over my lifetime that when some legislator makes a racist remark, nine times out of ten they'll be a member of the GOP. So when I heard about Virginia Del. Frank D. Hargrove remarks in opposition to a measure that would apologize on the state’s behalf to the descendants of slaves and Googled his name, I wasn't surprised when I saw the (R) come up next to it.

It took me back a few years to a incident that happened when I was working for a major airline. We had a 45 minute break before we had to start working a flight. The crew was already in the gate lobby waiting to board the aircraft once it cleared customs. This was one of those rare moments in which the entire flight crew was African-American and we spent time talking about a variety of subjects.

One of the topics we discussed was then President Clinton's recent apology to the survivors of the Tuskegee Experiment. One of the pilots remarked that he needed to do another apology for slavery. We were discussing that when one of my white co-workers who had been ignoring our conversation until then remarked,"Y'all need to get over slavery." Incensed, I shot back, "When our Jewish friends stop memorializing the Holocaust, I'll get over slavery."

Later in the break room after listening to her enunciate her feelings about it, I explained to my co-worker why African-Americans are sensitve about that 'get over it' comment. I pointed out to her that Jews not only will not ever forget the Holocaust, there are museums, documentaries and oral histories passed down that keep that story alive for their future generations.

So why should African-Americans stay silent about our Holocaust?

The federal governemnt has apologized to the surviving Japanese-Americans who were interred in World War II camps and paid $250K in reparations. The German government not only apologized for the Holocaust but paid reparations. In 1992 the Japanese prime minister admitted that some women in the Asian countries they occupied during World War II were forced by the Japanese Army to become 'comfort women' sex slaves. However, the Japanese government has yet to apologize, compensate or claim full responsibility.

140 years after the Civil War ended we have yet to hear the words 'We apologize' from our government over the 246 years my ancestors spent in chattel slavery and the governmental infrastructure that arose to support it.

I was feeling Del. Dwight C. Jones, head of Virginia's Legislative Black Caucus when he stated, “When somebody tells me I should just get over slavery, I can only express my emotion by projecting that I am appalled, absolutely appalled.”

I'm more than appalled. I'm agitated about the insensitive, flippant nature of the comment. Many of the ills that Black America faces have their roots in slavery.

I'm aware that I didn't grow up on a plantation or that you personally did not own slaves. The irrefutable facts are that some of your ancestors owned some of mine. I'm reminded of that every time I check out my family tree or have to look through property records to find my ancestors. My great-great-grandmother on my father's side was born a slave in the state I now reside in. I have another ancestor on my mother's side who didn't arrive at Ellis Island in 1810 but at the port of New Orleans in chains.

Before this is dismissed as another call for reparations, continue reading for a moment. I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime. I have better odds of the Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol showing up on my front doorstep with a million dollar check than having a $175,000 reparations check (the value of 40 acres and a mule in 2007 dollars) from the feds hit my mailbox.

All I and other African-Americans are asking for is a fair shot at earning our money, living our lives and having our grievances heard without having to go through major drama to do so or being dismissively told, "get over it."

It would also help if we heard the words 'I'm sorry' from our government for its role in the slave trade.

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2007/01/ill-get-over-slavery-after-yall.html

[Cop No. 633]

That was a great article. Good find. It was very well written.

[SpoonMan999]

Again, I'm not saying it should be forgotten, just that it's bull shit to hold it against me or anyone else. If you want a formal apology from the government, even if it isn't the same people, then that's your perogative. Just don't expect me to be guilt tripped for the actions of people I've never even met or to be happy about money taken out of my pocket for something I had nothing to do with.

[MadsenOMC]

Just don't expect me to be guilt tripped for the actions of people I've never even met or to be happy about money taken out of my pocket for something I had nothing to do with.

Don't worry, we won't.

I don't think too many people are holding it against you or anyone else.

Yeah well money has been taken out of my pocket to pay for a war I detest. And so it goes.

[SpoonMan999]

Don't worry, we won't.

I don't think too many people are holding it against you or anyone else.

Yeah well money has been taken out of my pocket to pay for a war I detest. And so it goes.

No, Quentin and THC are most definately holding my views against me. But then, I could I say I love chocolate and they'd call me a facist or something.

[Elgyn]

No, Quentin and THC are most definately holding my views against me. But then, I could I say I love chocolate and they'd call me a facist or something.


FASCIST.
;)


I hate to be ignorant, but you mentioned earlier that you`re American Indian, and then talked about being called "honky" and "cracker". :confused:

[Homyrrh]

Don't worry, we won't.

I don't think too many people are holding it against you or anyone else.

Yeah well money has been taken out of my pocket to pay for a war I detest. And so it goes.
...*sigh*

[SpoonMan999]

FASCIST.
;)


I hate to be ignorant, but you mentioned earlier that you`re American Indian, and then talked about being called "honky" and "cracker". :confused:

I'm part American Indian, not 100%.

[Elgyn]

Gotcha.

[MadsenOMC]

...*sigh*

Yeah I hear ya man.

[MadsenOMC]

AMA apologizes to black doctors for racism

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

The American Medical Association on Thursday issued a formal apology for more than a century of discriminatory policies that excluded blacks from participating in a group long considered the voice of U.S. doctors.

The apology stems from initiatives at the nation's largest doctors' group to reduce racial disparities in medicine — from the paltry number of black physicians to the disproportionate burden of disease among blacks and other minorities.

"The AMA is committed to improving its relationship with minority physicians and to increasing the ranks of minority physicians so that the work force accurately represents the diversity of America's patients," Dr. Ronald Davis, the group's immediate past president, said in a statement posted on the AMA's Web site.

Davis said that "by confronting the past we can embrace the future."

The apology comes more than 40 years after AMA delegates denounced policies at state and local medical societies dating to the 1800s that barred blacks. For decades, AMA delegates resisted efforts to get them to speak out forcefully against discrimination or to condemn the smaller medical groups that historically have had a big role in shaping AMA policy.

The apology issued Thursday might seem belated, but it isn't the AMA's first for its discriminatory history. Dr. John Nelson, then AMA's president, offered a similar apology at a 2005 meeting on improving health care and eliminating disparities, sponsored by the government's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

That came a year after the AMA joined the National Medical Association, a black doctors' group, and other minority doctors' groups in forming the Commission to End Health Care Disparities.

The commission has been working on raising awareness of health disparities, including disproportionate rates of many diseases among blacks and other minorities.

The new apology is a more formal acknowledgment of the AMA's embarrassing past, and is also part of the AMA's efforts to improve an image that in recent years has lost its luster. In many circles, the AMA is seen as a stodgy trade group focused on doctors' rather than patients' best interests.

Many black physicians applauded the AMA's move.

"It is true that what the AMA did historically was awful," said Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer. "There were AMA local chapters that actually had rules against black members well into the late 1960s, and policies that made blacks not feel comfortable well into the 1980s."

Brawley, who is black, said he's never been an AMA member, but that the apology "certainly makes me much more interested in working with them."

Dr. Nelson Adams, president of the National Medical Association, said the apology is courageous and "extremely important."

AMA's discriminatory actions hurt black doctors and kept many from working and caring for patients, Adams said. That's because in many places doctors couldn't work in hospitals unless they were members of local medical societies, he said.

He said there's evidence that black patients fare better when treated by black doctors, so these policies could have contributed to poor health care for blacks.

While blacks represent roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population, less than 3 percent of the nation's 1 million doctors and medical students are black, Adams noted.

And according to 2006 data on AMA's Web site, less than 2 percent of AMA members and voting delegates are black.

"We've got a lot of work to do," Adams said.

Dr. Monica Peek, a Chicago internist and member of the AMA and National Medical Association, said the apology "creates an open and healthy dialogue for addressing these issues" that black doctors have long been aware of.

But she said AMA's actions don't lessen the need for a separate group representing black doctors.

Addressing health disparities hasn't always been a part of AMA's mission "but it's something that has never been off of NMA's radar," Peek said.

[Homyrrh]

Then rhetorically, what else is there for the AMA to do in order to confront past racism? Is a formal apology by doctors in no way responsible enough? Or not?

[MadsenOMC]

Then rhetorically, what else is there for the AMA to do in order to confront past racism? Is a formal apology by doctors in no way responsible enough? Or not?

I suppose now it's about actions and not words.

[Homyrrh]

I suppose now it's about actions and not words.
What actions? What can be done further by the AMA?

Apologies are very suitable are an irrefutable necessity, but after what's been an obvious restitution in at least the medical field, what further restitution and justice need be enacted, if any?

[MadsenOMC]

What actions? What can be done further by the AMA?

Apologies are very suitable are an irrefutable necessity, but after what's been an obvious restitution in at least the medical field, what further restitution and justice need be enacted, if any?

Are you suggesting that everything is fine and equal now, and that there is absolutely nothing else the AMA can do?

How about this:

"The AMA is committed to improving its relationship with minority physicians and to increasing the ranks of minority physicians so that the work force accurately represents the diversity of America's patients," Dr. Ronald Davis, the group's immediate past president, said in a statement posted on the AMA's Web site.

[Homyrrh]

No, twixt the reason I asked.

How about this:

Proportions

[MadsenOMC]

No, twixt the reason I asked.

How about this:

Proportions

What about proportions?

[Homyrrh]

What about proportions?
Not sure how specific you mean to be, but it seems sensible that the black medical contigent be outnumbered by their white colleagues, a direct correlation to the nation's racial populations.

I think it'd be wise enough to offer African-American med school scholarships or start physician development programs in predominantly black regions, specifically inner cities and urban centers. Beyond that, an even ratio--relative to the general population--really doesn't necessitate much else for restitution in the field (as an example).

Now for the NBA...:P

[MadsenOMC]

Not sure how specific you mean to be, but it seems sensible that the black medical contigent be outnumbered by their white colleagues, a direct correlation to the nation's racial populations.

I think it'd be wise enough to offer African-American med school scholarships or start physician development programs in predominantly black regions, specifically inner cities and urban centers. Beyond that, an even ratio--relative to the general population--really doesn't necessitate much else for restitution in the field (as an example).

Now for the NBA...:P

I see what you are saying. That's sensible. Thanks for clarifying.

I hate the NBA.

[Homyrrh]

I see what you are saying. That's sensible. Thanks for clarifying.

I hate the NBA.
Yeah, racist commissioners making injured players wear suits on the sidelines.

[MadsenOMC]

These are some horrifying photos. They also prove that slavery did not end in the 1860s. In some cases it went on until as recently as the 1940s. Some food for thought for certain people here. Remember, just because you don't see racism doesn't mean it does not exist.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145263

[QUENTIN]

Careful Madsen, I posted a few pictures of 20th century public lynchings attended by large crowds when Lynn tried to argue that we used to be a more civilized, decent society in the "good ol' days" and at least a few people here wanted my head on a pike for it.

Besides, 1940s? That was so long ago. I saw Kanye West on T.V. just the other day and he seemed to be doing all right. Get over it already!

[MadsenOMC]

Careful Madsen, I posted a few pictures of 20th century public lynchings attended by large crowds when Lynn tried to argue that we used to be a more civilized, decent society in the "good ol' days" and at least a few people here wanted my head on a pike for it.

I remember her arguing that, insisting that the 1940s and 50s were pure bliss in America. A peaceful utopia according to her.

Besides, 1940s? That was so long ago. I saw Kanye West on T.V. just the other day and he seemed to be doing all right. Get over it already!

Ha. True. Kanye and Will Smith are making a few bucks so everything is equal.

[MadsenOMC]

Taser death ignites racial tensions

Not far from Jena, La., suspicions rise of a cover-up mount

By Howard Witt | Tribune correspondent
July 19, 2008

WINNFIELD, La.

At 1:28 p.m. last Jan. 17, Baron "Scooter" Pikes was a healthy 21-year-old man. By 2:07 p.m., he was dead.

What happened in the 39 minutes in between--during which Pikes was handcuffed by local police and shocked nine times with a Taser device, while reportedly pleading for mercy--is now spawning fears of a political cover-up in this backwoods Louisiana lumber town infamous for backroom dealings.

Even more ominously, because Pikes was black and the officer who repeatedly Tasered him is white, racial tensions over the case are mounting in a place that's just 40 miles from Jena, La. Jena is the site of the racially explosive prosecution of six black teenagers charged with beating a white youth that last year triggered one of the largest American civil rights demonstrations in decades. And in a bizarre coincidence, Pikes turns out to have been a first cousin of Mychal Bell, the lead defendant in the Jena 6 case.

No novelist could have invented Winnfield, a place so steeped in corruption that they built a local museum to try to sanitize it all.

Here in the birthplace of two of Louisiana's most colorful and notorious governors--Huey and Earl Long--the police chief committed suicide three years ago after losing a close election marred by allegations of fraud and vote-buying.

Just four months later, the district attorney killed himself after allegedly skimming $200,000 from his office budget and extorting payments from criminal defendants to make their cases go away.

The current police chief is a convicted drug offender who got a pardon from Edwin Edwards, the former Louisiana governor who is serving time in federal prison for corruption convictions.

All of that tangled history is now wrapped up in the Pikes case, because Scott Nugent, the officer who Tasered him, is the well-connected son of the former police chief who killed himself--and the protégé of the current chief, who hired him onto the force.

"A lot happens in this town and it just gets swept under the rug," said Kayshon Collins, Pikes' stepmother, who has participated in several local protests over the case. "What the police did to Scooter just isn't right. They would never have Tasered a white kid like that." The official police version of what happened to Pikes on that brisk January afternoon reads like a sad but familiar story in Winnfield's local newspaper.

Nugent spotted Pikes walking along the street and attempted to arrest him on an outstanding warrant for drug possession, according to Police Chief Johnny Ray Carpenter. Pikes took off running, but another officer cornered him outside a nearby grocery store. Pikes resisted arrest and Nugent subdued him with a shock from a Taser.

Then on the way to the police station, Carpenter related to the newspaper, Pikes fell ill and told the officers he suffered from asthma and was high on crack cocaine and PCP. The officers called for an ambulance, but Pikes later died at the hospital.

Six months later, the Winnfield police are standing by that story. Meanwhile, the Louisiana State Police are investigating the case, and no charges have been filed against Nugent or two other Winnfield police officers who assisted him in arresting Pikes, although the City Council did decide to fire Nugent from the force in May.

Winn Parish District Atty. Chris Nevils says he expects to present the case to a grand jury after he receives the results of the state police investigation.

But there is already abundant evidence contradicting the official police version of the incident.

An autopsy determined there were no drugs in Pikes' system and that he did not have asthma, according to Dr. Randolph Williams, the Winn Parish coroner.

Moreover, Pikes did not resist arrest, and he was handcuffed while lying on the ground, according to Nugent's police report of the incident. It was only after Pikes refused Nugent's command to stand up that the officer applied the first Taser shock in the middle of his back, Nugent wrote.

Several more Taser shocks followed quickly, Nugent stated, because Pikes kept falling down and refusing to get back up. Grocery shoppers who witnessed the incident later told Pikes' family that he had pleaded with Nugent: "Please, you all got me. Please don't Tase me again."

Williams said police records showed Nugent administered nine Taser shocks to Pikes over a 14-minute period. The last two jolts, delivered as police pulled Pikes from a patrol car at the police station, elicited no physical reaction because the suspect was unconscious, Williams said.

Only after Pikes was carried into the police station and slumped into a chair did police call for an ambulance. He was pronounced dead soon afterward at the local hospital.

After consulting about the case with Dr. Michael Baden, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, Williams ruled last month that Pikes' death was a homicide. On the death certificate, he listed the cause of death as "cardiac arrest following nine 50,000-volt electroshock applications from a conductive electrical weapon."

Baden said the case "could be considered to be torture."

"God did not just call this young man home," said Williams, who has served as parish coroner for the past 33 years. "Fourteen minutes elapsed between the first shock and the last. If somebody can tell me anything else that killed this otherwise perfectly healthy young man in 14 minutes, I'd like to know it."

Williams is no stranger to controversy in Winnfield. Back in 2004, his garage was firebombed--he suspects the attack was ordered by the former district attorney--and he says he's been shot at 19 times by people upset with the independence of his investigations. He wears a gun holstered at his waist even while sitting safely at his desk.

"This case may be the most unnecessary death I have ever had to investigate," Williams said. "[Pikes] put up no fuss, no fighting, no physical aggression. The Taser was not used to take him into custody. He just didn't respond quickly enough to the officer's commands."

Nugent, 21, declined to be interviewed for this story. But his attorney, Phillip Terrell, said that Nugent "acted within the ambit of his training and Winnfield Police Department policies"--an opinion seconded by police spokesman Lt. Charles Curry.

Yet the official Winnfield Police Department Taser policy appears to prohibit the weapon's use against a nonviolent suspect who has already been handcuffed.

"The Taser shall only be deployed in circumstances where it is deemed reasonably necessary to control a dangerous or violent subject," the policy states. It also requires that a suspect who has been Tasered should immediately be checked out at a hospital, which did not happen in Pikes' case.

What's more, safety guidelines issued by Taser International Inc., the manufacturer of the device that is now used by more than 12,700 law enforcement and military agencies worldwide, warn officers to "minimize repeated, continuous, and/or simultaneous exposures."

Company officials, citing dozens of medical studies, insist Tasers are safe when used properly. But few of those studies examined the effect of multiple Taser applications over a short period of time. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a study released in June, concluded that "the medical risks of repeated or continuous [Taser] exposure are unknown."

In less than two years on Winnfield's 20-officer police force, police records show, Nugent ranked as the department's most aggressive Taser user. Among the recipients were a 15-year-old African-American runaway who was not charged with any crime and Pikes' father, currently serving a prison sentence for a drug offense, who was Tasered by Nugent last year, according to Kayshon Collins.

Joe Heard said his 15-year-old son was Tasered twice by Nugent last August, after Heard reported the youth as a runaway and asked the police to help find him.

"He snuck out of the house to be with a girl," Heard said. "I asked the police to bring him home, and they did, but in pieces--he was all scraped up and bruised. They told me the next time he runs, 'You know we're going to shoot him.'

[MadsenOMC]

Study sees racial bias in traffic-stop searches

By Monique Garcia and Ray Long

Chicago Tribune reporters

Civil rights groups called Thursday for ending the state police practice of searching vehicles during routine traffic stops, citing new statistics that show black and Hispanic motorists are searched more often even though drugs or other illegal items turn up more frequently among white drivers.

In a letter to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the groups said the state-funded research shows that minorities are unfairly singled out by police departments around the state. They called on him to order the Illinois State Police to end "consent searches," in which drivers agree to open their cars for inspection.

"Now we have the proof in the pudding and that is that not only are [these searches] occurring with greater frequency among minority drivers, but that they are occurring with dramatically less effectiveness," said Harvey Grossman, legal director for the ACLU of Illinois.

Although similar reports have for the last several years revealed that minorities are stopped and searched at higher rates than whites, last year was the first time police agencies were required to disclose their "hit rate," or how often the searches turn up drugs, weapons, stolen goods or other "contraband."

The Democratic governor said in a statement that he opposed "any unjustified differential treatment of any group," but did not address the request to stop the searches. "I look forward to working with the coalition to further our shared goals," Blagojevich said.

The state police called the proposed ban a "drastic step" and said it was premature given that the latest numbers are part of a yearslong study into potential discrimination that won't end until 2010.

"Biased-based policing is unacceptable and will not be practiced or tolerated by the ISP," Director Larry Trent said in a statement.

The study, required under racial-profiling legislation sponsored by then state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago, is being conducted by the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety based on numbers reported to the state by police agencies around Illinois.

The 2007 statewide data show that compared with whites, police agencies searched blacks three times more often and Hispanics more than twice as often. But police discovered illicit goods roughly twice as often when whites agreed to searches.

The civil rights groups singled out the numbers for the state police, which showed troopers searched minorities three times as often as whites. But troopers found contraband in the vehicles of white motorists almost twice as often as they did in the vehicles of blacks and eight times more often than the vehicles of Hispanics.

"Officers are more trusting of whites than they are of blacks, and they are particularly suspicious of Hispanics," Grossman said of state police. "It's clear from the data that officers require less certainty when they ask Latinos to be searched than they do whites, there are more stringent standards for whites."

The report also contradicted a 2005 state-sponsored study that found minority drivers are more likely to agree to voluntary searches than whites—one possible explanation for why they are more often searched.

Agencies were also required for the first time in 2007 to track how often motorists refuse consent searches. The refusal rates were almost equal among whites and minorities, with whites agreeing to searches 91 percent of the time; and blacks and Hispanics agreeing to 90 percent of requests.

The actual number of consent searches conducted was small—less than 1 percent, or slightly more than 23,000, of the more than 2.4 million traffic stops conducted in the state last year. Just more than 18 percent of the searches found contraband.

Other groups joining in the letter to Blagojevich with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois included Rainbow/PUSH, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Illinois conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

State lawmakers, including several with law enforcement backgrounds, were quick to defend consent searches.

Rep. Edward Acevedo (D-Chicago), on leave from the Chicago Police Department, said the consent searches "should still be allowed."

"Sometimes you have to perform a search when there is immediate danger," Acevedo said.

Sen. John Millner (R- Carol Stream), a former Elmhurst police chief and officer for 31 years, said it's important for officers to have discretion and gave the example of an officer noticing a person was unusually nervous during a stop. He maintained state police are "absolutely not" making stops or conducting searches based on race.

"Color or ethnicity means nothing," Millner said.

Sen. Dale Righter (R-Charleston), a former prosecutor who has handled cases in which defendants were involved in consent searches, said he would oppose stopping the procedure until law enforcement had a chance to independently review the data.

"Just to take the ACLU's conclusions and order a stop of investigations based on that, I think would be a mistake," Righter said.

In 2006, a 15-member Racial Profiling Prevention and Data Oversight Board was created and scheduled to begin meeting this year, but only three members—representing the attorney general's office and the leaders of the House and Senate—have been appointed.

Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), one of the appointees, said he hopes the board will be filled and begin meeting soon, and added that he wanted to study the year-to-year breakdown of the numbers before he embraced the call by civil rights groups to end consent searches.

Raoul said he would not want to stifle a cop's ability to sense when "something's going on."

But, Raoul said, "you don't want these hunches to develop because of the color of people's skin. So there's a balancing act that must be done."

[AshleysDad]

If you think Obama`s race won`t be a factor, then you`re living in Fantasy Land.
It`s sad, but true.
I have literally heard people say "I ain`t votin` for no nigger".

WOW! Sad, but that will be the attitude of a lot of people. I am not sure how far back this goes, but the south determines who will be the President. Election after election in at least my lifetime if you do not win the south, you do not get to be President. I can't see Obama winning the south.

[Homyrrh]

Racial profiling? This is one of the most annoying and ludicrously beleaguered issues in the history of whiny issues.

Certain demographics commit more crimes than others. In fact, it's pure statistics. Look at the fucking prisons. There are vastly more whites in this country than any other single minority. Yet who populates the federal and state prison systems more...quantitaviely even! (as opposed to statistically). One in three inmates in CA's penitentiaries are black...33% of America is not black and the other 2/3 is definitely not white, nor is probably even one third. As the have all been found guilty of felonies, why does a demographic that comprises maybe 1/5 of a state comprise 1/3 of it, when another, maybe 1/2 of the state population likely comprise -at the very most--1/3 of it.

So, transcending racial and demoographic whining, certain ethnic groups coincidentally commit more crimes in the US than others. Even in the msot extreme of enforcement circumstances, it would make infinite sense to be more suspicious of certain minority drivers than others. Hell, teenagers are pulled over more than adult drivers simply because cops have a justified intuition that they're more likely going to be doing something dumb...

And no, as a police chief, I would never be this honest and realistic.

[Cop No. 633]

Study sees racial bias in traffic-stop searches

By Monique Garcia and Ray Long

Chicago Tribune reporters

Civil rights groups called Thursday for ending the state police practice of searching vehicles during routine traffic stops, citing new statistics that show black and Hispanic motorists are searched more often even though drugs or other illegal items turn up more frequently among white drivers.

It's very sad, but true Madsen. Every time I see a cop stopping a citizen in LA, 9 times out of 10, it will be a Hispanic or black person. Usually, they will have short cropped hair or a shaved head (which they automatically assume means gangster even though lots of balding males shave their heads). I always make it a point to notice who the cops are stopping because it's frustrating to alway see the same shit happening. Once, I saw 14 cop cars (close to 28 cops...), yes 14 of them stop one car in a liquor store that had 3 black guys. It was nuts. It was only about 10 minutes away from my house. Everybody encircled the car with guns. I wasn't sure what to do... maybe they were big time players of some kind, but low and behold, I never heard one word about that bust on any sort of news. Nothing. So I'm willing to bet it was nothing more than a bunch of cops with nothing better to do than to assault one car with 3 people. What a fucking waste of our tax dollars.

[QUENTIN]

Racial profiling? This is one of the most annoying and ludicrously beleaguered issues in the history of whiny issues.

Certain demographics commit more crimes than others. In fact, it's pure statistics. Look at the fucking prisons. There are vastly more whites in this country than any other single minority. Yet who populates the federal and state prison systems more...quantitaviely even! (as opposed to statistically). One in three inmates in CA's penitentiaries are black...33% of America is not black and the other 2/3 is definitely not white, nor is probably even one third. As the have all been found guilty of felonies, why does a demographic that comprises maybe 1/5 of a state comprise 1/3 of it, when another, maybe 1/2 of the state population likely comprise -at the very most--1/3 of it.

So, transcending racial and demoographic whining, certain ethnic groups coincidentally commit more crimes in the US than others. Even in the msot extreme of enforcement circumstances, it would make infinite sense to be more suspicious of certain minority drivers than others. Hell, teenagers are pulled over more than adult drivers simply because cops have a justified intuition that they're more likely going to be doing something dumb...

And no, as a police chief, I would never be this honest and realistic.

That's skewing the results and working backwards towards a conclusion, Hom. Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime? It's commonly accepted, but our basis for it is who ends up in prison, and that's not the same thing. Black and hispanic people are stopped, searched, interrogated, and more closely watched by the authorities than their white counterparts. Subsequently, more of them are caught committing crimes and prosecuted for them. But did they commit more crime, or are their crimes just spotted more because they're already targeted?

If 75% of the time cops pulled over white people they searched their cars and persons looking for drugs, weapons, or any other violations there would be a hell of a lot more white people in jail. Add to that the fact that police and prosecutors have a whole lot of discretion about what to do in the event that they catch someone breaking the law. I have been found with drugs on my person or in my car three times by the police (and much more often than that, if they had considered me suspicious enough to search, they would have found some), not once was I arrested or so much as ticketed. One of the times, the cops didn't even confiscate my fucking stash. I'm a pretty clean cut looking, polite and well-spoken middle class white dude. The cops likely see my crime of possession as minor, "kids will be kids" shit and let me go with a half-hearted verbal warning. But if all you do is change my socio-economic status, or especially my race (and the two are often intertwined), the cops are far more likely to arrest me and add to the statistic that gets misread as me committing more crimes. The discretionary application of the law is even more pronounced in the district attorneys office, where decisions are made about prioritization and equal emphasis is put on the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of winning the case. Someone who already fits most juries MO of what a criminal looks like that got caught red-handed with an illegal substance and will be assigned a shitty public defender is an easy win, so they're gonna prosecute and look for some jail time to appear they're curbing crime. A white, white collar guy with a family who had a little blow on him but can afford a good lawyer, he's just more likely to be slapped with a fine or tasked with community service. Overcrowded prisons have led tons of prosecutor's offices to work around mandatory minimum sentencing requirements on cases they deem low priority. The discrepancy between who gets a lawyer that will actually defend them really can't be overstated as key to that eventual demographic make up of who winds up locked up.

And yes, racism is a key part of it, but I think an even bigger part is laziness. No different really than the press's laziness in coverage, they know how to present the same familiar narrative, it's been established and gets enough results, so why rock the boat and exert more energy to be more vigilant and accurate? Disproportionately targeting, surveilling, and often harassing minorities has just gotten passed down from one generation of cop to the next as the way things are done. Drug possession is an easy to check crime too that doesn't require much diligence. A corporate criminal is unlikely to carry a slip of paper in his pocket that details his tax evasion, embezzlement, or money laundering ripe for the picking when he's pulled over. Think about what results in more minorities in jail and it is a whole hell of a lot more than just "they commit more crime."

All that's not to say there isn't likely some broad, general correlation between or increased likelihood of criminal behavior among minorities as compared whites, young people compared to old, etc (to what extent, we really have no idea). But that's because more of them are poor. Ultimately that's who is more likely to commit crime, not races but classes. And the way to curb that is not to more heavily patrol all of the poor, regardless of race, but to work to eliminate poverty. Continually targeting young black and hispanic guys for harassment is just continuing the cycle that seems to justify itself, at the most surface level, when more of them wind up in jail and leads to people feeling comfortable dismissing racial profiling as unfounded whining.

[Cop No. 633]

Great post Quentin. And Hom, you really need to grow up... seriously. Either read more books like Howard Zinn's A People History of the United States, which is a good start, or move to a more diverse area. You base all your opinions on statistics or off of other people's opinions on a subject, thus giving yourself very little to form a well rounded opinion. If you've never been on the receiving end of racial profiling by the police, you really don't know how the system works first hand. Quentin here just admitted to getting special treatment. That's more than most people would care to admit. Hell, I've gotten special treatment by the police when I've hung around with my friends who had dark skin as opposed to mine. Should I feel "lucky" to have gotten a break probably because the cops assumed I was a white kid hanging out with a group of "hoodlums?"

My problem is that you act like you've been around the block more than anybody but you're clearly much younger than you want to let on. I'm not even basing this on your age, but rather your experience in the world. It's very limited and I'm saddened you feel like you have complete knowledge of how things work here in the U.S.

[Bourne101]

Here is an interesting article. It took place a few hours away from where I live. I know the two black guys involved. Both are pretty good guys as well.

http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-230029-Tasering-followed-racial-slurs-charges-Fells.html

[Cop No. 633]

That's fucking terrible. I'm not surprised though. I've met my share of off duty cops at bbq's and get togethers to realize they thrive on a fascist mentality. They always crack the worst jokes. It's pathetic and sad. No wonder a lot of cops are recruited straight out of high school and usually are the morons who never attempted college or could find a decent enough job due to their lack of brains.

[jolanar]

That's fucking terrible. I'm not surprised though. I've met my share of off duty cops at bbq's and get togethers to realize they thrive on a fascist mentality. They always crack the worst jokes. It's pathetic and sad. No wonder a lot of cops are recruited straight out of high school and usually are the morons who never attempted college or could find a decent enough job due to their lack of brains.

I think you would be shocked to learn how many cops have college degrees in criminal justice.

[Cop No. 633]

Yeah, I've met my share of idiots with college degrees. A piece of paper doesn't mean squat. If they did go to college, their line of thinking makes it even more pathetic in my eyes.

[MadsenOMC]

I think you would be shocked to learn how many cops have college degrees in criminal justice.

Not in Milwaukee, where I lived for ten years (I don't know about Chicago). They were recruiting them straight out of high school, putting them in some short-term training program before they were full-fledged cops. They also weren't doing psychological profiles of recruits. I'm sure a lot of cops have criminal justice degrees though.

[MadsenOMC]

Racial profiling? This is one of the most annoying and ludicrously beleaguered issues in the history of whiny issues.

Certain demographics commit more crimes than others. In fact, it's pure statistics. Look at the fucking prisons. There are vastly more whites in this country than any other single minority. Yet who populates the federal and state prison systems more...quantitaviely even! (as opposed to statistically). One in three inmates in CA's penitentiaries are black...33% of America is not black and the other 2/3 is definitely not white, nor is probably even one third. As the have all been found guilty of felonies, why does a demographic that comprises maybe 1/5 of a state comprise 1/3 of it, when another, maybe 1/2 of the state population likely comprise -at the very most--1/3 of it.

So, transcending racial and demoographic whining, certain ethnic groups coincidentally commit more crimes in the US than others. Even in the msot extreme of enforcement circumstances, it would make infinite sense to be more suspicious of certain minority drivers than others. Hell, teenagers are pulled over more than adult drivers simply because cops have a justified intuition that they're more likely going to be doing something dumb...

And no, as a police chief, I would never be this honest and realistic.

Spoken like a white teenager who has no idea what they are talking about.

[QUENTIN]

To be fair, while we totally disagree and I think he's not critically thinking or informed about this subject, Homyrrh and I are about the same age and I'm also white. He's old enough to post here, so I don't think his age should be held against him or be the subject of an argument with him.

As for cops being dumb dicks, there are certainly a lot of them, but it's also painting with a pretty broad stroke to condemn the whole lot that way. I've encountered about as many total assholes in blue as I have decent guys who were probably cool enough off-duty. I got a pretty striking reminder of that last time I was arrested (for peacably protesting in a place we had a permit to be), when the pig who cuffed me thought it necessary to pepper spray me, sweep me to the ground, keep his knee on my neck, and elbow/punch/club me several times despite the fact that I wasn't resisting. Then he passed me off to another cop who asked where I was from and mentioned that his daughter-in-law was from my hometown, we had a pretty nice chat under the circumstances about her high school's new football stadium and how the town's changed in the past few years while he marched me up the Capitol. In jail, there were about as many cops treating us like scum and denying us the use of a bathroom or our phone call as there were giving us bottled water, telling us they agreed with us and would have been out there marching if they could. They come in all stripes and like any other profession, there's gonna be a lot of good and bad, the power that comes with the job just seems to turn the dicks into ego-tripping superdicks who get more attention.

[electriclite]

Racial profiling? This is one of the most annoying and ludicrously beleaguered issues in the history of whiny issues.

Certain demographics commit more crimes than others. In fact, it's pure statistics. Look at the fucking prisons. There are vastly more whites in this country than any other single minority. Yet who populates the federal and state prison systems more...quantitaviely even! (as opposed to statistically). One in three inmates in CA's penitentiaries are black...33% of America is not black and the other 2/3 is definitely not white, nor is probably even one third. As the have all been found guilty of felonies, why does a demographic that comprises maybe 1/5 of a state comprise 1/3 of it, when another, maybe 1/2 of the state population likely comprise -at the very most--1/3 of it.

So, transcending racial and demoographic whining, certain ethnic groups coincidentally commit more crimes in the US than others. Even in the msot extreme of enforcement circumstances, it would make infinite sense to be more suspicious of certain minority drivers than others. Hell, teenagers are pulled over more than adult drivers simply because cops have a justified intuition that they're more likely going to be doing something dumb...

And no, as a police chief, I would never be this honest and realistic.
Or they just get charged more easily.


I mean if a cop goes by your statistics then he'll say "Well blacks commit more crimes, I'll pay more attention when I see them around than white people." Which means he'll probably see more things blacks are doing wrong meantime his white counterpart gets away with whatever he's doing. Do you wonder what it does to an individual, or a culture, when you're a law abiding citizen and you're looked at in the same manner as an inmate in the federal pen everytime a cop passes you by? How much of that becomes its own self-fufiling prophecy?

And of course its not just blacks. If you're visibly hispanic and driving, prepare for the old stink-eye or harassment from the cops as well. EVEN if you're doing nothing, as my brother and friends can attest to. In Florida they have a law that says if they catch you with illegal subtances in your car, all persons in said vehicle will be charged together, no matter the amount.

Guess who's going to end up charged more with that law?

And Quentin is right. Money counts in this as well. If you're black and can hire a lawyer you've probably got a better shot then the black guy with a public defender. Jeb Bush's daughter got caught with an illegal prescription for Xanax. She's not white, she's half white and half-hispanic, but since she's a Bush, the money factor deems that this isn't a legal issue, its a "health" issue. But if she were just some spic from Hialeah, well then its a legal issue.

Also from personal experience there is more help available to folks who can afford it, to stem the anti-social behavior in wayward youth, than for the folks who can't afford it but seriously need it. Just look at the best programs to treat and manage problem teenagers and they'll cost in the thousands of dollars. Never mind the fact that as Quentin mentioned, its those in poverty who need that level of program.

The only programs that are for the poor are underfunded federal ones, or the well-funded federal penitentiary system.

[Cop No. 633]

To be fair, while we totally disagree and I think he's not critically thinking or informed about this subject, Homyrrh and I are about the same age and I'm also white. He's old enough to post here, so I don't think his age should be held against him or be the subject of an argument with him.

I should clarify what I meant. I am a young man myself, but I educated myself beyond the means of the mainstream news, right wing propaganda and generalities that aren't true. Even still, I don't speak to people in a condescending manner unless they're asking for it and don't show the same respect towards others. Hom have proven time and again that he isn't mature enough to do the same. He constantly talks down to people on the board who are older and actually have acquired an understanding of world politics. He usually bases his findings on short sighted "facts" or just plain hunches that he knows are right. And yet he still goes on in a condescending manner because he has no other way to prove his point. This last post has been his most "fact" checked post and it still didn't cover the realities that many cops are racist and profile. He probably never has met anybody who has been racially profiled and he just flat out denies its true.

If that doesn't sound like a young man who needs to learn more about the ways of the world, then I don't know what does.

[Homyrrh]

That's skewing the results and working backwards towards a conclusion, Hom. Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime? It's commonly accepted, but our basis for it is who ends up in prison, and that's not the same thing. Black and hispanic people are stopped, searched, interrogated, and more closely watched by the authorities than their white counterparts. Subsequently, more of them are caught committing crimes and prosecuted for them. But did they commit more crime, or are their crimes just spotted more because they're already targeted?

If 75% of the time cops pulled over white people they searched their cars and persons looking for drugs, weapons, or any other violations there would be a hell of a lot more white people in jail. Add to that the fact that police and prosecutors have a whole lot of discretion about what to do in the event that they catch someone breaking the law. I have been found with drugs on my person or in my car three times by the police (and much more often than that, if they had considered me suspicious enough to search, they would have found some), not once was I arrested or so much as ticketed. One of the times, the cops didn't even confiscate my fucking stash. I'm a pretty clean cut looking, polite and well-spoken middle class white dude. The cops likely see my crime of possession as minor, "kids will be kids" shit and let me go with a half-hearted verbal warning. But if all you do is change my socio-economic status, or especially my race (and the two are often intertwined), the cops are far more likely to arrest me and add to the statistic that gets misread as me committing more crimes. The discretionary application of the law is even more pronounced in the district attorneys office, where decisions are made about prioritization and equal emphasis is put on the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of winning the case. Someone who already fits most juries MO of what a criminal looks like that got caught red-handed with an illegal substance and will be assigned a shitty public defender is an easy win, so they're gonna prosecute and look for some jail time to appear they're curbing crime. A white, white collar guy with a family who had a little blow on him but can afford a good lawyer, he's just more likely to be slapped with a fine or tasked with community service. Overcrowded prisons have led tons of prosecutor's offices to work around mandatory minimum sentencing requirements on cases they deem low priority. The discrepancy between who gets a lawyer that will actually defend them really can't be overstated as key to that eventual demographic make up of who winds up locked up.

And yes, racism is a key part of it, but I think an even bigger part is laziness. No different really than the press's laziness in coverage, they know how to present the same familiar narrative, it's been established and gets enough results, so why rock the boat and exert more energy to be more vigilant and accurate? Disproportionately targeting, surveilling, and often harassing minorities has just gotten passed down from one generation of cop to the next as the way things are done. Drug possession is an easy to check crime too that doesn't require much diligence. A corporate criminal is unlikely to carry a slip of paper in his pocket that details his tax evasion, embezzlement, or money laundering ripe for the picking when he's pulled over. Think about what results in more minorities in jail and it is a whole hell of a lot more than just "they commit more crime."

All that's not to say there isn't likely some broad, general correlation between or increased likelihood of criminal behavior among minorities as compared whites, young people compared to old, etc (to what extent, we really have no idea). But that's because more of them are poor. Ultimately that's who is more likely to commit crime, not races but classes. And the way to curb that is not to more heavily patrol all of the poor, regardless of race, but to work to eliminate poverty. Continually targeting young black and hispanic guys for harassment is just continuing the cycle that seems to justify itself, at the most surface level, when more of them wind up in jail and leads to people feeling comfortable dismissing racial profiling as unfounded whining.
This is the fundamental flaw in my argument...admittedly it is sort of "working backwards". While I observe and understand and even recognize that profiling exists and, on the whole, is a vast injustice to certain demographics of this nation, the fact that some minorities--namely blacks and/or Hispanics--commit (as per formal conviction) a vastly disproportionate number of crimes. I cannot and will not condone any form of harassment, but in certain areas where, for example, gang activity is nearly exclusive to minorities, cops have reason (not right) to be cautiously suspicious beyond complete objectiveness. If I did not word this correctly, I apologize, but I hope the point is understood.
Great post Quentin. And Hom, you really need to grow up... seriously. Either read more books like Howard Zinn's A People History of the United States, which is a good start, or move to a more diverse area. You base all your opinions on statistics or off of other people's opinions on a subject, thus giving yourself very little to form a well rounded opinion. If you've never been on the receiving end of racial profiling by the police, you really don't know how the system works first hand. Quentin here just admitted to getting special treatment. That's more than most people would care to admit. Hell, I've gotten special treatment by the police when I've hung around with my friends who had dark skin as opposed to mine. Should I feel "lucky" to have gotten a break probably because the cops assumed I was a white kid hanging out with a group of "hoodlums?"

My problem is that you act like you've been around the block more than anybody but you're clearly much younger than you want to let on. I'm not even basing this on your age, but rather your experience in the world. It's very limited and I'm saddened you feel like you have complete knowledge of how things work here in the U.S.
See below.
Spoken like a white teenager who has no idea what they are talking about.
Hm. Forget why I entertained this. In full frankness and hoensty, Madsen, at least others, and this isn't the first time, posted a justification for any issue with elements of my person that transcend political debate. See below.

THen again...a case study in racial profiling, stereotyping and unfounded assumption in itself ;)
To be fair, while we totally disagree and I think he's not critically thinking or informed about this subject, Homyrrh and I are about the same age and I'm also white. He's old enough to post here, so I don't think his age should be held against him or be the subject of an argument with him.

As for cops being dumb dicks, there are certainly a lot of them, but it's also painting with a pretty broad stroke to condemn the whole lot that way. I've encountered about as many total assholes in blue as I have decent guys who were probably cool enough off-duty. I got a pretty striking reminder of that last time I was arrested (for peacably protesting in a place we had a permit to be), when the pig who cuffed me thought it necessary to pepper spray me, sweep me to the ground, keep his knee on my neck, and elbow/punch/club me several times despite the fact that I wasn't resisting. Then he passed me off to another cop who asked where I was from and mentioned that his daughter-in-law was from my hometown, we had a pretty nice chat under the circumstances about her high school's new football stadium and how the town's changed in the past few years while he marched me up the Capitol. In jail, there were about as many cops treating us like scum and denying us the use of a bathroom or our phone call as there were giving us bottled water, telling us they agreed with us and would have been out there marching if they could. They come in all stripes and like any other profession, there's gonna be a lot of good and bad, the power that comes with the job just seems to turn the dicks into ego-tripping superdicks who get more attention.
I believe in meritocracy. As exemplified immediately above your post, not to do so is a blatant show of insecurity with one's self and argument.
Or they just get charged more easily.


I mean if a cop goes by your statistics then he'll say "Well blacks commit more crimes, I'll pay more attention when I see them around than white people." Which means he'll probably see more things blacks are doing wrong meantime his white counterpart gets away with whatever he's doing. Do you wonder what it does to an individual, or a culture, when you're a law abiding citizen and you're looked at in the same manner as an inmate in the federal pen everytime a cop passes you by? How much of that becomes its own self-fufiling prophecy?

And of course its not just blacks. If you're visibly hispanic and driving, prepare for the old stink-eye or harassment from the cops as well. EVEN if you're doing nothing, as my brother and friends can attest to. In Florida they have a law that says if they catch you with illegal subtances in your car, all persons in said vehicle will be charged together, no matter the amount.

Guess who's going to end up charged more with that law?

And Quentin is right. Money counts in this as well. If you're black and can hire a lawyer you've probably got a better shot then the black guy with a public defender. Jeb Bush's daughter got caught with an illegal prescription for Xanax. She's not white, she's half white and half-hispanic, but since she's a Bush, the money factor deems that this isn't a legal issue, its a "health" issue. But if she were just some spic from Hialeah, well then its a legal issue.

Also from personal experience there is more help available to folks who can afford it, to stem the anti-social behavior in wayward youth, than for the folks who can't afford it but seriously need it. Just look at the best programs to treat and manage problem teenagers and they'll cost in the thousands of dollars. Never mind the fact that as Quentin mentioned, its those in poverty who need that level of program.

The only programs that are for the poor are underfunded federal ones, or the well-funded federal penitentiary system.
I think the beginning of your post was weak, but otherwise, you're right about money and surnames.
I should clarify what I meant. I am a young man myself, but I educated myself beyond the means of the mainstream news, right wing propaganda and generalities that aren't true. Even still, I don't speak to people in a condescending manner unless they're asking for it and don't show the same respect towards others. Hom have proven time and again that he isn't mature enough to do the same. He constantly talks down to people on the board who are older and actually have acquired an understanding of world politics. He usually bases his findings on short sighted "facts" or just plain hunches that he knows are right. And yet he still goes on in a condescending manner because he has no other way to prove his point. This last post has been his most "fact" checked post and it still didn't cover the realities that many cops are racist and profile. He probably never has met anybody who has been racially profiled and he just flat out denies its true.

If that doesn't sound like a young man who needs to learn more about the ways of the world, then I don't know what does.

You intial post was understanbable, but I take many elements of this post as personal insult. To establish that you are in a place politically or intellectually superior to my own because you don't adhere to right-wing "propaganda" is at least as condescending as how you've convicted me. I can realize you feel your cause may be superior, etc., but their is a VERY apparent and unfortuante irony in this post, one that perturbs me because it initiates a circle of condemnation. I've made no effort toward condecension, and consequently do not apologize, especially since this is a simple message board, but will be more aware of it.

Simply, my general view is that racial profiling is an unfortunate occurence, but isn't the complete travesty that it is made to be. You obviously don't see eye-to-eye. Not only is it insulting that I am called arogant, but to say you have some real-world experience
I do not is fairly presumptuout and entirely unfounded...because this is a message board, again, I have no inclination as to what experience--good or bad--you may have had, and on the flip, there are sure to be things you won't know about me.

Ultimately, I understand a frustration with not being able to see eye-to-eye with me, but I see your conviction of condescension as unfounded, your ageism as ironic, and your condemnation of my inexperience as entirely presumptuous.

[Cop No. 633]

You intial post was understanbable, but I take many elements of this post as personal insult. To establish that you are in a place politically or intellectually superior to my own because you don't adhere to right-wing "propaganda" is at least as condescending as how you've convicted me. I can realize you feel your cause may be superior, etc., but their is a VERY apparent and unfortuante irony in this post, one that perturbs me because it initiates a circle of condemnation. I've made no effort toward condecension, and consequently do not apologize, especially since this is a simple message board, but will be more aware of it.

Simply, my general view is that racial profiling is an unfortunate occurence, but isn't the complete travesty that it is made to be. You obviously don't see eye-to-eye. Not only is it insulting that I am called arogant, but to say you have some real-world experience
I do not is fairly presumptuout and entirely unfounded...because this is a message board, again, I have no inclination as to what experience--good or bad--you may have had, and on the flip, there are sure to be things you won't know about me.

Ultimately, I understand a frustration with not being able to see eye-to-eye with me, but I see your conviction of condescension as unfounded, your ageism as ironic, and your condemnation of my inexperience as entirely presumptuous.

There is no irony in my post for I even said I never speak in a condescending manner unless provoked and you have done your fair share of prodding time and again, so sorry if you feel I jumped the gun, but your attitude isn't limited to only this thread.

It's not only a frustration of seeing eye-to-eye, it's a frustration of not doing your own thorough research. You can't have an opinion on racial profiling unless you've talked to people on the receiving end or unless you yourself have been placed in that situation. Otherwise, all you know is statistics and figures and you take the moral high ground by saying it's just a bunch of whiners complaining about something that isn't there.

The fact that you see it as an inconvenient occurrence and not a travesty show how much experience you've had with the subject, thus to me, invalidates your opinion. Police officers are there to uphold the law, but more often than not, I see them break the law they're supposedly upholding. This is from first hand experience and not based on statistics about dirty cops or what not. Issues like these can't simply be taken at the face value of graphs or charts. This is a very personal issue for the people involved and to base it solely on demographics is an insult.

Again, it's not about ageism, it's about life experience and how it shows in a person's thought process and opinion. I've met people going on 40 who have a severely limited point of view of the world. It's about experience, not how old you are. Some people can live a lifetime of a sheltered life compared to somebody who had to grow up by the time they were fourteen.

[The Postmaster General]

LOL: reverse engineering as a debate technique.

What pisses me off is I've been gamblin' for 52 years and ain't once I ever seen no race card.

[Homyrrh]

There is no irony in my post for I even said I never speak in a condescending manner unless provoked and you have done your fair share of prodding time and again, so sorry if you feel I jumped the gun, but your attitude isn't limited to only this thread.

It's not only a frustration of seeing eye-to-eye, it's a frustration of not doing your own thorough research. You can't have an opinion on racial profiling unless you've talked to people on the receiving end or unless you yourself have been placed in that situation. Otherwise, all you know is statistics and figures and you take the moral high ground by saying it's just a bunch of whiners complaining about something that isn't there.

The fact that you see it as an inconvenient occurrence and not a travesty show how much experience you've had with the subject, thus to me, invalidates your opinion. Police officers are there to uphold the law, but more often than not, I see them break the law they're supposedly upholding. This is from first hand experience and not based on statistics about dirty cops or what not. Issues like these can't simply be taken at the face value of graphs or charts. This is a very personal issue for the people involved and to base it solely on demographics is an insult.

Again, it's not about ageism, it's about life experience and how it shows in a person's thought process and opinion. I've met people going on 40 who have a severely limited point of view of the world. It's about experience, not how old you are. Some people can live a lifetime of a sheltered life compared to somebody who had to grow up by the time they were fourteen.
I think you missed my point about "irony". You admitted to being young, but qualified yourself with:

I am a young man myself, but I educated myself beyond the means of the mainstream news, right wing propaganda and generalities that aren't true.

THis is great that you enjoy furthering your grasp of American politics, an endeavor few young people do. I agree with you about life experience, entirely actually, and because of this, I'm calling you out on on your condemnation of my qualifications. MY point is that you have no place, as a white male in my age group, to condemn me because of my age without having any knowledge--even a single inkling--as to my "life experience". To then establish yourself with a level of credibiltiy with the above quote I pulled is a bit self-fulfilling and, actually, definitively condescending.

Also by this logic, I cannot condone or condemn any remark you've made based on either age or experience. Admittedly, I have never paid a mortgage; consequently, I really don't post much at all about our mortgage crisis. However, as an American citizen, I vote and thus both look to encourage others to my positions and, just as much, pursue knowledge of both how to promote my views as well as what the opposing view is. Knowledge is power and it pays to know, right? I think you understand my field of thinking now.

As for racial profiling, I definitely read Quentin's anecdote about being pulled over for drugs. There's probably some discrepancy in his race and the outcome of this incident. Problem? Well, hypothetically at least, neither he nore any other regular here is really of another race. I've been pulled over all of two times ever. Should've been seven points between them for a total of 32 mph over the limit (in NJ, you get a suspension at 6). Had a foglight out on the first one, got away with a $54, no-point citation. The second time, at 13 over, resulted in only a written warning.

I'm white, just like the two officers that pulled me over. Why a high school/college aged kid wasn't given a ticket is beyond me--both the towns I got pulled over in are notorious for their...profiling...of younger drivers. I was very casually and indistinctly dressed, and had a very inferior demeanor.

So after all that pointless babble...I don't have the experience a black man has had driving a car. Nor will I ever. But, surprisingly, I read. A lot. Like this article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2002/08/06/life_of_reilly/). And I still feel this issue, while unfortunate has become oversensitized.

[Homyrrh]

LOL: reverse engineering as a debate technique.

What pisses me off is I've been gamblin' for 52 years and ain't once I ever seen no race card.
Efficiency. Kind of the description of the trade ;)

[MadsenOMC]

If you don't believe racial profiling exists, it is likely because you have never been the victim of it. It's like saying that racism and sexism don't exist. It is a ludicrous and false assessment.

[Cop No. 633]

This is great that you enjoy furthering your grasp of American politics, an endeavor few young people do. I agree with you about life experience, entirely actually, and because of this, I'm calling you out on on your condemnation of my qualifications. MY point is that you have no place, as a white male in my age group, to condemn me because of my age without having any knowledge--even a single inkling--as to my "life experience". To then establish yourself with a level of credibiltiy with the above quote I pulled is a bit self-fulfilling and, actually, definitively condescending.

Well, I'm not white, I'm Mexican-American. Both parents from Mexico, I just have a father with light skin, hence, my situation with my friends a few years ago and the cops thinking I was white.

So I have had experience in the matter of being profiled. When I get a tan and grow out my goatee, I've been fucked around the cops without reason. The other night, I had a light shine on me because I was riding my bike at night, even with my lights and a helmet on... The cop harassed me asking if it was "my bike." I've had many friends who have experienced similar stories, whether they were black or Latino. Over sensitized? I highly doubt it. None of us want to bitch about this happening, but it does happen... a lot in California I might add.

I like that you insinuate that we have no clue about your life experience, but it's clear from this thread that you don't have much concerning the issue. Don't try to pass it off like we're judging your opinion without any relevant reason. I called you out in this thread because I believe like Madsen that you have no real grasp on the issue. And you clearly showed you have gotten breaks from the cops, so I don't know how you can't see that they wouldn't have done that if you had been an "other" to them. It's a conflict of interest concerning his job. Cops are supposed to protect and serve the public, not a select few.

[MadsenOMC]

So I have had experience in the matter of being profiled. When I get a tan and grow out my goatee, I've been fucked around the cops without reason. The other night, I had a light shine on me because I was riding my bike at night, even with my lights and a helmet on... The cop harassed me asking if it was "my bike." I've had many friends who have experienced similar stories, whether they were black or Latino. Over sensitized? I highly doubt it. None of us want to bitch about this happening, but it does happen... a lot in California I might add.

I heard countless similar stories when teaching in an all African American public school. From staff as well. And from my cousin's boyfriend, who currently plays in the NFL. Racial profiling is all too real.

[Homyrrh]

If you don't believe racial profiling exists, it is likely because you have never been the victim of it. It's like saying that racism and sexism don't exist. It is a ludicrous and false assessment.
Actually, I said I'm sure it does exist. Reread my initial post.

I fully acknowledge that profiling exists, but it has become the proverbial mountain-out-of-the-molehill. A black kid gets shot outside a nightclub by two white officers...we all know what initially ensues.


I like that you insinuate that we have no clue about your life experience, but it's clear from this thread that you don't have much concerning the issue. Don't try to pass it off like we're judging your opinion without any relevant reason. I called you out in this thread because I believe like Madsen that you have no real grasp on the issue. And you clearly showed you have gotten breaks from the cops, so I don't know how you can't see that they wouldn't have done that if you had been an "other" to them. It's a conflict of interest concerning his job. Cops are supposed to protect and serve the public, not a select few.

I hope you're not intentionally evading my point. I illustrated several blatant lapses in your substantion of the credit you've given yourself. I don't care how you've amassed knowledge about the vast right-wing conspiracy and how you have so valiantly conquered it and are so much meritorious than me or any other remotely conservative poster because we don't bleed for every detestable injustice done in America or abroad. Please do not continue to shield your own misgivings by vainly attempting to point-out my own. Regarding "life experience", you've specified a general argument, which i originally had justifiably pointed out is entirely irrelevant as an argument--I don't care about yours and you don't have to for mine. Case in point, I don't think you've been pulled over by officers in Denville and/or Roxbury, NJ.

I haven't gotten breaks from cops because I like, everyone else here, have no racial metric to weigh my experience against. In two stops this year, I have a ticket for one and a written warning for another. A clean driving record doesn't hurt, nor does a level-headed and respectful demeanor. If I was a black or Hispanic citizen in northwest Jersey, I'd have gotten the same outcome. Head eastward ot Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, etc....probably a different story.

Bottom line, though, is that profiling is not founded exclusivley--or nearly at all--on pure racism. There is a basis. As a general issue, it perturbs me that every biracial incident regarding law enforcement is an immediate cry against the institution. If any psoter has been unjustly condemn by law enforcement on the basis of race, I agree that that is unfortunate, but I have a hard time accepting that every minority man shot by a non-minority law enforcement official (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/police_close_road_in_denville.html) is an injustice.

[MadsenOMC]

I fully acknowledge that profiling exists, but it has become the proverbial mountain-out-of-the-molehill. A black kid gets shot outside a nightclub by two white officers...we all know what initially ensues.

Says who? You, someone who has never been and will never be the victim of racial profiling?

When that black kid turns out to be unarmed, then yes, of course racial profiling is mentioned.

I don't hear people crying racial profiling left and right.

Someone from New Jersey should be very familiar with the subject.

New Jersey internal records document widespread racial profiling of black and Hispanic motorists

By Fred Mazelis
2 December 2000

The release of 91,000 pages of internal records by the state of New Jersey reveal that a systematic policy of searching cars driven by blacks or Hispanics has been carried out for at least a decade. The statistics show that minority drivers, making up 13 percent of state motorists, accounted for more than 80 percent of those stopped by state troopers.

The mountain of official records constitutes the most damning evidence of crude official racism, fostered or accepted by top state officials of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The state's chief law enforcement officials knew about racial profiling since at least 1989 but refused to admit it until a report was issued in April 1999.

The official records consist of everything from police training manuals to thousands of pages of individual traffic tickets issued by state troopers. They have been compiled in 185 binders as well as on 15 CD-ROMs, which are being distributed to interested parties at a cost of $1,000.

The state police officially prohibited racial profiling, but according to a 1999 memo from Deputy Attorney General Debra Stone, “racial profiling exists as part of the culture.” Stone reported that veteran troopers functioned as “coaches” in showing new troopers how to carry out racial profiling. “Trooper after trooper has testified that coaches taught them how to profile minorities,” Stone wrote. “The coaches also teach this to minority troopers.”

These practices stretched back more than a decade. A 1987 state police training memo listed the following descriptions to assist police in finding possible drug couriers: Colombian males, Hispanic males, a Hispanic male and a black male together, or a Hispanic male and female.

Among the documents released by the state attorney general's office were numerous bitter complaints from motorists who had been stopped and in many cases singled out for abuse and humiliation. State troopers themselves, if they were off duty and were black or Hispanic, were not immune from being pulled over for “DWB”—driving while black. One such officer, a state police sergeant, wrote that he had been stopped 40 times by state troopers while off duty. “There were times when I was the fourth vehicle in a line of five exceeding the speed limit,” he wrote. “I was the only one stopped. It doesn't take long to realize that you (the minority) are the choice of the day.”

This same officer pointed out that troopers patrolling the New Jersey Turnpike at night often park perpendicular to the roadway with their high beams shining, so they can see the occupants of passing cars. These parking spots were known as “fishing holes,” enabling the police to single out their victims on the basis of race.

Many letters to state authorities complained of illegal searches and abusive treatment. In one case a trooper stopped a motorist, ordered him out of his car, and apparently took $200 from a wallet that the driver had left on the floor of the vehicle.

The massive number of documents were among those demanded by lawyers representing drivers who are suing the state on grounds of racial discrimination. One of these attorneys, William Buckman, said that much of this material was denied when he requested it five years ago. “There seems to be only one reason to withhold all of this: to conceal from the public how high up in the attorney general's office people were aware of the length and the breadth of the problem,” said Buckman. “And the striking thing, even today,” he continued, “is that when you read these documents, you get no sense of urgency, no sense of outrage that people were being harassed because of their race, and it must be stopped no matter what.”

The documents released cover the administrations of three New Jersey governors and seven attorneys general. The current governor, Republican Christine Whitman, feigned outrage when the issue emerged prominently and the longstanding policy began to unravel in April 1998, after three unarmed men were shot by troopers on the highway. She fired the state police superintendent when he declared that racial profiling was understandable because minorities were allegedly responsible for most of the cocaine and marijuana traffic.

Whitman's outrage, however, was hypocritical and false. In 1994, Republican operative Ed Rollins boasted that he had helped secure victory for Whitman in her first race for governor that year by paying off black ministers to depress the turnout of black voters. Just last year, a photo was released to the media of Whitman posing with a broad smile on her face as she carried out her own racial profiling, frisking a young black man while patrolling with cops in the city of Camden in 1996.

As for the Democrats, an August 1993 memo, during the administration of Governor James Florio, quotes then acting Attorney General Fred DeVesa rejecting any changes in the policy of racial profiling of motorists. “If it ain't broke, don't fix it,” DeVesa wrote.

Attention is now also focused on Peter Verniero, who was state attorney general from 1996 to 1998 and was later appointed by Whitman to the State Supreme Court, where he sits today. During confirmation hearings in 1999, Verniero testified that he had not seen statistical evidence of racial profiling until that year. A memo to Verniero dated July 28, 1997, however, includes an audit of a state trooper barracks documenting the stopping of black and Hispanic drivers.

Verniero also swore that he had cooperated with the US Department of Justice in an investigation of the profiling charges. However another memo has now been released, from a meeting on May 20, 1997, which contradicts this claim. The memo contains handwritten notes declaring that before Verniero would sign a consent decree allowing a federal monitor to oversee the practices of the state police department, “they'd have to tie me to a train and drag me along the track.”

Current Attorney General John J. Farmer apparently concluded that release of these documents was inevitable and voluntary disclosure would enable the authorities to engage in a form of damage control. Farmer said he was releasing the records in order to “pay a debt to the past.” He argued that the police practices were effective but at the same time created a social disaster by stirring resentment of the police.

Farmer also stated that the policy stemmed from the war on drugs initiated in the 1980s under the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He claimed as well that racial profiling might be legal, even if unwise, since the US Supreme Court and other courts had on some occasions ruled that race could properly be invoked in decisions on police searches.

The short-term consequences of the growing New Jersey scandal include the possible dismissal of 100 or more pending criminal cases arising from traffic stops by the state police. Defendants who have been charged with drug or weapons possession are claiming, with justification, that the evidence was tainted by discriminatory police behavior.

As many as a dozen civil suits against the state police are also pending, filed by motorists who were stopped but not charged with any crime. A class action suit has been brought with the cooperation of the American Civil Liberties Union. A spokesman for the attorney general acknowledged that the state would be looking at the possibility of the dismissal of some criminal cases as well as the settlement of civil suits.

The scandal is part of a pervasive racism which has been encouraged by the law-and-order crackdown of the past two decades. “Operation Pipeline,” initiated by the DEA, undoubtedly encouraged racial profiling as it was used to train more than 25,000 police officers in 48 states.

Continuous campaigns at the state and federal level for new prisons, an end to parole, and increased death sentences and executions have all contributed to an atmosphere in which racist harassment is considered permissible and racist cops are encouraged to vent their prejudices and hatred.

A report released by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights about six months ago exposed the fallacy of the argument that racial profiling is rational because blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. According to this report, the General Accounting Office of the federal government showed that minorities were far more likely than whites to be searched by customs officials, without any justification at all, even statistically. Black women were nine times more likely to be x-rayed after a frisk in 1997 and 1998, but “were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white women.”

A report from the New York State Attorney General's office found that blacks are twice as likely to be stopped and frisked as whites, even after “correcting” for the demographics of each police precinct and the crime rate by race. As an article earlier this year in the Christian Science Monitor pointed out, racial profiling acts as a “self-fulfilling prophesy,” as blacks and Hispanics are singled out, and therefore arrested, convicted and jailed in larger numbers.

[Homyrrh]

Says who? You, someone who has never been and will never be the victim of racial profiling?
???

Jesse JAckson was in Morristown recently, preaching against that evil white establishment htat murders blacks on the streets. Soem Hispanic kid got shot and killedby a white officer last month...down the street from me. I live in AMerica. I am literate.

Ultimately, I am plain tired of race relations in law enforcement becoming too central an issue (similarly, like that scene in Hancock where's rescuing the police chick from armed gunmen...God forbid he touched her the wrong way...).
When that black kid turns out to be unarmed, then yes, of course racial profiling is mentioned.
This shouldn't matter (race at least). The issue of armament has no bearing on race. If I have a gun, I don't care what color someone is--if I feel an immediate threat to anyone's life or safety, I should have reason to shoot.
I don't hear people crying racial profiling left and right.
But I do. All the damn time.
Someone from New Jersey should be very familiar with the subject.

Very familiar. When 13% of our population comprises 80% of our highway stops, there's probably a jstification that transcends simple race. Questions have to be asked about how an officer can see the driver's race through two windshields when he is observing multiple vehicles travelling at 70+ MPH. (Hell, it's Jersey...95+ mph).

[MadsenOMC]

This shouldn't matter (race at least). The issue of armament has no bearing on race. If I have a gun, I don't care what color someone is--if I feel an immediate threat to anyone's life or safety, I should have reason to shoot.

Presuming that policemen only fire when they feel threatened, which simply isn't true.

But I do. All the damn time.

Really? From whom?


Very familiar. When 13% of our population comprises 80% of our highway stops, there's probably a jstification that transcends simple race. Questions have to be asked about how an officer can see the driver's race through two windshields when he is observing multiple vehicles travelling at 70+ MPH. (Hell, it's Jersey...95+ mph).

Every single time an officer pulls someone over the driver was doing 70 or more, meaning it couldn't have been racial profiling? New Jersey admitting to racial profiling isn't enough for you?

[Homyrrh]

Presuming that policemen only fire when they feel threatened, which simply isn't true.



Really? From whom?




Every single time an officer pulls someone over the driver was doing 70 or more, meaning it couldn't have been racial profiling? New Jersey admitting to racial profiling isn't enough for you?
-Right.
-Um...Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, NYC...
-I was referring to psoted NJ limits of 65 MPH; stops usually start around AT LEAST 70+ (I often get away with closer to 80). I realize...again...profiling exists, but that again wasn't my point.

[MadsenOMC]

-Um...Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, NYC...

Are those credible sources? Do they represent the entirety of racial thought and debate currently taking place in America?

My point is that you are incorrect in asserting that racial profiling happens infrequently and is typically blown out of proportion.

[Homyrrh]

Are those credible sources? Do they represent the entirety of racial thought and debate currently taking place in America?

My point is that you are incorrect in asserting that racial profiling happens infrequently and is typically blown out of proportion.
At the end of the day, it doesn't happen nearly as much as is implied.

[Cop No. 633]

I hope you're not intentionally evading my point. I illustrated several blatant lapses in your substantion of the credit you've given yourself. I don't care how you've amassed knowledge about the vast right-wing conspiracy and how you have so valiantly conquered it and are so much meritorious than me or any other remotely conservative poster because we don't bleed for every detestable injustice done in America or abroad. Please do not continue to shield your own misgivings by vainly attempting to point-out my own. Regarding "life experience", you've specified a general argument, which i originally had justifiably pointed out is entirely irrelevant as an argument--I don't care about yours and you don't have to for mine. Case in point, I don't think you've been pulled over by officers in Denville and/or Roxbury, NJ.

I haven't gotten breaks from cops because I like, everyone else here, have no racial metric to weigh my experience against. In two stops this year, I have a ticket for one and a written warning for another. A clean driving record doesn't hurt, nor does a level-headed and respectful demeanor. If I was a black or Hispanic citizen in northwest Jersey, I'd have gotten the same outcome. Head eastward ot Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, etc....probably a different story.

Bottom line, though, is that profiling is not founded exclusivley--or nearly at all--on pure racism. There is a basis. As a general issue, it perturbs me that every biracial incident regarding law enforcement is an immediate cry against the institution. If any psoter has been unjustly condemn by law enforcement on the basis of race, I agree that that is unfortunate, but I have a hard time accepting that every minority man shot by a non-minority law enforcement official (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/police_close_road_in_denville.html) is an injustice.

Vast right wing conspiracy? haha. It's simply racism, something this country was founded on and still is a problem to this very day. Simply saying the Civil Rights "abolished" all the racist tendencies in this institution is ignorant and shows how easily swayed you are by an official giving a wipe of a politician's hand saying the problem has been cleaned.

I never said every minority stopped was a crime of injustice, I simply said that it's pretty often that people of color get stopped for not committing any crime or hazard on the road. Cops have that leeway of saying you "look suspicious" as a just cause for stopping somebody. It's ridiculous. Going above the speed limit should get you stopped, but not breaking any law shouldn't.

As for life experience, it is relevant to this issue. You clearly have none concerning the subject, so don't try to come off as a person who is knowledgeable in the subject because with every post, you're clearly painting yourself into an even smaller corner.

Saying you're tired of hearing Jesse Jackson or Spike Lee complain about the issue shows how little you actually have talked to or heard from people in person about what it's like to be stopped for nothing. You once said you were called out for being white by a black man once, well, multiply that and have imagine that black man being in a uniform and supposedly upholding the law while trying to find any little reason to put you in jail.

I think it's funny that you're in such denial about this issue especially after Madsen posted an article relating to your own state. But I know you won't listen anymore since we're both condescending, arrogant exaggerating liberals who are yanking your chain just because want to propagate the myth that many cops are guilty of racial profiling.

[MadsenOMC]

At the end of the day, it doesn't happen nearly as much as is implied.

How do you know?

[The Postmaster General]

It happens non-stop and on-going. To try and find examples is to undermine the whole issue. It's not as if a black kid getting his head bashed in is the only time you should be concerned. What goes on outside the papers and police reports doesn't really matter if you're not being profiled every day.

[Homyrrh]

Vast right wing conspiracy? haha. It's simply racism, something this country was founded on and still is a problem to this very day. Simply saying the Civil Rights "abolished" all the racist tendencies in this institution is ignorant and shows how easily swayed you are by an official giving a wipe of a politician's hand saying the problem has been cleaned.

I never said every minority stopped was a crime of injustice, I simply said that it's pretty often that people of color get stopped for not committing any crime or hazard on the road. Cops have that leeway of saying you "look suspicious" as a just cause for stopping somebody. It's ridiculous. Going above the speed limit should get you stopped, but not breaking any law shouldn't.

As for life experience, it is relevant to this issue. You clearly have none concerning the subject, so don't try to come off as a person who is knowledgeable in the subject because with every post, you're clearly painting yourself into an even smaller corner.

Saying you're tired of hearing Jesse Jackson or Spike Lee complain about the issue shows how little you actually have talked to or heard from people in person about what it's like to be stopped for nothing. You once said you were called out for being white by a black man once, well, multiply that and have imagine that black man being in a uniform and supposedly upholding the law while trying to find any little reason to put you in jail.

I think it's funny that you're in such denial about this issue especially after Madsen posted an article relating to your own state. But I know you won't listen anymore since we're both condescending, arrogant exaggerating liberals who are yanking your chain just because want to propagate the myth that many cops are guilty of racial profiling.

I should clarify what I meant. I am a young man myself, but I educated myself beyond the means of the mainstream news, right wing propaganda and generalities that aren't true. Even still, I don't speak to people in a condescending manner unless they're asking for it and don't show the same respect towards others. Hom have proven time and again that he isn't mature enough to do the same. He constantly talks down to people on the board who are older and actually have acquired an understanding of world politics. He usually bases his findings on short sighted "facts" or just plain hunches that he knows are right. And yet he still goes on in a condescending manner because he has no other way to prove his point. This last post has been his most "fact" checked post and it still didn't cover the realities that many cops are racist and profile. He probably never has met anybody who has been racially profiled and he just flat out denies its true.

If that doesn't sound like a young man who needs to learn more about the ways of the world, then I don't know what does.
Actually, I said I'm sure it does exist. Reread my initial post.

I fully acknowledge that profiling exists, but it has become the proverbial mountain-out-of-the-molehill. A black kid gets shot outside a nightclub by two white officers...we all know what initially ensues..

I'm having a difficult time following your argument because you seem to be switching from generalities to this specific argument; regarding the latter, my point above is clear, but I think you understood that I denied the existence of profiling. Like I had mentioned, it exists, but has become a platform of racism convictions that it didn't have to be. If you disagree with my denouncement of the scope of this having to be as large as it is, I view that as a difference of opinion. Again,

If you have a problem with any possible condencension and ill-researched posts of mine throughout the board, well, again, I've already mentioned that I cna keep an eye out. Ultimately, I again think you missed my own point on a more general scale (and you didn't really address it). With your first post, you denounced my own merit to post on this forum because of "age", "experience" and "worldview". Were you distinguishably older than me (though I agree with what you'd said earlier about older people not always being automatically wiser--hence the reason for my cries of meritocracy), or provably (sp?) more experienced, or had a world view that could be superior to anyone's (which, as intangible as it is, can't be), then you'd have basis to attack me as you've had.

Without offense, the argument's just a bit short-sighted.

[QUENTIN]

I'm not sure I understand your argument, Homyrrh. You aknowledge that your justification for initially defending racial profiling -that minorities, specifically blacks, commit more crime - has no basis in fact and we actually don't know if it's the case because of how messed up the criminal justice system is. You are presented with evidence that one of the main ways that system is messed up is that racial profiling is the standard, just the way things are done every single day (that article really backed up EXACTLY what I said about how racial profiling works and continues). You're shown specific data that says 13% of your state's population, the same group we're saying are targeted on a massive scale, account for 80% of vehicle stops...Yet, you then say that it doesn't happen nearly as often as implied and minimize its severity and importance?

On what basis can you do that? Please justify yourself. Being a law-abiding citizen constantly stopped by the police because of the color of your skin is harassment, the fact that we've set up our police force, court system, and prisons to best facilitate incarcerating black people is a stark and unforgivable injustice. When coupled with the fact that our society is generally segregated in regards to the education you get, the job you can get, the money you can make, the church you go to, the conditions of your environment and neighborhood, and your general quality of life, the fact that we've added to that rampant mistreatment by the entity that is supposed to protect you cannot be overstated in its importance and the depth of its heinousness. Explain how it is not a travesty.

What does someone who thinks racial profiling is a molehill made into a mountain make of the incredible disparity between who gets stopped by police? Do blacks have a genetic or cultural predisposition to speeding? C'mon. I'd expect better from someone who claims to believe in meritocracy. You don't want to be dismissed as ignorant and misinformed because you're young, but you're willing to minimize the harassment and targeting of innocent people because they're black? It is really hard to read the evolution of your argument and not come to conclusion that you simply have no understanding of the depth and breadth of racial profiling and its results and impact on society, but I'd invite you to defend your reasoning and dispel that conclusion if you can.

[Homyrrh]

I'm not sure I understand your argument, Homyrrh. You aknowledge that your justification for initially defending racial profiling -that minorities, specifically blacks, commit more crime - has no basis in fact and we actually don't know if it's the case because of how messed up the criminal justice system is. You are presented with evidence that one of the main ways that system is messed up is that racial profiling is the standard, just the way things are done every single day (that article really backed up EXACTLY what I said about how racial profiling works and continues). You're shown specific data that says 13% of your state's population, the same group we're saying are targeted on a massive scale, account for 80% of vehicle stops...Yet, you then say that it doesn't happen nearly as often as implied and minimize its severity and importance?

On what basis can you do that? Please justify yourself. Being a law-abiding citizen constantly stopped by the police because of the color of your skin is harassment, the fact that we've set up our police force, court system, and prisons to best facilitate incarcerating black people is a stark and unforgivable injustice. When coupled with the fact that our society is generally segregated in regards to the education you get, the job you can get, the money you can make, the church you go to, the conditions of your environment and neighborhood, and your general quality of life, the fact that we've added to that rampant mistreatment by the entity that is supposed to protect you cannot be overstated in its importance and the depth of its heinousness. Explain how it is not a travesty.

What does someone who thinks racial profiling is a molehill made into a mountain make of the incredible disparity between who gets stopped by police? Do blacks have a genetic or cultural predisposition to speeding? C'mon. I'd expect better from someone you claims to believe in meritocracy. You don't want to be dismissed as ignorant and misinformed because you're young, but you're willing to minimize the harassment and targeting of innocent people because they're black? It is really hard to read the evolution of your argument and not come to conclusion that you simply have no understanding of the depth and breadth of racial profiling and its results and impact on society, but I'd invite you to defend your reasoning and dispel that conclusion if you can.
Simply, and again, I've never denied that racial profiling exists and have essentially said it sucks several times. HOWEVER, when, in my home state for example, 13% of a minority account for 80% of the highway stops, something seems to trancends racial indiscretion. Even if HALF of these are unjust stops solely based on race, that leaves maybe one million people (about 13% of 9 million or so in NJ) to account for just under half of all the stops. If blacks account for a third of all stops, they still account for a percentage, 26%, that is twice the

My argument is that blanketing profiling over all minority stops is presumptuous. Obviously, Quentin, I'm not suggesting an innate sense of vigilantism on the part of any minority, majority, or otherwise. Rather, in thinking about it, its possibly a product of classism, or purely coincidence.

As a note, traffic stops just seem to be the medium we're using, apart from other law enforcement involvements. Also, Quentin, I'm leaving work now (5 EDT), and can finish later.

[MadsenOMC]

Even if HALF of these are unjust stops solely based on race, that leaves maybe one million people (about 13% of 9 million or so in NJ) to account for just under half of all the stops.

Wouldn't even HALF be way too many?

[Cop No. 633]

.

I'm having a difficult time following your argument because you seem to be switching from generalities to this specific argument; regarding the latter, my point above is clear, but I think you understood that I denied the existence of profiling. Like I had mentioned, it exists, but has become a platform of racism convictions that it didn't have to be. If you disagree with my denouncement of the scope of this having to be as large as it is, I view that as a difference of opinion. Again,

If you have a problem with any possible condencension and ill-researched posts of mine throughout the board, well, again, I've already mentioned that I cna keep an eye out. Ultimately, I again think you missed my own point on a more general scale (and you didn't really address it). With your first post, you denounced my own merit to post on this forum because of "age", "experience" and "worldview". Were you distinguishably older than me (though I agree with what you'd said earlier about older people not always being automatically wiser--hence the reason for my cries of meritocracy), or provably (sp?) more experienced, or had a world view that could be superior to anyone's (which, as intangible as it is, can't be), then you'd have basis to attack me as you've had.

Without offense, the argument's just a bit short-sighted.

Correlating general consensus to personal experience is pretty much putting a magnifying glass to the issue to help you better understand how profiling has affected a person like myself. Do want me to bring up another time I got a flat tire 5 miles from my house, I had no money, no jack in my car, so I had to walk home with my friend just to get it? Well, halfway there, we were tailed by a cop car for blocks simply for walking home on a shitty night. We had to make a pit stop in a diner and ask for water and wait fifteen minutes for the cops to drive off and go do something better with our tax dollars. I'm bringing up my situations to give you an idea of how real the problem is. If I spoke only in generalities, you would say I'm making those problems up or blowing them out of proportion, when I'm not. I'm telling you how the general problem of racial profiling has affected my life and my trust of the police department.

Again, age isn't as relevant as experience in this type of a matter. A 40 year old man might not know anything about racial profiling than a 18 year old kid. Age could help you if you have seen racial profiling, if only as a witness. You though, clearly don't have the age or the experience to be well versed in the subject. I have had the experience, therefore I do have a better perspective on the subject. You can't say you're an expert at rock climbing by simply reading some books on it. I wouldn't have a problem if you didn't keep saying the problem is blown out of proportion by blacks or minorities when you have no evidence to support that. You give the police the benefit of the doubt that black people in general are "more likely" to commit crimes when it's really that most cops are trained to target minorities. It's not a "coincidence" by any means that they stop more minorities than they do white people. You think it's as simple as seeing a statistic of how many minorities end up in jail, but you aren't looking at the fact that cops pay more attention to them rather than white Americans.

I trained myself to notice cops when they stop somebody because it's become a bad joke to me...

[SpoonMan999]

Correlating general consensus to personal experience is pretty much putting a magnifying glass to the issue to help you better understand how profiling has affected a person like myself. Do want me to bring up another time I got a flat tire 5 miles from my house, I had no money, no jack in my car, so I had to walk home with my friend just to get it? Well, halfway there, we were tailed by a cop car for blocks simply for walking home on a shitty night. We had to make a pit stop in a diner and ask for water and wait fifteen minutes for the cops to drive off and go do something better with our tax dollars. I'm bringing up my situations to give you an idea of how real the problem is. If I spoke only in generalities, you would say I'm making those problems up or blowing them out of proportion, when I'm not. I'm telling you how the general problem of racial profiling has affected my life and my trust of the police department.

Again, age isn't as relevant as experience in this type of a matter. A 40 year old man might not know anything about racial profiling than a 18 year old kid. Age could help you if you have seen racial profiling, if only as a witness. You though, clearly don't have the age or the experience to be well versed in the subject. I have had the experience, therefore I do have a better perspective on the subject. You can't say you're an expert at rock climbing by simply reading some books on it. I wouldn't have a problem if you didn't keep saying the problem is blown out of proportion by blacks or minorities when you have no evidence to support that. You give the police the benefit of the doubt that black people in general are "more likely" to commit crimes when it's really that most cops are trained to target minorities. It's not a "coincidence" by any means that they stop more minorities than they do white people. You think it's as simple as seeing a statistic of how many minorities end up in jail, but you aren't looking at the fact that cops pay more attention to them rather than white Americans.

I trained myself to notice cops when they stop somebody because it's become a bad joke to me...

I've seen racial profiling and have had plenty of friends who have been victims of it. But, let's face it, stereo-types do come from somewhere. It's not like some guy somewhere just decided he was going to claim blacks and hispanics tend to be gang members more often than whites. Does this make them inferior in anyway? As a race no, but those specific people involved in gang violence sure have put themselves low on the totem pole and brought the image of their people down.

But like Hom said, even if you discredit half of the traffic stops, arrests, and other situations where you'd accuse people of prifiling they still have a pretty big percentage for such a small group. If you pull someone over just because they're black it is wrong morally...but if he was doing something wrong, black or not, then he needs to be thrown in jail/ticketed.

[MadsenOMC]

But, let's face it, stereo-types do come from somewhere.

Ignorance? Misinformation? Lack of life experience? A closed mind?

[SpoonMan999]

Ignorance? Misinformation? Lack of life experience? A closed mind?

Generally they are passed on that way but they do tend to originate from somewhere. I mean, you guys are always going on about the rich white-man and what not...aren't you stereo-typing when you're talking about Republicans that way? Hmmm...

[MadsenOMC]

Generally they are passed on that way but they do tend to originate from somewhere. I mean, you guys are always going on about the rich white-man and what not...aren't you stereo-typing when you're talking about Republicans that way? Hmmm...

Who is always going on about "the rich white man?"

[SpoonMan999]

Who is always going on about "the rich white man?"

QUENTIN and yourself have both made that point. Well, you might not have I'd have to do a search but I know Quentin has for sure.

[MadsenOMC]

QUENTIN and yourself have both made that point. Well, you might not have I'd have to do a search but I know Quentin has for sure.

Yeah easy tiger. I don't recall going on and on about "the rich white man."

[SpoonMan999]

Yeah easy tiger. I don't recall going on and on about "the rich white man."

Perhaps not on and on, I exaggerate so sue me, but plenty of the people on here have made that..."observation."

[Homyrrh]

I'm very white, very conservative, and very fucking poor. I wish I was this proverbial rich white man, then I even might consider registering Republican to get there.