It would be racism for the same reason you think a white person would be a racist if they didn't vote for a black person because they were black. Pretty simple statement I think, not too sure where the confusion lies.Poseidon wrote:
Double negatives? More like quadruple.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'm just laughing because you think that GS actually thinks that everyone against Obama only dislikes him because he's black.Reread please.lowing wrote:
I think you are a racist if you refuse to believe a white person is NOT capable of being against Obama for no other reason than because he is black.
I know the double negatives are hard to understand sometimes.
Lemme get this straight - Lowing thinks GS refuses to think that a person isn't capable of being Anti-Obama only because he's black.
Erm, how is that racism? Naive? A little. Racist? Nooooooooot really.
To use your wording:
Poseidon wrote:
Lowing thinks GS refuses to think that a person isn't capable of being Anti-Obama only for any other reason then because he's black.
i hate to say this, but, there is a grain of Truth to what the pastor says.
Like I said, I hardly believe that Gunslinger thinks that. I'm pretty sure he was being facetious...as he is in a lot of his posts.lowing wrote:
It would be racism for the same reason you think a white person would be a racist if they didn't vote for a black person because they were black. Pretty simple statement I think, not too sure where the confusion lies.Poseidon wrote:
Double negatives? More like quadruple.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Reread please.Poseidon wrote:
I'm just laughing because you think that GS actually thinks that everyone against Obama only dislikes him because he's black.
I know the double negatives are hard to understand sometimes.
Lemme get this straight - Lowing thinks GS refuses to think that a person isn't capable of being Anti-Obama only because he's black.
Erm, how is that racism? Naive? A little. Racist? Nooooooooot really.
I think you missed GS's point about how McCain had associated himself with Falwell before he died.ATG wrote:
Why do you think Rush Limbaugh was telling republicans to cross over and vote for Obama in the primaries?
Hillary may be hated but she hasn't got half the scary baggage, and there isn't hardly a shade in difference between them in policy.
lol @ democrats.
In other words, both parties have their lunatics, but if associating with lunatics is a reason not to vote for someone, then you might as well not vote for anyone....
my thing is this: what does it have to do with a discussion on barack obama. he brought it up on his own accord. why even bring up this statistic. couple this with the fact that he seems to be vehemently against barack obama for because of the racial views of those in his inner circle, but he has no problem supporting ron paul and and white supremacist baggage that brings along. its not that hard to figure out the reasons why he doesnt like Obama.lowing wrote:
you know I am not much on PC, you also know that my predjudices are social and not racial, so I am compelled to ask you, did he post something that is untrue when he said that black communities have higher crime rates?? If it is true, why are you offended? and if you are, shouldn't you be so by the people who are commiting the crimes and contributing to the statistic?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
too bad the man stated his low opinion on black people before I made any kind of accusation.lowing wrote:
I think you are a racist if you refuse to believe a white person is NOT capable of being against Obama for no other reason than because he is black.
you can dislike barack obama all you want. doesnt mean you are racist. I dislike hillary clinton, but I dont consider myself sexist. Bringing up crime statistics on black people in America on a discussion about a Obama is inappropriate, I think. It clearly shows where that person's views stand on.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-15 20:45:07)
fair enough, GS.
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.Masques wrote:
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
Nooooooo........... crime has everything to do with personal responisibilty, as does poverty... This bullshit that "whitey is keeping me down" has been a lame excuse for quite some time now.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.Masques wrote:
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
yer new here, ain'tcha?Masques wrote:
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
Personal responsibility plays a part, but I'm also not saying the whitey thing either. There are plenty of poor white people out there.lowing wrote:
Nooooooo........... crime has everything to do with personal responisibilty, as does poverty... This bullshit that "whitey is keeping me down" has been a lame excuse for quite some time now.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.Masques wrote:
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
Again, this isn't even about race, it's about poverty. People still have to deal with the repercussions of their actions, but they are less likely to make criminal actions when they live under better circumstances.
It's all connected.
i disagree, plenty of white collar criminals out there as well. It is all personal responsibility and personal morality and ethicsTurquoise wrote:
Personal responsibility plays a part, but I'm also not saying the whitey thing either. There are plenty of poor white people out there.lowing wrote:
Nooooooo........... crime has everything to do with personal responisibilty, as does poverty... This bullshit that "whitey is keeping me down" has been a lame excuse for quite some time now.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.
Again, this isn't even about race, it's about poverty. People still have to deal with the repercussions of their actions, but they are less likely to make criminal actions when they live under better circumstances.
It's all connected.
Even going beyond that (and I'm wearing my Social Scientist hat here) all you can say is that more individuals of a particular group are actually convicted of a crime. For it to be true that members of said group are more criminal you would have to believe that every person convicted of a crime in our criminal justice system is in fact guilty.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.Masques wrote:
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
There are definitely plenty of those too, but their actions stem from greed, not from desperation.lowing wrote:
i disagree, plenty of white collar criminals out there as well. It is all personal responsibility and personal morality and ethicsTurquoise wrote:
Personal responsibility plays a part, but I'm also not saying the whitey thing either. There are plenty of poor white people out there.lowing wrote:
Nooooooo........... crime has everything to do with personal responisibilty, as does poverty... This bullshit that "whitey is keeping me down" has been a lame excuse for quite some time now.
Again, this isn't even about race, it's about poverty. People still have to deal with the repercussions of their actions, but they are less likely to make criminal actions when they live under better circumstances.
It's all connected.
Those are really the 2 main failings of humanity: desperation and greed. The former is highly based on external factors that we only have limited control over, but the latter is more indicative of personal responsibility.
To put it another way, the possibility of going to prison seems a lot less intimidating when you have little to lose but a lot to gain from a crime. Whereas, if you're a rich guy trying to get richer from embezzlement, your judgment is flawed to a greater extent because you have much more to lose if you get caught.
This is why corporate crime operates on a different kind of motive than things like violent crime. Violent crime is often a reaction of desperation. While personal responsibility is still a part of this, it's much easier to maintain your "ethics" when you can feed your family. When you can't, you often end up "bending the rules", if you know what I mean.
In other words, you're greatly simplifying an endemic problem.
Touche... another often overlooked principle.Masques wrote:
Even going beyond that (and I'm wearing my Social Scientist hat here) all you can say is that more individuals of a particular group are actually convicted of a crime. For it to be true that members of said group are more criminal you would have to believe that every person convicted of a crime in our criminal justice system is in fact guilty.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.Masques wrote:
I'm wondering how the fuck this conversation went from what his Pastor said to the issue of race and crime in America. It's nowhere near in the same fucking ball park.
I would buy that argument if it were children's clothes, meat, fruits and vegetables that they were stealing, instead of cars, plasma tv's, and stereos for drug money or to pay off a booky.Turquoise wrote:
There are definitely plenty of those too, but their actions stem from greed, not from desperation.lowing wrote:
i disagree, plenty of white collar criminals out there as well. It is all personal responsibility and personal morality and ethicsTurquoise wrote:
Personal responsibility plays a part, but I'm also not saying the whitey thing either. There are plenty of poor white people out there.
Again, this isn't even about race, it's about poverty. People still have to deal with the repercussions of their actions, but they are less likely to make criminal actions when they live under better circumstances.
It's all connected.
Those are really the 2 main failings of humanity: desperation and greed. The former is highly based on external factors that we only have limited control over, but the latter is more indicative of personal responsibility.
To put it another way, the possibility of going to prison seems a lot less intimidating when you have little to lose but a lot to gain from a crime. Whereas, if you're a rich guy trying to get richer from embezzlement, your judgment is flawed to a greater extent because you have much more to lose if you get caught.
This is why corporate crime operates on a different kind of motive than things like violent crime. Violent crime is often a reaction of desperation. While personal responsibility is still a part of this, it's much easier to maintain your "ethics" when you can feed your family. When you can't, you often end up "bending the rules", if you know what I mean.
In other words, you're greatly simplifying an endemic problem.
nope, the ratio is the same unless you are saying there are NO other groups falsely imprisioned other than the one in question.Turquoise wrote:
Touche... another often overlooked principle.Masques wrote:
Even going beyond that (and I'm wearing my Social Scientist hat here) all you can say is that more individuals of a particular group are actually convicted of a crime. For it to be true that members of said group are more criminal you would have to believe that every person convicted of a crime in our criminal justice system is in fact guilty.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... It also demonstrates that many people still don't understand that poverty has more to do with crime than race does.
Absolutely. You can often determine quite clearly what is motivating a theft by what is stolen. Materialistic and drug-related thieves get very little sympathy from me, but if the case actually does involve selling something for the money to provide for a family, then the act is certainly more understandable. I'm not saying that it should be legal or permitted in any way, but it at least provides a context by which the actions can be understood.lowing wrote:
I would buy that argument if it were children's clothes, meat, fruits and vegetables that they were stealing, instead of cars, plasma tv's, and stereos for drug money or to pay off a booky.
I think you missed what Masques was saying. In other words, there is no guarantee that our justice system is 100% accurate, and by the same token, there is also no guarantee that the system is egalitarian in its conviction rate.lowing wrote:
nope, the ratio is the same unless you are saying there are NO other groups falsely imprisioned other than the one in question.Turquoise wrote:
Touche... another often overlooked principle.Masques wrote:
Even going beyond that (and I'm wearing my Social Scientist hat here) all you can say is that more individuals of a particular group are actually convicted of a crime. For it to be true that members of said group are more criminal you would have to believe that every person convicted of a crime in our criminal justice system is in fact guilty.
Blacks may get falsely convicted more often than whites. I don't have any stats to back that up, but this is a valid possibility. I'm not really sure if I believe this to be the case, but it is worth considering.
There are a lot of Mexicans in prison and they are the poorest bastards around. They come to the country illegally and don't get as many of the welfare perks that the Blacks and Indians get. I'm just glad that I am white so I don't have to go to prison because I am poor, well unless I decide to do meth or save the whales.
I forgot what my point was but it was probably racially insensitive and against Muslims knowing my history.
I forgot what my point was but it was probably racially insensitive and against Muslims knowing my history.
You have always claimed that Ron Paul was a white supremist, and still, I have yet to see any evidence of that.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
my thing is this: what does it have to do with a discussion on barack obama. he brought it up on his own accord. why even bring up this statistic. couple this with the fact that he seems to be vehemently against barack obama for because of the racial views of those in his inner circle, but he has no problem supporting ron paul and and white supremacist baggage that brings along. its not that hard to figure out the reasons why he doesnt like Obama.lowing wrote:
you know I am not much on PC, you also know that my predjudices are social and not racial, so I am compelled to ask you, did he post something that is untrue when he said that black communities have higher crime rates?? If it is true, why are you offended? and if you are, shouldn't you be so by the people who are commiting the crimes and contributing to the statistic?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
too bad the man stated his low opinion on black people before I made any kind of accusation.
I have no idea what you just said....Lotta_Drool wrote:
There are a lot of Mexicans in prison and they are the poorest bastards around. They come to the country illegally and don't get as many of the welfare perks that the Blacks and Indians get. I'm just glad that I am white so I don't have to go to prison because I am poor, well unless I decide to do meth or save the whales.
I forgot what my point was but it was probably racially insensitive and against Muslims knowing my history.
I am sorry turquoise, i do not mean to be a pain in the ass with you tonite but I still gotta disagree.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. You can often determine quite clearly what is motivating a theft by what is stolen. Materialistic and drug-related thieves get very little sympathy from me, but if the case actually does involve selling something for the money to provide for a family, then the act is certainly more understandable. I'm not saying that it should be legal or permitted in any way, but it at least provides a context by which the actions can be understood.lowing wrote:
I would buy that argument if it were children's clothes, meat, fruits and vegetables that they were stealing, instead of cars, plasma tv's, and stereos for drug money or to pay off a booky.
If you have children and you still can't seem to find any motivation to do something with your life but choose to steal from someone else's children instead, you are still just as big a piece of shit not worth the cell you should inhabit.