No you're not, you are looking to set him up with anything he says you can disect to call him a racist.AussieReaper wrote:
Just wondering, is this what you do believe?Mitch wrote:
Get the fuck out of here its the freedom of speech if i do not like you i can say so without being sued. If i dont like Irish because they are always drunk and obnoxious i can say it. If i dont like blacks because they are welfare breeding leeches who commit most crime then i can say that too.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Black Philadelphia police sue over message board
Wow, so when an Islamic council hold an open conference you believe the exact opposite?lowing wrote:
I agree, and since no one specific can say they were harassed, certainly no one was slandered or singled out, and nothing that was said was unfair, I assume you feel this is protected.
they are recruiting, and their track record is well established. Also I believe holding a council for recruiting terrorists and planning the destruction of western society is not the same damn thing as calling a spade a spade.AussieReaper wrote:
Wow, so when an Islamic council hold an open conference you believe the exact opposite?lowing wrote:
I agree, and since no one specific can say they were harassed, certainly no one was slandered or singled out, and nothing that was said was unfair, I assume you feel this is protected.
I cannot help your inabilty to distinguish between the two.
Open conference =/= recruiting terrorists.lowing wrote:
they are recruiting, and their track record is well established. Also I believe holding a council for recruiting terrorists and planning the destruction of western society is not the same damn thing as calling a spade a spade.AussieReaper wrote:
Wow, so when an Islamic council hold an open conference you believe the exact opposite?lowing wrote:
I agree, and since no one specific can say they were harassed, certainly no one was slandered or singled out, and nothing that was said was unfair, I assume you feel this is protected.
I cannot help your inabilty to distinguish between the two.
But feel free to bleet on about how you love freedom of speech and these officers deserve it, when Muslim Americans do not.
It's quite fascinating the way you can be so double sided.
That article said they are holding it here because this is the only country that will host it. It is the Achilles heel of our society. Free speech is not meant to cover recruiting terrorism and plotting the downfall of the very society that allows you to conference on such matters.AussieReaper wrote:
Open conference =/= recruiting terrorists.lowing wrote:
they are recruiting, and their track record is well established. Also I believe holding a council for recruiting terrorists and planning the destruction of western society is not the same damn thing as calling a spade a spade.AussieReaper wrote:
Wow, so when an Islamic council hold an open conference you believe the exact opposite?
I cannot help your inability to distinguish between the two.
But feel free to bleet on about how you love freedom of speech and these officers deserve it, when Muslim Americans do not.
It's quite fascinating the way you can be so double sided.
and yes it is recruiting terrorist, their track record has been established
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-19 09:19:39)
But free speech is meant to cover police officers who bring about such racism that fellow police officers file law suit?lowing wrote:
That article said they are holding it here because this is the only country that will host it. It is the Achilles heel of our society. Free speech is not meant to cover recruiting terrorism and plotting the downfall of the very society that allows you to conference on such matters.
If you say so...
I would agree that is what he is doing. It has no relevance to this topic at all.lowing wrote:
No you're not, you are looking to set him up with anything he says you can disect to call him a racist.AussieReaper wrote:
Just wondering, is this what you do believe?Mitch wrote:
Get the fuck out of here its the freedom of speech if i do not like you i can say so without being sued. If i dont like Irish because they are always drunk and obnoxious i can say it. If i dont like blacks because they are welfare breeding leeches who commit most crime then i can say that too.
Freedom of speech is a very odd thing. Everyone in this world is free to say what they want. But, everyone in this world is also subject to the consequences of their speech. People bring up the constitution and such in arguments, but I think they are misusing that in their argument. Freedom of speech meant people could voice their opinions against the government. It does not mean you can go around calling people names and inciting dissension. But, that is my interpretation of what the founders meant.
They didn't bring racism, they spoke of an obervation, and very true and accurate observation. Nothing racist about the truth.AussieReaper wrote:
But free speech is meant to cover police officers who bring about such racism that fellow police officers file law suit?lowing wrote:
That article said they are holding it here because this is the only country that will host it. It is the Achilles heel of our society. Free speech is not meant to cover recruiting terrorism and plotting the downfall of the very society that allows you to conference on such matters.
If you say so...
Yup, you are free to speak the truth regardless of offense.Red Forman wrote:
I would agree that is what he is doing. It has no relevance to this topic at all.lowing wrote:
No you're not, you are looking to set him up with anything he says you can disect to call him a racist.AussieReaper wrote:
Just wondering, is this what you do believe?
Freedom of speech is a very odd thing. Everyone in this world is free to say what they want. But, everyone in this world is also subject to the consequences of their speech. People bring up the constitution and such in arguments, but I think they are misusing that in their argument. Freedom of speech meant people could voice their opinions against the government. It does not mean you can go around calling people names and inciting dissension. But, that is my interpretation of what the founders meant.
Libs twist such matters to bolster their ridiculous stances. they must because they can not do so going toe to toe with what is written. It most be deformed and remolded into something they can work with. Never mind they are doing it to the law.
You're free to speak so long as we deem it true?lowing wrote:
They didn't bring racism, they spoke of an obervation, and very true and accurate observation. Nothing racist about the truth.AussieReaper wrote:
But free speech is meant to cover police officers who bring about such racism that fellow police officers file law suit?lowing wrote:
That article said they are holding it here because this is the only country that will host it. It is the Achilles heel of our society. Free speech is not meant to cover recruiting terrorism and plotting the downfall of the very society that allows you to conference on such matters.
If you say so...
The Church held similar views in Europe and would burn scientists for speaking a "different version" of truth.
And if it was a very true and accurate observation I doubt so many fellow police officers would take offence, yet here we are.
The Truth wrote:
stupid cops, they're confusing black people with poor people.
Last edited by Spearhead (2009-07-19 09:38:30)
Yeah you can speak as long as it is the truth... they have slander laws, you know that right? You are not allowed to yell, FALSELY, fire inside a theater. Wed also have a free press, this does not mean you ca nwrite whatever you want, you can only wirte the truth or admitted fiction.AussieReaper wrote:
You're free to speak so long as we deem it true?lowing wrote:
They didn't bring racism, they spoke of an obervation, and very true and accurate observation. Nothing racist about the truth.AussieReaper wrote:
But free speech is meant to cover police officers who bring about such racism that fellow police officers file law suit?
If you say so...
The Church held similar views in Europe and would burn scientists for speaking a "different version" of truth.
And if it was a very true and accurate observation I doubt so many fellow police officers would take offence, yet here we are.
Do not bore me with what Europe did 300 years ago, it is the reason people fled that continent and has nothing to do with our society, our laws and our rights.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-19 10:16:03)
No they said nothing about all black people, they spoke of black people in urban areas.Spearhead wrote:
The Truth wrote:
stupid cops, they're confusing black people with poor people.
So is it really the truth about what they said about black people, or is it just that you'd like to think it was the truth.lowing wrote:
Yeah you can speak as long as it is the truth... they have slander laws, you know that right? You are not allowed to yell, FALSELY, fire inside a theater. Wed also have a free press, this does not mean you ca nwrite whatever you want, you can only wirte the truth or admitted fiction.AussieReaper wrote:
You're free to speak so long as we deem it true?lowing wrote:
They didn't bring racism, they spoke of an obervation, and very true and accurate observation. Nothing racist about the truth.
The Church held similar views in Europe and would burn scientists for speaking a "different version" of truth.
And if it was a very true and accurate observation I doubt so many fellow police officers would take offence, yet here we are.
Do not bore me with what Europe did 300 years ago, it is the reason people fled that continent and has nothing to do with our society, our laws and our rights.
Last edited by nibiru2012 (2009-07-19 10:33:06)
lol, they didn't say all black people, they said black people in "URBAN AREAS", and you know damn well it is the truthMekstizzle wrote:
So is it really the truth about what they said about black people, or is it just that you'd like to think it was the truth.lowing wrote:
Yeah you can speak as long as it is the truth... they have slander laws, you know that right? You are not allowed to yell, FALSELY, fire inside a theater. Wed also have a free press, this does not mean you ca nwrite whatever you want, you can only wirte the truth or admitted fiction.AussieReaper wrote:
You're free to speak so long as we deem it true?
The Church held similar views in Europe and would burn scientists for speaking a "different version" of truth.
And if it was a very true and accurate observation I doubt so many fellow police officers would take offence, yet here we are.
Do not bore me with what Europe did 300 years ago, it is the reason people fled that continent and has nothing to do with our society, our laws and our rights.
I don't know I don't live in the area. And just because they didn't say all black people and only said black people in urban areas, I mean that's still pretty racist and naive and a dumb assumption if you ask me!lowing wrote:
lol, they didn't say all black people, they said black people in "URBAN AREAS", and you know damn well it is the truthMekstizzle wrote:
So is it really the truth about what they said about black people, or is it just that you'd like to think it was the truth.lowing wrote:
Yeah you can speak as long as it is the truth... they have slander laws, you know that right? You are not allowed to yell, FALSELY, fire inside a theater. Wed also have a free press, this does not mean you ca nwrite whatever you want, you can only wirte the truth or admitted fiction.
Do not bore me with what Europe did 300 years ago, it is the reason people fled that continent and has nothing to do with our society, our laws and our rights.
Not racist, because it is the truth, and the YOU are the one who is naive to think it isn't, and there is nothing dumb about the assumption since it comes fom those that are actually serving in the areas.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't know I don't live in the area. And just because they didn't say all black people and only said black people in urban areas, I mean that's still pretty racist and naive and a dumb assumption if you ask me!lowing wrote:
lol, they didn't say all black people, they said black people in "URBAN AREAS", and you know damn well it is the truthMekstizzle wrote:
So is it really the truth about what they said about black people, or is it just that you'd like to think it was the truth.
you say you don't know because you don't live there, well they work in those areas, so who is more qualified to "assume" anything?
stereotypes and the truth are two different things. while the assumption that black people in urban areas are undereducated, violent, good-for-nothing freeloaders, the formula definitely doesn't apply to 100% of the (black) individuals of said area, therefore, is this "truth" not unfair, untrue and discriminant toward the good, hard-working, honest black individuals even if they're the minority?
You really need to get over the "you're generalizing" argument. It is weak/ What they speak of is the truth and just because there might be a small percentage that does not fit the bill, it does not negate what was said.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
stereotypes and the truth are two different things. while the assumption that black people in urban areas are undereducated, violent, good-for-nothing freeloaders, the formula definitely doesn't apply to 100% of the (black) individuals of said area, therefore, is this "truth" not unfair, untrue and discriminant toward the good, hard-working, honest black individuals even if they're the minority?
You sir, have just given me an idea. Much obligedlowing wrote:
You really need to get over the "you're generalizing" argument. It is weak/ What they speak of is the truth and just because there might be a small percentage that does not fit the bill, it does not negate what was said.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
stereotypes and the truth are two different things. while the assumption that black people in urban areas are undereducated, violent, good-for-nothing freeloaders, the formula definitely doesn't apply to 100% of the (black) individuals of said area, therefore, is this "truth" not unfair, untrue and discriminant toward the good, hard-working, honest black individuals even if they're the minority?
Truth hurts, I encounter this shit all the time at work, there so ignorant it makes you laugh.
I see.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
there so ignorant it makes you laugh.
Suddenly, irony.
Last edited by Flecco (2009-07-19 17:46:33)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I can assure you that, if the majority of the black population was lazy and criminally minded, our crime would be even higher than it already is.lowing wrote:
You really need to get over the "you're generalizing" argument. It is weak/ What they speak of is the truth and just because there might be a small percentage that does not fit the bill, it does not negate what was said.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
stereotypes and the truth are two different things. while the assumption that black people in urban areas are undereducated, violent, good-for-nothing freeloaders, the formula definitely doesn't apply to 100% of the (black) individuals of said area, therefore, is this "truth" not unfair, untrue and discriminant toward the good, hard-working, honest black individuals even if they're the minority?
Now, it is true that a significant minority of blacks are either incarcerated or have been at one point. Still, that's far from being the majority.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Black Philadelphia police sue over message board