Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Conservatives on Civil Rights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    As reported by the criminals. No independent medical evidence was offered in the examples in the report.
    Document this. I believe the report utilized actual police records and not only inmate testimony. I may provide another reference to this. I see no documentation on your part. I believe the report is accurate.

    I did too! When the report routinely says "according to the victim..." and no external evidence is offered, that is the definition of hearsay.
    I do not believe this is complete. I will take a closer look.

    Again, it's a report, Frank. The DoJ threatened to sue FPD, but never filed in court. Why is that, Frank?
    Law suits may follow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The report addresses taxing and beatings after the blacks are already in custody.
    As reported by the criminals. No independent medical evidence was offered in the examples in the report.


    You have presented nothing to back up this claim.
    I did too! When the report routinely says "according to the victim..." and no external evidence is offered, that is the definition of hearsay.


    No references to refute the report.
    Again, it's a report, Frank. The DoJ threatened to sue FPD, but never filed in court. Why is that, Frank?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Again, if they are committing the crimes, and if they are a threat, they should be tazed. The report was a witch hunt.
    The report addresses taxing and beatings after the blacks are already in custody.

    The report is FULL of allegations with"no independent competent references". How can I provide corroborating evidence when the original competing claim is hearsay?
    You have presented nothing to back up this claim.

    t's a report, Frank, not a legal case. The governing bodies of Ferguson have no recourse against hearsay or DoJ innuendo. The entire case Holder trumped up is purely circumstantial and based on overstated claims. And IF the DoJ decides to sue the FPD, it will be tossed out quicker than you can say "I love the Tar Heels"
    No references to refute the report.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    --snip-- individual incident in to the trash. I give specific researched reports based on public documents. You have failed to do this. These specific incidents do not reflect the core of the report where black were tazered, beaten, and other systematic racial abuse.
    Again, if they are committing the crimes, and if they are a threat, they should be tazed. The report was a witch hunt.

    You make personal anecdotal claims about the report, but present no independent competent references.
    The report is FULL of allegations with"no independent competent references". How can I provide corroborating evidence when the original competing claim is hearsay?

    Do you have a specific academic or legal brief or report that challenges this report?
    It's a report, Frank, not a legal case. The governing bodies of Ferguson have no recourse against hearsay or DoJ innuendo. The entire case Holder trumped up is purely circumstantial and based on overstated claims. And IF the DoJ decides to sue the FPD, it will be tossed out quicker than you can say "I love the Tar Heels"

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    ;So, as I said, the DOJ report from Ferguson was a witch hunt by the Holder goons. Unsubstantiated allegations by already angry blacks in Ferguson were aggregated to make a case out of a house of cards. No judge would have allowed ANY of the circumstantial evidence into court, and the data was skewed and formatted to make it look like it was substantial when it was, in fact, not.
    --snip-- individual incident in to the trash. I give specific researched reports based on public documents. You have failed to do this. These specific incidents do not reflect the core of the report where black were tazered, beaten, and other systematic racial abuse.

    You make personal anecdotal claims about the report, but present no independent competent references.

    Do you have a specific academic or legal brief or report that challenges this report?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-03-2015, 02:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    NO, all the victims were black.
    What are you bitching about? The wrongly convicted or the fact that he got off pretty easy? Which do you think is "white privilege"

    Please document this anecdotal claim . . . You cannot bias research and statistics when all the victims were black.

    Your challenging the DoJ report without any competent references.
    Let's look at the Washington Post's 12 key highlights from the report:

    1) The city’s practices are shaped by revenue rather than by public safety needs.


    EVERY city does this, regardless of race. A study of cities and towns around Ferguson found that at least eight of them rely on traffic tickets, court fines and fees for over 30 percent of their revenue. One town, Calverton Park, raises over 66 percent of its revenues through municipal violations.

    2) The 67% of African Americans in Ferguson account for 93% of arrests made from 2012-2014.


    According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93 percent of black homicides were indeed committed by other blacks between 1980 and 2008. In 2012, the most recent data posted on the Web, the figure was 91 percent. If you are the one primarily committing the crimes, it stands to reason that you will be the one arrested more for it.

    3) Here is what happened when a 32-year-old black man was seen resting in his car after playing basketball.


    As a contractor for the Federal Government myself, and having been a Contracting Officer, simply being CHARGED with these crimes is insufficient for removal from a contract. Doing so is an invitation by he contracting company for a law suit. Like most of the "evidence" in the JD report, this is the word of the unnamed man, not the actual evidence from the case file.

    4) A Ferguson woman parked her car illegally once in 2007. It ended up costing her more than $1,000 and 6 days in jail.


    She parked illegally and failed to appear in court 7 times. Boo freakin hoo. That's HER fault, not racism.

    5) The disproportionate number of arrests, tickets and use of force stemmed from “unlawful bias,” rather than black people committing more crime.


    The leap in logic here is staggering. As supposed support for their failure to cite where non-blacks committed disproportionately more crimes than they were actually charged for, they cite racist emails. Pitiful.

    6) A singled missed, late or partial payment of a fine could mean jail time.


    Nothing about this is race-related. It is equally applied to all citizens.

    7) Arrest warrants are “almost exclusively” used as threats to push for payments.


    Again, nothing about race. It's equally applied to all citizens.

    8) And if time is served, no credit for jail time is received and the length of time isn’t even recorded by the court.


    Again, nothing about race. It's equally applied to all citizens

    9) This example of a lieutenant’s actions was a huge cause for concern:


    This was supposedly at a bus station. No incident report was filed and no complaint was filed by the alleged "victim". The DOJ report merely took the man's word for it without evidence or witness and parlayed it with other alleged instances by this Lieutenant into a "consistent pattern of behavior".

    10) Officers used a dog to attack an unarmed 14-year-old black boy and then struck him while he was lying on the ground, all while he was waiting for his friends in an abandoned house. The report concludes that in every dog bite incident reported, the person bitten was black.


    In the case of the 14 year old, he was skipping school, trespassing, fleeing from officers, and refused to show his hands when requested. As typical with the DOJ report, they took the word of the criminal.

    11) After an officer assaulted a man, he demanded the man not pass out because he didn’t want to carry him to his car.


    According to the "victim". There was no corroborating evidence to substantiate his claim. But the DOJ investigators didn't care.

    12) From October 2012 to October 2014, every time a person was arrested because he or she was “resisting arrest,” that person was black.


    If they were the only ones resisting, what's the problem? Out of 891 black drivers arrested, only 14 were arrested for "resisting arrest". That's under 1.6% of all blacks that were arrested.


    So, as I said, the DOJ report from Ferguson was a witch hunt by the Holder goons. Unsubstantiated allegations by already angry blacks in Ferguson were aggregated to make a case out of a house of cards. No judge would have allowed ANY of the circumstantial evidence into court, and the data was skewed and formatted to make it look like it was substantial when it was, in fact, not.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    link?
    Link to follow.

    They are examples of cronyism (in the case of Burge) . . .
    NO, all the victims were black.

    and biased research and skewed statistics (in the case of the Ferguson report).
    Please document this anecdotal claim . . . You cannot bias research and statistics when all the victims were black.

    Your challenging the DofJ report without any competent references.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    ... the detailed reports on the history of incidents of law enforcement in Ferguson and Cleveland are not the 70s.
    Nor are they at all unbiased.

    Also cases in Texas, which in past threads you have only showed righteous indignation and denial, and no intelligible response.
    link?

    No DBW on my part. These are actual researched documented reports, based on specific records and court documents.
    They are examples of cronyism (in the case of Burge) and biased research and skewed statistics (in the case of the Ferguson report).

    There are many many more.
    Anecdotal to be sure. There simply is no "Great White Conspiracy" where we honkeys meet weekly via teleconference to plot just how we can keep the brownies down.

    Then there is John Burge of Chicago . . .

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge




    Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a convicted felon and former Chicago Police Department detective and commander who gained notoriety for torturing more than 200 criminal suspects between 1972 and 1991 in order to force confessions. A decorated United States Army veteran, Burge served tours in South Korea and Vietnam and continued as an enlisted United States Army Reserve soldier where he served in the military police. He then returned to the South Side of Chicago and began his career as a police officer. Allegations were made about the methods of Burge and those under his command. Eventually, hundreds of similar reports resulted in a decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to declare a moratorium on death penalty executions in Illinois in 2000 and to clear the state's death row in 2003.

    The most controversial arrests began in February 1982, in the midst of a series of shootings of Chicago law enforcement officials in Police Area 2, whose detective squad Burge commanded. Some[quantify] of the people who confessed to murder were later granted new trials and a few[quantify] were acquitted or pardoned. Burge was acquitted of police brutality charges in 1989 after a first trial resulted in a hung jury. He was suspended from the Chicago Police Department in 1991 and fired in 1993 after the Police Department Review Board ruled that he had used torture.

    After Burge was fired, there was a groundswell of support to investigate convictions for which he provided evidence. In 2002, a special prosecutor began investigating the accusations. The review, which cost $17 million, revealed improprieties that resulted in no action due to the statute of limitations. Several convictions were reversed, remanded, or overturned. All Illinois death-row inmates received reductions in their sentences. Four of Burge's victims were pardoned by then-Governor Ryan and subsequently filed a consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago, various police officers, Cook County and various State's Attorneys. A $19.8 million settlement was reached in December 2007, with the "city defendants." Cases against Cook County and the other current/former county prosecutors continue as of July 2008. In October 2008, Patrick Fitzgerald had Burge arrested on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in relation to a civil suit regarding the torture allegations against him. On April 1, 2010, Judge Joan Lefkow postponed the trial, for the fourth time, to May 24, 2010.[1] Burge was convicted on all counts on June 28, 2010. He was sentenced to four-and-one-half years in federal prison on January 21, 2011.

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

    He got off easy and is now living in Florida. Justice? White 'privilege.'
    No. Cronyism. And that transcends race.

    So far you have failed to respond to these references.
    I have responded. And I have noted that there ARE some pockets of blatant racism still around. But there is simply no "Great White Conspiracy".

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    As I said, this isn't the 70's. But do continue to "duck, bob, and weave"
    John Burge, and the detailed reports on the history of incidents of law enforcement in Ferguson and Cleveland are not the 70s. Also cases in Texas, which in past threads you have only showed righteous indignation and denial, and no intelligible response. No DBW on my part. These are actual researched documented reports, based on specific records and court documents. There are many many more.

    Then there is John Burge of Chicago . . .

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge




    Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a convicted felon and former Chicago Police Department detective and commander who gained notoriety for torturing more than 200 criminal suspects between 1972 and 1991 in order to force confessions. A decorated United States Army veteran, Burge served tours in South Korea and Vietnam and continued as an enlisted United States Army Reserve soldier where he served in the military police. He then returned to the South Side of Chicago and began his career as a police officer. Allegations were made about the methods of Burge and those under his command. Eventually, hundreds of similar reports resulted in a decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to declare a moratorium on death penalty executions in Illinois in 2000 and to clear the state's death row in 2003.

    The most controversial arrests began in February 1982, in the midst of a series of shootings of Chicago law enforcement officials in Police Area 2, whose detective squad Burge commanded. Some[quantify] of the people who confessed to murder were later granted new trials and a few[quantify] were acquitted or pardoned. Burge was acquitted of police brutality charges in 1989 after a first trial resulted in a hung jury. He was suspended from the Chicago Police Department in 1991 and fired in 1993 after the Police Department Review Board ruled that he had used torture.

    After Burge was fired, there was a groundswell of support to investigate convictions for which he provided evidence. In 2002, a special prosecutor began investigating the accusations. The review, which cost $17 million, revealed improprieties that resulted in no action due to the statute of limitations. Several convictions were reversed, remanded, or overturned. All Illinois death-row inmates received reductions in their sentences. Four of Burge's victims were pardoned by then-Governor Ryan and subsequently filed a consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago, various police officers, Cook County and various State's Attorneys. A $19.8 million settlement was reached in December 2007, with the "city defendants." Cases against Cook County and the other current/former county prosecutors continue as of July 2008. In October 2008, Patrick Fitzgerald had Burge arrested on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in relation to a civil suit regarding the torture allegations against him. On April 1, 2010, Judge Joan Lefkow postponed the trial, for the fourth time, to May 24, 2010.[1] Burge was convicted on all counts on June 28, 2010. He was sentenced to four-and-one-half years in federal prison on January 21, 2011.

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

    He got off easy and is now living in Florida. Justice? White 'privilege.'

    So far you have failed to respond to these references.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-03-2015, 09:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and the history of 'white privilege' cannot be attributed to demographics.
    As I said, this isn't the 70's. But do continue to "duck, bob, and weave"

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Most of the conservative southern Democrats remained Democrats their entire lives with a few exceptions. And it seems that you are determining the definition of conservative based upon support of civil rights.
    No

    IOW, for you if they supported civil rights then by your definition they couldn't be conservative but must therefore be moderates. If that were the case then the vast majority of Republicans in Congress during that period were moderates (82% of Republicans in the Senate and 79% in the House voted for the Civil Rights Act). In fact FWIU of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes (whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes).
    Again party affiliation is meaningless here.

    As one example take a look at Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, widely recognized as being a key player in passing the Civil Rights Act (presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). At the start of his political career he was regarded as a moderate but as the years progressed he was by any measure definitely conservative belonging to the so-called old guard conservative wing of the Republican Party. He was
    • staunchly anti-communist to the point of even defending Joe McCarthy
    • prominent supporter of the Vietnam War
    • ardent supporter of Taft (longtime leader of the Republican party's conservative wing) over moderate-liberal Dewey for the presidential nomination
    • introduced a constitutional amendment in support of organized prayer in public schools
    • defeated the more moderate John Sherman Cooper for the Senate Minority Leader position


    And one look at his voting record reveals that he was steadily conservative on economic issues.
    He was an exception.

    It appears that you have already decided on a conclusion and are seeking to force the facts to fit it and if they don't then simply hand wave them away.
    No just the facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    Considering the country was founded by and is still primarily populated by "white Anglos", it makes sense to represent white Anglos proportionately to the overall population and events. That's not privilege. It's demographics. Over-representing a group is giving them privilege. And I can show you a SLEW of evidence that shows things like professional sports which over-represents blacks in our culture.
    Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and the history of 'white privilege' cannot be attributed to demographics.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    The fact is that much of the Civil Rights legislation was not what it was presented to be. There was generally no interest in actually serving to improve civil rights. These were opposed often because conservatives believed that the results of these legislative actions would lead to the sort of race problems we have now, much of which has come directly as a result of these government actions.

    Your division line here is a phoney one.
    Sources?!?!!? This represents only anecdotal claims. Just like Cowpoke and Bill the Cat; your in denial with an agenda big time. The status of blacks definitely improved from the effects of the legislation.

    Sources?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-02-2015, 05:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The history of 'race relations/Civil Rights' and 'conservatives' is interesting, particularly the last 70 years by far most Conservatives have opposed all progressive Civil Rights and Integration legislation. . . .
    The fact is that much of the Civil Rights legislation was not what it was presented to be. There was generally no interest in actually serving to improve civil rights. These were opposed often because conservatives believed that the results of these legislative actions would lead to the sort of race problems we have now, much of which has come directly as a result of these government actions.

    Your division line here is a phoney one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Duck, Bob and Weave at its finest.


    Your simplistic definitions fail miserably.
    Um, no they don't. It's how a particular change is evaluated. Those opposing it are "conservative" and those pushing it are "liberal". It's the reality of the words. Own it.

    What I am referring to as Conservative and Liberal or Progressive is very clear and distinct in political history of the USA since about 1950.
    So, a subset of the overall definitions. You are trying to make a case for whether the traditions since 1950 were positive or negative.

    This distinction of Liberal and Conservative is well accepted in political history of the period.
    It's been accepted long before that.

    There is an older political tradition dating back to before the Civil War and earlier particularly in class and race cultural distinctions, but I consider the discussion more focused on the post WWII years when social, civil and legal rights legislation advanced the rights of minorities and women.
    So, liberals. Just like I said.


    It is clearly obvious that you are uncomfortable with the reality of this thread,
    It's clearly obvious you have issues and want to play the victim-by-proxy card.

    as well as others that document the problem of 'white Anglo privilege' in the cultural and social history of the USA.
    Considering the country was founded by and is still primarily populated by "white Anglos", it makes sense to represent white Anglos proportionately to the overall population and events. That's not privilege. It's demographics. Over-representing a group is giving them privilege. And I can show you a SLEW of evidence that shows things like professional sports which over-represents blacks in our culture.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Today, 09:00 AM
14 responses
90 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Diogenes, Yesterday, 04:20 PM
11 responses
97 views
1 like
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:45 AM
6 responses
49 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
35 responses
189 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-29-2023, 04:29 AM
3 responses
43 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Working...
X