#161  
Old 07-25-2009, 06:26 PM

That was a very good article Quentin. I agree with the points that were brought up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
My attitude would be disastrous if everyone had it. But selectively I always encourage people to try it out because I've had luck with it. This luck has to do with my appearance, the particular city where I'm being hassled, the particular neighborhood, the mood of the officers, and on and on... but there will always be something to say for attitude, however quietly whispered. Someone might not like the ego of an officer who deliberately walks you right in front of his flashing sirens in the dead of night so you can't see a damn thing while he berates you, but there's a good chance you don't like it cuz his attitude has offended your attitude. He got his dander up, you responded by getting your dander up. That's not a civil reaction. Officers have a different status than civilians, and they do have the right to subject you to some amount of inconvenience.

This only counts for certain situations, of course. I wouldn't argue that somebody should be submissive in any way if they are being violated or hurt or unreasonably embarrassed.

That you disrespect them because you might view them as uneducated gang members is your problem, not theirs, and I would encourage officers to give someone a hard time if that someone disrespected them about their education or employment, certainly if that someone disrespected their authority. Complaints of police going around overcompensating are canceled out when civilians respond by overcompensating for something of their own, which is a discomfort of being talked down to and made demands of. As far as I'm concerned, officers have the benefit of the doubt in status tug of wars. Civilians shouldn't make a scene because someone of lower education or trade is momentarily in control, momentarily in a position of power. It will likely cause the officers to enforce their control and power even more, which will probably tick off the civilian even more, and soon the whole pissing contest can elevate to somebody getting hurt or handcuffed.
I find this to be a very strange response. For all the wording I read, all I can really get out of your reply is to be subservient to the police whenever they stop you. I never said that you should refuse any order at any time by a cop. I never implied to fight the cops. I just gave my point of view that I don't hold them with a high regard and I said why. The briefest thing you actually wrote that I found the most truthful was this: I wouldn't argue that somebody should be submissive in any way if they are being violated or hurt or unreasonably embarrassed.

I've seen that kind of situation more often than not. I live right in front of a police station.

The fact that you think I'm looking down on cops has nothing to do with their education but what they have shown me when I've spoken to them face-to-face. My brother and I have confronted them for being too aggressive with people who were being, as you suggested, submissive during an arrest. I hate seeing people abuse their power so if it makes me a stuck up jerk for actually caring that cops in my city are often high on their power, then I'll gladly wear that badge.

I don't "disrespect" them when I have been confronted by them. I try to reason and be civil, but the fact is that most of the time, they lack those qualities. I've been stopped a block away from my house simply because I had allergies and my eyes were red. I explained this to them and they still wanted to hassle me over something so dumb. I wasn't driving erratically, I didn't break the law in any way, and yet they stopped me, and came at me with a condescending tone (Allergies... Yeah, right.)when I told them the truth. I really can't respect that kind of authoritative attitude. I doubt anybody would respect a person like that if they simply met them on the street.

I just think there should be more rigorous standards as to who gets to be a cop. I don't think the meat head from my high school who barely graduated should have the power to decide what is right and wrong and who gets to be arrested. I don't trust that judgement.

I'm curious, but what are you trying to imply about this "luck" you have. I don't know if you're being literal or not because of the italics.

This luck has to do with my appearance, the particular city where I'm being hassled, the particular neighborhood, the mood of the officers, and on and on
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-25-2009, 07:29 PM
I'm glad people get this. The police should be respected, not feared. I've dealt with I don't know how many cops, but it's in the 100s. They are meant to be the good guys. Not like in the case of this Gates incident, the bigger assholes.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-25-2009, 08:56 PM
I want to respond to something in QUENTIN's posted article, but I'll do that later

Quote:
The police should be respected, not feared.
This sums up my opinion too. It should be the common ground for everyone. I'm going to continue on with my argument, but BubbaStrangelove gave me a good base to jump back to if I ever get too out there.

On luck:
CosmicPuppet ^ I'm admitting that my positive experiences with police officers probably had more to do with luck than my sparkling Yes'sir attitude. Being polite and respectful isn't a golden ticket that will avoid any unpleasant situation under any circumstance. The luck of the draw has a lot to do with it.

Quote:
I just gave my point of view that I don't hold them with a high regard and I said why.
You added a negative opinion of their education and career while explaining why you don't hold police in high regard (They're high school graduates at best who never had anywhere to go but to join the biggest gang in the country). Then you did it again just now (I don't think the meat head from my high school who barely graduated should have the power to decide what is right and wrong and who gets to be arrested). It's distracting.
But I have nothing to say about your firsthand experience seeing other people being treated badly by officers. I doubt there are many apologists for those sorry examples. Assuming that you're right in judging their conduct, good on you and your brother for doing something about it.

Quote:
I don't "disrespect" them when I have been confronted by them. I try to reason and be civil, but the fact is that most of the time, they lack those qualities. I've been stopped a block away from my house simply because I had allergies and my eyes were red. I explained this to them and they still wanted to hassle me over something so dumb. I wasn't driving erratically, I didn't break the law in any way, and yet they stopped me, and came at me with a condescending tone (Allergies... Yeah, right.)when I told them the truth. I really can't respect that kind of authoritative attitude. I doubt anybody would respect a person like that if they simply met them on the street.
IMO that's a harmless attitude on their part. It's no more dangerously authoritative than your own example would've been dangerously rebellious. I find both harmless, although I side with the officers. Going by exactly what you typed, they didn't violate you. They didn't grab you or unreasonably embarrass you or shame you in any way. Imo you should have accommodated them. It's less about being submissive than about compromising with the no bullshit front a lot of officers have to carry around with them when they're on duty. Every now and again it flashes out at a civilian when it shouldn't, but that's acceptable as long as no personal violations occur.

Do you think we even disagree with each other? Or is this happening...
CosmicPuppet: I don't believe we should accommodate officers when they abuse their power in unreasonable ways!
Shinigami: Yes, but I don't believe we should give officers attitude when they don't abuse their power in unreasonable ways.


Here's an example of the situations I'm after. I encountered a police officer one morning at 1 AM. I was bicycling to a nearby grocery store to get myself a very late dinner, and I slowed as I coasted through the parking lot, up the curb in front of the store. The officer sneaked his police car behind me as close as he could, then turned on his siren. I was really startled. Then the officer came out of his car and waved me over. After I came over he asked the routine Qs. What I was doing there, could he see some identification. I didn't have my ID with me, but I cooperated as best as I could under the circumstances. When I got around to telling him my birth date I stumbled on one of the dates and had to correct myself.
He noticed this immediately. "Sounds like you're making that up," he said. Right around this time I wanted to tell Sherlock Holmes here that I get a little bit jittery when a cop decides to crawl up behind me and blare his sirens at me when I have my headphones on. If you walk up beside someone and yell BOO! they're probably going to stammer a little bit until their heart rate settles down. I wanted to tell him that it was one in the morning and I couldn't process anything but figuring out what I wanted to eat.
Instead I took a breath. I gave him a clear birth date, went from there. When he asked me where I lived I told him that my apartment was a few miles away. I gave him the address.
He paused again. Eyeballed me again. "You said your address was only a few miles away, but that street is a little more than a few miles away."
Facepalm. I don't quite remember what I replied with, only that I reiterated it was only a few miles away. Three or four. Five at the most. The whole time I was thinking I'm sorry my casual sense of measurement doesn't match your casual sense of measurement officer dickhead.
Eventually he let it go. Eventually he let the whole thing go. The officer let me be, but considering his tempers it wouldn't have gone that way if I'd given him attitude for any of the bullshit he put me through. But he didn't violate me or grab me or hurt me or embarrass me or even shine a bright light in my face like one cop did. I wasn't scared of him, I was respectful of his temperament and didn't feel like further inconveniencing myself just to stick it to some cop at one in the morning. I knew that officers caught some deserving people on harmless slip-ups like stammered birth dates or fake addresses, and I also knew that sometimes officers intentionally gave innocent civilians grief just cuz they could. But I didn't give a shit which background was motivating this guy because officers have the benefit of the doubt in these tug of wars.

These are the situations where I'm telling people to be respectful and more or less do what you're told instead of bitch out. If I had bitched out the situation would've soured, and I would've been a prime candidate to complain to everyone I knew that I'd been attacked by a power hungry fascist cop. Which is exactly the behavior I'm calling out as bs.
If your situation isn't like this one, I'm not addressing you. If it is, I am.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-25-2009, 09:29 PM
I see what you're saying. I hate those situations myself. It's happened more than a couple of times in my short life. The thing I hate most about those moments is that they make you feel like you might be guilty of something even though you're really just going about your day.

I think we both have gotten somewhat confused by our posts. I get the feeling you're confusing my views on them with how I act when they stop me. Just because I hold them in that light, it doesn't mean I disrespect them or act smug in person. I can't help but to think of certain cops as meat heads since that is what they are presenting to me. I don't think that what they did to me or other people is harmless attitude. I think it actually is negative and boosts their ego to continue acting that way with civilians. I just wish cops like the ones I've encountered would show better judgement and respect. They obviously don't have the first if they're stopping a guy who's just going to the store because they look suspicious.

On that note, here's a good instructional video as to how to act with a cop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 07-25-2009, 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
On that note, here's a good instructional video as to how to act with a cop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Haha, that was great.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-27-2009, 08:42 PM
An update on the Gates Race War:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gat...est/index.html


The woman who called 911 never referred to Gates, or anyone, as "black". So, so far, the only person to get bent out of shape about Black people, and bring race into the issue, has been Gate's himself. Interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-27-2009, 08:53 PM
Yeah, I saw that story today, in the same context. Being used as some sort of evidence or vindication of...I'm not sure what.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the woman called the police because people she saw forcing their way into the home were black, and wouldn't have if they were white. That's not where the race comes into it. This "revelation" seems a total non-sequitir.

Furthermore, I think most of us recognize and primarily argued that this is much less about race than it is about police abusing their authority and conducting themselves inappropriately or "stupidly."
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-27-2009, 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
Furthermore, I think most of us recognize and primarily argued that this is much less about race than it is about police abusing their authority and conducting themselves inappropriately or "stupidly."
But they didn't. They responded to a routine B&E call and asked the man inside the house to provide I.D. to prove he lived there and the guy lost his shit and turned it into a race issue. Those are the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 07-27-2009, 09:28 PM
There's also the fact that Gates did provide his ID to the cop but the police officer didn't provide his ID when asked (and Massachusetts law says an officer has to if requested).
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 07-27-2009, 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
There's also the fact that Gates did provide his ID to the cop but the police officer didn't provide his ID when asked (and Massachusetts law says an officer has to if requested).


Where did this "fact" come from. Only person I have heard say anything about this was Gates. No one else supports this. I have not watched any news in the last 24 hours though so that is why I ask.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 07-27-2009, 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson13 View Post
But they didn't. They responded to a routine B&E call and asked the man inside the house to provide I.D. to prove he lived there and the guy lost his shit and turned it into a race issue. Those are the facts.
What is your basis for stating this is a "fact"? I wasn't there, you weren't there, and there's no videotape evidence of what actually occurred.

I've been following the case and as far as I can tell, the facts are today what they were the day this came out. We have contradictory and subjective stories from Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, and I've yet to hear of any impartial third party witnesses coming out and saying anything one way or the other that might lend extra credence to either.

If you choose to take the officer's word as Bible truth, that's fine, but just because something appears in an "official" police report doesn't make it a fact and there is still great and understandable dispute about what happened. The police report about Fred Hampton's death said Hampton attempted to open fire on officers and was killed in self-defense, when the facts came out in subsequent investigation it turned out that he was drugged by the FBI and was passed out when he was shot with automatic weapons, including at point-blank range. I'm not equating Hampton's treatment with Gates, but it serves to illustrate that it's unreasonable to declare something a "fact" just by virtue of it being in a police report.

I think the truth of what happened in that house may lie somewhere in the middle, but am pretty certain that the Officer entered Gates' home illegally and then refused to properly identify himself, as he is legally required to do. This would explain Gates subsequent loss of his shit and makes the whole incident make logical sense rather than straining credibility. I wouldn't, however, think to assert this opinion as "fact."

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlownCamaro View Post
Where did this "fact" come from. Only person I have heard say anything about this was Gates. No one else supports this.
By the same token, only person who says otherwise is Crowley. No one else supports this. And, importantly, the DA refused to prosecute the charge which is so often an indication of either police misconduct, the fact that the arrested did not in fact commit a crime, or both.

This is really a case of he-said/he-said, I don't understand how any of you can be so certain one must be telling the truth and the other must be lying, particularly in light of how relatively plausible the two accounts are.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 07-27-2009 at 10:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 07-27-2009, 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post


By the same token, only person who says otherwise is Crowley.


I would take the word of a cop over the word of a Harvard snob any day.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 07-27-2009, 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlownCamaro View Post
I would take the word of a cop over the word of a Harvard snob any day.
That's fine, and I recognize anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism is strong in such circles. "Goddamn educated people and experts, always tellin' us our opinions are wrong!"

I don't mind you holding or stating that opinion, you're free to believe the cop all you want. I take issue however with anyone baselessly asserting their subjective opinion on the matter as incontrovertible fact.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 07-28-2009 at 12:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 07-28-2009, 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I've been following the case and as far as I can tell, the facts are today what they were the day this came out. We have contradictory and subjective stories from Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, and I've yet to hear of any impartial third party witnesses coming out and saying anything one way or the other that might lend extra credence to either.

I think even the officer's official report still stinks of unprofessionalism, and the cop losing his shit. Like jackson13 says, it was a routine breaking and entering -- for the life of me, though, I don't get how that can make someone conclude: "Oh, it's a routine breaking and entering. OBVIOUSLY the way it ended meant it was handled the best way it could."

I'd seriously like to know everyone's experience with the police. I've dealt with emergency situation involving cops in the 100s of times, and I've seen police spit at, cussed out, come on to, all sorts of shit, threatened, and the idea that a cop escalated a situation based on "ya' momma" talk is a fucking joke and disgrace to exemplifying good citizenship.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 07-28-2009, 10:16 AM
So I guess Obama has invited Gates and Crowley to the White House for a beer on Thursday. Oh would I ever love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 07-28-2009, 12:44 PM
New controversy to debate.

Why isn't this case considered a hate crime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_...stopher_Newsom
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 07-28-2009, 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Legend View Post
New controversy to debate.

Why isn't this case considered a hate crime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_...stopher_Newsom
From the wikipedia article you posted:

Quote:
"There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. "We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary."[
Which takes that quote from: http://www.chicagotribune.com/servic...,5653843.story

Crimes against people of a certain race perpetrated by people of another are not necessarily hate crimes, unless race played a factor in the crime. If I mug someone because they look rich and vulnerable, and it turns out that someone was gay, that doesn't make it a gaybashing hate crime, it's just assault and theft.

I don't know any facts of this case beyond what has been reported in a few news articles I've read previously and the Wikipedia article that reiterates them, but it seems there is nothing to suggest the fact that the victims were white and the perpetrators black is anything but coincidental or that their race motivated the crime.

There's a similar case of black-on-white rape/murder/torture where the hate crime nature of the incident is disputed, and I think it was a hate crime, the murder of Sgt. Jan Pietrzak and his wife Quiana by four Marines.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6204853

In that case, there is evidence that the four Marines attacked Pietrzak specifically because he was a white guy married to a black woman and in addition to the money motivation, they resented this and it was why they so heinously tortured the couple. But not only do I not see evidence that the incident you posted is a hate crime, though it's certainly heinous, there appears to be by your own source sufficient evidence that it was not a hate crime. Whether it received less mainstream media attention than it may have if it was a white-on-black crime is a different story, but that has to do with journalistic sensationalism and sensitivity, not the motivation of the crime.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 07-28-2009 at 01:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 07-29-2009, 02:48 AM
Re: the Gates case

The Discrepancy


Quote:
"She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [blank] Ware Street," - James Crowley, in his police report.
Quote:
“She didn’t speak to Sergeant Crowley at the scene except to say, ‘I’m the one who called,’ ” said the lawyer, Wendy J. Murphy. “And he said, ‘Wait right there,’ and walked into the house. She never used the word black and never said the word backpacks to anyone.” - from the NYT.
Here's the transcript of the 911 phone call: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07272009...all_181639.htm


So where did the idea of two black men with backpacks come from? Instead of two men with suitcases who the caller said might well be in their own home? I think we know.

As jackson pointed out, the woman who called never said the word "black" and never said anything about backpacks, in fact on the phone she seems very unsure whether the people she saw were breaking in or just lived there. She says that she didn't speak to the Officer when he showed up except to say "I'm the one who called" and he told her to "Wait right here" and approached the house. This is in direct contradiction of his police report. So we know for a fact that, at least on this issue, he was lying or wrong about what occured.

From Obsidian Wings:

Confirmation bias probably plays a role here, but: now that we have the actual transcript, it seems clearer than ever that Officer Sergeant Crowley was out of line in arresting Professor Gates. As Andrew Sullivan notes, you can't reconcile Crowley's report with either the tape or the witnesses. Crowley seems to have arrested Gates for being annoying rather than for any actual crime. Whether race played a role in the arrest is kinda secondary at this point: The fundamental point is that cops shouldn't arrest a person who hasn't committed a crime. Otherwise the guy in a police uniform is a vigilante or a bully -- not a cop.

Which brings up another point. I value our public servants, including cops who put their lives on the line day in and day out. Police work is a tough job, with a dozen ways to fail for every one way to stand out as brilliant. And I'm a believer that singing the praises of our public servants should go further than just idle words on the internet. (That's one reason why I'm looking at a certificate from the local FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) lodge, thanking me for a donation that I just made to support one of their programs.)

Now, if you read the above paragraph out of the context of my posts on the Crowley-Gates affair, I guarantee that you'd peg me as someone who presumes that the police are telling the truth. A guy whom every prosecutor wants on his jury and every defense lawyer wants to strike. Indeed, didn't I admit in a prior post that one of (great) uncles is a retired police chief? The prosecutor thinks that she'll put a cop on the stand, and von will bring the rope for the hanging. Surely.

You'd be wrong. I presume almost the exact opposite about cops being truthful. Cops do a difficult job. I respect them a ton. But cops are human. And the very difficulties of the job make it inevitable that corners get cut. And it seems that corners definitely got cut in the Gates case. (That's about as polite as I can say it.) If you were to press me, I'd say that my best guess is that many cops lie about a lot of the small things and some cops lie about the big things as well -- because it makes their job easier, and it's easy for them to get away with a lie.
(Q: As I said, in all of my experiences with the cops that have involved a police report, this has been the case. Sometimes the inaccuracies were minor things that simply made the cop's job easier or their story avoid inconsistencies, other times there were vital facts misreported or completely made up) Unless there's a tape [/i](Q: More evidence of police arresting citizens on false charges when their own gross misconduct is the only crime), who's going to call them on it? (Which is an argument for taping almost every interaction between cop and civilian, incidentally.)

Is that fair of me? To the individual cop who deserves to be judged on his or her own merits, no. So if you call me for jury duty, I'll try to put my bias aside. But there's also a lesson here about the limits of experience. You might be 90% right when you judge a book by its cover. When you take one look at me, for instance, and say: that dude likes cops. But that 10% -- that unexpected quirk, incident, or bias -- will almost always get you in the end.

But, y'know what? We've talked an awful lot about Crowley and Gates. Probably too much.


I agree with all of that, including the last line, but thought it important to note that there is now proof that Crowley's report is not an accurate accounting of what happened.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 07-29-2009, 01:57 PM
Wanted to share this link about the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090729/...scholar_caller


Out of all of the people involved in all of this bullshit, this woman is the only one I feel sorry for. She saw what she thought was a crime being committed and did the right thing by calling the police, and now she's been labeled a racist and called names and generally spat upon, even though she never did such a thing. Now she has to go through her life having been involved in all of this shit, and while going public like this may soften the racist label she has unrightfully earned, people will always view her as a racist from now on.

It reminds me a little bit of that episode of South Park where Randy blurts out "nigger" on tv and then gets labeled "one of those "nigger" guys" everywhere he goes afterwards, when he meant nothing by it to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 07-29-2009, 02:06 PM
I'm not liking the suggestion that Gates called the 911 caller a racist. I'm not saying that it's happening here but I've noticed through the media that it's heavily implied. Any labels put on this woman are just people accusing her. If you want proof, you can look at this interview.

Quote:
We depend on the policeóIím glad that this lady called 911. I hope right now if someone is breaking into my house sheís calling 911 and the police will come! I just donít want to be arrested for being black at home! I think this was a bit of an extreme reaction.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 07-29-2009, 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
I'm not liking the suggestion that Gates called the 911 caller a racist....

I dont think it was him. And she certainly didnt mean him. She says, in that story I just linked, that people are coming up to her on the street and calling her a racist, among other names. Not Gates.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 07-29-2009, 02:14 PM
I wasn't referring to her own personal experiences, just that the media and plenty of other people are implying that she's labelled as racist by Gates. We all know that he was the first one to accuse racism on the cop, so with all of this coverage people might assume that he also claimed the caller was racist. I'm just trying to clear the air on that and explain how he actually commended her for calling.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 07-29-2009, 02:20 PM
In all the coverage I've read and seen of this incident, I haven't seen anyone say or imply the caller was racist. She did exactly the right thing and Crowley's actions have nothing to do with hers. Even if she had described the guys breaking in as two black males, I'm not sure how that would make things worse, it's not as though "black" is a racial slur or inappropriate way to describe black guys. She couldn't even see them well though, and suggested it may be their own house they were in, so she couldn't be more in the clear.

The article says "'People' called her racist" and "She was called racist 'on blogs'" without referencing any person, example, location, or source (Great job, AP! Jesus Christ). What blogs? Anyone to her face who somehow knew she was the caller? The idea that a random stranger saw her in person and somehow knew that she must have been the caller and yelled at her for racism seems odd and unlikely. Anonymous people certainly say really dumb shit on the Internet. There are at least several hundred thousand people up in arms convinced that Obama was born in Kenya, it's hard to fight stupid. But certainly no one remotely informed or responsible suggested Whalen was a racist, because nothing she did could be construed that way. Not only shouldn't she sweat it, but like a lot of the tangential shit to this story, this mostly sounds like a media manufactured narrative.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 07-29-2009 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:14 PM
The one thing about this hubbub that seems to me to be a gross oversight in the reporting of and perception of this story, is: Why didn't this woman know who he was?

This is something that should be talked about more in American society. On my street, I may not know my neighbors well, but I know them. I know their names, I'm friendly with them, and I know what they look like. Even in an upper-class neighborhood like theirs, this woman had no idea what one of her neighbors looked like.

This could have been a good opportunity for Know Your Neighbors editorials, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would have been more valuable than a week of contrived racial debate.

By the way, if there's anything else to get out of this story, it's I'd rather have a drink with Gates anyway. Red Stripe, ahoy!
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 07-29-2009, 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarmy Douche View Post


By the way, if there's anything else to get out of this story, it's I'd rather have a drink with Gates anyway. Red Stripe, ahoy!
No way! Blue Moon all the way baby!!

Anyways, this story is getting waaay too much coverage. It was a case of miscommunication and thats about it.

I saw the Daily Show's take on the whole thing and thought it was funny and pretty much true.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 07-30-2009, 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarmy Douche View Post
The one thing about this hubbub that seems to me to be a gross oversight in the reporting of and perception of this story, is: Why didn't this woman know who he was?

This is something that should be talked about more in American society. On my street, I may not know my neighbors well, but I know them. I know their names, I'm friendly with them, and I know what they look like. Even in an upper-class neighborhood like theirs, this woman had no idea what one of her neighbors looked like.

This could have been a good opportunity for Know Your Neighbors editorials, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would have been more valuable than a week of contrived racial debate.

By the way, if there's anything else to get out of this story, it's I'd rather have a drink with Gates anyway. Red Stripe, ahoy!
Seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:20 PM
So this thing is apparently all put to rest because the 3 of them sat down over beers today.....


....except now Fox News has a problem with Obama because he asked for a Bud Light, and Budwieser, or, Annhauser Busch, is no longer owned by an American company. So they ripped him for not supporting America.......

.....yet didnt so much as even raise their voices over the fact that Gates ordered a Red Stripe, which is a fucking JAMAICAN beer.


I think I'm finally starting to get how these news outlets work. Finally.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:46 PM
This is totally getting out of hand!!! But I didnt know Budweiser wasnt an American beer though.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starcat View Post
But I didnt know Budweiser wasnt an American beer though.

A lot of people dont. And those who do, like myself, dont care.


Except for the douchebags at Fox News......
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-30-2009, 11:12 PM
Oh I definately dont care, I do shots not beer... everyone just always acts like its the "all American beer"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump