PDA

View Full Version : NYPD secretely monitored law abiding Muslim college students



mrveggieman
02-22-2012, 10:34 AM
Wow. If they can start with law abiding college students where does it stop? SMH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI9YIHjCbbw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

AUTaxMan
02-22-2012, 11:10 AM
Would you prefer that they monitor nobody at all?

mrveggieman
02-22-2012, 11:32 AM
Would you prefer that they monitor nobody at all?


I would prefer that the gov't uses their recources to go after real criminals and not profile innocent people because of their race and or religion.

AUTaxMan
02-22-2012, 11:42 AM
I would prefer that the gov't uses their recources to go after real criminals and not profile innocent people because of their race and or religion.

Since 9/11, what percentage of would-be terrorist attackers on America have been Muslim? I would roughly guess somewhere close to 100%.

mrveggieman
02-22-2012, 12:27 PM
Since 9/11, what percentage of would-be terrorist attackers on America have been Muslim? I would roughly guess somewhere close to 100%.


Do your numbers also include white supremicists who plot to harm our president?

habsheaven
02-22-2012, 12:37 PM
Since 9/11, what percentage of would-be terrorist attackers on America have been Muslim? I would roughly guess somewhere close to 100%.

Since you are eager to make statistical estimates, let's hear your estimate of what % of Muslims have attacked America.

duane1969
02-22-2012, 01:09 PM
I can not see the video from work, however...It is nice to say "Don't target innocent people" but everyone is innocent until they do something. Then people cry foul and ask why the government didn't do more to prevent it.

You can not have it both ways. You either accept that innocent people will be watched or you accept that guilty people will not be caught before they do something wrong. There is no middle ground.

And for the record, monitoring innocent people is not against the law. Wire taps, tracking devices, hacking emails, etc. are illegal. Watching where someone goes or who they associate with is not illegal.

pghin08
02-22-2012, 01:25 PM
I can not see the video from work, however...It is nice to say "Don't target innocent people" but everyone is innocent until they do something. Then people cry foul and ask why the government didn't do more to prevent it.

You can not have it both ways. You either accept that innocent people will be watched or you accept that guilty people will not be caught before they do something wrong. There is no middle ground.

And for the record, monitoring innocent people is not against the law. Wire taps, tracking devices, hacking emails, etc. are illegal. Watching where someone goes or who they associate with is not illegal.

Yeah, I think they call that "Facebook" or something.

Wickabee
02-22-2012, 01:44 PM
Why are so many people married to the &quot;all-or-nothing&quot; theory. It's pretty obvious authorities are looking in all the wrong places. <br />
I know a guy with a very common name. The name in question is...

*censored*
02-22-2012, 03:28 PM
This times eleventy billion.

duane1969
02-23-2012, 11:44 AM
What would be &quot;actual security&quot; then? How would you do it differently? In an effort to prevent terrorist attacks, what steps would you take to stop it from happening? <br />
<br />
Looking at the site I linked...

gladdyontherise
02-23-2012, 12:06 PM
Was there any evidence that this person could've been any sort of threat? (just curious)

Wickabee
02-23-2012, 12:54 PM
What would be "actual security" then? How would you do it differently? In an effort to prevent terrorist attacks, what steps would you take to stop it from happening?

Looking at the site I linked below, it appears that the "illusion of security" prevented terrorist attacks or thwarted terrorist cells 39 times between 2001 and 2011. There have been numerous other occurences stopped since then. What are they doing wrong?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/39-terror-plots-foiled-since-911-examining-counterterrorisms-success-stories
I don't know, it's not my job.
However, it's not difficult to see that real security doesn't exist. For every success story in that link, there are hundreds of average, law-abiding people who are unnecessarily detained for periods of time. You might call that "security" but I don't. I call it "if you throw enough crap against a wall, some of it is bound to stick."
It's a lazy way of doing things and isn't real security.

duane1969
02-23-2012, 01:44 PM
I don't know, it's not my job.
However, it's not difficult to see that real security doesn't exist. For every success story in that link, there are hundreds of average, law-abiding people who are unnecessarily detained for periods of time. You might call that "security" but I don't. I call it "if you throw enough crap against a wall, some of it is bound to stick."
It's a lazy way of doing things and isn't real security.

The simple fact is that detaining and questioning are part of security. If someone does something odd or suspicious you don't ignore it. If occasionally someone who did nothing wrong gets questioned then I don't see the big deal. As long as a person's civil liberties are not infringed upon then there should be no cause for concern.

Monsterx
02-23-2012, 03:26 PM
The simple fact is that detaining and questioning are part of security. If someone does something odd or suspicious you don't ignore it. If occasionally someone who did nothing wrong gets questioned then I don't see the big deal. As long as a person's civil liberties are not infringed upon then there should be no cause for concern.


" If occasionally someone who did nothing wrong gets questioned then I don't see the big deal. As long as a person's civil liberties are not infringed upon then there should be no cause for concern." - Even with the new NDAA?


What is "odd or suspicious" behavior that's not be ignored?

Wickabee
02-23-2012, 04:52 PM
The simple fact is that detaining and questioning are part of security. If someone does something odd or suspicious you don't ignore it. If occasionally someone who did nothing wrong gets questioned then I don't see the big deal. As long as a person's civil liberties are not infringed upon then there should be no cause for concern.
It's not a matter of someone who did nothing wrong getting questioned. It's a matter of one person I know being detained and questioned for hours because his extremely common name (let's call him John Smith, that's not his name, but his name is that common). How many John Smith's out there are being detained because John Smith is the known alias of some dude who is wanted? How much time, energy, effort and money is wasted?

My mother-in-law is constantly detained on trips to and through the US. The only time I've ever seen her act suspicious was when she ate the last cookie. Yet, if I'm to believe the actions of those "security" people, she is a high level threat to the nation.

Throw enough crap and some is bound to stick might look effective, but it's the most wasteful and unnecessary way of doing things there is. All it proves is no actual though was put into any of the measures. Whether they show to have been working or not, there absolutely has to be a better way than the blanket method.

AUTaxMan
02-23-2012, 04:57 PM
It's not a matter of someone who did nothing wrong getting questioned. It's a matter of one person I know being detained and questioned for hours because his extremely common name (let's call him John Smith, that's not his name, but his name is that common). How many John Smith's out there are being detained because John Smith is the known alias of some dude who is wanted? How much time, energy, effort and money is wasted?

My mother-in-law is constantly detained on trips to and through the US. The only time I've ever seen her act suspicious was when she ate the last cookie. Yet, if I'm to believe the actions of those "security" people, she is a high level threat to the nation.

Throw enough crap and some is bound to stick might look effective, but it's the most wasteful and unnecessary way of doing things there is. All it proves is no actual though was put into any of the measures. Whether they show to have been working or not, there absolutely has to be a better way than the blanket method.

Totally agree. I had to go through airport security today and was thinking to myself what a colossal waste of time and money the security measures are.

mrveggieman
02-24-2012, 09:12 AM
George Carlin made a skit about airport security. I can't post it here because it contains profanity. Google it and let us know what you think about it.

duane1969
02-24-2012, 10:59 AM
Airport security aside (I think I have voiced my opinion on that clearly enough) there are some cases where it just makes sense to watch certain people or locations.

You want to catch a catfish, then you gotta fish where they swim at. Fishing in the swimming pool won't catch you many (any) catfish.

The same applies to terrorist. Something like 7 of the top 10 terrorist groups in the world are Muslim. It doesn't take much common sense to figure out where you should be watching if you want to catch a terrorist.

Instead of taking offense and attacking police and security people for monitoring Muslims, how about we place the blame where it belongs. If not for Muslim terrorists then there would be no need to monitor non-violent Muslims, there would be no need for increased airport security, there would be no DHS...place the blame on those who deserve it.

mrveggieman
02-24-2012, 11:12 AM
Airport security aside (I think I have voiced my opinion on that clearly enough) there are some cases where it just makes sense to watch certain people or locations.

You want to catch a catfish, then you gotta fish where they swim at. Fishing in the swimming pool won't catch you many (any) catfish.

The same applies to terrorist. Something like 7 of the top 10 terrorist groups in the world are Muslim. It doesn't take much common sense to figure out where you should be watching if you want to catch a terrorist.

Instead of taking offense and attacking police and security people for monitoring Muslims, how about we place the blame where it belongs. If not for Muslim terrorists then there would be no need to monitor non-violent Muslims, there would be no need for increased airport security, there would be no DHS...place the blame on those who deserve it.


That is a very scary way of thinking. So per your logic it is ok to profile innocent people because of the actions of a small miniority? Some police are racists, and abuse their power. Should we accuse all police of being brutal and cheer whenever something bad happens to a cop?

duane1969
02-24-2012, 11:24 AM
That is a very scary way of thinking. So per your logic it is ok to profile innocent people because of the actions of a small miniority? Some police are racists, and abuse their power. Should we accuse all police of being brutal and cheer whenever something bad happens to a cop?

Nobody is cheering when bad things happen to Muslims. What is more, other than being monitored nothing has happened to them at all.

Additionally, when a cop is racist or abuses his power does not the entire police force in that area come under scrutiny? Why should anyone else be different? If innocent Muslim are frequenting locations know to be frequented by suspected Muslim terrorist then they are going to come under scrutiny. That is a fact of life.

ensbergcollector
02-24-2012, 11:47 AM
That is a very scary way of thinking. So per your logic it is ok to profile innocent people because of the actions of a small miniority? Some police are racists, and abuse their power. Should we accuse all police of being brutal and cheer whenever something bad happens to a cop?

judging by the posts that you routinely make, i think you do think all police are brutal and seem to take a little pleasure when something bad happens.

mrveggieman
02-24-2012, 12:11 PM
judging by the posts that you routinely make, i think you do think all police are brutal and seem to take a little pleasure when something bad happens.


No more than how some of our more conservative right wing viewers feel about muslims, homosexuals and other minorities. :winking0071:

Monsterx
02-24-2012, 12:21 PM
Airport security aside (I think I have voiced my opinion on that clearly enough) there are some cases where it just makes sense to watch certain people or locations.

You want to catch a catfish, then you gotta fish where they swim at. Fishing in the swimming pool won't catch you many (any) catfish.

The same applies to terrorist. Something like 7 of the top 10 terrorist groups in the world are Muslim. It doesn't take much common sense to figure out where you should be watching if you want to catch a terrorist.

Instead of taking offense and attacking police and security people for monitoring Muslims, how about we place the blame where it belongs. If not for Muslim terrorists then there would be no need to monitor non-violent Muslims, there would be no need for increased airport security, there would be no DHS...place the blame on those who deserve it.


So since the Hutaree were white Americans, they should be monitored as well? Since the VT shooter was Asian, they should be monitored now?

You missed my other post - What is odd and suspicious behavior that warrants being monitored? According to DHS, taking pictures, writing in a notepad, and paying in cash warrants a call to police. I guess the only solution is to monitor EVERYONE! And that is what's happening.

mrveggieman
02-24-2012, 12:30 PM
So since the Hutaree were white Americans, they should be monitored as well? Since the VT shooter was Asian, they should be monitored now?

You missed my other post - What is odd and suspicious behavior that warrants being monitored? According to DHS, taking pictures, writing in a notepad, and paying in cash warrants a call to police. I guess the only solution is to monitor EVERYONE! And that is what's happening.

I do those things every day. So I guess I am next on the list to be monitored. Oh wait I'm Black so the police are going monitor me just for walking out my door. Only in America. SMH.

Monsterx
02-24-2012, 12:33 PM
I do those things every day. So I guess I am next on the list to be monitored. Oh wait I'm Black so the police are going monitor me just for walking out my door. Only in America. SMH.


The UK (GB for the most part) is actually much worse than America in terms of monitoring their citizens, but I see your point. We are all monitored now, we're all on the same team.

Wickabee
02-24-2012, 12:39 PM
Airport security aside (I think I have voiced my opinion on that clearly enough) there are some cases where it just makes sense to watch certain people or locations.

You want to catch a catfish, then you gotta fish where they swim at. Fishing in the swimming pool won't catch you many (any) catfish.

The same applies to terrorist. Something like 7 of the top 10 terrorist groups in the world are Muslim. It doesn't take much common sense to figure out where you should be watching if you want to catch a terrorist.

Instead of taking offense and attacking police and security people for monitoring Muslims, how about we place the blame where it belongs. If not for Muslim terrorists then there would be no need to monitor non-violent Muslims, there would be no need for increased airport security, there would be no DHS...place the blame on those who deserve it.
2 things.
1 - Your way of doing it leaves the door wide open for the 3/10, and I'm certain they can still do the damage that the 7/10 are capable of.

2 - It's very reactionary thinking with little thought put into it. It's a little funny watching it. The terrorists have already beaten you down and you don't even know it. They grab some planes and fly them into buildings, we make it ridiculously difficult to go anywhere and retain your dignity. They put a bomb in a shoe, now we have to take off our shoes at the airport.

"Security" (not just at the airport) is always one step behind. This isn't such a bad thing, as the one being attacked usually is a step behind. The bad part is that they're proud of themselves for being a step behind. They don't seem to see that the terrorists who created this new system for us are just pulling strings and laughing at us. Most of us can't even see it because "we're watching the muslims, it'll be okay!"

sad.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 11:03 AM
So since the Hutaree were white Americans, they should be monitored as well? Since the VT shooter was Asian, they should be monitored now?

You missed my other post - What is odd and suspicious behavior that warrants being monitored? According to DHS, taking pictures, writing in a notepad, and paying in cash warrants a call to police. I guess the only solution is to monitor EVERYONE! And that is what's happening.

If the Hutaree and VT shooter were on the top 10 list of terorist groups then they probably would be.

Look at the top 10 terrorist groups in the world...

1. Al-Qaeda - Muslim
2. Taliban - Muslim
3. Hezbollah - Muslim
4. Hamas - Muslim
(noticing a pattern yet?)
5. Kurdistan Workers’ Party - political
6. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - Muslim
7. Muslim Brotherhood - Muslim
8. Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Muslim
9. Aden-Abyan Islamic Army - Muslim
10. Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine - Muslim

So explain to me again how monitoring Muslims is wrong. Explain to me how monitoring Asians or the VT shooter would be comparable to monitoring Muslims. I don't see how your comparison has any logic to it at all.

Taking pictures, taking notes and paying in cash are not in and of themselves things to be monitored for.

However, if you take pictures of major government buildings, write notes down while studying the building, buy a truckload of gun powder with cash and then drive to a known Muslim terrorist "hang-out" then that is different. Take everything in context, not just some liberal media perspective that everybody is a good person.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 11:05 AM
2 things.
1 - Your way of doing it leaves the door wide open for the 3/10, and I'm certain they can still do the damage that the 7/10 are capable of.

2 - It's very reactionary thinking with little thought put into it. It's a little funny watching it. The terrorists have already beaten you down and you don't even know it. They grab some planes and fly them into buildings, we make it ridiculously difficult to go anywhere and retain your dignity. They put a bomb in a shoe, now we have to take off our shoes at the airport.

"Security" (not just at the airport) is always one step behind. This isn't such a bad thing, as the one being attacked usually is a step behind. The bad part is that they're proud of themselves for being a step behind. They don't seem to see that the terrorists who created this new system for us are just pulling strings and laughing at us. Most of us can't even see it because "we're watching the muslims, it'll be okay!"

sad.

You are preaching to the choir. I think that airport security is over the top. But, monitoring a Muslim person that may be up to no good just makes sense. If an "innocent" Muslim is going to locations known to be frequented by Muslim extremist then it would be outright stupid to not consider that they may not be so innocent.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 11:06 AM
If the Hutaree and VT shooter were on the top 10 list of terorist groups then they probably would be.

Look at the top 10 terrorist groups in the world...

1. Al-Qaeda - Muslim
2. Taliban - Muslim
3. Hezbollah - Muslim
4. Hamas - Muslim
(noticing a pattern yet?)
5. Kurdistan Workers’ Party - political
6. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - Muslim
7. Muslim Brotherhood - Muslim
8. Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Muslim
9. Aden-Abyan Islamic Army - Muslim
10. Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine - Muslim

So explain to me again how monitoring Muslims is wrong. Explain to me how monitoring Asians or the VT shooter would be comparable to monitoring Muslims. I don't see how your comparison has any logic to it at all.

Taking pictures, taking notes and paying in cash are not in and of themselves things to be monitored for.

However, if you take pictures of major government buildings, write notes down while studying the building, buy a truckload of gun powder with cash and then drive to a known Muslim terrorist "hang-out" then that is different. Take everything in context, not just some liberal media perspective that everybody is a good person.


No we are going by a premise that we used to practice in america know as innocent until proven guilty or better yet all men are created equal.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 12:39 PM
No we are going by a premise that we used to practice in america know as innocent until proven guilty or better yet all men are created equal.

If you can't see the logic then there is no point in me discussing it any further. Monitoring is not a violation of rights.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 01:04 PM
If you can't see the logic then there is no point in me discussing it any further. Monitoring is not a violation of rights.


You are right. I don't see the logic in not giving certian US citizens the same privicy that all others enjoy simply because of their race and or religion. :confused0024:

ensbergcollector
02-27-2012, 02:05 PM
Veggie- using your logic, the 9/11 hijackers were innocent until they hijacked the planes. I doubt there is anyone in the country that doesnt wish thise guys had been looked at sooner, despite the fact that they hadnt committed any crimes.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 02:35 PM
Veggie- using your logic, the 9/11 hijackers were innocent until they hijacked the planes. I doubt there is anyone in the country that doesnt wish thise guys had been looked at sooner, despite the fact that they hadnt committed any crimes.


From what I heard the some of the 9/11 hijakers were already being monitored and that didn't make any difference. So now because of gov't incompetence we need to monitor everyone of a particular race or religion?? I'm sure that the gov't will get it right this time. :rolleyes:

AUTaxMan
02-27-2012, 02:40 PM
You are right. I don't see the logic in not giving certian US citizens the same privicy that all others enjoy simply because of their race and or religion. :confused0024:

I would be interested in people's answers to these questions:

1. With respect to investigating for potential terrorist threats, would racial profiling of Muslims create a greater or lesser probability that a potential terrorist attack would be thwarted than would conducting the same investigation tactics over a random sampling of the population?

2A. If no, why not?

2B. If yes, why?

3. If yes, what harm is being done by the racial profiling?

4. Would profiling generate benefits with respect to cost and time efficiency of investigations that were not realized by the government when sampling the public as a whole?

5A. If yes, why?

5B. If no, why not?

6. If yes to 1. and/or 4., does the harm done by the profiling with respect to invasion of privacy rights outweigh the potential marginal benefits of preventing a terrorist attack, reducing costs and improving efficiency, or both?

7A. If yes, why?

7B. If no, why not?

duane1969
02-27-2012, 02:42 PM
You are right. I don't see the logic in not giving certian US citizens the same privicy that all others enjoy simply because of their race and or religion. :confused0024:

If they are simply watching where they go and who they associate with then it is not an invasion of privacy.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 02:47 PM
I would be interested in people's answers to these questions:

1. With respect to investigating for potential terrorist threats, would racial profiling of Muslims create a greater or lesser probability that a potential terrorist attack would be thwarted than would conducting the same investigation tactics over a random sampling of the population?

2A. If no, why not?

2B. If yes, why?

3. If yes, what harm is being done by the racial profiling?

4. Would profiling generate benefits with respect to cost and time efficiency of investigations that were not realized by the government when sampling the public as a whole?

5A. If yes, why?

5B. If no, why not?

6. If yes to 1. and/or 4., does the harm done by the profiling with respect to invasion of privacy rights outweigh the potential marginal benefits of preventing a terrorist attack, reducing costs and improving efficiency, or both?

7A. If yes, why?

7B. If no, why not?


Here's my spin on racial profiling. It is degrading and humuliting. I have been a victim of racial profiling so I can tell you from first hand experience. Have you? Im sorry but too many of my forefathers have died so that I or anyone else for that matter do not have to go through what these people are going through. If we start with muslims/arabs where do we stop? Should we go back to Jim Crow days in order to acheive the illusion of security? If that's the case then the terrorist have succeded in their goals of destroying American freedoms. You should check out George Carlin's skit on airport securtiy and lmk what you think. It's available on youtube. I can't post it here because it contains profanity.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 02:49 PM
I would be interested in people's answers to these questions:

1. With respect to investigating for potential terrorist threats, would racial profiling of Muslims create a greater or lesser probability that a potential terrorist attack would be thwarted than would conducting the same investigation tactics over a random sampling of the population?

2A. If no, why not?

2B. If yes, why?

3. If yes, what harm is being done by the racial profiling?

4. Would profiling generate benefits with respect to cost and time efficiency of investigations that were not realized by the government when sampling the public as a whole?

5A. If yes, why?

5B. If no, why not?

6. If yes to 1. and/or 4., does the harm done by the profiling with respect to invasion of privacy rights outweigh the potential marginal benefits of preventing a terrorist attack, reducing costs and improving efficiency, or both?

7A. If yes, why?

7B. If no, why not?

1. Greater chance of thwarting a terrorist attack.

2B. Muslims represent 9 of the 10 top terrorism groups. Logic dictates that monitoring those who are most likely to be in a terrorist group would translate to a higher probability of thwarting a terrorist action.

If 9 of 10 top terrorist groups were full of white men over the age of 40 that live in WV then logic would dictate that I would be "profiled" and watched. It's just common sense.

3. No harm is done. Harm is only done if your civil liberties are infringed upon. Profiling and monitoring are not an infringement.

4. Profiling always benefits an investigation or crime prevention action. Want to reduce drug use in an area? You profile those who are most likely to be selling/buying drugs. Want to prevent illegal gun sales? Then you profile those who are most likely to be buying/selling illegal guns.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 02:49 PM
If they are simply watching where they go and who they associate with then it is not an invasion of privacy.

Why stop with muslims? The KKK claims to be a christian organization so how about monitoring all christians? What about the violence in northern ireland? Let's monitor all catholics as well. How about conservative anti abortion people? They are know to murder abortion doctors and commit acts of terror at abortion clinics. Let's monitor them. Do you see the pattern?

AUTaxMan
02-27-2012, 02:51 PM
Duane, I watched the Wild and Wonderful Whites this weekend. Which one were you?

duane1969
02-27-2012, 02:52 PM
Here's my spin on racial profiling. It is degrading and humuliting. I have been a victim of racial profiling so I can tell you from first hand experience. Have you? Im sorry but too many of my forefathers have died so that I or anyone else for that matter do not have to go through what these people are going through. If we start with muslims/arabs where do we stop? Should we go back to Jim Crow days in order to acheive the illusion of security? If that's the case then the terrorist have succeded in their goals of destroying American freedoms. You should check out George Carlin's skit on airport securtiy and lmk what you think. It's available on youtube. I can't post it here because it contains profanity.

The fact that you continue to equate this to racial profiling and ignore that none of these Muslim people were stopped, searched or had their phone tapped baffles me. They were simply watched. That is not illegal or even wrong.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 03:05 PM
The fact that you continue to equate this to racial profiling and ignore that none of these Muslim people were stopped, searched or had their phone tapped baffles me. They were simply watched. That is not illegal or even wrong.


So you have no problem being "watched" by the gov't soley based on YOUR race or YOUR religion?

duane1969
02-27-2012, 03:12 PM
So you have no problem being "watched" by the gov't soley based on YOUR race or YOUR religion?

Nope. I have nothing to hide. If they want to see who I hang out with or where I like to frequent then they are more than welcome to watch. As long as my civil rights are respected then I have no intellectual reason to expect privacy while I am out in public. That is why it is called public.

tsjct
02-27-2012, 03:25 PM
So you have no problem being "watched" by the gov't soley based on YOUR race or YOUR religion?

If you have nothing to hide or nothing to worry about why would you care if they monitor you? The ones that worry usually are worried for a REASON. And talking about racial based stuff do you realize a WHITE PERSON is about the ONLY one that ever gets a HATE CRIME filed on them and the punishment is much harsher. A black man can beat the crap out of a white man and its not a Hate crime but if a white man beats the crap out of a black man its a HATE crime???? Go figure:pop2:

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 03:30 PM
If you have nothing to hide or nothing to worry about why would you care if they monitor you? The ones that worry usually are worried for a REASON. And talking about racial based stuff do you realize a WHITE PERSON is about the ONLY one that ever gets a HATE CRIME filed on them and the punishment is much harsher. A black man can beat the crap out of a white man and its not a Hate crime but if a white man beats the crap out of a black man its a HATE crime???? Go figure:pop2:


What world do you live in?

tsjct
02-27-2012, 03:32 PM
What world do you live in?

You cant handle the truth!!

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 03:42 PM
You cant handle the truth!!


I can't handle a bunch of rubbish. Anytime you feel like speaking the truth I'm all ears.

tsjct
02-27-2012, 03:48 PM
I can't handle a bunch of rubbish. Anytime you feel like speaking the truth I'm all ears.

The truth is the Gov't is here to protect us and if it means monitoring a select few to do that i have no problem with it. If they want to monitor me i have no problem with it. What group has planned the last 5 attacks on the USA??? was it a person of MUSLIM faith??? I would say YES YES!! I know there are good muslim people in our country but the ones that are out to kill us are also of the same faith. We must do what ever it takes to make our citizens safe. Without monitoring some individuals our safety is in danger.

ensbergcollector
02-27-2012, 05:37 PM
are you implying that his statement isn't true? how often does someone who beat up a white person get charged with a hate crime?

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:57 AM
Go to any street corner in america. Check out the police brutality that occurs. See if any of the white cops who terrorize black citizens are charged with hate crimes.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 10:21 AM
You didn't answer his question.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 10:25 AM
I don't have the stats on that and I doubt that you do either.

ensbergcollector
02-28-2012, 10:28 AM
so it's ok for you to stereotype white cops but any other types of stereotyping is wrong? smh

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 10:33 AM
I'm going by personal experience with the police as well as seeing and hearing about the from the news as well as people that I know. Also I was not suggesting that all white cops are criminals but...

AUTaxMan
02-28-2012, 10:55 AM
Why does pretty much every argument you get involved in come down to a discussion in some form or fashion about how you think white people are racist?

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 11:17 AM
Why does pretty much every argument you get involved in come down to a discussion in some form or fashion about how you think white people are racist?


Please show me the discussion where I said that all white people are racists? This conversation evolved into hate crimes. Someone mentioned that if a black person gets in a fight with a white person and wins all of a sudden the black person is guilty of a hate crime. :confused0024: However if a white cop brutalizes a innocent black citizen and I call them out for doing that I am somehow wrong for doing so. And who's the racist here? :rolleyes:

ensbergcollector
02-28-2012, 11:31 AM
Please show me the discussion where I said that all white people are racists? This conversation evolved into hate crimes. Someone mentioned that if a black person gets in a fight with a white person and wins all of a sudden the black person is guilty of a hate crime. :confused0024: However if a white cop brutalizes a innocent black citizen and I call them out for doing that I am somehow wrong for doing so. And who's the racist here? :rolleyes:

reread this very post and your racism shows through.

"so if a black person gets into a fight and with a white person and wins"
"if a white cop brutalizes an innocent black citizen"

even the language you choose to use betrays you man.


he said a black person can beat the crap out of a white person which you automatically read as two people get in a fight and the black person wins. you know full well that isn't what he meant.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 11:45 AM
reread this very post and your racism shows through.

"so if a black person gets into a fight and with a white person and wins"
"if a white cop brutalizes an innocent black citizen"

even the language you choose to use betrays you man.


he said a black person can beat the crap out of a white person which you automatically read as two people get in a fight and the black person wins. you know full well that isn't what he meant.


So people regardless of race can't get into fistfights anymore? Or if they do is President Obama somehow to blame? Tell me this when was the last time that a black person randomly went out of their way to find a white person to assult just because of their race. Yes a white person may have been robbed by a black person who was looking for money but news flash if it were a black person who was there instead of a white person that black person would have got jacked just like the white person would have been robbed? Also when was the last time the kkk or any other white power group went out looking for other white people to assult?

AUTaxMan
02-28-2012, 12:11 PM
Please show me the discussion where I said that all white people are racists? This conversation evolved into hate crimes. Someone mentioned that if a black person gets in a fight with a white person and wins all of a sudden the black person is guilty of a hate crime. :confused0024: However if a white cop brutalizes a innocent black citizen and I call them out for doing that I am somehow wrong for doing so. And who's the racist here? :rolleyes:

I never said that you thought that all white people are racist. You do, however, have an uncanny ability to turn any argument into a race battle, and it is very clear from your views that you generally view white people as racist or bigoted, and that those who aren't are in the minority.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 12:20 PM
I never said that you thought that all white people are racist. You do, however, have an uncanny ability to turn any argument into a race battle, and it is very clear from your views that you generally view white people as racist or bigoted, and that those who aren't are in the minority.

You conservatives sure know how to twist things up don't you. For the record I do not believe that all white people nor are the majority of white people are racists. I do believe that a vast majority of the racist white people generally support the republican party and have conservative viewpoints.

AUTaxMan
02-28-2012, 12:30 PM
You conservatives sure know how to twist things up don't you. For the record I do not believe that all white people nor are the majority of white people are racists. I do believe that a vast majority of the racist white people generally support the republican party and have conservative viewpoints.

I don't think you realize how often you bring up the topic of race in discussion. You also use what you claim to believe are minorities to paint the party as a whole as generally racist and bigoted.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 01:07 PM
I don't think you realize how often you bring up the topic of race in discussion. You also use what you claim to believe are minorities to paint the party as a whole as generally racist and bigoted.

But conservatives really are just a bunch of Bible-thumping, gun-toting, racist rednecks...just ask a liberal and they will tell you all about it. Their president said essentially the same thing himself.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 01:35 PM
But conservatives really are just a bunch of Bible-thumping, gun-toting, racist rednecks...just ask a liberal and they will tell you all about it. Their president said essentially the same thing himself.


The last time I checked President Obama is all of our president not just the president of the so called liberals. :hug:

ensbergcollector
02-28-2012, 02:25 PM
So people regardless of race can't get into fistfights anymore? Or if they do is President Obama somehow to blame? Tell me this when was the last time that a black person randomly went out of their way to find a white person to assult just because of their race. Yes a white person may have been robbed by a black person who was looking for money but news flash if it were a black person who was there instead of a white person that black person would have got jacked just like the white person would have been robbed? Also when was the last time the kkk or any other white power group went out looking for other white people to assult?

just read what you write. so if a black person commits a crime against a white person, it isn't hate because they would have committed the same crime against anyone, but if a white person commits a crime against a black person, it is because of race?

you try to compare every day common black people on one side with KKK members on another like those are equal sides of the same coin. come on man. the fact that you don't think any racism goes on from the black side shows your bias

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 02:47 PM
just read what you write. so if a black person commits a crime against a white person, it isn't hate because they would have committed the same crime against anyone, but if a white person commits a crime against a black person, it is because of race?

you try to compare every day common black people on one side with KKK members on another like those are equal sides of the same coin. come on man. the fact that you don't think any racism goes on from the black side shows your bias


If a group of blacks went out of their way looking for only white people to assult then yes it would be a hate crime. How often does that happen? Not often. However you will often hear of groups of whites assulting minorities as well as gays, jews, the disabled or anyone else that they can pick on. Bottom line if you go after someone solely because of race, religion, sexual orientation disability, etc you are commiting a hate crime and should have the book thrown at you. Also I like how you try to put words in my mouth. Why don't you come back to me and have this converasation after you have been accosted by the police because of your race tell me how you feel about hate crimes.

ensbergcollector
02-28-2012, 03:17 PM
If a group of blacks went out of their way looking for only white people to assult then yes it would be a hate crime. How often does that happen? Not often. However you will often hear of groups of whites assulting minorities as well as gays, jews, the disabled or anyone else that they can pick on. Bottom line if you go after someone solely because of race, religion, sexual orientation disability, etc you are commiting a hate crime and should have the book thrown at you. Also I like how you try to put words in my mouth. Why don't you come back to me and have this converasation after you have been accosted by the police because of your race tell me how you feel about hate crimes.

you have a very strong bias which you think is justified because you have been prejudiced against. you routinely make snide comments implying that white cops are dirty and just go around looking for black people to oppress. you routinely make it very clear that whites are prejudiced while blacks rarely if ever are. if something is done by whites, it is racist, if it is done by blacks it is not. These are not new sentiments from you. you made the comment in this thread about white cops oppressing blacks and stating that it happens on every street corner.

since you brought up the idea of two people just getting in a fight. why if the white person wins, were they looking to beat up a black guy but if the black guy wins, they just won a fight?

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 03:52 PM
you have a very strong bias which you think is justified because you have been prejudiced against. you routinely make snide comments implying that white cops are dirty and just go around looking for black people to oppress. you routinely make it very clear that whites are prejudiced while blacks rarely if ever are. if something is done by whites, it is racist, if it is done by blacks it is not. These are not new sentiments from you. you made the comment in this thread about white cops oppressing blacks and stating that it happens on every street corner.

since you brought up the idea of two people just getting in a fight. why if the white person wins, were they looking to beat up a black guy but if the black guy wins, they just won a fight?

If a black guy and a white guy fight one on one and the better man wins that is not a hate crime. It's just one guy kicking another guy's behind regardless of race. That is not the point. I'm interested in hearing your experiences with black cops assulting innocent white civilians. :whistle:

ensbergcollector
02-28-2012, 03:57 PM
If a black guy and a white guy fight one on one and the better man wins that is not a hate crime. It's just one guy kicking another guy's behind regardless of race. That is not the point. I'm interested in hearing your experience about black cops assulting innocent white civilians. :whistle:

never claimed i had any. i'm interested to know how you take every situation that happens and extrapolate it out and imply that it is universal.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 04:10 PM
never claimed i had any. i'm interested to know how you take every situation that happens and extrapolate it out and imply that it is universal.


I just call it like I see it. When I was younger my mother told me not to touch a hot handle on the stove or I will burn my hand. I did and burnt my hand. Everyone that I know that touched the hot handle burned their hand. No I haven't spoken to everyone in the world but from everyone that I know who touch the hot handle burned their hand and everyone that I know who dealt with the police of a different race has had one bad experience or another. Again not saying that all white cops (or cops of any race) are bad but I look over my shoulder whenever one comes near me because I have no idea what is on his mind.