Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
761 - 780 of 795 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Here is my broadstroke reply to these situations, and many, many others, all in one hair-brained notion. Feel free to rip this to shreds, and I won't participate in any form of drama or one-upsmanship. These are my thoughts:

Corporate America has figured something out, that is very prominent. The human species is inherently prone to wanting to be part of a group. The human species' DNA is wired that way. So, corporate America actively seeks to create a brand that the human species can associate with, and therefore be a "part" of a group of people who also are clearly intelligent enough, to also use the product. Pro sports are a gleaming example of this. Corporate branding is at the very top of the list as far as success/failure goes, and there has to be a reason why they spend MILLIONS of dollars to advertise their products. Why? I believe I already answered that.

Then there are all of those stickers proudly displayed on vehicles, for the mufflers, rock bands, Oakley sunglasses, vacation OBX spots, sports teams, etc. that pretty much defend my position. The human species wants to be part of a group, and will pay money to display which group they are a part of, and will rigorously defend any nay-sayers with negative thoughts of their chosen groups.

Now, this doesn't just pertain to corporate America, but society in general. And when some cause comes up, people flock to be a part of that cause and again, to be part of a group. They will wear similar printed T-shirts clearly stating their group.

The real difference is that some can control these genetic impulses and know when it is time to tame it down and others have no filter whatsoever and will break the law, steal, and worse, to be a part of a group.

Again, just a hair-brained thought on a lot of these situations...........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
In other worlds some people are sheep and some people are not sheep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
it appears a coherent rebuttal based in fact escapes you.
It would only appear that way. eharri3 is making an argument against Democrats. I'm not sure nor have I tried to look whom he is directing his comments to. In order to have a rebuttal there must be some other party arguing against him. What escapes you is I didn't say his views on Democrats were wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
OK, well if you see conservatism involved in the mess that has come from any of this, good on you because I can't find it. If I could find it I'd gladly point it out but I don't see it anywhere. Because we can't read these officers' minds we have to go by evidence.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Brown shooting was justified. The Garner killing did not look good to me but there is overwhelming evidence that that one had absolutely nothing to do with race. If we want to use it responsibly to start a conversation about some tweaks to the Grand Jury process to make it more fair and ensure law enforcement officers don't get off the hook for things they shouldn't, that's fine. IF we want to turn it into a conversation about the proper compiling of law enforcement statistics on police shootings, I get that too. You could have even made this a healthy conversation on racial profiling and that's valid too. But there is a professional, responsible, nondestructive way to do all that and it isn't what happened.

Here are the problems as I see them.

A Civil Rights radical Democratic President with pipe dreams of being remembered as the second coming of MLK and his ultra radical Democratic attorney general poured gas on it.

Democrats burned stores down and did the looting.

Sharpton is a Democrat.

Jackson is a Democrat.

De Blasio is a Democrat.

Democratic fingerprints all over the race baiting, agitating, and inflammatory rhetoric that swept across the country. Democrats jumping on the crusade bandwagon.

I think there's a number of things that drove it.

Obama wanted his Civil Rights legacy and to get it he injects race into everything, splitting people apart so he can be the one to step in and try to make a show of fixing it. He has failed in everything else but he believes no matter what Civil Rights is HIS THING and he'll make his mark on it before he leaves. To do that first he just has to set race relations back to about 1964.

The media needed a big story so they invented one.

Sharpton is in financial trouble. He needs money and donors bad, he only gets that if he gets camera time and notoriety. He's only got 2 years left with the White House backing him to make all he can get before the door gets slammed in his face again.

War on Women rhetoric was proven to be wearing thin on voters. People were starting to see it for the bullshit that it was and stop paying attention. Democrats needed a new fight to try to carry them through the mid terms and out to 2016.

A desire to vent frustration on white police officers over a 50 year old failed liberal war on poverty that has done nothing to help change the conditions that cause so many young black men to have police encounters.

Your party is full of bandwagon crusaders who behave like trained attack dogs. Put a sign in their hand, tell them what to write on it, what to chant, and where to stand, and they're there the next day on command foaming at the mouth and ready for battle.
The E. Garner killing may or may not have to do with race. There's simply no way anyone of us can know that. Some of the arresting officers may have not while others could of. The Sergeant, or whomever she is, being black does not automatically eliminate the possibility that race played a part in this. Black folks can be racist against their own as well as white folks.

My point is that preaching that this is not a racist issue and defending this tooth and nail is no different than those jumping to the conclusion that this is a racist issue. There are whole lot of factors, history, and personal experiences for many people that play into all of this.

You commented about "my party" being full of bandwagon crusaders, but that can be said exactly the same about those whom claim conservatism. You can even see that in this single thread alone. They've gotten so good at putting us against each other that we argue against one another over issues we actually agree with. Meanwhile while we're here picking our noses and throwing insults at one another they are off doing things against the peoples own interests. The longer conservatives believe that anyone with a "D" next to their name is the enemy, and vice versa, we will never get anything accomplished in this country. Not everyone that disagrees with the "conservative" agenda is a (insert *ist here), liberal. I've referred to myself as a liberal on these forums because I know that's is how I'm perceived; but more so to piss people off. How dare I have a difference of opinion than what is obviously the only way things can possibly be.

I'm not committed to any one party, I don't agree with everything Obama has done thus far, and probably won't agree with some of the other decisions made. I even agree with some views of Rand Paul; particularly the war on drugs. Stop focusing so much on douches like Sharpton, Jackson, and the douches that were out there burning shit in Ferguson. They are just being used by your own party to make you hate everything "democrat" when in reality there are many other. I stopped focussing on Sarah Palin and much of the Tea Party a long time ago. I know it's hard, but it really resolves nothing. One thing I see more so in Conservatives is that many of you always think you're always right, all the time and when wrong, come up with any way possible to show that you are right. I'm right, but not all the time, and can admit that. I've even "dare I say it" changed my view on certain issues. OK this is getting way to long, bye. (Oh, and please excuse any typos or grammatical errors)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
The Eric Garner killing was unrelated to race. Thats a fact. An order came down from an NYPD chief of department for detectives to target sellers of untaxed cigarettes for arrest operations. Unjustified force is still a good topic there but as far as I am concerned race is off the table. There is no argument about being able to read the cop's mind. What was in his mind was irrelevant. He was acting on orders that day, not on his own initiative, and it went downhill from the first ignored command.

What bothers me about Wilson is people are trying to make the case that a history of frustration makes it Ok to act the way they did even if the shooting itself now appears justified. I think thats bullshit because the message to cops is even when they do their job the right way they'll still be hung out to dry if it is politically convenient. Its an academic exercise for the rest of us that we mull over in front of the TV with a beer in hand but to him it means he gets to look over his shoulder and wait for a bullet in the back of his head for the rest of his life.

At the end of the day this is just like the War on Women that never happened. Liberals just don't like to let facts and logic spoil a good crusade.

The issues behind this arent invalid ones. But there was a more responsible way to start any conversations over it and people are way too flip about the effect that making police shootings political before the facts are in has on police morale and safety. Everybody else is thinking about the politics of it. Some of us worry it may cause a brother or sister to hesitate when they shouldnt one day because they know their life is over no matter what happens next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
The Eric Garner killing was unrelated to race. Thats a fact. An order came down from an NYPD chief of department for detectives to target sellers of untaxed cigarettes for arrest operations. Unjustified force is still a good topic there but as far as I am concerned race is off the table. There is no argument about being able to read the cop's mind. What was in his mind was irrelevant. He was acting on orders that day, not on his own initiative,
I'll start off by saying I'm not really interested in whether or not race was a factor. I'm just going to throw this out there for fun. I think I get what you have to say but it should probably be worded differently.

You mention the 'killing' of Eric was unrelated to race. What you likely meant to say was the 'arrest' was not racial. Let's say the arrest orders were given out without regard to any targeting of race. Now we have some cops strolling the streets looking to arrest someone. They come across a black cig seller. It is possible that some of the cops were racist and therefore used more force than necessary to make the arrest.

In that case the excessive force and abandonment of proper care afterward, would have been racially motivated. Although the cops acted on orders to perform the arrests, the orders were not to go out and give choke holds or other possible excessive force tactics nor to disregard someone claiming they can't breathe or need medical attention. What was on the cop's mind at the time of the arrest and which arrest tactics he chose to use is most certainly relevant.

I'm sure that at least a couple of the protesters out there were mostly upset about the killing and less about the arrest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
I'll start off by saying I'm not really interested in whether or not race was a factor. I'm just going to throw this out there for fun. I think I get what you have to say but it should probably be worded differently.

You mention the 'killing' of Eric was unrelated to race. What you likely meant to say was the 'arrest' was not racial. Let's say the arrest orders were given out without regard to any targeting of race. Now we have some cops strolling the streets looking to arrest someone. They come across a black cig seller. It is possible that some of the cops were racist and therefore used more force than necessary to make the arrest.

In that case the excessive force and abandonment of proper care afterward, would have been racially motivated. Although the cops acted on orders to perform the arrests, the orders were not to go out and give choke holds or other possible excessive force tactics nor to disregard someone claiming they can't breathe or need medical attention. What was on the cop's mind at the time of the arrest and which arrest tactics he chose to use is most certainly relevant.

I'm sure that at least a couple of the protesters out there were mostly upset about the killing and less about the arrest.
Where we will have to agree to disagree.

You see a cop who used excessive force due to race. I see a cop who used excessive force because he faced down a man twice his size and felt he lacked the strength and capability to do it successfully and go home in one piece without deviating from his training.

That is the difference between someone who knows the pucker factor of making a guy who is 100 pounds heavier and a foot taller than him and generally unhappy with the situation do what he wants and a guy who probably doesn't.

That's the difference between someone who is a liberal academic and someone who has existed in the real world. The first one understands the hypothetical and theoretical right thing to do. Others have had to actually do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
And if you really want to know the funny part, I pointed out to a liberal friend of mine the information about the cigarette crackdown which he had never heard of and his reply was almost precisely the same as yours. "OK, race may not have been a factor in the approach but it was definitely a factor in the level of force used."

Shows two things.

You all think the same.

When your initial hypothesis is disproven you simply retreat to the next level of logic that hasn't been refuted yet rather than admitting you're completely full of shit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,185 Posts
And if you really want to know the funny part, I pointed out to a liberal friend of mine the information about the cigarette crackdown which he had never heard of and his reply was almost precisely the same as yours. "OK, race may not have been a factor in the approach but it was definitely a factor in the level of force used."

Shows two things.

You all think the same.

When your initial hypothesis is disproven you simply retreat to the next level of logic that hasn't been refuted yet rather than admitting you're completely full of shit.

So what your saying is neither of them are bigots. I don't understand why some people are so strong armed on their opinions when information changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
Neither of who. I don't really understand what you're saying to be honest.

What I'm saying is a nervous cop hopped up on adrenaline who was 100 pounds skinnier than the guy who he was up against and decided to take a shortcut has become a poster child for evil racial profilers because he did it at the wrong time. Unless some miracle happens and it turns out NYPD has a move they teach in training that looks precisely like a chokehold but isn't, it looks like he is guilty of police brutality and possibly manslaughter but absolutely not guilty of racial profiling.

The arrest has been rolled up into a political firestorm about racial profiling.

It was clearly not racial and therefore doesn't fit the #blacklivesmatter crusade.

It is a hugely different and much more powerful thing to say a cop killed a guy because he was black than because he felt underpowered and intimidated and made a mistake.

If we go around making such an accusation, we should understand that it has a very real and tangible effect on someone's life and therefore it should not be made lightly for political points
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,434 Posts
And if you really want to know the funny part, I pointed out to a liberal friend of mine the information about the cigarette crackdown which he had never heard of and his reply was almost precisely the same as yours. "OK, race may not have been a factor in the approach but it was definitely a factor in the level of force used."

Shows two things.

You all think the same.

When your initial hypothesis is disproven you simply retreat to the next level of logic that hasn't been refuted yet rather than admitting you're completely full of shit.

Agreed.

If you've ever actually witnessed police takedowns (which I have many times during domestic calls where the ambulance would be called to the scene in the event there were injuries) you'd know first hand that a person being arrested will say and do ANYTHING to stop/avert the arrest. "I can't breathe" is a very frequently used phrase during an arrest.

That said, it doesn't excuse the police ignoring him after he was detained, that's where the neglect started.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
My ideal presidential speech:

BEFORE, WHAT I WOULD HAVE WANTED
"We don't have all facts related to this case yet. I can't comment, because the investigation isn't complete. Law enforcement officers have a difficult job involving split decisions most of us will be lucky enough to never have to make, so I don't want to trivialize that by jumping to conclusions.Please be calm and wait for the facts."

WHAT I GOT
"“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions,”


AFter, what I would have wanted:

"The justice system has spoken. I have to ask that we respect it, that we take a minute to digest it and figure out how to have a peaceful and constructive conversation about it. Meanwhile, the US Department of Justice will examine the evidence and determine what if any further action should be taken."

What I got

"The country is angry. AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Where we will have to agree to disagree.

You see a cop who used excessive force due to race. I see a cop who used excessive force because he faced down a man twice his size and felt he lacked the strength and capability to do it successfully and go home in one piece without deviating from his training.

And if you really want to know the funny part, I pointed out to a liberal friend of mine the information about the cigarette crackdown which he had never heard of and his reply was almost precisely the same as yours. "OK, race may not have been a factor in the approach but it was definitely a factor in the level of force used."

Shows two things.

You all think the same.
I can see why debates or discussions on forums are typically pointless. I am really starting to think that several of you on here are mentally challenged or are just somewhat illiterate. The first thing I mentioned was “I'm not really interested in whether or not race was a factor.”

Your reply to that is “You see a cop who used excessive force due to race” and “a liberal friend of mine…” says “race.. was definitely a factor.” “You all think the same.”

You mention “a guy who is 100 pounds heavier.” Eric was fat. I have wrestled people “in the real world” and not just “academically” and I have had no problem putting people to the mat, by myself, that were much heavier than me.

However, in the context of what happened with Eric there was not ONE lonely cop. There were 5 officers present for a total of likely over 900lbs and 10 legs and 10 arms to do battle against some fat guy that was not aggressive and did not engage in a fight unless you consider putting your hands up a fight.

The cop(s) could have used many different tactics before trying to resort to something that was banned and outside of NYPD policy.

If anything is “funny” it’s that you were duped into being a lefty and Democrat in the past and apparently even married one. Then you managed to escape the Democratic cat litter box only to trip and fall into the right wing dumpster. With the exception of some parts, they are both trash. I don’t belong to any US liberal party either.

In this day and age voting either Democratic or Republican is like voting for which demon you want to run the country. The two demons masquerade as angels of light making false promises. The gullible people from both parties suck down the lies and then are upset afterward.

The battles between the 'lefts' and the 'rights' are like watching a group of kids with Down syndrome in special ed. class trying to call another group of kids retarded. Whether the Republicans win or the Democrats win, America will probably but hopefully not, continue its moral decline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
You mention “a guy who is 100 pounds heavier.” Eric was fat. I have wrestled people “in the real world” and not just “academically” and I have had no problem putting people to the mat, by myself, that were much heavier than me.


Wait are we talking high school/college sports or bar fights over a female or are we talking someone who wants to end your life and make sure your family prays to an empty chair on the next Thanksgiving?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,185 Posts
Wait are we talking high school/college sports or bar fights over a female or are we talking someone who wants to end your life and make sure your family prays to an empty chair on the next Thanksgiving?

That's a stretch..... I don't think Gardner had any intentions of ending anyone's life.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
The E. Garner killing may or may not have to do with race. There's simply no way anyone of us can know that. Some of the arresting officers may have not while others could of. The Sergeant, or whomever she is, being black does not automatically eliminate the possibility that race played a part in this. Black folks can be racist against their own as well as white folks.

My point is that preaching that this is not a racist issue and defending this tooth and nail is no different than those jumping to the conclusion that this is a racist issue. There are whole lot of factors, history, and personal experiences for many people that play into all of this.

You commented about "my party" being full of bandwagon crusaders, but that can be said exactly the same about those whom claim conservatism. You can even see that in this single thread alone. They've gotten so good at putting us against each other that we argue against one another over issues we actually agree with. Meanwhile while we're here picking our noses and throwing insults at one another they are off doing things against the peoples own interests. The longer conservatives believe that anyone with a "D" next to their name is the enemy, and vice versa, we will never get anything accomplished in this country. Not everyone that disagrees with the "conservative" agenda is a (insert *ist here), liberal. I've referred to myself as a liberal on these forums because I know that's is how I'm perceived; but more so to piss people off. How dare I have a difference of opinion than what is obviously the only way things can possibly be.

I'm not committed to any one party, I don't agree with everything Obama has done thus far, and probably won't agree with some of the other decisions made. I even agree with some views of Rand Paul; particularly the war on drugs. Stop focusing so much on douches like Sharpton, Jackson, and the douches that were out there burning shit in Ferguson. They are just being used by your own party to make you hate everything "democrat" when in reality there are many other. I stopped focussing on Sarah Palin and much of the Tea Party a long time ago. I know it's hard, but it really resolves nothing. One thing I see more so in Conservatives is that many of you always think you're always right, all the time and when wrong, come up with any way possible to show that you are right. I'm right, but not all the time, and can admit that. I've even "dare I say it" changed my view on certain issues. OK this is getting way to long, bye. (Oh, and please excuse any typos or grammatical errors)
Thank you for saying what others of us are thinking but arent eloquent enough to convey. Well put:beerchug:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Where we will have to agree to disagree.

You see a cop who used excessive force due to race. I see a cop who used excessive force because he faced down a man twice his size and felt he lacked the strength and capability to do it successfully and go home in one piece without deviating from his training.

That is the difference between someone who knows the pucker factor of making a guy who is 100 pounds heavier and a foot taller than him and generally unhappy with the situation do what he wants and a guy who probably doesn't.

That's the difference between someone who is a liberal academic and someone who has existed in the real world. The first one understands the hypothetical and theoretical right thing to do. Others have had to actually do it.
Eharri, I DO appreciate your tone, and the thought you have obviously put into this and how you go about putting forth your opinions, and Im not trying to get this sideways but Im not sure he did say he see a cop that used exessive force due to race, i believe he said ' is it possible some of the cops were racist'... and there is a difference, and i think it is an important one, in that it is asking a question to open a dialogue, not necassarily the expressing an opinion.
I've been confronted while doing this as well and people miss the point of trying to widen a dialogue rather than dispute opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
Eharri, I DO appreciate your tone, and the thought you have obviously put into this and how you go about putting forth your opinions, and Im not trying to get this sideways but Im not sure he did say he see a cop that used exessive force due to race, i believe he said ' is it possible some of the cops were racist'... and there is a difference, and i think it is an important one, in that it is asking a question to open a dialogue, not necassarily the expressing an opinion.
I've been confronted while doing this as well and people miss the point of trying to widen a dialogue rather than dispute opinions.
The thing is…

It is IRRELEVANT if there was racism in that cops heart. Doesn't matter. His actions cannot be judged based on what some people feel based on emotion, frustration, and past experience might possibly have been in his heart. His actions should be judged whether he can articulate them based on training, experience, and the circumstances. If we decide to react as if he was racist because there is some degree of a chance that he may have had racist thoughts at the time, and not because there is evidence that that race played some sort of factor in the arrest, It muddies and blurs the race conversation and leads us down a road to where race will become a factor each and every single time any police officer who is white uses any degree of force against a suspect who is black. That is not, in my opinion, a good place for this to go. That's exactly what I mean when I say it seems harmless for the rest of us to start conversations over stuff like this but that's because our lives aren't immediately effected by it. Our stores and homes aren't getting burned and our careers and reputations don't get destroyed over it.

It is not white police officers' collective fault that there are a lot of minorities and a lot of crime in poor areas and therefore a higher degree of likelihood that a white cop will encounter minorities than whites. Once you go injecting race into every police force investigation you're telling white cops they might as well not lift a finger if they see black people doing anything wrong unless it's a violent crime, because they're screwed as a result of it no matter what.

So maybe we have the conversation when we're sure it applies, and if we see no clear indication that it does we keep it to use of force and police brutality.
 
761 - 780 of 795 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top