Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: "That Other Thing" (From Mags blog)

  1. #11
    Lord Of The Onion Rings
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    The problem isn't that we aren't recruiting minorities, it's that they don't want to join
    I can see that. And wanting that, isn't all it takes. There's distrust in the minority communities. There's no value in owning who started what, but it's a part of it. I do believe, in my statement, that POC in the force would improve things. There's definitely

    You mention gerrymandering. It'd be silly to say that doesn't happen, but it also happens on both sides.
    I don't know I've ever seen anything like this out of Democrats, and remember, I'm claiming myself a very recent independent, prior very conservative. The Repubicans have used reprehensible tactics since 2004 to mortgage being on the wrong side of history longterm, for short term gain. Gay marriage, transgender bathroom, don't matter to people that just want less gov't. People were manipulated to judge other souls so that a side could have gains. Democrats are historically very scattered and disorganized in lots of ways, but I'd rather vote for that than this specific brand of organization.

    The problem isn't that we aren't recruiting minorities, it's that they don't want to join
    Well, by that I mean an emboldening of Nazi type activity. And for whatever reason it's not just here. It happened in Britain with a similar anti-immigrant, anti-POC rhetoric post-Brexit (which had nothing at all to do with race, so it's remarkably confusing). I do think the President in his actions has cultivated a bit of that, where most any politician at least quietly keeps distance (with segregationists and Robert Byrd being notable disparates as well). I guess that's what I mean. He's personally leaned into the immigrant/refugee/transgender/gay groups, but he's a very preferred flavor for racists, and his politics have been almost to a fault intending on undoing 44's Presidency, more than much else. And if birtherism isn't racist, it's not very not racist is it?

    Definitely agree turnout was problematic. I do believe that suppression tactics were helpful in that. Apathy was, too.

    Lastly, you mention that people get pulled over for the color of their skin and killed because of their race.
    Cause and effect, to a point. POC seem to get pulled over more, and the whole concept of the protest isn't white people being shot at stops. As for the percentage being tiny, well, I mean, I would hope. But I don't know that my tolerance of unarmed civilians being murdered by peace officers is all that high. This isn't data points worth statement of conspiracy, but it's souls.

    there is a wave of unjustified killings.
    I'm saying there's a wave of unjustified killings. I'm saying, take out race, gender, any demographic, I have a hard time believing that an officer with a weapon needs to shoot to kill a person in their car, that may be mentally ill, that may need medical attention, that may be simply deaf, in any form an untrained civilian that isn't fully complying and outright submissive, is a target. That's not how things should be. Officers are trained. They're able to fear, I hate to be in those shoes. But they have the upper hand, and there are just too many people who leathally wound a civilian for what seems to be essentially no reason at all.

    re: the flag:

  2. #12
    Lord Of The Onion Rings
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Separately, had a good conversation with my dad, a vet*, who's been defiantly anti-Kaepernick for a year. We've had heated discussions. Today, and this is the God's honest truth, he asked me, "put it in context. What are they protesting?" A man smarter than me, that's served (army intelligence, bronze star, Vietnam, E5 but paid under the department of Interior as a Master Sergeant, was in Cambodia hearing Nixon saying there weren't troops in Cambodia), who's on record as saying for 13 months that this was disrespectful and the wrong way to do it, asked the why. He got his answer, and just said, "allright, I can see that." It was meaningful. We agree this has been mishandled, of course. It took us a year. We're the same damn person.

    *I am, in fact, the first in my line to not serve. I had plans. I was to be a Navy man. Officer, if I could. Or if army, ACE. Hell,probably could've made the Navy band like a friend of mine but that's not the point. I was obsessed with implements of war from when I was about my daughter's current age, reading about battleships and bombers while other kids were reading fun stuff. I never fully waivered on that, until he overheard a news story trumpeting the possible return of the draft. He said, "We'll move to Canada first." He wanted better for me, he knew what he went through, he'd let me go willingly but he wouldn't let me go unwillingly. It framed the whole thing, honestly. I realized those neat objects tore well intentioned patriots from their families, often permanently. War wasn't like football anymore. Still regret I didn't serve, I guess.

    Edit - while we're way off-topic, RIP Charles Bradley.
    Last edited by magnus; 09-26-2017 at 10:40 PM.

  3. #13
    Hey Mags, thanks for the response!

    So I googled info on what states are the most gerrymandered. Looks like (depending on your source) 7-9 out of the top 10 are Republican controlled, so I somewhat concede your point. FWIW, NC is #1.

    I'm not all that interested in defending Republicans though, as I'm a registered Independent and define myself as more of a conservative libertarian mix.

    I think we share common ground on our opinions of Trump (that being, he's a scumbag). Although he won't outright condone the "alt-right" (which isn't actually on the right, BTW), he does wink at them and try to underhandedly throw them support. But Trump is not a Republican, outside of the designation next to his name. He's been a registered Democrat most his life and his policies are much more closely aligned with Dems than Republicans. I would LOVE for Trump to decide not to run again or to officially switch parties and become a Democrat so that we can get a real conservative to represent the Republican party. Sadly, what I really want is for about 90% of government to go away and be re-directed to the State and/or local level, where government is much more efficient. Why we send tax dollars to D.C. to have government scrape some off then send it back to us is beside me and just illogical, but I'm getting off topic.

    Outside of Trump, I find it hard to find any other Republican in the Federal government that gives the same winks and nods to the racist as Trump does. Maybe they are there and I'm open to considering it if someone presents evidence, but I don't see it. Also, I see no problem with controlling the border. Illegal immigration costs taxpayers about $114 billion/year according to a recent study ($135 billion but illegals pay $19 billion in taxes). Our government is supposed to work to make it's citizen's lives better, so why it's a problem for our government to choose who will benefit our country and allow them to come instead of allowing anyone to come via lottery system (as they do now) makes sense and would provide benefit to our country. This isn't racist, it's common sense. Racist would only be if we excluded certain people that would help our country because of the color of their skin and instead choose lesser qualified people because of the color of their skin (which is what we do now). So I'd argue a more selective immigration service would be less racist. Also,

    "As for the percentage being tiny, well, I mean, I would hope. But I don't know that my tolerance of unarmed civilians being murdered by peace officers is all that high."
    As I said, 1 is to many. But why are we going to spend millions of hours and billions of dollars trying to reduce the number of unlawful police killings from 8 to 6 instead of spending those same resources to reduce overall murders from the thousands it currently is to several hundred per year? We're spending an awful lot of our attention and focus for extremely tiny gains when that attention could be spent for much better benefit. As unjustified police shootings come up (and they'll always occur, no matter how much training and hiring scrutiny there is), the offending person should be fully prosecuted for his/her crime.

    "But they have the upper hand, and there are just too many people who leathally wound a civilian for what seems to be essentially no reason at all."
    Ok, I think the keywords here are "essentially no reason at all." I'd argue that most of the reason is just not understood by the general public. Even my Mom doesn't get it, and her son is law enforcement! She's asked me "Why don't police shoot the gun out of the hands or shoot them in the leg, etc." Movies and TV shows do cops no favors because they aren't realistic and create unrealistic expectations. For reference,

    I watched your video and found it very interesting. A couple quick things...I stated in my OP that I get the point of the protests this past weekend being against Trump and agree with the sentiment that Trump was wrong and players should protest his words. Regardless, I don't like kneeling during the anthem and think there were other ways to address it outside the anthem. I think the Cowboys actually did a great job of this, as they knelt BEFORE the anthem then stood FOR the anthem. Fully applaud that and have zero issues there whatsoever.

    Here's what CK said to explain his protest (from this article after the first time he sat for anthem: ""I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.""

    The protest (outside of this past weekend) IS about the flag, directly from the person that started the protest! Also, I strongly disagree with his sentiment that POC are "oppressed" or that cops "get away with murder." The statements are just wrong on so many levels. So while I think the video makes a good point about the content of the protest affecting how people feel about kneeling (instead of just disagreeing with kneeling in general), I think the content of his protest is based on fallacies and I do not support his protest. If NFL players were kneeling so that our military was provided with the mental health care and pay they deserve (as mentioned in the video), I'd agree with the protest but still wish they would not kneel during the anthem. But he's absolutely right that I'd be more tolerant of the cause and thus boycotting the NFL wouldn't cross my mind.

    EDIT: So this just popped up: Kind of sums up my argument...police are often targeted for executions and ambushed (see: Dallas). However you want to phrase it, civilians are never executed by law enforcement in a similar manner. Every civilian that was shot (lawfully or not) had some kind of interaction with police BEFORE being shot. Maybe the officer erred in that interaction, maybe the civilian did, but to say police "have the upper hand", well, I think a lot of dead cops would disagree.

    I think that covers my thoughts... again, thank you for the conversation and civil discussion. The ability to exchange ideas and thoughts in a respectful manner is what our country is about and only makes us stronger. If I'm wrong somewhere, I want to better myself and am happy to change.
    Last edited by Dan4GS; 09-27-2017 at 07:06 PM.

  4. #14
    Lord Of The Onion Rings
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    interesting, re: smaller government. Is that libertarian? If so, do you promote individual states making similar decisions or do you anticipate the fed holding back and just being powerless?

    Ok, I think the keywords here are "essentially no reason at all."
    Consider, we're talking about use of lethal force. Not "should I/could I be suspicious", as much as "did this person deserve to die?" I get that the burden of proof has to be on a penal system to prove an officer chose to use lethal force without need, but that's a lot different than the common sense statement of police never fire until fired upon. We're not talking about situations where someone had a deadly weapon and acted unruly. In the cases we're discussing, we're talking unarmed civilians, quite often dying in their cars. Who were universally stopped by an officer (so the officer initiated the interaction), and in zero instances were stopped because of something that was a life or death situation. If we were talking wrecking this out of control DUI case to save other people, I might not agree, but I'd get the methodology. We're not talking about people who wouldn't stop, or drove off to evade. We're talking about people who stopped, for something minor. And then died.

    Similarly, yes, by design anyone in these scenarios had an interaction with an officer. Of course. With a trained, sworn officer of the court, who is not an executioner, and in essentially in every case in a situation where you would have to hope non-lethal force is a better option. The tolerance for which should be a volume lower than it is.

    The protest (outside of this past weekend) IS about the flag, directly from the person that started the protest
    Kaepernick is not protesting the Anthem, or the flag. He's clear (maybe less than needed) about what he has a problem with. Rosa Parks didn't have a problem with buses. Maybe that's nuanced. I've said Kaepernick is not handling this well. You know what he actually means.

    police are often targeted for executions and ambushed
    which is definitely also wrong. I think, not that one makes right versus another, but a cop on duty might come in with a reasonable expectation something bad could go down. A civilian with a potential minor moving violation should never have that expectation. And I do believe police have the upper hand. I really do. In the situation I describe, they do. No one can have the upper hand when being ambushed, and that's a fully different situation. I, of course, don't believe officers should be ambushed, and anyone who wants to protest that, has my support. But those are unequivocally bad people, doing something bad, not someone you're supposed to trust, killing an unarmed civilian.
    Last edited by magnus; 09-27-2017 at 11:29 PM.

  5. #15
    Actually libertarian is "no government", which I'm not for (thus the term conservative/libertarian; I'm more a mix of the two than one or the other). I'm for the smallest FEDERAL government possible. My argument is that the federal government was originally designed to do things that states could not do. National defense, interstate commerce, etc. However, it's grown to be a monstrosity and as Reagan once said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces it's size." That's sad. The more local the government, the more efficient it is. That's why I prefer a smaller federal government.

    Also, if we took a lot of the power away from the federal government we wouldn't care nearly as much who were President because they'd have so little power it wouldn't really matter that much. We wouldn't have idiots like Trump running because they'd have so little power it wouldn't satiate his appetite for power and popularity. The policies of Obama I dislike wouldn't have happened because he wouldn't have had the power to do so.

    Things like gay marriage wouldn't be a party issue because marriage should not be a government issue at all. It should be a religious issue and the government should not issue marriage certificates or be in the business at all. Then religious conservatives wouldn't fear the government overreaching and oppressing them for religious beliefs (Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes), and gay people can get married and live their lives how they want.

    I just want the government out of my life as much as possible. (Ironic, I know, since I work for the government.)

    So you've mentioned several times police shooting people after routine traffic stops. The only one that pops into my mind is Philando Castille. Is there others to which you're referencing I'm blanking on?

    With regards to Castille, I thought it was a bad shoot. That Officer should have been screened out and never been a cop, he didn't have the nerves for it. I've stopped tons of people that told me they have a gun and I've never once drawn my weapon on them (including habitual criminals). Acknowledging you have a weapon is a really good indicator you're trying to cooperate and are seeking guidance from the Officer on how to proceed. That said, I also realize the Officer believed he was stopping a robbery suspect and was more amped up because of that (that by no means justifies it, but does help explain). While acknowledging it's a bad shoot, I would also argue it was not a racist act or premeditated murder. Those are both incredibly heinous things and it's one thing for an Officer to make a horrendous decision, but it's another to make a horrendous decision with horrendous intentions.

    Yes, Officers are always keeping their heads on a swivel, even off duty. Recently we have seen a large increase in North Carolina (I'm not sure about rest of the country) of law enforcement being specifically targeted. They get followed up then their houses/cars get broken into or they get ambushed. I can't tell you the number of times we've heard of specific threats from undercover cops warning of imminent plans. Thankfully, most of those times the plans get foiled or cancelled or it doesn't succeed, but it's common. What this ends up doing is makes law enforcement hyper vigilant all the time, which is really really bad for mental health.

    Outside of ambush situations, I'll concede your point that law enforcement usually has the upper hand.

    Again, thanks for the cordial conversation!

  6. #16
    Lord Of The Onion Rings
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Reagan grew the government massively. Jefferson - whose name and ideals formed the original "smaller government" ideal, grew the government. Truth is, only leader I've ever seen just cede power voluntarily in real form would be Gorbachev. I'm not necessarily against smaller government, but as a major employer, it (not unlike healthcare) could destabilize life and property to a point. I like the concept (and even state-shopping to a point makes some sense from a free market point of view). I even like that state controlled government might provide some unique points of view within the honestly very socialist society we have now (I'm not complaining of it, just that people demonize it while living in it and reaping its rewards).

    Killed at traffic stop - I'm talking essentially about Castile, sure. I imagine there are others. Regardless, unarmed civilians should be easy to not kill. Again I'd rather not have to be in those shoes, either. And agree, we don't likely see eye to eye on it, but this has been enlightening. I guess I should stop responding, yeah?

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by magnus View Post
    I guess I should stop responding, yeah?
    Lol, sure. We'll call it a day. Thanks for the conversation, let's get back to football.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    walterboro, sc
    Quote Originally Posted by magnus View Post
    Still regret I didn't serve, I guess.
    Your life is yours, but I recommend you don't dwell on regretting not serving. It's not a lifestyle for everyone, and society is probably healthier and happier when most of them are not in the military or veterans. The Veterans Administration's dysfunction might be comical if it weren't so sad and infuriating, so avoiding having to interact with them is certainly healthier for your sanity. I'm convinced that their sole dedicated function is to invent new ways to be bureaucratically unhelpful long enough for a veteran to either die or lose patience and give up trying to get anything out of them. The military people do what they do so that the rest can do something else they would prefer without interference from abroad. That would be all kind of pointless if the protected ones didn't do something useful and fulfilling with the opportunity. Go hug your daughter, be glad you've been home to see her grow up, and do whatever you think best with your life so that someone else's sacrifice isn't in vain.
    "I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

  9. #19
    Well, this was certainly an interesting thread and I appreciate the honest back and forth that remained respectful, I've even been enlightened on a few points leading me to rethink some of my own feelings which I won't bog down with because they've pretty much been covered through a mix of replies here.

    2 things I did wan't to throw out there though.. (just cause they're on my mind)

    First, the NFL handled their business with the CK thing by black-balling him, they'll never come out and say that they did but... This whole new wave has nothing to do with the flag or the anthem. btw, I agree with what somebody said prior about the way the Cowboys handling it - Hate the Jerry Jones Cowboys but much respect to them that.

    Second thing, last month I attended the McGregor/Mayweather fight and my regular local tavern, as they do in sporting events they played the National Anthem before the fight. There were probably 70 Patrons in the tavern, 3 stood for the anthem (Myself, My GF, and one Asian-American gentleman.) the other 65 or so couldn't be bothered to put down their beer and show respect for country. The Tavern is located in a military town and I know for fact their were active service members in attendance from at least 2 branches. The demographic of the patrons were overwhelmingly white 25-45 in age. Don't know what, if any, point I'm getting to here other then people should probably take a long hard look inside themselves and think about their own actions compared to what they show on the surface being all pissy about.

  10. #20
    Hey WP, thanks for chiming in on the conversation! Glad someone else out there actually found this conversation somewhat useful at least. ;-)

    So I don't know if CK is actually being blackballed or if he's just asking for too much money. Reports indicated the Ravens were going to sign him until his girlfriend compared Steve Biscotti to a slave owner. But anyway, why pay a middling starter or good backup 7-8 million per when you can get ~80-90% of the same production for 2-3 million? Perhaps you're right they are blackballing him, I just think it's more likely that he's asking for too much money commensurate with his talents.

    With regards to your second point, I dunno, I feel like the anthem on TV is a bit different. It's like a movie...I don't see violence in a movie and say "Oh gee I need to go protest violence." If it's not happening directly in front of me it's not quite the same. I still typically remain silent, but I rarely stand either (when it's on TV). In person, I feel like it's much different and always stand with my hand over my heart. All that to say, your point is well taken and I agree that we should examine ourselves.

    RE: the original point of CK's protest... If you don't care to read, it's a study by a black Harvard professor that shows there is no difference in police shootings between races. He called it "the most surprising result of my career." It does show that police are more likely to have some type of physical interaction with minorities than whites, but that includes "pushing, handcuffing" and fighting. Considering the % of people arrested is disproportionately black, it would make sense there is more physical interaction there.
    Last edited by Dan4GS; 09-29-2017 at 08:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO