DO Politicians Cry Wolf About Race/Religion?

[35Pete]

I mean you see on the right the claims of religious persecution and religious bigotry.

You see on the left the claims of racism.

On the one hand religious persecution was claimed against the Branch Davidians.

Racism was claimed for the OJ Simpson Trial.

What are your thoughts?

Too much crying wolf?

[Soviet_Canuckastani]

Racial minorities have a genuine complaint against the system. Angry religious fundies? Please, they need to sit down and drink a tall glass of STFU juice.

[ticatfan3]

Racial minorities have a genuine complaint against the system. Angry religious fundies? Please, they need to sit down and drink a tall glass of STFU juice.Racial minorites have more rights up here then the majority. It seems being a majority up here is a crime.

[35Pete]

Racial minorities have a genuine complaint against the system. Angry religious fundies? Please, they need to sit down and drink a tall glass of STFU juice.

Thanks for verifying the premise of my thread. You realize that you did just that, don't you Soviet?

[anEinherjer]

I think it's an intellectually lazy way to demonize your opponent. If you can label that person as a racist or fundie, then you don't have to spend so much time actually refuting whatever it is that you disagree with.

[Gibby]

I think it's an intellectually lazy way to demonize your opponent. If you can label that person as a racist or fundie, then you don't have to spend so much time actually refuting whatever it is that you disagree with.

Ditto, and that my friend is why so many politicians resort to it.

[chickie]

I mean you see on the right the claims of religious persecution and religious bigotry.

You see on the left the claims of racism.

On the one hand religious persecution was claimed against the Branch Davidians.

Racism was claimed for the OJ Simpson Trial.

What are your thoughts?

Too much crying wolf?

I am going to go out on a limb here.

I don't think that it is the politicians that are really the ones crying wolf more than the average American.

I think the average American cries wolf, and the politician tells them what they want to hear to get the vote.

America itself cries wolf too much, no one party more than the other.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Where there is smoke there is fire.

[35Pete]

Where there is smoke there is fire.

Unless someone has launched a smoke grenade.

[deconstruction]

Racial minorites have more rights up here then the majority. It seems being a majority up here is a crime.

I disagree. If I drive a silver bmw into Amherst, my chances of being pulled over are approx. 0%. If I were black on the other hand . . .

[TheGoodShepherd]

Unless someone has launched a smoke grenade.

You asked a pretty stupid question any reasonable person would already know the answer to.

[35Pete]

You asked a pretty stupid question any reasonable person would already know the answer to in your thread title.

Come on now Chimp, keep it civil. We now have a chance to communicate without vitriol.

I used a metaphor. You are smart enough to know what I said.

Why am I wrong?

[35Pete]

I disagree. If I drive a silver bmw into Amherst, my chances of being pulled over are approx. 0%. If I were black on the other hand . . .

Still 0%. There are no criminals in Amherst. Really. It's been ranked "Safest City in America" a few times.

[K-Gun]

Still 0%. There are no criminals in Amherst. Really. It's been ranked "Safest City in America" a few times.

:rofl:

As a youngster I used to hang out in Amherst, and let me tell you from personal experience that there are in fact criminals there.

Anyone been to Amherst Drug Court? It's funny, a rich suburban town needing an entire court dedicated to youths doing and selling dope.

Guess how many of them actually go to jail?

It's funny, and I know I will be accused of "Crying wolf", but drug use amongst black and white males is about equal, while the prison population of drug offenders is made up of 60% black males. By use, it should be 12% black, 84% white.

Where's the outrage?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Come on now Chimp, keep it civil. We now have a chance to communicate without vitriol.

I used a metaphor. You are smart enough to know what I said.

Why am I wrong?

I am keeping it civil. Even with your strict adherence to the TOS thingy you got going on, it is still not a violation of any kind to say the question you asked was stupid.

Unless of course, you're reviewing tone and writing style. Which, this forum is not. But, if it helps you sleep at night. I can say the lead question in the first post has no merit and really isn't the question you should be asking.

Anyways, asking a question like "do politicians cry wolf" is pointless. They sometimes do and sometimes don't. Out of all the occurrances of race-related events going on around the world, how can anyone really know if said event was about race or not. Unless you were intimately involved or, the most unbiased photographic memory blessed witness known to mankind

I guess, I don't understand what end you're trying to reach with the cry wolf question. I mean, is there even light at the end of the tunnel for your misplaced question?

[Mouldsie]

:rofl:

As a youngster I used to hang out in Amherst, and let me tell you from personal experience that there are in fact criminals there.

Anyone been to Amherst Drug Court? It's funny, a rich suburban town needing an entire court dedicated to youths doing and selling dope.

Guess how many of them actually go to jail?

It's funny, and I know I will be accused of "Crying wolf", but drug use amongst black and white males is about equal, while the prison population of drug offenders is made up of 60% black males. By use, it should be 12% black, 84% white.

Where's the outrage?


idk if it's even 50/50

i'd say white suburban kids are heavier drug users

now without saying too much lets just say i think you have a valid point and i have seen some kids get out of some real bad stuff, several times over, because they have influential parents.

[Mouldsie]

and without violating thread rules im gonna try and state my opinion on this thread.

i think the topic is highly overrated and some of the comments in it make no sense because i've never heard of a politician calling another one racist and the closest thing to this happening was with webb/allen this year which was justified... if you arent racist dont make racist comments mr allen!

[35Pete]

I am keeping it civil. Even with your strict adherence to the TOS thingy you got going on, it is still not a violation of any kind to say the question you asked was stupid.

Unless of course, you're reviewing tone and writing style. Which, this forum is not. But, if it helps you sleep at night. I can say the lead question in the first post has no merit and really isn't the question you should be asking.

Anyways, asking a question like "do politicians cry wolf" is pointless. They sometimes do and sometimes don't. Out of all the occurrances of race-related events going on around the world, how can anyone really know if said event was about race or not. Unless you were intimately involved or, the most unbiased photographic memory blessed witness known to mankind

I guess, I don't understand what end you're trying to reach with the cry wolf question. I mean, is there even light at the end of the tunnel for your misplaced question?


Look at the OJ case. It went immdiately to race because a black man was accused of butchering two white people.

Took a few days but the Waco mess boiled down to an accusation that the BAF was persecuting the Branch Davidians over their faith.

Faith with machine guns and grenades. The far bible right had a field day with it. I would say that this stuff does indeed happen and it would be naive to suggest otherwise.

[anEinherjer]

Most of the time, I see these kinds of arguments as ad hominem attacks on an opponent. Sure, there are situations where calling a spade a spade is warranted, but like I said before, it's generally just lazy - it's a soundbite world, so you have to fit what you want to say into a 30 second commercial.

And let's face it, negative ads work (unfortunately).

[chickie]

Look at the OJ case. It went immdiately to race because a black man was accused of butchering two white people.

Took a few days but the Waco mess boiled down to an accusation that the BAF was persecuting the Branch Davidians over their faith.

Faith with machine guns and grenades. The far bible right had a field day with it. I would say that this stuff does indeed happen and it would be naive to suggest otherwise.

It was more than just that with the OJ case. I really don't think race had everything to do with that. The media tried to make it race.
I read the Marcia Clark book - she failed as a D.A.

Look at the Rodney King case - now that was a race issue.

That I think would have been a better scenario. We all watched as the cops told him to get on the ground - he wouldn't listen they used force. The cops got off on the charges and it was all about race.

Then LA erupts.....

[deconstruction]

It was more than just that with the OJ case. I really don't think race had everything to do with that. The media tried to make it race.
I read the Marcia Clark book - she failed as a D.A.

Look at the Rodney King case - now that was a race issue.

That I think would have been a better scenario. We all watched as the cops told him to get on the ground - he wouldn't listen they used force. The cops got off on the charges and it was all about race.

Then LA erupts.....

Wait a minute, they did a lot more than "use force." Lets be clear, they beat his ass, and badly.

The african american community was primed for the King decision, it confirmed their fears of business as usual, meaning that the cops could get away with near murder (and by association murder). That is why they exploded. Its just as much about abuse of power as anything else, though if King were white, it probably wouldn't have happened.

On the other hand, the OJ decision was so important because it proved that getting off was more related to money than anything else. From an african-american viewpoint, white people have gotten away with all sorts of shit for a long time. The OJ decision made it clear that one day, if they have enough money, they too could have privdligde that had been denied to them.

[chickie]

Wait a minute, they did a lot more than "use force." Lets be clear, they beat his ass, and badly.

The african american community was primed for the King decision, it confirmed their fears of business as usual, meaning that the cops could get away with near murder (and by association murder). That is why they exploded. Its just as much about abuse of power as anything else, though if King were white, it probably wouldn't have happened.

On the other hand, the OJ decision was so important because it proved that getting off was more related to money than anything else. From an african-american viewpoint, white people have gotten away with all sorts of shit for a long time. The OJ decision made it clear that one day, if they have enough money, they too could have privdligde that had been denied to them.


OK Decon,

OJ was not very popular with the African American - he married a white girl after all. He was more into fame and money -

King - If you want to look at this in a race issue - if the African Americans were so concerned about how the cops treat them - did they have to burn their own city down?

They clearly proved they have no respect and it was about race with THEM.

[K-Gun]

JKiG: Look at the insitutional racism which incarcerates millions of black men more than white men for the same crime.

Everybody Else (but Mouldsie): What about OJ?

(Brought to you by: Another Post to Ignore Productions)

[TheGoodShepherd]

Look at the OJ case. It went immdiately to race because a black man was accused of butchering two white people.

Took a few days but the Waco mess boiled down to an accusation that the BAF was persecuting the Branch Davidians over their faith.

Faith with machine guns and grenades. The far bible right had a field day with it. I would say that this stuff does indeed happen and it would be naive to suggest otherwise.

But in the end, the OJ case was about race.

Isn't this what the thread is about? Crying wolf on race related issues?

The OJ case was a textbook event in race relations in contemporary America. So I have to the OJ case is far from an example of crying wolf, in fact its quite the opposite.

[35Pete]

But in the end, the OJ case was about race.

Isn't this what the thread is about? Crying wolf on race related issues?

The OJ case was a textbook event in race relations in contemporary America. So I have to the OJ case is far from an example of crying wolf, in fact its quite the opposite.

So do you think that OJ didn't do it?

I was proud of OJ and what he did for the Bills. I wanted to believe that he was innocent.

But the evidence. And now his veiled confession.

[gilchristfan]

Look at the OJ case. It went immdiately to race because a black man was accused of butchering two white people.


Well, sort of. It was a black man accused of butchering two white people in Los Angeles at a time when LA had neither recovered from the Rodney King debacle, nor had it admitted that it had a race problem. (the entire black community revolting after Rodney King should have given them a clue).

The race issue was accentuated when they sent a racist cop to the crime scene and let him collect evidence.

The race issue was placed in the forefront when they put the racist cop on the stand and let the DA coddle him.

The race issue was placed over the top when the racist cop perjured him self, and a tape was produced with him bragging about beating on African Americans and planting evidence.

The whole issue in the case wasn't so much the amount of evidence they had against him, it was whether the jury had doubts as to the credibility of the evidence.

DNA evidence is what it is. If an uncontanimated sample is provided to a competent lab tech, its about as accurate as you can get.

The issue is then, the chain of custody of the sample. How did it get to the lab tech.? Who gave it to the lab tech? Was there an opportunity for the police to change evidence before it got to the lab tech? All of this goes to the credibility of the LAPD.

The jury could have believed them, but it chose not to. Or at least had doubts as to their veracity. That's what its all about. Doubt. And the doubt in this case was reasonable.

The race issue was created by the LAPD, and was created well before the murders were committed. You can't blame the defense for using what the LAPD themselves created, just as you can't blame the defense for pegging Mark Furman as a racist, which he in fact was.

[chickie]

Well, sort of. It was a black man accused of butchering two white people in Los Angeles at a time when LA had neither recovered from the Rodney King debacle, nor had it admitted that it had a race problem. (the entire black community revolting after Rodney King should have given them a clue).

The race issue was accentuated when they sent a racist cop to the crime scene and let him collect evidence.

The race issue was placed in the forefront when they put the racist cop on the stand and let the DA coddle him.

The race issue was placed over the top when the racist cop perjured him self, and a tape was produced with him bragging about beating on African Americans and planting evidence.

The whole issue in the case wasn't so much the amount of evidence they had against him, it was whether the jury had doubts as to the credibility of the evidence.

DNA evidence is what it is. If an uncontanimated sample is provided to a competent lab tech, its about as accurate as you can get.

The issue is then, the chain of custody of the sample. How did it get to the lab tech.? Who gave it to the lab tech? Was there an opportunity for the police to change evidence before it got to the lab tech? All of this goes to the credibility of the LAPD.

The jury could have believed them, but it chose not to. Or at least had doubts as to their veracity. That's what its all about. Doubt. And the doubt in this case was reasonable.

The race issue was created by the LAPD, and was created well before the murders were committed. You can't blame the defense for using what the LAPD themselves created, just as you can't blame the defense for pegging Mark Furman as a racist, which he in fact was.

This is very interesting.

I read the Marcia Clark book. I figured that would give me more of an idea as to whether he was guilty or not, and whether race was an issue.

I believed that in the end they did plant evidence against him.

I never understood the amount of blood found at the crime scene as to the overwhelming amount found at his home.

[35Pete]

Well, sort of. It was a black man accused of butchering two white people in Los Angeles at a time when LA had neither recovered from the Rodney King debacle, nor had it admitted that it had a race problem. (the entire black community revolting after Rodney King should have given them a clue).

The race issue was accentuated when they sent a racist cop to the crime scene and let him collect evidence.

The race issue was placed in the forefront when they put the racist cop on the stand and let the DA coddle him.

The race issue was placed over the top when the racist cop perjured him self, and a tape was produced with him bragging about beating on African Americans and planting evidence.

The whole issue in the case wasn't so much the amount of evidence they had against him, it was whether the jury had doubts as to the credibility of the evidence.

DNA evidence is what it is. If an uncontanimated sample is provided to a competent lab tech, its about as accurate as you can get.

The issue is then, the chain of custody of the sample. How did it get to the lab tech.? Who gave it to the lab tech? Was there an opportunity for the police to change evidence before it got to the lab tech? All of this goes to the credibility of the LAPD.

The jury could have believed them, but it chose not to. Or at least had doubts as to their veracity. That's what its all about. Doubt. And the doubt in this case was reasonable.

The race issue was created by the LAPD, and was created well before the murders were committed. You can't blame the defense for using what the LAPD themselves created, just as you can't blame the defense for pegging Mark Furman as a racist, which he in fact was.


I saw the whole mess too. Did Mark Furman plant the blood in the Bronco?

Gil. It boiled down to race. And now OJ is laughing and hinting that he did it.

It was racial. Had OJ been hispanic, white, or Asian he'd have gotten a good wiff of HCN by now.

[chickie]

I saw the whole mess too. Did Mark Furman plant the blood in the Bronco?

Gil. It boiled down to race. And now OJ is laughing and hinting that he did it.

It was racial. Had OJ been hispanic, white, or Asian he'd have gotten a good wiff of HCN by now.

Evidence was planted.

If he was any other color he would be in prison and Scott Peterson would be sharing a cell with him.

[K-Gun]

This is the exact reason why Shiva and others were against "Crossfire."

So far we've determined that OJ got off because he's black. That really projects upon blacks in general. Nearly everyday I see black men getting off scot free becasue of their skin color.

This is ****ing sickening.

Of the 265,100 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2002, 126,000 (47.53%) were black, 61,700 (23.27%) were Hispanic, and 64,500 (24.33%) were white.

"The racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to weaken the country and belies its promise as a land of equal opportunity; and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system. Urgent action is needed, at both the state and federal level, to address this crisis for the American nation."

Source: Key Recommendations from Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, June 2000), from the web at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-reco.htm

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16.

Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences. It should also be noted that Hispanic felons are included in both demographic groups rather than being tracked separately so no separate statistic is available.

Source: Durose, Matthew R., and Langan, Patrick A., Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998 Statistical Tables (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, December 2001), Table 25, available on the web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/scsc98st.htm, last accessed December 21, 2001.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm

[gilchristfan]

This is very interesting.

I read the Marcia Clark book. I figured that would give me more of an idea as to whether he was guilty or not, and whether race was an issue.

I believed that in the end they did plant evidence against him.

I never understood the amount of blood found at the crime scene as to the overwhelming amount found at his home.


Marcia Clark screwed herself by coddling Furman when he was on the witness stand. She tried to victimize him as being the recipient of unfair treatment by the defense.

That really undermined her credibility. And I don't think she ever recovered from it.

As the late Judge Buchele used to say, (once in a while to my own clients)
"if you lie about a little thing, there's a good chance you'll be lying about a bigger thing, and we're not going to believe you with the bigger thing."

I think that's what it boiled down to with the LAPD, and to a lesser extent, with the prosecution.

[K-Gun]

this thread is total bullshit

[gilchristfan]

I saw the whole mess too. Did Mark Furman plant the blood in the Bronco?

Gil. It boiled down to race. And now OJ is laughing and hinting that he did it.

It was racial. Had OJ been hispanic, white, or Asian he'd have gotten a good wiff of HCN by now.

Mark Furman could easily have planted the blood in the Bronco. It would have taken a few seconds. His past history, and his interview given to the writer after the arrest certainly left open that possibility, didn't it? Considering he said on tape that he'd planted evidence in the past, I'd say it did.

Remember, the standard wasn't whether it was "more likely than not" that he committed the murders, it was whether they had "reasonable doubt".

The jury had doubt.

And if it was reasonable, they did their job.

I think they had reason for their doubt.

But personally, I think the LAPD framed a guilty man. It was their case to prove, they screwed it up. If there is fault as to whether he's walking around free, blame it on the LAPD and the DA's office.

[chickie]

Why would anyone try to "frame" the guilty.

If they are in fact guilty just let the system do it's job?

And how do we stop racism from being a factor?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Why would anyone try to "frame" the guilty.

If they are in fact guilty just let the system do it's job?

And how do we stop racism from being a factor?

There is no stopping racism from being a factor. Humanity would have to lose a piece of itself in order for that to occur. It's one of the bad and good things about life.

[Gibby]

good stuff Gil.

[35Pete]

This is the exact reason why Shiva and others were against "Crossfire."

So far we've determined that OJ got off because he's black. That really projects upon blacks in general. Nearly everyday I see black men getting off scot free becasue of their skin color.

This is ****ing sickening.

Of the 265,100 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2002, 126,000 (47.53%) were black, 61,700 (23.27%) were Hispanic, and 64,500 (24.33%) were white.

"The racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to weaken the country and belies its promise as a land of equal opportunity; and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system. Urgent action is needed, at both the state and federal level, to address this crisis for the American nation."

Source: Key Recommendations from Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, June 2000), from the web at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-reco.htm

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16.

Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences. It should also be noted that Hispanic felons are included in both demographic groups rather than being tracked separately so no separate statistic is available.

Source: Durose, Matthew R., and Langan, Patrick A., Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998 Statistical Tables (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, December 2001), Table 25, available on the web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/scsc98st.htm, last accessed December 21, 2001.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm

When I was at University I remember sitting in the pool at the grad student complex listening to tunes with a lot of people in the pool. The music stopped and they they broke to news to announce the verdict. Three black guys and a woman on the pool deck broke into hysteria and started screaming and high fiving. I was livid. I saw the whole damn thing degenerate into white vs. black and this is what came of it.

Now given the revelations of the past few days with OJ's interview you honestly can't say that race was a factor in OJ's verdict. Because a lot of people will disagree with you. A lot.