(09-23-2016 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 02:00 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  "PROTECT OUR RIGHTS" Conservatives shout. Unless it's the right of minority citizens to walk the streets free of harassment of police without probable cause.

I don't think it's that extreme, just that they don't mind it because it isn't being suggested to happen to them. It's suggested to happen to 'other'.

That's a bit like asking what you think of speed bumps. If you have a problem with people speeding down your streets, they might be a good idea. If you don't have that problem, then it's just a nuisance. High crime areas (the subject) obviously have a problem (high crime)

We can debate whether this place or that place is high crime (what the NY judge seemed to be asking) but once that determination is made, race is immaterial. It's the area, not the race. Low crime areas (black white or green) wouldn't be subject to it.

We're just going to have to disagree. I couldn't trust the NC government as it is today if they chose to enact the law. The popularity of negative racial politics is too strong here.

(09-23-2016 04:06 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 04:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:46 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't think it's that extreme, just that they don't mind it because it isn't being suggested to happen to them. It's suggested to happen to 'other'.

The ultimate arbiter of our Constitutional rights decided almost a half century ago that a Terry stop, which is what "stop and frisk" is, is not a violation of one's civil rights. So what exactly are you two whining about?

I don't think I'm whining. I just don't like the idea of the law and that's it. I'm not really questioning the constitutionality of it.

I do have a problem with the fact that Trump makes these suggestions in front of very few black people. He's just saying this because his followers love to hear this crap.

I'll gladly answer more questions you have over PM, if there are more.

He made the suggestion at an African-American town hall in direct response to a question posed to him by an African-American man.





Exactly how many African-Americans does he need around to make these suggestion in your opinion?

Have you seen a picture of the audience?

What did you expect? Blacks blindly support the leftists. What's Trump supposed to do, crash the NAACP National Convention?

It's not really blind. When the only reason the GOP can come up with to vote for them is "what do you have to lose", there isn't that much of a choice. There's also a lot to reconcile when considering a vote for republicans.

Rand Paul went to Howard university to speak. Jack Kemp spoke in front of black audiences. It's not like it can't be done.

(09-23-2016 04:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:46 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 02:00 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  "PROTECT OUR RIGHTS" Conservatives shout. Unless it's the right of minority citizens to walk the streets free of harassment of police without probable cause.

I don't think it's that extreme, just that they don't mind it because it isn't being suggested to happen to them. It's suggested to happen to 'other'.

The ultimate arbiter of our Constitutional rights decided almost a half century ago that a Terry stop, which is what "stop and frisk" is, is not a violation of one's civil rights. So what exactly are you two whining about?

I don't think I'm whining. I just don't like the idea of the law and that's it. I'm not really questioning the constitutionality of it.

I do have a problem with the fact that Trump makes these suggestions in front of very few black people. He's just saying this because his followers love to hear this crap.

I'll gladly answer more questions you have over PM, if there are more.

He made the suggestion at an African-American town hall in direct response to a question posed to him by an African-American man.





Exactly how many African-Americans does he need around to make these suggestion in your opinion?

Lmao

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-23-2016 04:11 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 02:00 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  "PROTECT OUR RIGHTS" Conservatives shout. Unless it's the right of minority citizens to walk the streets free of harassment of police without probable cause.

I don't think it's that extreme, just that they don't mind it because it isn't being suggested to happen to them. It's suggested to happen to 'other'.

That's a bit like asking what you think of speed bumps. If you have a problem with people speeding down your streets, they might be a good idea. If you don't have that problem, then it's just a nuisance. High crime areas (the subject) obviously have a problem (high crime)

We can debate whether this place or that place is high crime (what the NY judge seemed to be asking) but once that determination is made, race is immaterial. It's the area, not the race. Low crime areas (black white or green) wouldn't be subject to it.

We're just going to have to disagree. I couldn't trust the NC government as it is today if they chose to enact the law. The popularity of negative racial politics is too strong here.

That's a crock Nomad. You basically called people who support laws you disagree with racist, and now you want to simply agree to disagree? If you don't like the law or trust the people, we don't need to agree to disagree because I never said I did... I don't think it necessary where I live, and if you don't either, then don't vote for it where you live. I've repeatedly suggested the exact opposite of what you seem to want to disagree with, that only those subject to such intrusions should be voting for or against it.

FTR, the law has been in place for a few decades now, and was recently suspended with a judge simply stating that the 'place' must be specified... SOmething our resident moron John ignores.

John, I'm sure you're more comfortable talking to 4th graders, but even 4th graders make better, more informed and more intellectual arguments than you. You've been proven wrong and a liar again and again.

If I ever need your opinion, I'll just get a lobotomy instead.

(09-23-2016 05:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 04:11 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:12 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 02:00 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  "PROTECT OUR RIGHTS" Conservatives shout. Unless it's the right of minority citizens to walk the streets free of harassment of police without probable cause.

I don't think it's that extreme, just that they don't mind it because it isn't being suggested to happen to them. It's suggested to happen to 'other'.

That's a bit like asking what you think of speed bumps. If you have a problem with people speeding down your streets, they might be a good idea. If you don't have that problem, then it's just a nuisance. High crime areas (the subject) obviously have a problem (high crime)

We can debate whether this place or that place is high crime (what the NY judge seemed to be asking) but once that determination is made, race is immaterial. It's the area, not the race. Low crime areas (black white or green) wouldn't be subject to it.

We're just going to have to disagree. I couldn't trust the NC government as it is today if they chose to enact the law. The popularity of negative racial politics is too strong here.

That's a crock Nomad. You basically called people who support laws you disagree with racist, and now you want to simply agree to disagree? If you don't like the law or trust the people, we don't need to agree to disagree because I never said I did... I don't think it necessary where I live, and if you don't either, then don't vote for it where you live. I've repeatedly suggested the exact opposite of what you seem to want to disagree with, that only those subject to such intrusions should be voting for or against it.

FTR, the law has been in place for a few decades now, and was recently suspended with a judge simply stating that the 'place' must be specified... SOmething our resident moron John ignores.

John, I'm sure you're more comfortable talking to 4th graders, but even 4th graders make better, more informed and more intellectual arguments than you. You've been proven wrong and a liar again and again.

If I ever need your opinion, I'll just get a lobotomy instead.

I didn't call people who support laws that I disagree with racist. I'm pretty sure people disagree with me all the time and I have no problem with that. I'm just saying why I wouldn't want it. The NCGOP has a small record of playing negative racial games now and I can't imagine what they'd do with stop-and-frisk.

(09-23-2016 04:27 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's not really blind. When the only reason the GOP can come up with to vote for them is "what do you have to lose", there isn't that much of a choice. There's also a lot to reconcile when considering a vote for republicans.

Rand Paul went to Howard university to speak. Jack Kemp spoke in front of black audiences. It's not like it can't be done.

How'd that turn out for them?

Of course it can be done and they are hardly the only ones to do it... The question is, what did it earn them?

'What do you have to lose' isn't the best argument FOR Republican principles. The best argument is that Democrats haven't done anything for them, so even if you don't trust that 'making America great' means more jobs and higher wages without having to mandate an unsupportable minimum wage... You STILL have little to lose versus supporting a party that hasn't made their lives any better either. It's an indictment of Democratic policies, not an argument FOR Republican ones.
'

(09-03-1974 01:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I didn't call people who support laws that I disagree with racist. I'm pretty sure people disagree with me all the time and I have no problem with that. I'm just saying why I wouldn't want it. The NCGOP has a small record of playing negative racial games now and I can't imagine what they'd do with stop-and-frisk.

My apologies. I didn't mean ALL ideas, just this one, and I'll accept that you are saying THEY would adopt such a position, not that you would. We still aren't disagreeing, because I never said they wouldn't.

What I'm saying is that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People repeatedly don't do the right things or make the right decisions because of crap like what you're describing... And democrats thrive on it. It absolutely works... But it's still wrong. We're talking about 'reaching out to the community' and then we're essentially saying that you can't reach out to them with policies that are different from what the democrats have told them because you'll be called racist.

So why do it?

Stop and frisk (the version used in NY, with a 'specific area' written policy that is accepted by and perhaps even operated in conjucntction with community activists in the neighborhood who want 'something' done about the crime problem) is not an outlandish or racist or unconstitutional act. The only people it 'targets' are people breaking the law.

Profiling works ask Isreal.

Stop and Frisk works ask Rudy G and New Yorkers.

It's racist and you're a bigot if you're against good police work protecting people in high crime neighborhoods.

The lefts preference is that they kill their own unborn children in the womb. But killing in the streets works for em too.

S&F isn't racist, but could easily be abused by racists (or any other bad person) if it isn't limited to an area where the problem is pronounced enough to warrant the risk and isn't overseen. Having said that, mere statistics wouldn't demonstrate racism... You're looking at a small area, and small areas are often culturally outside the norm, and 'gangs' (who make up much of the problems) certainly are.

In a Latino area where latino gangs are causing most of the problems, even if the cultural mix is 70/30... I'd STILL expect the 's&f' ratios to be closer to 95/5

In El Paso if known gang members and felons are found congregating in an area together they are arrested. I'm all for it as those S O's are like mosquitos they bring nothing good and everything bad.

(09-23-2016 04:27 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's not really blind. When the only reason the GOP can come up with to vote for them is "what do you have to lose", there isn't that much of a choice. There's also a lot to reconcile when considering a vote for republicans.

Rand Paul went to Howard university to speak. Jack Kemp spoke in front of black audiences. It's not like it can't be done.

Why are the Blacks (95% or so) so willfully stupid & keep voting for the Democratic Party ? Are y'all that content with the plantation that LBJ put you on?

I know they have television and for generations have seen Dynasty and Dr. Cliff Huckstable, George Jefferson, Fresh Prince of Belaire. There are better opportunities out there. You just have to TRY and put forth some effort.

Unfair comment, Duke... by and large, they DO try and put forth all sorts of effort.

The problem is that they trust the government to take care of them, but not to protect them from corporations.

The result of that is concentrated poverty (because that is easier to distribute benefits) where there really aren't any decent job opportunities for them... and if they DO redevelop an area, wealthy people come in and push them right back out anyway.

The best example (though it's really not that good) is Detroit.... Where the people laid off as the auto industry left for places like Texas and Tennessee (and Canada and Mexico) are afraid to or can't follow those jobs (its not like the closing and opening are always related) and once the government starts providing concentrated support, they're never going to feel comfortable leaving... so then you recruit 'other' businesses, and of course you hire SOME of those people, but more often (especially for the better jobs) you attract people from other areas...