Teabagger: Too many blacks make C-Span BLACK-Span

[palemale]

I'm not going to smear you with doubt because I don't think your lying.

But for as much bias as you harp over, it shows right here in this post.

You don't know anything, for sure, until you see data. The rest is assumptions and a few pieces of anecdotal evidence, which is usually all bias is based on.

Anecdotal evidence is an insufficient basis upon which to draw conclusions with scientific certainty. However, one can still draw sound conclusions from it nonetheless. Last fall I spent a lot of time in upstate New York and was surprised to see so many Obama bumper stickers and very few McCain bumper stickers because those areas are generally Republican territory. I concluded Obama would do well in upstate New York. My conclusion was based on anecdotal evidence, and in fact Obama won many upstate counties where Democratic presidential candidates rarely do well, much less win.

Similarly, if Nick has spoken to a number of 20/30 something white gay men concerning their attitudes about seeing black men, and if even a small percentage express a negative view, he can draw some valid conclusions. Especially so because, when it comes to race issues, people are reluctant to admit views that might be considered racist because it has become unacceptable to do so. Would Nick's conclusions be scientific? No. However, depending on the number of men he spoke with, he might be able to hazard a fairly accurate estimate about what a scientific poll might reveal.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

PR? ​

The people about whom you generalize apparently hold opinions that are disagreeable to you. Nonetheless, incarceration typically involves suspicion or conviction of committing a crime. On the basis of what crime do you consider these people should be jailed?

But wouldn't it be easier to have them all "die off" and then everyone can have the EXACT same point of view? How bout this - we can elect a President, and the same person can run a dictatorship throughout our lives, and everything will just be pure bliss because nobody has a differing opinion!!! That's what I think is funny about Dems and Pubs - they all think there should only be one point of view - theirs. People that want that to happen are bringing hell upon themselves. Or they're just morons.

 

[Lostlover]

War crimes. Genocide for some.

Paraphrasing Gov Ventura: "attacking Iraq for 9/11 was like attacking South Korea for Pearl Harbor. You got the same ethnic group as the killers but that's it."

Let me ask you this. Do you believe some people are above the law. Do you believe in holding enablers in murders responsible?

Mic check 1 2

response Opinterph?

 

[opinterph]

(paraphrased)

People who deny that I have a right to marry a man and who also support a war in which people have died should be in jail.

… incarceration typically involves suspicion or conviction of committing a crime. On the basis of what crime do you consider these people should be jailed?

War crimes. Genocide for some.

Paraphrasing Gov Ventura: "attacking Iraq for 9/11 was like attacking South Korea for Pearl Harbor. You got the same ethnic group as the killers but that's it."

Let me ask you this. Do you believe some people are above the law. Do you believe in holding enablers in murders responsible?

I sense that my answer to your question is probably important to help you make your point, so …

Yes, I think enablers in murders should be held responsible – if they are directly involved in perpetrating the crime. But they should have less to no responsibility (for the crime of murder) if their involvement is indirect or circumstantial.

For example, if the child had never been born then he/she obviously couldn’t have committed murder. In that regard, I don’t think it is reasonable to hold the mother of the child responsible for the acts of her offspring – certainly not if the child had attained the legal status of an adult, but maybe not even if the child was a minor. This assumes that the mother is not reasonably aware of any advance planning related to the crime and that she did not in any formative way encourage the child to undertake such a criminal action. A more definitive determination of the mother’s guilt or innocence might also consider the value system the mother helped to instill in the child and so forth, but my point is that “enabling” requires some sort of substantive and direct involvement.

As another example, consider the circumstance in which a murderer seeks refuge with a close relative after having committed the crime. If I recall correctly, the relative may be charged as an accessory to the crime, if that relative is aware of the crime and then willfully assists the perpetrator in evading apprehension by law enforcement. In my thinking, such inappropriate assistance by the relative, while punishable, is not equal in magnitude to the crime of murder.

For the sake of argument, let’s agree to assume that some individuals may be guilty of war crimes and/or genocide in relation to Operation Iraqi Freedom and/or Operation Enduring Freedom. I anticipate that you may wish to expand upon that concept in relation to the so-called “enablers.” (I’m not sure to what extent the Ventura statement helps make your point, but I read it to mean that the US invasion of Iraq was not justified and that it’s implementation may suggest US animosity toward a particular ethnic group.)

If possible, I hope you will also provide some additional feedback explaining why persons who deny that you have a right to marry a man should also be in jail.

 

[Lostlover]

I'm not talking about fetuses. I'm talking about a war where hundreds of thousands were killed. A war that killed at least three of my classmates.

My argument is pretty much in line with the international standards. In fact, the International Criminal Court didn't just indict Omar Bashir of the Sudan for genocide. The whole leadership has sanctions on where it can fly and place its money and it runs the risk of arrest if detained by countries that fund the ICC. (America isn't one of them, surprisingly. I guess here it is official policy that our officials are above the law. Imagine an arrest warrant issued for Rumsfield.)

I'm guessing from your second paragraph that you don't believe the leader of the Sudan should be charged with war crimes because he wasn't actually razing villages, killing families and raping women?

I wouldn't advocate and support charging men and women in uniform with murder. I do believe we should go after Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and Rice for this debacle. They cherry picked evidence to justify a war that should have never started. But for some reason, our leaders are off limits to the rule of law.

I didn't say people that vote against gay marriage should be put in jail for that. I did say though that they have a lot of blood on their hands. Because, statistics show that those that are against gay marriage are more likely to have supported the Iraq war from the beginning and shockingly still do.

I do believe that many of them are still walking the streets that harassed, intimidated and possibly killed blacks in the 1960s and before. James Earl Ray, King's supposed assassin was a middle aged man when he shot him. It's conceivable that people younger than him at that time are still living and could be tried for things that were once tolerated. The old bag that led to the killing of a little black boy, Emmett Till, is still living today... why hasn't she been charged with anything?

Older Americans have half-assedly attempted to make amends with one or two ethnic groups. America paid Japanese Americans reparations for unfairly sending them to camps in 1942. To our detriment, we support Israel irregardless of what it does or how many people the country kills for its "safety".

Today, I got to the page in Jesse Ventura's latest book "American Conspiracies" about Dr. King's assassination. And the quote is so appropriate for the chapter and for what I've been talking about here for the better part of the last two years.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." - MLK

 

[opinterph]

… I'm talking about a war where hundreds of thousands were killed. A war that killed at least three of my classmates.

Not to discount your personal loss or that of others, but people often get killed in wars.

My argument is pretty much in line with the international standards.

I assume this statement affirms that you think it is reasonable to hold persons in positions of responsibility accountable for the actions that take place under their command.

In fact, the International Criminal Court didn't just indict Omar Bashir of the Sudan for genocide. The whole leadership has sanctions on where it can fly and place its money and it runs the risk of arrest if detained by countries that fund the ICC.

You should provide more background information (or link) about the genocide in Sudan, if it is important to your argument.

(America isn't one of them, surprisingly. I guess here it is official policy that our officials are above the law. Imagine an arrest warrant issued for Rumsfield.)

Arrest does not equal conviction, but you may have forgotten:

Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest​

I'm guessing from your second paragraph that you don't believe the leader of the Sudan should be charged with war crimes because he wasn't actually razing villages, killing families and raping women?

Need more background. Did the leader of the Sudan have a reasonable opportunity or responsibility to know that crimes were being committed and if so did he take any actions to correct the problem or insure that those responsible were held to account?

I wouldn't advocate and support charging men and women in uniform with murder.

I think the murder charge is appropriate in some circumstances. It is unclear to what specific action(s) your statement is referring.

I do believe we should go after Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and Rice for this debacle. They cherry picked evidence to justify a war that should have never started. But for some reason, our leaders are off limits to the rule of law.

Does this conclusion in any way relate to Sudan or only to Iraq/Afghanistan?

I didn't say people that vote against gay marriage should be put in jail for that. I did say though that they have a lot of blood on their hands. Because, statistics show that those that are against gay marriage are more likely to have supported the Iraq war from the beginning and shockingly still do.

This is the post to which I responded by asking my question:

Older generations hold intractable prejudices against gays in higher proportions. That's not an opinion. That's not ageism. That's a fact. So while it may not be [PC], it happens to be true that time has its impact on making the world a better place for us.

I remember in high school, I had a black English teacher. He went to a seggregated school! And he told us about how he was arrested in Houston because he was black... The suspect in a robbery was a black male. So the cops rounded up every Black male.

He was totally not bitter at all. He told us this during black history month. And I thought then, "why aren't these people in jail?"


Now as a gay adult, these same people deny me a right to marry a man and support a war that has killed three classmates. I'm sill wodering, why aren't these people in jail?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Who exactly are “these people?”