Story Comments
Posted by: Beau7890 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let me get this straight. McCain apologizes for a racially charged mistake and gets booed. Obama doesn't apologize for a racially charged mistake and gets deified. God love my liberals who don't see the irony in that. More curious is the blindness to the fact that Obama's speech was electioneering to it's utmost.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can call it electioneering if you like, but I (and many others) think there was a lot more to his speech than that. Obama actually spoke to the issue of race in a way that we haven't heard from a politician in a long time--if ever.
And though Obama didn't offer an apology, he did disavow Wright's questionable comments. McCain was apologizing for the vote against making King's birthday a holiday. Obama didn't do anything except attend a church--he didn't vote for any kind of racially charged agenda in his capacity as a legislator.
Certainly you see the difference, right?
Reply-
-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, Beau, that there was a lot more to his speech than electioneering. The kicker about his speech was the timing. It was given at just the right time, opportunistically and politically speaking. I would be more admirable of him if that speech was given earlier in his campaign and went hand-in-hand with a scolding of Reverend Wright before he was "forced". As far as your comment about him not voting for a racially charged agenda, it seems to be a part of his platform:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/#...
Investigate his racial profiling proposals and know that they encompass limits that keep police from investigating African Americans and Hispanic Americans only in the percentages related to their overall percentage of the population. This is wrong and it turns a blind eye to the fact that statistically more crimes are committed by these minorities than the population as a whole.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I should have chosen my words more carefully. Obama's advocacy of strengthening civil rights enforcement is "racially charged." I should have said "discriminatory."
I see nothing in the link you posted (or on that entire page) that says Obama proposes only investigation in proportion to percentage of population. I also see nothing in the Howard Convocation Fact Sheet or the Blueprint for Change (both downloadable as PDFs from links on the page) which proposes that. Where is your information coming from?
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/the_imam...
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_the_myth....
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/28/remarks_o...
"There's no reason why we can't pass a racial profiling law like I did in Illinois"
http://www.adversity.net/MontgomeryCountyPolice...
http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2008...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=There's no reason why we can't pass a racial profiling law like I did in Illinois&r...
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who are you trying to fool? Do you think I won't check any of your links? There is nothing in ANY of those links mentioning Obama wanting to pass the law you described.
Your first link downloads an unreadable cgi file. The next two links dispute racial profiling exists. That's BS and you're far too intelligent not to know it.
Your American Thinker link cites S.2138, which according to Thomas (http://th...">http://thomas.loc.gov)--which">(http://th... records all proposed legislation and changes, votes, progress in Congress, etc.--is "Department of Veterans Affairs Reorganization Act of 2007." The "Thinker" can't get that straight.
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who are YOU trying to fool? Did you think I would let you put your spin on the links that show a progression of Obama's efforts towards racial profiling laws?
The first link is a downloadable PDF file of bill #S.2138 proposed in 2005 by Barack Obama, among others. Surely it is his blueprint for this cause. Look at page 29 of that file. Look at the numbered sections 11 through 24. Take particular notice of #16 and how it relates to the rest. Go to page 30 and read the following line (in reference to recording guidelines and disparaties): "Disparaties in the frequency of searches performed on minority drivers and the frequency of searches performed on non-minority drivers".
Why would they record this disparate data? Even if it is a known fact that minorities commit more crimes as a percentage of the population?
This data would then be used to appropriate grant money.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, I changed the CGI to a PDF, and it is in fact the text of a bill (likely not Obama's final draft, since the bill number introduced in the Senate is not the same as the one on the PDF). I read it, and paid particularly close attention to the sections you mentioned.
Page 29 of that file? Under Title IV, "Data Collection"? Everything under Title IV has to do with collecting data, NOT with how that data is used to prohibit racial profiling. It's quite a leap to assume that the data collection would be used for something other than what the bill actually spells out, especially since prohibitions of racial profiling as well as requirements for agencies to receive federal funding are specifically listed in Title III of the proposed bill (entitled, "Programs to Eliminate Racial Profiling by State, Local, and Indian Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies").
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Title III does, however, call for establishing formal complaint procedures or an independent auditor to review complaints of racial profiling in order to receive federal monies. Title III lays out all requirements to receive federal grants, and NONE OF THESE requires comparing the proportion of racial makeup in traffic stops to the racial makeup of the population in general. Check Sections 301 & 302, pages 15-23 of your PDF.
There is simply NO language in the bill about limiting law enforcement officials to stopping only the same proportion of blacks as exists in the general population. And there is NO language about using data about such proportions as a guideline requirement to fund state, county or municipal law enforcement agencies.
There is, in the section about recording guidelines that you note, a requirement that the Bureau of Justice Statistics GENERATE A REPORT based on that data.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You ask why would they record the data?
Well, your PDF says it's so that the Justice Dept. can determine best how to end racial profiling. I'd add that it's also so that the government in general can get some meaningful figures in order to determine how much racial profiling there is. Shouldn't the Justice Dept.'s policies, if they do want to end racial profiling be informed by accurate figures?
Is your issue with Obama's proposed legislation really that you don't want to end racial profiling?
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I appreciate the responses and more importantly I appreciate that you are asking sincere questions. First of all, I oppose any law that plays against the percentages. Is it wrong to arrest criminals? I understand the reasoning behind ending racial profiling and would support a law that does that if it doesn't equate percentages of population to percentages of traffic stops, searches or the like. You can't take a known fact (minorities commit more crimes) and tie anything good to working against that fact. How can these figures be meaningful if they are working against this fact? Why record that data? It's naive to think it's just data gathering. It is not "quite a leap" to see that the progression would be for that data to be used for either punishment or lack of reward. One link I read had officers names written in a spreadsheet with columns listed as # of minorities stopped and # of minorities searched. There were no corresponding columns for non-minorities. Useless data.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand why racial profiling is used as well, but it seems far too easy for individual officers to abuse such a system. It seems to me that the proposed bill is meant to collect data on the frequency of profiling and to assess how it matches to actual crime. (More importantly, it establishes a formal system to review traffic stops to see whether there was any reason to stop the individual(s) involved.)
Again, there is nothing here (except in Highland Park's interpretation, which I would think a court would strike down) that ties percentages of those stopped to percentages of the population.
What you read about officers' names in a spreadsheet with numbers of minorities stopped beside them is an example of useless data collection, and I'd think it doesn't comply with how data is to be collected under Title IV. Again, not a problem with the bill, but rather an interpretation of how study is to be conducted.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "End Racial Profiling Act of 2007" is S.2481 (according to Thomas), and clearly defines racial profiling as:
"...the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, EXCEPT WHEN THERE IS TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION, RELEVANT TO THE LOCALITY AND TIMEFRAME [emphasis mine], that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme."
These are not laws passed in Illinois either.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Andrew Sullivan article from the Atlantic gives Obama's speech at Howard University, where he says--full quote here:
"There's no reason why we can't pass a racial profiling law like I did in Illinois, or encourage states to reform the death penalty so that innocent people do not end up on death row."
I already mentioned that the Howard Univ. convocation--another of your links--says NOTHING about the Illinois law you described.
Your Montgomery County page ALSO says nothing about a law in Illinois, though it does say the Highland Park (a Chicago suburb) police department had to install video and audio equipment in its cars and make tapes of stops. Is there a problem with that?
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the problem with the Highland Park information:
http://www.adversity.net/policefire_2_highland_...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your last link, the Nicholas Stix article, apart from being full of unsubstantiated claims about Obama's record, contains a description of the law in Illinois requiring videotaping traffic stops. Then it goes on to misrepresent the reasoning behind it, saying if " 'too many' blacks" are stopped by cops, it's against the law.
That is not a law proposed by Obama. Obama did however, introduce and pass a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.That law contains no provision to punish municipalities if they do in fact profile drivers. It gives the state a benchmark to measure proportions stopped--in the interest, I imagine, of ending BS like your articles that deny profiling exists, or at least to get some actual FACTS about how much and whether it goes on. (The law, by the way, was at first very controversial, but due to Obama's skills as a negotiator and bipartisanships, he won the support of the police.)
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That law contains no provision to punish municipalities if they do in fact profile drivers. It gives the state a benchmark to measure proportions stopped--in the interest, I imagine, of ending BS like your articles that deny profiling exists, or at least to get some actual FACTS about how much and whether it goes on."
It does not punish the municipalities? It withholds grant money which is a punishment.
Reply-
-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It does withhold grant money. Check the bottom of page 23 and the top of page 24. Noncompliance: If the AG determines that the recipient of ANY covered grant is not in compliance with the requirements of section 301 or 302 or the regulations issued under subsection (a), the AG shall WITHHOLD, in whole or in part, funds for 1 or more covered grants, until the grantee establishes compliance.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The bill allows the Attorney General to withhold money based on whether the recipient is complying with the terms in sections 301 and 302 or regulations under subsection (a).
But there's nothing in those sections that says that assessment is to be determined on the basis of whether the proportion of races stopped by law enforcement matches the proportion of those races in the general population.
More importantly, the monies that may be withheld are those the Attorney General may grant to study racial profiling (as laid out in sections 304 and 305). Monies that don't relate to collecting data on profiling or developing best practices to avoid profiling don't fall under the purview of the legislation and can't be withheld.
Reply -
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The bill simply says: here's a proposal--WITH rules to fund it--to study racial profiling. If agencies don't comply with the rules spelled out about how to study the issue, they won't receive grants to study the issue. It has nothing to do with money they receive for law enforcement operations.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahhhhh..One happened 25 years ago and has still been defended until this very day, despite having touched the nerve of many who were looking for it to help them to get past the bigotry. The other just happened last month, required no legislation and was already disavowed.
Can YOU see the difference???
Try. We're sure even you can do it!
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
--Unbelievable--The moral relativism of far right wingjobs never ceases to amaze me. Do all con men and women think America has forgotten that charming little warm up speech given for McCain by a supporter who generously peppered his paragraphs with references to "Barack Hussein Obama" (and after which McCain apologized and was virtually boiled in oil by the neocon fringe element)?
love, trust me on this... NO ONE is even remotely fooled by this crap you're serving up. One minute cons say they couldn't possibly trust a "flip flopper" to run the country (the very reason wingnuts have been wetting themselves in anger that Hillary Clinton hasn't closed the deal and recanted her position on the Iraq fiasco) and the next minute you're preparing a fresh supply of wipes for creeps like McCain and Joe Lieberman. Stop pretending you have solid principles. No one's buying it. LOL
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
shadowolf - your pos and neg show that your generalities are showing. I'm on record on Propeller as having admiration for Obama. As much as you would like not to believe it, my vote is not determined by party or skin color or even gender. You sadden me.
Obama's stance on racial profiling is NOT a deal breaker for me. Single issues never determine my vote. But the hypocrisy of those that boo McCain and cheer Obama for a similar circumstance needed to be documented. Why does Obama get a free pass and McCain get skepticism? Party?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama's stance on racial profiling is NOT a deal breaker for me. Single issues never determine my vote. But the hypocrisy of those that boo McCain and cheer Obama for a similar circumstance needed to be documented."
--Your post highlight one of the main reasons that the racial divide between blacks and whites in this country persists and it also explains why blacks will never vote Republican in significant numbers.
I don't know what it's like to be a woman but NEVER in a million years would I insult their intelligence or trivialize their struggles by suggesting that, based on a couple of odd incidents where I felt I was discriminated against or had my feelings hurt because of my gender, that I know what *their* experience of gender discrimination is all about . I couldn't possibly know and i find it LUDICROUS that so many in white America today think they can get away with approaching racism against blacks based on such a mindset.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain was apologizing for something he actually did.
then you want Obama to apologize for something someone else said. even though he denounced what was said as wrong, which I'm sure isn't good enough for you.
meanwhile, McCain denounced what Hgee said about the catholic church, but didn't denounce everything hateful Hagee has said about women, muslims, homosexuals, etc.
and now go look up the definition of irony. cause you obviously don't know that either.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is this isn't the first time McCain made a mistake and had to apologize for it.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
"On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, 'I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.'"
http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2...
"Richard Quinn, McCain's chief South Carolina advisor in 2000, who edits a racially controversial magazine called Southern Partisan called Nelson Mandela a 'terrorist' and King a man 'whose role in history was to lead his people into a perpetual dependence on the welfare state, a terrible bondage of body and soul.' In another piece, Quinn said of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, 'What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke?'"
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct ~
Really? Let's hope someone has video of the Rev.Richard Quinn
for airing during the general election. There were very few
Republicans active in the Civil Right's movement - and that's
a fact. Now that Dr.King and others succeeded with the
voter registration drives....the Republicans want the votes!
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There were very few
Republicans active in the Civil Right's movement - and that's
a fact."
From wikipedia:
"In the mid-20th century, the Republican Party championed racial equality and strongly supported the Civil Rights Act."
Wikipedia seems to disagree with you on that and no one on seems to have posted any challenge to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?AC...
In the 2000 presidential campaign, McCain reversed himself on the confederate flag first calling it 'a symbol of racism and slavery' but then pandering the very next day by calling it a 'symbol of heritage.'
McCain campaigned in Alabama for George Wallace Jr., a
popular speaker the Council of Conservative Citizens, whose mission statement reads:
'We believe that the U.S. derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.'"
Reply-
-
Neutral
ecotourusa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
check out this inspiring MLK video (seriously)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWClI8zsH4&NR=1
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would gladly accept his apology for elongating the occupation of Iraq 2 years from now. The problem is, think
of how many will die needlessly once the right thing finally happens and THEN he admits it.
Aren't we looking for leaders who make the right decision in the heat of the discussion?
Reply -
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (26)
bonaroo
Ratskii
tehranchik
rumple4skin
Dobes_Rule
uncle-dave
not2needy
Charlson
tchef
Shadowolf
oldgringo
GHOSTWHOWALKS
wasntme
Beeboppin71
quackpot
lvrofwolves
texangelwings
ecotourusa
dunkirk
GWHayduke
scott4261
dissent
AnteUp
bluetexasvalley
MdiarPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.