No pre-conviction legal classification that suspends Constitutional (or for that matter, human) rights should exist. Not for gang members. Not for terrorists. Not for anyone.
But don't take it from me:
"If this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants -- even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."
-- Justice John Paul Stevens
Oh, I think Citizen Aretas has a proposition, but NASA nor the private sector has caught up with science to put it in action yet.
It's only a hunch, though. I have no concrete evidence to the contrary.
Hmm. Well, I missed that.
I kinda skimmed through the fast and furious Citizen Aretas/AMiB exchanges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. Well, I missed that.
I kinda bubble-bubble-bubbled through the fast and furious Citizen Aretas/AMiB exchanges.
Quite understandable, comrade. Let nature takes its course.
<cough>
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)
Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.
We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.
I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.
Since I posted this just before work and have just now come back to it, I got ninja'd several times on the "pro-life" murderer thing. I feel that's been answered more than adequately.
But as far as calling it asinine, good for you for being more 'respectful'. I prefer to call a spade a spade. The solution was asinine, and that is about the kindest word I can come up with. (Racist and Fascist sprang to mind.) I'd take it further and say Social Conservatism, and all of its answers, are asinine. It's a 'philosophy' based on a delusional adherence to prejudice and bigotry that dresses itself up in flowery terms like 'traditional values'. It's entirely the province of the dull-witted, the heartless, and the fundamentalist. I have no more respect for a social conservative's "solutions" than I do that of a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist's rantings because they're usually grounded in about the same amount of reality.
Hmmm. Not much I disagree with there.
+1
Hmm. Well, I missed that.
I kinda bubble-bubble-bubbled through the fast and furious Citizen Aretas/AMiB exchanges.
Quite understandable, comrade. Let nature takes its course.
<cough>
Well, the alternative is that I actually read it all and that would, of course, harsh my buzz.
I know its a civil rights nightmare but how do you get illegal drugs and guns off the street today & tomorrow? I've talk to bangers that work the law by using Minors. Diabolical.
The scenario about blacks & hispanics moving to the moon is a topic I won't touch here for fear of lock down!
Above bolded; my emphasis.
Looks like a baiting comment. I'll take it.
When I read a remark like I have here, it pauses me to point out the white elephant in the room and wonder if you were able to broach the topic elsewhere without fear of lock down ...
do you had a position to support it to get illegal drugs and guns off the street today and tomorrow out of a belief that the removal of a race (or races) outweighs the civil rights nightmare because the safety & welfare of the defined majority outweighs offending the defined minority?
P.S. - the term 'race' is a social construct and not a biological one, you are aware of this, correct?
Anyway, by this point, even Citizen Aretas hasn't proposed any anti-terrorism measures to be used against Chicago's "gangbangers" that weren't already anti-gangster measures, so I'm guessing the answer to the question posed by the thread is "No."
Unless I missed something.
Oh, I think Citizen Aretas has a proposition, but NASA nor the private sector has caught up with science to put it in action yet.
It's only a hunch, though. I have no concrete evidence to the contrary.
You did not read what MAN IN BLACK wrote. You took my response and made it into a soundbyte to attract attention to it.
It was MAN IN BLACK who suggested if every black & hispanic moved to the moon there would be another group to take their place, something like that. The statement was made as part of a long dialogue that you are now perverting.
Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)
Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.
We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.
I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.Since I posted this just before work and have just now come back to it, I got ninja'd several times on the "pro-life" murderer thing. I feel that's been answered more than adequately.
But as far as calling it asinine, good for you for being more 'respectful'. I prefer to call a spade a spade. The solution was asinine, and that is about the kindest word I can come up with. (Racist and Fascist sprang to mind.) I'd take it further and say Social Conservatism, and all of its answers, are asinine. It's a 'philosophy' based on a delusional adherence to prejudice and bigotry that dresses itself up in flowery terms like 'traditional values'. It's entirely the province of the dull-witted, the heartless, and the...
Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?
I'll just say I really disagree with you, you are well entrentched in you're ideology and anger and I wish not to derail the topic. Like I heard from a moderator somewhere, people say things on message boards they would never have the guts to say face to face.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You did not read what MAN IN BLACK wrote. You took my response and made it into a soundbyte to attract attention to it.
It was MAN IN BLACK who suggested if every black & hispanic moved to the moon there would be another group to take their place, something like that. The statement was made as part of a long dialogue that you are now perverting.
But it serves his interest to make you sound racist to shame you into silence and make others not listen to your actual words. The number one game in race politics.
|
|
Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?
I think this belief (in general, because it is rather prevalent) stems from whenever we say something like "We want a return to traditional values" they [the non-conservative] read it to mean we want a return to everything that was happening back when "traditional values" were the norm. Things like segregation, our wives to be barefoot and pregnant... Things like that...
I sure there are a few nut-jobs that claim to be conservative think like that, but for the most part it's pure hogwash...
But to most of the "liberally minded", conservatives are the epitome of evil and there is nothing we can say or do (aside from giving up our evil ways) that will make them change their minds about us...
But it serves his interest to make you sound racist to shame you into silence and make others not listen to your actual words. The number one game in race politics.It serves my interest to shame him into not saying racist things. The number one game in race politics is to make it unacceptable to say or do racist things and uncomfortable to be a racist. It seems to be working, too, since even Aretas has pointed out that if he says racist stuff, people will jump all over him. That is Working As Intended.
But you can feel persecuted if you want! Damn those liberals for making people feel bad for saying racist things.
HOLD on man! Making comments on race and crime and correlating race to crime does not make one a racist. Saying things that crime stats verify does not make one a racist.
If you want to own the conversation and intimidate others you throw out the word 'Racist.' To silence opposition you accuse them of having a racist mind or bent.People won't even touch issues and speak openly for fear of being labelled a Racist. That tactic is failing my friend, and I do say friend in all honesty.
I for one does not feel persecuted b/c I'm speaking openly about it, I'm not a coward.
|
|
But it serves his interest to make you sound racist to shame you into silence and make others not listen to your actual words. The number one game in race politics.It serves my interest to shame him into not saying racist things. The number one game in race politics is to make it unacceptable to say or do racist things and uncomfortable to be a racist. It seems to be working, too, since even Aretas has pointed out that if he says racist stuff, people will jump all over him. That is Working As Intended.
But you can feel persecuted if you want! Damn those liberals for making people feel bad for saying racist things.
Or things you falsely perceive as racist.
|
|
Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?I think this belief (in general, because it is rather prevalent) stems from whenever we say something like "We want a return to traditional values" they read it to mean we want a return to everything that was happening back when "traditional values" were the norm. Things like segregation, our wives to be barefoot and pregnant... Things like that...
I sure there are a few nut-jobs that claim to be conservative think like that, but for the most part it's pure hogwash...
But to most of the "liberally minded", conservatives are the epitome of evil and there is nothing we can say or do (aside from giving up our evil ways) that will make them change their minds about us...
The conservative no more want segregation and the end of womens rights than libs want coked up orgies in the elementary schools. Both sides have their stupid. But when one side is more numerous they think they can set the rules of what is ok.
|
|
But it serves his interest to make you sound racist to shame you into silence and make others not listen to your actual words. The number one game in race politics.It serves my interest to shame him into not saying racist things. The number one game in race politics is to make it unacceptable to say or do racist things and uncomfortable to be a racist. It seems to be working, too, since even Aretas has pointed out that if he says racist stuff, people will jump all over him. That is Working As Intended.
But you can feel persecuted if you want! Damn those liberals for making people feel bad for saying racist things.
HOLD on man! Making comments on race and crime and correlating race to crime does not make one a racist. Saying things that crime stats verify does not make one a racist.
If you want to own the conversation and intimidate others you throw out the word 'Racist.' To silence opposition you accuse them of having a racist mind or bent.
People won't even touch issues and speak openly for fear of being labelled a Racist. That tactic is failing my friend, and I do say friend in all honesty.
I for one does not feel persecuted b/c I'm speaking openly about it, I'm not a coward.
Truth often hurts feelings. Feelings trump facts in today's mind.
Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?Everyone saw him ask, right? Not just me?
Ok then. Here you go. There's more. In fact I imagine this is a treasure trove of it.
Ok so what? What is so prejudiced and bigoted about what I wrote? Not subscribing to a radical left agenda a problem for you, so what? I'm not advocating violence and discrimination. Get real man.
|
|
Ok so what? What is so prejudiced and bigoted about what I wrote? Not subscribing to a radical left agenda a problem for you, so what? I'm not advocating violence and discrimination. Get real man.Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?Everyone saw him ask, right? Not just me?
Ok then. Here you go. There's more. In fact I imagine this is a treasure trove of it.
He is still pissed about you not being all for gay marriage. Yet he missed all of the anti racism in that same post......
Blah blah blah.
So, for the umpteenth time, are there any actual anti-terrorism measures that you would like to use against gangstas? Or are you just throwing around words?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is significant denial in this thread, that, despite evidence to the contrary, environment doesn't matter. Only choices matter.
Suppose we accept that premise for a moment. Then it seems to follow that poverty in predominantly minority areas is solely the fault of the residents -- that is, that those racial minorities must inherently make inferior choices.
That isn't even so-called "crypto-racism"...that's plain, old-fashioned racism with a side of (shockingly shoddy) misdirection.
Ok so what? What is so prejudiced and bigoted about what I wrote? Not subscribing to a radical left agenda a problem for you, so what? I'm not advocating violence and discrimination. Get real man.Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?Everyone saw him ask, right? Not just me?
Ok then. Here you go. There's more. In fact I imagine this is a treasure trove of it.
Oh another thing. Since I did not respond bitterly to Entrerisshadow and asked to keep the thread on the rails WHY would you post all my posts? Could you of atleast opened up another thread to try and smear me? I'm trying to keep this on target and not about Social Conservatism or any other ISM.
Ok so what? What is so prejudiced and bigoted about what I wrote? Not subscribing to a radical left agenda a problem for you, so what? I'm not advocating violence and discrimination. Get real man.Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?Everyone saw him ask, right? Not just me?
Ok then. Here you go. There's more. In fact I imagine this is a treasure trove of it.
You asked where people see bigotry and prejudice in social conservatism. I gave you the first set of examples that came to mind. Neither prejudice nor bigotry require violence to exist, though of course they aren't going to be too upset if violence is around too.
Fifty years ago you'd be screaming about how we expected you to support the radical left agenda of desegregation and making the same lame appeals to tradition and insisting you don't support violence so you must be fine.
Oh another thing. Since I did not respond bitterly to Entrerisshadow and asked to keep the thread on the rails WHY would you post all my posts? Could you of atleast opened up another thread to try and smear me? I'm trying to keep this on target and not about Social Conservatism or any other ISM.
Dude, you asked the question. You don't get to pretend we're derailing the thread by answering you on topics you raised.
|
|
There is significant denial in this thread, that, despite evidence to the contrary, environment doesn't matter. Only choices matter.
Suppose we accept that premise for a moment. Then we can safely conclude that poverty in predominantly minority areas is the fault of the residents -- that is, that those racial minorities must inherently make inferior choices.
That isn't even so-called "crypto-racism"...that's plain, old-fashioned racism with a side of (shockingly shoddy) misdirection.
Except race has little to do with it. Actions do. Choice isn't the only factor but has FAR more to do with it than you will ever believe. But you prefer to pretend that it is not the fault of the drug user to use, not the fault of damn near every unwed mother to get pregnant, not the fault of the criminal that he steals, etc. They are all forced by someone else. no choice at all.
One point you are right, environment does matter to some extent. Environment is not a racial factor unless people choose to make it one. Also, environment is often the fault of the parents. Their choices screw over the kids but better to blame the bogey man than work to fix it
Ok so what? What is so prejudiced and bigoted about what I wrote? Not subscribing to a radical left agenda a problem for you, so what? I'm not advocating violence and discrimination. Get real man.Social Conservatism is a philosophy based on a delusional adherance to prejudice and bigotry? Where have you seen that?Everyone saw him ask, right? Not just me?
Ok then. Here you go. There's more. In fact I imagine this is a treasure trove of it.
You asked where people see bigotry and prejudice in social conservatism. I gave you the first set of examples that came to mind. Neither prejudice nor bigotry require violence to exist, though of course they aren't going to be too upset if violence is around too.
Fifty years ago you'd be screaming about how we expected you to support the radical left agenda of desegregation and making the same lame appeals to tradition and insisting you don't support violence so you must be fine.
I'm not seeing anythng bigoted about my posts. I'm outspoken and don't hold back but nothing bigoted. I understand I'm walking into the lions den when on these boards but that ok with me. I'm a gamer, it comes with the territory.
Its pretty lame to compare desegregation and same sex marriage. Why are you so fixated on talking about this everywhere you go. I take that back, I want to stay on topic.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered that maybe poor minorities have a higher ratio of crime due to having a higher ratio of searches?
Senior Software Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are seriously this close to banning people and writing code that auto-locks threads based on the same old set of participants flinging poo at each other. Please, keep it civil, keep it on track, and try to assume that the person you're talking to here is a real live adult human being who has come by their beliefs and feelings honestly.
And I too am interested in what treating "gang-bangers" as "terrorists". Please elaborate.
[Quickly cancels post after seeing Citizen Teter's warning on the preview page.]
|
|
Except race has little to do with it. Actions do. Choice isn't the only factor but has FAR more to do with it than you will ever believe. But you prefer to pretend that it is not the fault of the drug user to use, not the fault of damn near every unwed mother to get pregnant, not the fault of the criminal that he steals, etc. They are all forced by someone else. no choice at all.Nobody's saying they had no choice, but rather that they were offered bad choices. The idea is to make bad choices less attractive and good choices more available. What's more, those people are being punished. They have a crippling addiction, they have to raise their kids with little or no help, they're being pursued by the police. The goal is to help people who have few or no good choices.
Most poor people are not addicts, or unwed parents, or criminals. What makes you immediately assume that someone who is poor is one of those?
Except they had MANY more than just bad choices to make
You are right, most poor are not. and i have no problem with being poor, hell i grew up as poor as you can get. I did not blame others, did not make it worse. I worked my ass off and lived content. But being poor is not excuse for being dumb or criminal and too often they try that line.
You are right, most poor are not. and i have no problem with being poor, hell i grew up as poor as you can get. I did not blame others, did not make it worse. I worked my ass off and lived content. But being poor is not excuse for being dumb or criminal and too often they try that line.
Wouldn't being dumb be an adequate excuse for being dumb?
|
|
You are right, most poor are not. and i have no problem with being poor, hell i grew up as poor as you can get. I did not blame others, did not make it worse. I worked my ass off and lived content. But being poor is not excuse for being dumb or criminal and too often they try that line.Wouldn't being dumb be an adequate excuse for being dumb?
Implying that the poor are simply stupid?
Oh another thing. Since I did not respond bitterly to Entrerisshadow and asked to keep the thread on the rails WHY would you post all my posts? Could you of atleast opened up another thread to try and smear me? I'm trying to keep this on target and not about Social Conservatism or any other ISM.Picking on Aretas's history isn't really helpful here; after all, people did call out those posts in those contexts. If his problematic statements come from misunderstanding, he deserves to correct that going forward, but if they come from being a bigot, then he deserves enough rope to hang himself.
In service of that, you never did tell us, Aretas. What, exactly, is involved in treating gangs as terrorists?
Well I'm not in favor of targeting gang heirarchy with drone attacks! I believe someone suggested I am though. I am in favor of those displaying gang affiliations to be arrested on sight. Colors, signs, tats.
I want cops to be able to respond to on the spot information from C.I.'s a.s.a.p. No need to wait for a warrant on reputed gang members or gang operations being investigated.Probable cause will be pretty open ended.
Stop and frisk enacted.
Most importantly, the community must recognize the importance of stomping out gang culture. Defining them as social organizations that attract youngsters and gives them purpose only promotes a romantic picture. Hamas is a social organization in that context.
Heck if the government can hire thousands of new IRS agents I'm sure they can fund task forces to crack down and destroy the gangs of Chicago.
Implying that the poor are simply stupid?You are right, most poor are not. and i have no problem with being poor, hell i grew up as poor as you can get. I did not blame others, did not make it worse. I worked my ass off and lived content. But being poor is not excuse for being dumb or criminal and too often they try that line.Wouldn't being dumb be an adequate excuse for being dumb?
Uh, no. The implication being that the stupid are simply stupid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How come you never answer my questions, Citizen Aretas? I never (rarely) call you a crypto-fascist.
Anyway, yeah. I'm opposed to arresting those displaying gang affiliations on sight.
I'm opposed to not needing a warrant or an investigation to arrest gang members.
I'm not exactly sure what making probable cause more open-ended is, but I'm probably against it.
I'm opposed to stop and frisk.
I'm iffy about the language about "recogniz[ing] the importance of stomping out gang culture". Not because I'm in favor or gangs, but I suspect that this "recognition" would translate into supporting all of the violations of civil liberties listed above.
Anyway, I'll see you guys tomorrow!
That is, if we aren't all banned.
In the interest of not getting banned, I'm done here as well.
I am in favor of those displaying gang affiliations to be arrested on sight. Colors, signs, tats.Who determines the definition of gang and gang signs, and how do you keep this from being corrupted? You already have craziness like the FBI declaring fans of ICP to be a criminal gang.
Also, this is unconstitutional. Freedom of expression and association are core to the first amendment.
I want cops to be able to respond to on the spot information from C.I.'s a.s.a.p. No need to wait for a warrant on reputed gang members or gang operations being investigated.Isn't this going to lead to more harassment of innocent people? Go ask Bitter Thorn for a list of misuse of no-knock warrants, he'll be happy to provide.
Probable cause will be pretty open ended.
Stop and frisk enacted.This will destroy any hope of support from the community. Rules requiring some sort of justification for harassing people or intruding on their privacy both keep the police from harassing innocent people and also offer a justification for necessary intrusions. If you reduce the standard to "Well, we thought it was a good idea at the time," then people will be pissed when the police are wrong, and rightly so!
Also, unconstitutional.
Most importantly, the community must recognize the importance of stomping out gang culture. Defining them as social organizations that attract youngsters and gives them purpose only promotes a romantic picture.That they give disenfranchised people purpose is why gangs are...
Got to prep for my Thursday night game! I'll respond when I get back in.
Later 'Man' in Black!
|
|
You have to attack why they exist
This is all long term (which I'm fine with)...
But we live in a society of instant gratification; heck, we complain when it takes more than 30 minutes for our pizza to be delivered!
Do you have any ideas for how to at least curb gang violence in the short term?
I apologize if you've already answered this, for if so, I missed it...
|
|
There is no quick fix.
Exactly, and when you couple that with the mentality of "I want what I want, when I want it, and I want it NOW!"
The prospects do not look good...
I do not believe this country has the stomach for such long term goals in situations like this...
And no, I am not therefore saying that we should just ignore the problem...
I do not however, have the answer either...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no quick fix.Exactly, and when you couple that with the mentality of "I want what I want, when I want it, and I want it NOW!"
The prospects do not look good...
I do not believe this country has the stomach for such long term goals in situations like this...
And no, I am not therefore saying that we should just ignore the problem...
I do not however, have the answer either...
If one is facing a difficult problem (regardless of what it is) and there is no short term fix, you act on the long term fix. If the desired option is to work to find a short term solution, fine, but initiate the long term solution as well so if you do not find a short term solution, you are actually working towards a solution. To say "a long term solution just won't do" is not an option if one truly wants to solve the issue one faces.