Poll: Blacks Support Racial Profiling 2 to 1 !
Dr. Charles Forbin
Polls say blacks tend to favor checks
--------------------------------------
By Ann Scales, Boston Globe Staff, 9/30/2001
ASHINGTON - African-Americans, whose treatment by the criminal justice system
gave rise to the phrase ''racial profiling,'' are more likely than other racial
groups to favor profiling and stringent airport security checks for Arabs and
Arab-Americans in the wake of this month's terrorist attacks, two separate
polls indicate.
The findings by the Gallup Organization and Zogby International were met with
varying degrees of disappointment and disbelief by black activists and
intellectuals, who struggled with explanations.
Roger Wilkins, a historian at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and the
author of a new book on black patriotism, said he was surprised and
disappointed. ''I do not think that you beat people who are trying to tear
America down by turning your back on one of America's core principles - the
presumption of innocence,'' Wilkins said.
Arab-American leaders said the poll results may reflect the nation's need to
find a scapegoat, and said they didn't blame blacks for harboring attitudes
that are part of the fabric of this nation.
''I don't think it's in any way hostility'' by blacks, said John Zogby, an
Arab-American who conducted the Zogby poll. ''I think what they are saying is,
`We get profiled all the time and we survived. Maybe they ought to, too.'''
But Angela Davis, a law professor at American University and a specialist on
racism in the criminal justice system, said that if such attitudes exist, they
are ''very troubling.''
''We as black people shouldn't be feeling that way,'' she said. ''All people of
color are harmed by racial profiling, and we need to emphasize this and fight
against it.''
In the Gallup Poll, 71 percent of black respondents said they would favor
requiring Arabs, including those who are US citizens, to undergo special, more
intensive security checks before boarding airplanes. Fifty-seven percent of
whites said they would favor such a policy. There was no category specifically
for Hispanics and Asians. But among non-whites, the figure was 63 percent.
Asked whether they favor or oppose requiring Arabs, including US citizens, to
carry special identification as a means of preventing terrorist attacks, 64
percent of blacks said yes, while 48 percent of whites said no. Among
non-whites, 56 percent supported requiring Arabs to carry IDs.
In the Zogby poll, 54 percent of blacks surveyed said they support singling out
Arab-Americans for special scrutiny at airport check-ins. However, Hispanics
and whites said were opposed to such action, 63 percent and 53 percent,
respectively.
Each survey questioned about 1,000 respondents and had a margin of error of
plus or minus 3 percent.
In Washington, with its large African-American population, some blacks, such as
Thomas Irvin, 39, a public school teacher, say some blacks support racial
profiling of Arabs because of the Sept. 11 attacks but are conflicted about it.
Irvin, who said he now backs tighter airport screenings and special IDs for
Arabs, offered a simple rationale:
''It's better to be safe than sorry. I know it's wrong, but we'll apologize
later,'' he said.
Douglas Drayton, a retired human resources manager, said he opposes racial
profiling but would not want to fly on an airplane that carried a group of Arab
passengers. ''Given the environment right now, I don't think Arabs would mind''
being subjected to this type of racial profiling, he said.
Alvin Poussaint, a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School, said
that the counterintuitive nature of the attitudes reflected in the polls and in
the interviews was best understood in the context of the black experience in
America.
''No black person has ever done anything close'' to what the terrorists are
accused of, Poussaint said. ''We don't use tactics like that as a group, nor is
it part of our political statement.
''So witnessing this probably blows everybody's minds, but with black people
who are generally based in the turn-the-other-cheek, Christian principles of
love, and thou shall not kill, this would not be something they would opt
for,'' Poussaint said.
He added: ''They are feeling scared, and they are thinking about it
irrationally. They even know it.''
Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,
said the reasons may also be socio-economic. Blacks may not be sticking out
their necks for Arabs because of the tension with immigrant groups who, blacks
perceive, find it easier to get loans and establish businesses in black
neighborhoods.
''This has created a level of tension between African-Americans and many
different immigrant groups, Arab-Americans included,'' Ibish said. ''And I dare
say Arab-Americans will not be the last group to have that occasional tension
because of structural patterns of economic disenfranchisement.''
James Zogby, who heads the Arab American Institute and is the brother of the
pollster, attended a discussion Friday on racial profiling during a meeting of
the Congressional Black Caucus. He found much support for Arab-Americans, as
speaker after speaker denounced discrimination against them.
''The black leadership is very clear on this issue,'' James Zogby said. ''It
may very well be that this message needs to go down to the grass-roots level. I
find the statistics indicative of the fact that work needs to be done.''
Part of the problem, some analysts say, is that blacks aren't familiar enough
with Arabs and Arab-Americans, and naturally find it easier to stereotype those
they don't know. The Zogby poll, for instance, found that 32 percent of black
respondents said they were not familiar with Arab-Americans, compared with 23
percent of whites.
This story ran on page A16 of the Boston Globe on 9/30/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
The Devil's Advocate
Forbin) wrote:
>In the Gallup Poll, 71 percent of black respondents said they would favor
>requiring Arabs, including those who are US citizens, to undergo special, more
>intensive security checks before boarding airplanes. Fifty-seven percent of
>whites said they would favor such a policy. There was no category specifically
>for Hispanics and Asians. But among non-whites, the figure was 63 percent.
>
>
>Asked whether they favor or oppose requiring Arabs, including US citizens, to
>carry special identification as a means of preventing terrorist attacks, 64
>percent of blacks said yes, while 48 percent of whites said no. Among
>non-whites, 56 percent supported requiring Arabs to carry IDs.
>
>
>In the Zogby poll, 54 percent of blacks surveyed said they support singling out
>Arab-Americans for special scrutiny at airport check-ins. However, Hispanics
>and whites said were opposed to such action, 63 percent and 53 percent,
>respectively.
I hope Darkstar is reading this. While slamming people as being
"bigots" for profiling, he has just called the majority of blacks
bigots.
xganon
> PROFILING OF ARABS
>
> Polls say blacks tend to favor checks
> --------------------------------------
>
> By Ann Scales, Boston Globe Staff, 9/30/2001
>
> ASHINGTON - African-Americans, whose treatment by the criminal justice system
> gave rise to the phrase 'racial profiling,' are more likely than other
> racial
> groups to favor profiling and stringent airport security checks for Arabs and
> Arab-Americans in the wake of this month's terrorist attacks, two separate
> polls indicate.
Stupid fucking nigs don't understand that most Arabs have negroid features, and that many Arabs have precisely the same racial characteristics as African-Americans since they are also a bunch of racial mongrels. Look at the photographs of the perps at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm , then go down to the nigger district of your local city and tell me if there is any difference.
The truth that people are afraid to admit is that the terrorist attacks were a coordinated racial hate crime, a clear act of racial geonocide: the overwhelming majority of the victims were middle-class whites, many of them young, White women of childbearing age, perpetrated by niggers or niggered-down Caucasians, who also count legally as niggers. We Whites have the right and duty to pay this crime back in kind at a rate of 5,000 to 1. Nigger, know that we are out to get you and yours for this racial crime that you have committed against us.
Racemaster
The World Church of the Creator - the religion for White People
http://www.wcotc.com
The National Alliance - the philosophy for White People
http://www.natall.com
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
Come visit the newest xganon server http://www.xganon.org providing
rights and freedom related news.
---
Unknown
Forbin) wrote:
Except as alwyas, this is mislabeled. It ISN'T just "racial"
profiling. "Demographic" profiling would be a better term, because
age, ethnicity, gender, all are part of the equation. NO ONE is
talking about singling ALL folks of any particular race or ethnicity
The "black leadership" is also out of touch with their rank-and-file.
As they are on a host of other issues.
Unknown
Good point, but more importantly, I hope many of our spineless
politicians see a copy of this survey.
And I wish for GOD's sake the name of this is changed to something
more meaningful: This is NOT just "racial" profiling we're talking
about, but a blend of demographic attributes, including age group,
gender, citizenship status and other behavioral characteristics.
No one is proposing profiling based *solely* on race or ethnicity.
DarkStar
...
>I hope Darkstar is reading this. While slamming people as being
>"bigots" for profiling,
I slammed you for comments supporting the internment of "Arabs,"
making statements about "Arabs with turbans," and the indiscriminate
means that you advocate.
If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
themselves.
Now, will you provide the post where you differentiate between "Arabs
wearing turbans"?
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.toad.net/~darkstar/public_key.html
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>I slammed you for comments supporting the internment of "Arabs,"
>making statements about "Arabs with turbans," and the indiscriminate
>means that you advocate.
I never suggested Arab internment. I suggested airport profiling, like
most blacks.
>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>themselves.
So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
Unknown
It's really a shame everytime blacks (or other individuals in other
groups) think for themselves rather than toeing the party line set
forth by their "leaders", the suggestion is made that these blacks are
"self-hating". That is essentially what is being suggested here.
It's just sad.
DarkStar
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I slammed you for comments supporting the internment of "Arabs,"
>>making statements about "Arabs with turbans," and the indiscriminate
>>means that you advocate.
>
>I never suggested Arab internment. I suggested airport profiling, like
>most blacks.
You lie.
You also "suggested" kicking those who have sympathy towards their
ideas, out of the country. But you never defined what ideas those may
be, so it may be the idea that western values corrupts Islam. Is that
an idea that should get people booted out of the country?
>
>>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>>themselves.
>
>So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
themselves.
---
Kaiju
No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
Kaiju
--
No more fiendish punishment could be devised,
were such a thing physically possible,
than that one should be turned loose in society
and remain absolutely unnoticed.
-- William James
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:54:34 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
> <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
> >wrote:
> >>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
> >>themselves.
> >
> >So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>
> It's really a shame everytime blacks (or other individuals in other
> groups) think for themselves rather than toeing the party line set
> forth by their "leaders", the suggestion is made that these blacks are
> "self-hating". That is essentially what is being suggested here.
And what hole did you scratch that bit of nonsense out of? I saw Ed express
his opinion. Is he now "leadership"? Is he no less an individual than anyone
else? And what freekin' "party line" was ever mentioned here? Other than
your constant screed supporting discrimination and bigotry, that is.
> It's just sad.
Yes, you are. Pathetic, actually.
The Devil's Advocate©
>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
So, IOW, most blacks.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.
Sorry. I'm reading the report and I have strong doubts about this particular
study. In fact, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu. As in the questions
asked were created (even inadvertently) to elicit specific, predetermined
responses, the interpretation of the results were skewed, to reflect the
pollsters' anticipated results. For instance, if asked "Are you concerned
about someone appearing to be Middle Eastern who is on a flight with you?"
(Naturally, most respondents from the U.S. will respond in the affirmative.)
"If so, would you prefer that person be checked for citizenship prior to
boarding?" (Most respondents will be thinking that their ID and other
credentials should be presented before boarding a flight. With no qualifiers,
even I would respond yes, but I'd be thinking EVERYONE should have to be
questioned, but might respond in the affirmative given no other response
alternative.) What the pollsters may not be asking is, whether these
respondents are thinking, "EVERYONE'S credentials should be checked!" "Those
who do not appear to be U.S. Citizens should have their credentials checked!"
"Those who are not U.S. citizens should be subjected to questioning about
their residency status!" "Those who appear to be Middle Eastern should be
stopped, questioned, and have their credentials checked anytime they appear in
public!" And so forth.
There are so many ancillary thoughts going through the minds of people
undergoing polling that go beyond the questions actually posed by pollsters.
And then again, some people are really stupid. And bigoted. Including some
Blacks. (Whoever said Blacks are paragons of virtue? They are humans, and
can be ignorant just like a lot of otherwise idiots. Obviously in the same
proportions of the total population, even. Can't get any more human than
that. Only a total idiot would believe that one can define the entire group
by a defined segment of said population.)
So, with the anticipated responses, which may be the same for virtually
everyone (and the results of this poll indicate they actually were...the
results between various demographic and ethnic groups was statistically
close), follow up questions could lead the responders to make certain
"admissions", which are actually spoon-fed by the pollsters.
We've seen this before, especially with the OJ Simpson post-criminal trial
results, also reported by the Gallup Poll. Most Black respondents would
respond that OJ was not guilty. The news reports would proclaim, "Most Blacks
Believe OJ Was Innocent!" The truth of the matter was quite different. Most
Blacks thought that since OJ was found not guilty (most Blacks still say
this...in the literal sense), he was found innocent (most Blacks do not
believe this...in the literal sense). To lawyers, there is a distinction.
between a finding of "not guilty" and "innocent". To laypersons, there is
not. Yet there has been nearly a decade of castigating all Blacks because of
a misunderstanding of terminology, interpretation, and intent. What happened
is the pollsters injected their own expectations onto the results, and never
understood the dynamics involved. I strongly suspect this is underlying this
report, as well.
(You won't appreciate any of this and will strenuously attempt to reinterpret
what I've written, but I've put it out there, anyway.)
So unless I see the questions asked and the raw data, I will continue to say
that those who were polled tended to support a given preference. And I
definitely can tell, from the resulting reports, just how rigorous were the
sampling standards. This particular poll is questionable. The right
questions were not asked, and the interpretation of the results are...just
questionable.
I will say that I have encountered Blacks who do believe profiling of those of
Middle Eastern extract (or even those who appear to be Middle Eastern,
although they were born in the U.S. and aren't even really Middle Eastern to
begin with) is a good thing. They are about equal in numbers to those of
other ethnic groups who believe the same. I have also noted that among all
ethnic and demographic groups, it is usually those of marginal educational
backgrounds, lower income, and frankly, not-too-bright who espouse these types
of beliefs. In other words, they are ignorant and afraid, mostly out of
ignorance. Just a purely anecdotal observation, of course.
All the same, those polled who expressed positive support for the proposition
are shameful. I find anyone, (I do not care who it is), who supports the
proposition of government endorsed bigotry, shameful. It is simply
antithetical to the American Creed, and I find NO reason to stray from the
principles established by this Nation. I have spent a lifetime arguing that
the laws and principles of this country apply to all, and I am hardly willing
to abandon that belief now that we are tested in the most extreme situation
imaginable. We are STILL the United States of America. And that means much.
Frankly, in my opinion, those who demand a U.S. government policy of this type
of wholesale discrimination should move to Afghanistan. (The Taliban would
love your asses.) Or live under some other stone age regime. But I will not
be joining you people who don't even understand who or what you are
purportedly fighting against. You are flailing out of sheer, stark fear, and
no logic. Nah. I'm not going there, because once we all do, we've already
lost. Even Shrub and his creepy press secretary understand that.
Kaiju <anticipating that cooler heads will prevail...given a short period of
time...>
Unknown
>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >themselves.
>>
>> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>
>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
Why?
For expressing their opinion? Does the term "civil rights" and "First
Amendment" mean anything to you?
Unknown
>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:54:34 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
>> <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> >wrote:
>
>
>> >>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >>themselves.
>> >
>> >So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>>
>> It's really a shame everytime blacks (or other individuals in other
>> groups) think for themselves rather than toeing the party line set
>> forth by their "leaders", the suggestion is made that these blacks are
>> "self-hating". That is essentially what is being suggested here.
>
>And what hole did you scratch that bit of nonsense out of? I saw Ed express
>his opinion. Is he now "leadership"? Is he no less an individual than anyone
>else? And what freekin' "party line" was ever mentioned here? Other than
>your constant screed supporting discrimination and bigotry, that is.
Fool.
>> It's just sad.
>
>Yes, you are. Pathetic, actually.
Deluded.
DarkStar
>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >themselves.
>>
>> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>
>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>
>
>Kaiju
Kaiju, stay tuned sweet.
I got something coming up....
Oh, it's good....
It's REAL good...
DarkStar
>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> So, IOW, most blacks.
>
>So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.
OH, you have no idea how right you are.
But, you will.
...
>So unless I see the questions asked and the raw data, I will continue to say
>that those who were polled tended to support a given preference. And I
>definitely can tell, from the resulting reports, just how rigorous were the
>sampling standards. This particular poll is questionable. The right
>questions were not asked, and the interpretation of the results are...just
>questionable.
Oh, you have no idea, yet. But keep reading...
And, for you, HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
:-)
Guess who wrote to Zogby International and The Gallup Organization?
Moi.
Guess who asked to know what questions were asked, the responses, the
demographics of the poll respondents, the times the poll was done, the
areas of the country the poll respondents were from, age of the
respondents, and whether or not the respondents knew anyone who was
killed or injured in the attacks?
Moi.
Guess who responded?
Not Zogby, but Gallup.
Do you think I got all of the information I asked for?
No, I did not.
Do you think I got some information?
Yes, I did.
[ Note to Trudogg. The numbers you see here are different from what I
sent you. That is because the person emailed me again with the
_CORRECT_ numbers ]
So, Kaiju? Do you want to read what I have?
Well, here we go: :=D
Number of people polled: 1032
Number of Blacks in the poll: 71
Percentage of Blacks in the poll: 6.88%
Percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population: 13%
Oh, look what the numbers show us.
Is a sample size of 71 Blacks accurate?
How about a sample size of 6.88% vs 13%?
For grins, here is a link about error in sample size:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm
Look at the tables and explanation on sample size. And look at the cut
off. A sample size of 100.
Hmmmm......
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
> >> >themselves.
> >>
> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
> >
> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> Why?
>
> For expressing their opinion?
For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
> Amendment" mean anything to you?
These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
denounces your patent bigotry.
Mike Margerum
> And I wish for GOD's sake the name of this is changed to something
> more meaningful: This is NOT just "racial" profiling we're talking
> about, but a blend of demographic attributes, including age group,
> gender, citizenship status and other behavioral characteristics.
>
baiting media.
Kaiju
How come I'm not surprised about Zogby?
> Do you think I got all of the information I asked for?
>
> No, I did not.
>
> Do you think I got some information?
>
> Yes, I did.
>
> [ Note to Trudogg. The numbers you see here are different from what I
> sent you. That is because the person emailed me again with the
> _CORRECT_ numbers ]
>
> So, Kaiju? Do you want to read what I have?
Absolutely.
> Well, here we go: :=D
>
> Number of people polled: 1032
> Number of Blacks in the poll: 71
> Percentage of Blacks in the poll: 6.88%
> Percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population: 13%
>
> Oh, look what the numbers show us.
> Is a sample size of 71 Blacks accurate?
> How about a sample size of 6.88% vs 13%?
>
> For grins, here is a link about error in sample size:
>
> http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm
>
> Look at the tables and explanation on sample size. And look at the cut
> off. A sample size of 100.
>
> Hmmmm......
Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
face.
Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.
Kaiju
The Devil's Advocate©
>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>face.
>
>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.
Before you take this fools "research" on any topic seriously, remember
that his "research" also led him to accuse Wayne Johnson and I off
forging, hacking and posting kiddie porn. And he has yet to retract or
apologize for these statements. You can go ahead and take him
seriously if you want, but he's still a nutcase. And you know you are,
Jerome...err... Ed.
DarkStar
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:58:45 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
>>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>>face.
>>
>>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.
>
>Before you take this fools "research" on any topic seriously, remember
>that his "research" also led him to accuse Wayne Johnson and I off
>forging, hacking and posting kiddie porn.
My research is top notch and is verifiable. All Wayne had to do was
take me to court.
> And he has yet to retract or
>apologize for these statements.
And I won't. And certain posters now exactly why I won't.
> You can go ahead and take him
>seriously if you want, but he's still a nutcase. And you know you are,
>Jerome...err... Ed.
*ROTFL*
Do you want to make a bet DA?
Let's put it on the line. If I can't provide proof, I'll leave the
unmoderated and moderated groups forever.
If I can, you leave both groups forever.
DEAL?
DarkStar
>
>
>DarkStar wrote:
...
>> Well, here we go: :=D
>>
>> Number of people polled: 1032
>> Number of Blacks in the poll: 71
>> Percentage of Blacks in the poll: 6.88%
>> Percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population: 13%
>>
>> Oh, look what the numbers show us.
>> Is a sample size of 71 Blacks accurate?
>> How about a sample size of 6.88% vs 13%?
>>
>> For grins, here is a link about error in sample size:
>>
>> http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm
>>
>> Look at the tables and explanation on sample size. And look at the cut
>> off. A sample size of 100.
>>
>> Hmmmm......
>
>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>face.
>
>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.
Gee, where is DA?
He likes to condemn Black people at the drop of a hat, but where is he
now?
DA? Does 71 Black people truly represent all Black Americans?
DA?
>
>Kaiju
Meredith
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
Shame on you.
Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.
He did. Very nicely, too.
Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
are, you bring up Wayne.
Somebody needs to make a man out of you.
Meredith
Unknown
>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"The Devil's Advocate©" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >> >themselves.
>> >>
>> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>> >
>> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> For expressing their opinion?
>
>For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
but incorrect.
Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
based on the above set of criteria I presented.
>> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
>> Amendment" mean anything to you?
>
>
>These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter? Hosed
and chased by police dogs? Denied a job or admission to school based
on your race?
Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
their opinions freely?
>absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
>you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
>denounces your patent bigotry.
Who's the bigot? How about someone who's anti-women, anti-Christian,
anti-Jew, anti-Western? Like the 19 helljackers, for instance. Are
you going to deny that they're the biggest bigots around?
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>Shame on you.
>
>Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
>indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.
>He did. Very nicely, too.
Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
different conclusion.
>Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
>you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
>are, you bring up Wayne.
Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
Are you defending this shit?
>Somebody needs to make a man out of you.
You need a man period. It mellowed out Black Beauty. Hehheh
DarkStar
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:03:41 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Shame on you.
>>
>>Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
>>indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.
>
>>He did. Very nicely, too.
>
>Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
>said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
>different conclusion.
Oh, such a nice spin. Too bad it makes you look even more like the ass
that you are.
Here is what you wrote:
=====================================
From: The Devil's Advocate© <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Poll: Blacks Support Racial Profiling 2 to 1 !
Message-ID: <j1jlrtcv48pom8fq0...@4ax.com>
References: <2096b2e.01100...@posting.google.com>
<h28krtc3d0hq1ibgf...@4ax.com>
<m0rkrto3srg7rl401...@4ax.com>
<frrkrtccvmgpvde8i...@4ax.com>
<3BBAB33A...@ecn.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 6
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:29:57 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.249.75.74
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1002097797 216.249.75.74
(Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:29:57 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:29:57 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
X-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:26:28 PDT
(newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net)
Xref: news.abs.net soc.culture.african.american:299351
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
So, IOW, most blacks.
=============================
I demonstrated, quite nicely, that your ASSertion can't be validly
made.
>>Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
>>you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
>>are, you bring up Wayne.
>
>Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
>researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
>usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
>Are you defending this shit?
Just like I told Wayne: sue me.
I'm serious.
>>Somebody needs to make a man out of you.
>
>You need a man period. It mellowed out Black Beauty. Hehheh
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>>Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
>>said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
>>different conclusion.
>
>Oh, such a nice spin. Too bad it makes you look even more like the ass
>that you are.
It's no spin. It's the truth. You have proved nothing other than you
think the sample size was too small.
According to the chart you posted, if we were to go with a sample size
of 100 at near 70%, the error margin would be 12 points. So let's say
that the chart went over to a sample size of 70, at the rate it is
adding error margin points, it would be very unlikely to make the
number drop below 50%, which would make my "ASSertion" as you put it,
invalide. Prima facie, I'd say the error margin would probably be
around 15 if the chart went as low as 70. So at the lowest, the claim
that most blacks support Arab profiling would still be accurate and
keep in mind that it could also go the other way where it ends up
being 86%. As usual, you have proven nothing.
>
>Here is what you wrote:
>>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>
>So, IOW, most blacks.
>
>=============================
>
>I demonstrated, quite nicely, that your ASSertion can't be validly
>made.
So where is the other information you claim to have recieved, age,
part of the country, income, etc.???
>>>Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
>>>you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
>>>are, you bring up Wayne.
>>
>>Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
>>researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
>>usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
>>Are you defending this shit?
>
>Just like I told Wayne: sue me.
>I'm serious.
ROTFL.
Meredith
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:03:41 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Shame on you.
> >
> >Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
> >indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.
>
> >He did. Very nicely, too.
>
> Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling,
He didn't need to.
But he showed that the data you supported was flawed and probably rigged.
And, you publicly cry for Wayne. (Whoa!)
> he
> said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
> different conclusion.
>
> >Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as
> >usual
> >you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how
> >scared you
> >are, you bring up Wayne.
>
> Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
> researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
> usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
And you've been battling with him for days, but you bring this up when he has
you in a corner, jammed against the wall, striking out like a lame kitten.
> Are you defending this shit?
Ask someone who gives a damn abour your "dares".
Meredith
The Devil's Advocate©
>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> So, IOW, most blacks.
>
>So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.
By that logic, I guess we can't assume that most Americans support
Bush since afterall, we haven't polled all Americans, for all we know
90% of those polled support him and the 99.x percentage of the pop.
that wasn't polled could hate his guts. Great logic there, Kaiju.
>Sorry. I'm reading the report and I have strong doubts about this particular
>study. In fact, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu. As in the questions
>asked were created (even inadvertently) to elicit specific, predetermined
>responses, the interpretation of the results were skewed, to reflect the
>pollsters' anticipated results.
IOW, "I'm shocked that this poll doesn't declare most blacks in
agreement with me, so something must be wrong with the poll." Yet you
are quick to believe notions such as blacks dying off early due to
racism without equal scrutiny. Interesting.
>There are so many ancillary thoughts going through the minds of people
>undergoing polling that go beyond the questions actually posed by pollsters.
>And then again, some people are really stupid. And bigoted. Including some
>Blacks. (Whoever said Blacks are paragons of virtue? They are humans, and
>can be ignorant just like a lot of otherwise idiots. Obviously in the same
>proportions of the total population, even. Can't get any more human than
>that. Only a total idiot would believe that one can define the entire group
>by a defined segment of said population.)
And if a poll came out that showed 80% of whites would rather not have
a black neighbor, I'd love to see if you'd say, "you can't define
white attitudes by a poll." I'm so sure you would.
>We've seen this before, especially with the OJ Simpson post-criminal trial
>results, also reported by the Gallup Poll. Most Black respondents would
>respond that OJ was not guilty. The news reports would proclaim, "Most Blacks
>Believe OJ Was Innocent!" The truth of the matter was quite different. Most
>Blacks thought that since OJ was found not guilty (most Blacks still say
>this...in the literal sense), he was found innocent (most Blacks do not
>believe this...in the literal sense). To lawyers, there is a distinction.
>between a finding of "not guilty" and "innocent". To laypersons, there is
>not. Yet there has been nearly a decade of castigating all Blacks because of
>a misunderstanding of terminology, interpretation, and intent. What happened
>is the pollsters injected their own expectations onto the results, and never
>understood the dynamics involved. I strongly suspect this is underlying this
>report, as well.
So why didn't most whites, Latinos, Asians, etc, find him "not
guilty"??? You said above regarding profiling that you expect the same
sort of attitudes amongst all groups because we're all just human. So
why did so many blacks feel that he's "not guilty" while everyone else
did? Please explain.
>I will say that I have encountered Blacks who do believe profiling of those of
>Middle Eastern extract (or even those who appear to be Middle Eastern,
>although they were born in the U.S. and aren't even really Middle Eastern to
>begin with) is a good thing. They are about equal in numbers to those of
>other ethnic groups who believe the same. I have also noted that among all
>ethnic and demographic groups, it is usually those of marginal educational
>backgrounds, lower income, and frankly, not-too-bright who espouse these types
>of beliefs. In other words, they are ignorant and afraid, mostly out of
>ignorance. Just a purely anecdotal observation, of course.
Hahhah, you're too funny. Jesse Jackson is wealthy, well-educated,
intelligent and as PC as it gets, yet he said:
"There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street
and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery--then look around
and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Sounds like profiling to me. I guess your theory is bunk. My theory is
that it has nothing to do with income demographics, I'd get profiled
walking behind a resident of Beverly Hills as quickly as I would
behind someone from E. L.A.
It's all about education. College conditions people to avoid saying
something that others will interpret as "offensive." Therefore fewer
college graduates will *admit* to profiling, or even supporting it.
Yet they do it in their personal lives all the time. And in the case
of Jackson, it shows that these sentiments will slip out when not on
guard, just as I once overheard an educated white from an expensive
college slip out the word "nigger" then grabbed her mouth mouth and
looked around in utter embarssment. She ran up and apologized to me,
as red in the face as a tomato, but it was too late, the damage had
been done, once you slip like that, you can't take it back. We know
how this person feels underneath, and we know what Jackson really
thinks underneath. Everyone profiles, those that don't are lying.
>All the same, those polled who expressed positive support for the proposition
>are shameful. I find anyone, (I do not care who it is), who supports the
>proposition of government endorsed bigotry, shameful. It is simply
>antithetical to the American Creed, and I find NO reason to stray from the
>principles established by this Nation. I have spent a lifetime arguing that
>the laws and principles of this country apply to all, and I am hardly willing
>to abandon that belief now that we are tested in the most extreme situation
>imaginable. We are STILL the United States of America. And that means much.
Under normal circumstances I'd be against it as well. When virtually
everyone that has ever sucessfully or unsucessfully tried to hijack or
blow up a plane has been a man from the middle east, I'm sorry, I
don't have any problem profiling them and subjecting them to further
scrutiny in airports. You can call it racist if you want, I call it
common sense and public safety. Especially as we are entering a war
with terrorist and we *know* it's just a matter of time before they
plane to strike again. If I had a kid and had to put them on a plane
with all Arabs or a plane with all Koreans, I'd put my odds on the
later. Sorry, that's just how I feel.
>Frankly, in my opinion, those who demand a U.S. government policy of this type
>of wholesale discrimination should move to Afghanistan. (The Taliban would
>love your asses.) Or live under some other stone age regime. But I will not
>be joining you people who don't even understand who or what you are
>purportedly fighting against. You are flailing out of sheer, stark fear, and
>no logic. Nah. I'm not going there, because once we all do, we've already
>lost. Even Shrub and his creepy press secretary understand that.
We are dealing with a situation we have never had to deal with. Where
your enemy is like a shadow and can camaflage in with the general
public. We know that in virtually every case, this enemy fits the same
profile again and again. To say we shouldn't put this profile under
greater scrutiny when we know that we're dealing with potentially
massive deaths is utter foolishness IMO. Of course it's all a matter
of perception. Bigotry to one man is common sense to another. And if
god forbid one of these assholes manages to set off a weapon of mass
destruction in this country killing thousands more(which may have been
prevented had someone "profiled" the terrorist), you will have people
gravitate towards my view, not yours. Those are the facts, mam.
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>
>But he showed that the data you supported was flawed and probably rigged.
>
>And, you publicly cry for Wayne. (Whoa!)
Look you braindead fool, read this paragraph slowly, and twice if
necessary....
Number one, I mentioned Wayne *and* myself, you dipshit. Number two
Wayne isn't the issue, the issue is that Darkstar is half nuts and any
research he claims to have done is to be taken with a grain of salt,
as this same person's "research" has led him to make unimaginably
bizarre claims about people in this NG, including myself.
>And you've been battling with him for days, but you bring this up when he has
>you in a corner, jammed against the wall, striking out like a lame kitten.
In a corner jammed against the wall??? ROTFL, you're just too funny
kitten...
>> Are you defending this shit?
>
>Ask someone who gives a damn abour your "dares".
Then quit following me around this newsgroup. I'd be willing to bet
that this freak has some kinda love-hate relationship with me. LOL!
Meredith
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:57:29 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >But he showed that the data you supported was flawed and probably rigged.
No comment on that, I see.
> >And, you publicly cry for Wayne. (Whoa!)
>
> Look you braindead fool, read this paragraph slowly, and twice if
> necessary....
>
> Number one, I mentioned Wayne *and* myself, you dipshit. Number two
> Wayne isn't the issue,
Then stop mentioning him.
It's as simple as that.
Meredith
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
Oh, please. Bad attempt at distracting from the real issue. The poll
stinks. It stunk from the first reports. At this point it reeks more than
5-day old fish left under a front porch in Dallas during the summer. No
matter how you attempt to dress it up or use your ongoing argument with Ed as
a defense, it isn't going to change the fact that the survey was flawed from
the outset. If the poll designers couldn't even get the sample right, I have
even less faith in their ability to get the questions, no less the
interpretation of the results, correct. I don't blame them for not coming up
with a list of the questions asked. They were too busy trying to cover their
asses.
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:34:51 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >SuperFly wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
> >> >> >themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
> >> >
> >> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
> >> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> For expressing their opinion?
> >
> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
>
> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
> but incorrect.
And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
> based on the above set of criteria I presented.
And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
looks like them. That is just wrong.
> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
> >
> >
> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
>
> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?
Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
lifetime, moron.
> Hosed
> and chased by police dogs?
Chased by police dogs, yes. And tear gassed.
> Denied a job or admission to school based
> on your race?
Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
intelligent.
> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
> their opinions freely?
I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
> >denounces your patent bigotry.
>
> Who's the bigot?
You.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:08:40 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
> >So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.
>
> By that logic, I guess we can't assume that most Americans support
> Bush since afterall, we haven't polled all Americans, for all we know
> 90% of those polled support him and the 99.x percentage of the pop.
> that wasn't polled could hate his guts. Great logic there, Kaiju.
It's YOUR logic. Not mine. It is as stupid as much of what you have been
writing.
> >Sorry. I'm reading the report and I have strong doubts about this particular
> >study. In fact, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu. As in the questions
> >asked were created (even inadvertently) to elicit specific, predetermined
> >responses, the interpretation of the results were skewed, to reflect the
> >pollsters' anticipated results.
>
> IOW, "I'm shocked that this poll doesn't declare most blacks in
> agreement with me, so something must be wrong with the poll." Yet you
> are quick to believe notions such as blacks dying off early due to
> racism without equal scrutiny. Interesting.
I said what I intended. What you wrote bears no resemblance, no less bears
any relationship to what I wrote. Look. You are simply not sufficiently
educated, nor intelligent enough to put words in my mouth.
> >There are so many ancillary thoughts going through the minds of people
> >undergoing polling that go beyond the questions actually posed by pollsters.
> >And then again, some people are really stupid. And bigoted. Including some
> >Blacks. (Whoever said Blacks are paragons of virtue? They are humans, and
> >can be ignorant just like a lot of otherwise idiots. Obviously in the same
> >proportions of the total population, even. Can't get any more human than
> >that. Only a total idiot would believe that one can define the entire group
> >by a defined segment of said population.)
>
> And if a poll came out that showed 80% of whites would rather not have
> a black neighbor, I'd love to see if you'd say, "you can't define
> white attitudes by a poll." I'm so sure you would.
It depends upon the poll. This particular poll has very obvious flaws.
> >We've seen this before, especially with the OJ Simpson post-criminal trial
> >results, also reported by the Gallup Poll. Most Black respondents would
> >respond that OJ was not guilty. The news reports would proclaim, "Most Blacks
> >Believe OJ Was Innocent!" The truth of the matter was quite different. Most
> >Blacks thought that since OJ was found not guilty (most Blacks still say
> >this...in the literal sense), he was found innocent (most Blacks do not
> >believe this...in the literal sense). To lawyers, there is a distinction.
> >between a finding of "not guilty" and "innocent". To laypersons, there is
> >not. Yet there has been nearly a decade of castigating all Blacks because of
> >a misunderstanding of terminology, interpretation, and intent. What happened
> >is the pollsters injected their own expectations onto the results, and never
> >understood the dynamics involved. I strongly suspect this is underlying this
> >report, as well.
>
> So why didn't most whites, Latinos, Asians, etc, find him "not
> guilty"??? You said above regarding profiling that you expect the same
> sort of attitudes amongst all groups because we're all just human. So
> why did so many blacks feel that he's "not guilty" while everyone else
> did? Please explain.
I already explained that above. Did you not read it before your knee jerked?
Or is it yet another instance where you couldn't comprehend what you read?
> >I will say that I have encountered Blacks who do believe profiling of those of
> >Middle Eastern extract (or even those who appear to be Middle Eastern,
> >although they were born in the U.S. and aren't even really Middle Eastern to
> >begin with) is a good thing. They are about equal in numbers to those of
> >other ethnic groups who believe the same. I have also noted that among all
> >ethnic and demographic groups, it is usually those of marginal educational
> >backgrounds, lower income, and frankly, not-too-bright who espouse these types
> >of beliefs. In other words, they are ignorant and afraid, mostly out of
> >ignorance. Just a purely anecdotal observation, of course.
>
> Hahhah, you're too funny. Jesse Jackson is wealthy, well-educated,
> intelligent and as PC as it gets, yet he said:
>
> "There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street
> and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery--then look around
> and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Why do you persist in quoting that man as though it is meaningful to me in any
remote fashion? Are you this much an idiot?
> Sounds like profiling to me. I guess your theory is bunk.
The bunk is using Jesse Jackson as some sort of justification for being a
bigot.
> My theory is
> that it has nothing to do with income demographics, I'd get profiled
> walking behind a resident of Beverly Hills as quickly as I would
> behind someone from E. L.A.
What does this have to do with anything? Besides, for two years you have
denied that profiling even exists.
> It's all about education. College conditions people to avoid saying
> something that others will interpret as "offensive." Therefore fewer
> college graduates will *admit* to profiling, or even supporting it.
This makes absolutely no sense. It certainly doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
> thinks underneath. Everyone profiles, those that don't are lying.
There are actually people in this world who do not profile. Even if there are
those who do, it does not make it less wrong.
> >All the same, those polled who expressed positive support for the proposition
> >are shameful. I find anyone, (I do not care who it is), who supports the
> >proposition of government endorsed bigotry, shameful. It is simply
> >antithetical to the American Creed, and I find NO reason to stray from the
> >principles established by this Nation. I have spent a lifetime arguing that
> >the laws and principles of this country apply to all, and I am hardly willing
> >to abandon that belief now that we are tested in the most extreme situation
> >imaginable. We are STILL the United States of America. And that means much.
>
> Under normal circumstances I'd be against it as well. When virtually
> everyone that has ever sucessfully or unsucessfully tried to hijack or
> blow up a plane has been a man from the middle east, I'm sorry, I
> don't have any problem profiling them and subjecting them to further
> scrutiny in airports. You can call it racist if you want, I call it
> common sense and public safety.
It is cowardice, irrational fear, and racist. I see nothing prudent in this
belief of yours and your fellow travelers. You cowards will be so busy
harassing normal citizens and legal residents, you'll miss the real terrorists
should there be a next time. In the meantime, we would have lost much of what
the United States of America stands for.
> Especially as we are entering a war
> with terrorist and we *know* it's just a matter of time before they
> plane to strike again.
Dummy. They won't use a plane the next time. Terrorists are smarter than you
are.
> >Frankly, in my opinion, those who demand a U.S. government policy of this type
> >of wholesale discrimination should move to Afghanistan. (The Taliban would
> >love your asses.) Or live under some other stone age regime. But I will not
> >be joining you people who don't even understand who or what you are
> >purportedly fighting against. You are flailing out of sheer, stark fear, and
> >no logic. Nah. I'm not going there, because once we all do, we've already
> >lost. Even Shrub and his creepy press secretary understand that.
>
> We are dealing with a situation we have never had to deal with.
I repeat. Even Shrub and his lying asshole of a press secretary say people
like you are wrong. It just may be the only time they have been right.
Kaiju
DarkStar
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:10:55 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
>>>said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
>>>different conclusion.
>>
>>Oh, such a nice spin. Too bad it makes you look even more like the ass
>>that you are.
>
>It's no spin. It's the truth. You have proved nothing other than you
>think the sample size was too small.
Polls of this nature generally go for 1000 + a minimum of 10%. Any
poll under 100 is statistically invalid. That's not "me" thinking the
"sample size was too small," that's the *SCIENCE* behind sociological
studies.
>According to the chart you posted, if we were to go with a sample size
>of 100 at near 70%, the error margin would be 12 points.
Uhhhh...
No it wouldn't.
Let me walk your stupid ass through the process.
At a sample size of 100, for near 70%, margin of error is 12.
But you didn't *WANT* to notice a pattern that is *VERY* important.
Population | Error
---------------------------
1500 | 3
1000 | 4
750 | 4
600 | 5
400 | 6
200 | 8
100 | 12
Do you see a pattern here?
Do you think their may be an equation that explains why the error rate
is getting greater at a *HIGHER* rate the closer you get to one? For a
95-100% certainty? I'd say the error is 100.
Look at the rate of change. Between 200-400, the error is 2. Between
100-200 the erro is 4. I bet there's an exponential equation involved
in this. Guess what it would be at, say 75. If you say anything linear
to a difference of 6, you fail. (You figure out why I chose a
difference of 6).
>So let's say
>that the chart went over to a sample size of 70, at the rate it is
>adding error margin points, it would be very unlikely to make the
>number drop below 50%, which would make my "ASSertion" as you put it,
>invalide. Prima facie, I'd say the error margin would probably be
>around 15 if the chart went as low as 70.
That's linear. The rate of change isn't linear. Just look at it.
> So at the lowest, the claim
>that most blacks support Arab profiling would still be accurate and
>keep in mind that it could also go the other way where it ends up
>being 86%. As usual, you have proven nothing.
*ROTFL*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You never took statistics. Did you even take algebra?
DarkStar
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:
...
>
>Under normal circumstances I'd be against it as well. When virtually
>everyone that has ever sucessfully or unsucessfully tried to hijack or
>blow up a plane has been a man from the middle east, I'm sorry, I
>don't have any problem profiling them and subjecting them to further
>scrutiny in airports.
This isn't true.
For years, highjackers were most likely to be Europeans coming out of
the Soviet bloc. There were even a few out of Cuba.
Unknown
>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:34:51 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >SuperFly wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >> >> >themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >>
>> >> For expressing their opinion?
>> >
>> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
>>
>> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
>> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
>> but incorrect.
>
>And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
>individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
and INS databases.
Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
>> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
>> based on the above set of criteria I presented.
>
>And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
>looks like them. That is just wrong.
Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
aboard. It's that simple.
Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
quo?
>> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
>> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
>> >
>> >
>> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
>>
>> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?
>
>Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
>benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
>lifetime, moron.
Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
>> Hosed
>> and chased by police dogs?
>
>Chased by police dogs, yes. And tear gassed.
Actually, lots of people have been tear gassed, and not all were due
to racism.
>> Denied a job or admission to school based
>> on your race?
>
>Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
>school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
>competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
>intelligent.
Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
>> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
>> their opinions freely?
>
>I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
Why is that a "stupid" question. You sound as if you were born
recently, I'm not responsible for that. Based on your response, I can
now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
the past. Like about 4 decades ago.
>> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
>> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
>> >denounces your patent bigotry.
>>
>> Who's the bigot?
>
>You.
Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
modern-day bigots.
The Devil's Advocate©
>Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
>aboard. It's that simple.
>
>Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
>Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
>religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
>quo?
Some people believe in being politically correct no matter what the
circumstance. I see *them* as the extremists. I believe in fairness
and equal treament under the law like anyone else, but I also realize
that there are situations that could arise where public safety and
survival force you to have to temporarily suspend some rules. I also
believe that we should not have cruel and unusual punishment under
normal circumstances, but if they caught one of these terrorists on
our soil and needed to twist his arm or fingers or beat the shit out
of him to drag vital information about future terrorist plots of mass
destruction and save thousands of lives, I'm not complaining about it.
I believe in situational ethics which is common sense to me.
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:07:41 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
> >> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
> >>
> >> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
> >> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
> >> but incorrect.
> >
> >And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
> >individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
>
> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
> and INS databases.
So, you are proposing that everyone of a certain gender, age, and citizenship
status should be checked? Or just those who appear to be of middle-eastern
ancestry?
Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
of innocent people for nothing.
> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.
> >> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
> >> based on the above set of criteria I presented.
> >
> >And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
> >looks like them. That is just wrong.
>
> Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
> aboard. It's that simple.
As I said, you are still a bigot.
> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
> Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
> quo?
It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
live, go find one and move there.
> >> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
> >> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
> >>
> >> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?
> >
> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
> >lifetime, moron.
>
> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.
> >Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
> >school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
> >competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
> >intelligent.
>
> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.
> >> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
> >> their opinions freely?
> >
> >I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
>
> Why is that a "stupid" question.
It is stupid because it is meaningless and proves nothing.
> You sound as if you were born
> recently, I'm not responsible for that.
You are responsible for your own stupidity.
> Based on your response, I can
> now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
> about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
> the past. Like about 4 decades ago.
You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.
> >> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
> >> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
> >> >denounces your patent bigotry.
> >>
> >> Who's the bigot?
> >
> >You.
>
> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
to those 19 terrorists?
> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
> modern-day bigots.
I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
a bigot when I see him, and you're it.
Unknown
>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:07:41 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
>> >> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
>> >> but incorrect.
>> >
>> >And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
>> >individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
>>
>> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
>> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
>> and INS databases.
>
>So, you are proposing that everyone of a certain gender, age, and citizenship
>status should be checked? Or just those who appear to be of middle-eastern
>ancestry?
Anytime a situation occurs, such as we are in now, where a bunch of
gangsters, all of whom fit a very *narrowly* tailored demographic
profile, commit *hate crimes* against humanity.
>Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
>checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
>most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
>of innocent people for nothing.
No, and you're incredibly naive for one of your age. Turns out the
majority of these helljackers had expired visas. Right there alone,
we could've grabbed some of those gangsters before they boarded the
plane.
And in fact, the man believed to be the "20th hijacker" (each plane
was supposed to have 5 guys) *was* picked up shortly before 9/11, thru
profiling. His behaviorial characteristics gave him away.
>> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
>> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
>> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
>
>Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
>checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.
There you go again. NOT just "certain racial characteristics" which
may be illegal, but a set of *demographic* characteristics, which the
courts (even liberal ones) have said is OK.
>> >> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
>> >> based on the above set of criteria I presented.
>> >
>> >And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
>> >looks like them. That is just wrong.
>>
>> Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
>> aboard. It's that simple.
>
>As I said, you are still a bigot.
IOW, you have no argument to rebut my cold hard logic, so you need to
go into name-calling mode instead. Figures.
>> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
>> Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
>> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
>> quo?
>
>It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
>live, go find one and move there.
Pretty expensive price, no? Ask the relatives of these few thousand
folks.
>> >> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
>> >> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
>> >>
>> >> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?
>> >
>> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
>> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
>> >lifetime, moron.
>>
>> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
>
>If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
>changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
>happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
>it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.
Frankly, I think your memories are fuzzy. NOTHING like this has
happened before.
>> >Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
>> >school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
>> >competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
>> >intelligent.
>>
>> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
>> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
>
>Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.
But if that were true, then black leaders would say "we don't need
affirmative action, quotas and setasides, we'll get our share fair and
square."
>> >> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
>> >> their opinions freely?
>> >
>> >I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
>>
>> Why is that a "stupid" question.
>
>It is stupid because it is meaningless and proves nothing.
Your POV explains everything.
>> You sound as if you were born
>> recently, I'm not responsible for that.
>
>You are responsible for your own stupidity.
How can I be responsible for something I'm not?
>> Based on your response, I can
>> now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
>> about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
>> the past. Like about 4 decades ago.
>
>You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.
It died legally, and in most places throughout the land. Yes, there
are pockets of individuals, but most are not in position to control
anything, including their own destinies.
All you have to do is to look at the 5 or 6 key people that are
closest to President Bush in this national emergency. Not one but 2
are black. That percentage is much, much higher than the overall
percentage of blacks in the population.
>> >> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
>> >> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
>> >> >denounces your patent bigotry.
>> >>
>> >> Who's the bigot?
>> >
>> >You.
>>
>> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
>
>Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
>to those 19 terrorists?
Not thousands, perhaps a few hundred, would fit the narrowly tailored
demographic profile I'm talking about. And once more, it's NOT based
on just because they "look similar". I don't understand why you can't
grasp this simple concept.
Also once more: A majority of blacks, who presumably are more
sensitive about "profiling", agree with this concept. Are THEY
"bigots" too?
And why do you say "victimize" knee-jerk style in this context? Were
the 19 helljackers "victims" too?
>> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
>> modern-day bigots.
>
>I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
>modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
>years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
>has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
>a bigot when I see him, and you're it.
You're blind to all realities, and can see nothing.
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:43:35 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
> >> >> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
> >> >> but incorrect.
> >> >
> >> >And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
> >> >individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
> >>
> >> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
> >> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
> >> and INS databases.
> >
> >So, you are proposing that everyone of a certain gender, age, and citizenship
> >status should be checked? Or just those who appear to be of middle-eastern
> >ancestry?
>
> Anytime a situation occurs, such as we are in now, where a bunch of
> gangsters, all of whom fit a very *narrowly* tailored demographic
> profile, commit *hate crimes* against humanity.
This isn't a "hate crime". It is war, simpleton. You are proposing to
conduct war against citizens and legal residents of this country. Worse, you
do not have the ability nor the training to wage this type of war. Moreover,
those minimum-wage, faintly trained employees at the airport gates do not have
the training, either. As a result, the only thing that can result from your
disingenuous pogrom is racial/cultural/ethnic/choose-your-descriptive
harassment. Unless you are proposing EVERYONE fitting the certain gender,
age, and citizenship status, you are still advocating legal bigotry. Guess
what? Your president has still condemned such action. What is interesting is
you still refuse to acknowledge this.
> >Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
> >checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
> >most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
> >of innocent people for nothing.
>
> No, and you're incredibly naive for one of your age. Turns out the
> majority of these helljackers had expired visas. Right there alone,
> we could've grabbed some of those gangsters before they boarded the
> plane.
The personnel at the airport gates do not have the training to discern who may
or may not be a potential terrorist. Neither do you.
> And in fact, the man believed to be the "20th hijacker" (each plane
> was supposed to have 5 guys) *was* picked up shortly before 9/11, thru
> profiling. His behaviorial characteristics gave him away.
No. The CIA and the INS caught him. Stop lying. This was reported in the
news. The fact is, profiling has rarely caught any criminal. The reported
statistics bear this out. There really is no reason to continue this type of
law enforcement tactic.
> >> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
> >> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
> >> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
> >
> >Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
> >checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.
>
> There you go again. NOT just "certain racial characteristics" which
> may be illegal, but a set of *demographic* characteristics, which the
> courts (even liberal ones) have said is OK.
It is still bigotry. What you have been advocating isn't even within the
specious decision the USSC reached.
> >As I said, you are still a bigot.
>
> IOW, you have no argument to rebut my cold hard logic, so you need to
> go into name-calling mode instead. Figures.
No. You are a bigot, and you have no argument, no logic, no sense. But you
are a coward.
> >> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
> >> Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
> >> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
> >> quo?
> >
> >It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
> >live, go find one and move there.
>
> Pretty expensive price, no? Ask the relatives of these few thousand
> folks.
You don't know that I didn't lose someone there. You assume much. I daresay
most of those who lost someone would prefer that their loved ones were killed
for the American Ideal, not as losers like you.
> >> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
> >> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
> >> >lifetime, moron.
> >>
> >> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
> >
> >If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
> >changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
> >happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
> >it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.
>
> Frankly, I think your memories are fuzzy. NOTHING like this has
> happened before.
The ONLY difference is that 19 terrorists used commercial aircraft as weapons
of destruction. What you are advocating is even worse. You want civil rights
abolished, you want freedom severely curtailed, you do not want the United
States to be what we have been for 300 years. You want to turn the clock back
on the advances made in the last 40 years, advances made at the price of the
lives of this country's citizens...and all because you are afraid and angry.
You are pathetic.
> >> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
> >> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
> >
> >Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.
>
> But if that were true, then black leaders would say "we don't need
> affirmative action, quotas and setasides, we'll get our share fair and
> square."
When this country is "fair and square", I'm sure that is what will be said.
When that ever actually happens.
> >> >> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
> >> >> their opinions freely?
> >> >
> >> >I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
> >>
> >> Why is that a "stupid" question.
> >
> >It is stupid because it is meaningless and proves nothing.
>
> Your POV explains everything.
You don't have a clue what my POV is. The best you can conjure up is a guess
what it is, and 99% of the time, you are incorrect.
> >> You sound as if you were born
> >> recently, I'm not responsible for that.
> >
> >You are responsible for your own stupidity.
>
> How can I be responsible for something I'm not?
Everything you write is stupid. You couldn't think your way out of a wet
paper bag.
> >> Based on your response, I can
> >> now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
> >> about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
> >> the past. Like about 4 decades ago.
> >
> >You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.
>
> It died legally,
It did not die. You are proof of that.
> All you have to do is to look at the 5 or 6 key people that are
> closest to President Bush in this national emergency. Not one but 2
> are black. That percentage is much, much higher than the overall
> percentage of blacks in the population.
And you decry quotas? GMAB. Condoleeza Rice says that she got where she is
because not only was she qualified, she was MORE qualified than her white
peers, and has always had to be twice as good to get half as far. That doesn't
speak well of how whites perceive qualified Blacks. Even the Blacks you
choose to throw in my face know the playing field is not level. Powell has
stated this repeatedly, AND he supports affirmative action.
> >> >> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
> >> >> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
> >> >> >denounces your patent bigotry.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who's the bigot?
> >> >
> >> >You.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
> >
> >Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
> >to those 19 terrorists?
>
> Not thousands, perhaps a few hundred,
You cannot carry out the policy you advocate without victimizing thousands
based on their ancestry. It doesn't matter how you try to deny this, dress it
up, be disingenuous, you are doing nothing more than advocating legalized
bigotry and diminishment of this country's civil rights policies.
> would fit the narrowly tailored
> demographic profile I'm talking about. And once more, it's NOT based
> on just because they "look similar". I don't understand why you can't
> grasp this simple concept.
Oh, please. You are still a bigot looking for easy solutions that in the end
will not only be unworkable, but unproductive.
> Also once more: A majority of blacks, who presumably are more
> sensitive about "profiling", agree with this concept. Are THEY
> "bigots" too?
And there is another example of your stupidity. Quoting a single poll that is
already proven factually and fatally flawed. Give it up. Next you will be
joining DA who believes that Jesse Jackson has all the answers.
> And why do you say "victimize" knee-jerk style in this context? Were
> the 19 helljackers "victims" too?
The vast majority of Arabs living in this country are not only NOT sympathetic
to the terrorists, they are not terrorists. Your advocated policy will not
reveal the actual threat in this country. Only the intelligence and
immigration agencies can do that job. Heaven forbid that someone standing at
the airport check-in point are given the authority to check the status of your
"certain demographic". They are likely no more intelligent or trained than
you. Which means, nil.
> >> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
> >> modern-day bigots.
> >
> >I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
> >modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
> >years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
> >has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
> >a bigot when I see him, and you're it.
>
> You're blind to all realities, and can see nothing.
I am certainly not open to your cowardly, ignorant crapola, and I see that you
are full of frightened little boy, anti-American, bigot crap quite clearly.
trudogg®
> Some people believe in being politically correct no matter what the
> circumstance. I see *them* as the extremists. I believe in fairness
> and equal treament under the law like anyone else, but I also realize
> that there are situations that could arise where public safety and
> survival force you to have to temporarily suspend some rules. I also
> believe that we should not have cruel and unusual punishment under
> normal circumstances, but if they caught one of these terrorists on
> our soil and needed to twist his arm or fingers or beat the shit out
> of him to drag vital information about future terrorist plots of mass
> destruction and save thousands of lives, I'm not complaining about it.
> I believe in situational ethics which is common sense to me.
...believe me when I tell you that every molecule in me wants to say
turn Afghanistan into an ashtray. But it won't help. I'd like to say go
after their families like they do. But it won't help. I'd like to say we
should fight them exactly as they fight us, using every dirty, cowardly
maneuver that they do. But it won't help and would turn us into
something as bizarre as them.
Freedom is truly tested at a time like this, when we are under attack by
the illogical and under-handed. If we allow this to erode the principles
that this country was founded on, then they truly will have won.
Unknown
>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:43:35 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >> >> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
>> >> >> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
>> >> >> but incorrect.
>> >> >
>> >> >And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
>> >> >individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
>> >> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
>> >> and INS databases.
>> >
>> >So, you are proposing that everyone of a certain gender, age, and citizenship
>> >status should be checked? Or just those who appear to be of middle-eastern
>> >ancestry?
>>
>> Anytime a situation occurs, such as we are in now, where a bunch of
>> gangsters, all of whom fit a very *narrowly* tailored demographic
>> profile, commit *hate crimes* against humanity.
>
>This isn't a "hate crime".
Oh yes it was. The biggest in recorded history. Muhammed Atta and
his boyz HATED what we stood for. Do yer homework, read the writings
he left behind, and interviews with folks who met him along the way.
>It is war, simpleton. You are proposing to
>conduct war against citizens and legal residents of this country. Worse, you
>do not have the ability nor the training to wage this type of war. Moreover,
>those minimum-wage, faintly trained employees at the airport gates do not have
>the training, either. As a result, the only thing that can result from your
>disingenuous pogrom is racial/cultural/ethnic/choose-your-descriptive
>harassment. Unless you are proposing EVERYONE fitting the certain gender,
>age, and citizenship status, you are still advocating legal bigotry. Guess
>what? Your president has still condemned such action. What is interesting is
>you still refuse to acknowledge this.
Acknowledge what? That it works? Of course it does. El-Al does it,
and we're doing it to, although we're not calling it profiling, for PC
reasons.
Once more, the courts have always upheld this.
>> >Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
>> >checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
>> >most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
>> >of innocent people for nothing.
>>
>> No, and you're incredibly naive for one of your age. Turns out the
>> majority of these helljackers had expired visas. Right there alone,
>> we could've grabbed some of those gangsters before they boarded the
>> plane.
>
>The personnel at the airport gates do not have the training to discern who may
>or may not be a potential terrorist. Neither do you.
My point just sailed over your head. This wasn't about training, this
was about detaining those with expired visas. If we had a system in
place to cross-check all against INS databases, many if not most of
those helljackers would not have been allowed to board the plane on
9/11. What part of this don't you understand?
>> And in fact, the man believed to be the "20th hijacker" (each plane
>> was supposed to have 5 guys) *was* picked up shortly before 9/11, thru
>> profiling. His behaviorial characteristics gave him away.
>
>No. The CIA and the INS caught him. Stop lying. This was reported in the
>news. The fact is, profiling has rarely caught any criminal. The reported
>statistics bear this out. There really is no reason to continue this type of
>law enforcement tactic.
I didn't say the CIA/INS didn't catch him, so how am I lying?
The authorities were alerted in response to his strange behavior .
>> >> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
>> >> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
>> >> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
>> >
>> >Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
>> >checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.
>>
>> There you go again. NOT just "certain racial characteristics" which
>> may be illegal, but a set of *demographic* characteristics, which the
>> courts (even liberal ones) have said is OK.
>
>It is still bigotry. What you have been advocating isn't even within the
>specious decision the USSC reached.
Actually, it's even narrower than what previous court decisions have
endorsed.
>> >As I said, you are still a bigot.
>>
>> IOW, you have no argument to rebut my cold hard logic, so you need to
>> go into name-calling mode instead. Figures.
>
>No. You are a bigot, and you have no argument, no logic, no sense. But you
>are a coward.
Wrong on all counts. But keep on name-calling, that's all you know
how to do.
>> >> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
>> >> Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
>> >> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
>> >> quo?
>> >
>> >It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
>> >live, go find one and move there.
>>
>> Pretty expensive price, no? Ask the relatives of these few thousand
>> folks.
>
>You don't know that I didn't lose someone there. You assume much. I daresay
>most of those who lost someone would prefer that their loved ones were killed
>for the American Ideal, not as losers like you.
Oh, so it's OK that they died for your version of the "American
Ideal", even though you have no idea what that means, and these folks
didn't know their lives were on the line for this, as if they were
soldiers.
>> >> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
>> >> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
>> >> >lifetime, moron.
>> >>
>> >> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
>> >
>> >If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
>> >changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
>> >happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
>> >it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.
>>
>> Frankly, I think your memories are fuzzy. NOTHING like this has
>> happened before.
>
>The ONLY difference is that 19 terrorists used commercial aircraft as weapons
>of destruction. What you are advocating is even worse. You want civil rights
>abolished, you want freedom severely curtailed, you do not want the United
>States to be what we have been for 300 years. You want to turn the clock back
>on the advances made in the last 40 years, advances made at the price of the
>lives of this country's citizens...and all because you are afraid and angry.
>You are pathetic.
You've packed so many lies into one paragraph, I think you've set a
new record. Each and every sentence is wrong, a lie, and you know it.
>> >> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
>> >> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
>> >
>> >Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.
>>
>> But if that were true, then black leaders would say "we don't need
>> affirmative action, quotas and setasides, we'll get our share fair and
>> square."
>
>When this country is "fair and square", I'm sure that is what will be said.
>When that ever actually happens.
Ahhh, I just knew you'd start backing away from competing on a level
playing ground.
>> >> >> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
>> >> >> their opinions freely?
>> >> >
>> >> >I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
>> >>
>> >> Why is that a "stupid" question.
>> >
>> >It is stupid because it is meaningless and proves nothing.
>>
>> Your POV explains everything.
>
>You don't have a clue what my POV is. The best you can conjure up is a guess
>what it is, and 99% of the time, you are incorrect.
No guesses here, I'm just reading your lines. Now are you also going
to claim someone has posted under your name, as others here have?
>> >> You sound as if you were born
>> >> recently, I'm not responsible for that.
>> >
>> >You are responsible for your own stupidity.
>>
>> How can I be responsible for something I'm not?
>
>Everything you write is stupid. You couldn't think your way out of a wet
>paper bag.
Daydreaming again, eh?
>> >> Based on your response, I can
>> >> now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
>> >> about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
>> >> the past. Like about 4 decades ago.
>> >
>> >You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.
>>
>> It died legally,
>
>It did not die. You are proof of that.
How am I "proof" of that?
>> All you have to do is to look at the 5 or 6 key people that are
>> closest to President Bush in this national emergency. Not one but 2
>> are black. That percentage is much, much higher than the overall
>> percentage of blacks in the population.
>
>And you decry quotas? GMAB. Condoleeza Rice says that she got where she is
>because not only was she qualified, she was MORE qualified than her white
>peers, and has always had to be twice as good to get half as far. That doesn't
>speak well of how whites perceive qualified Blacks. Even the Blacks you
>choose to throw in my face know the playing field is not level. Powell has
>stated this repeatedly, AND he supports affirmative action.
I AM decrying quotas. Neither Powell nor Rice are in Bush's inner
circle at this time of crisis because of "quotas". That was my point.
I disagree with Powell on AA, as do many folks, black and white.
>> >> >> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
>> >> >> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
>> >> >> >denounces your patent bigotry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who's the bigot?
>> >> >
>> >> >You.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
>> >
>> >Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
>> >to those 19 terrorists?
>>
>> Not thousands, perhaps a few hundred,
>
>You cannot carry out the policy you advocate without victimizing thousands
>based on their ancestry. It doesn't matter how you try to deny this, dress it
>up, be disingenuous, you are doing nothing more than advocating legalized
>bigotry and diminishment of this country's civil rights policies.
Do folks who are here illegally have "civil rights"? Did MLK really
die for them too?
>> would fit the narrowly tailored
>> demographic profile I'm talking about. And once more, it's NOT based
>> on just because they "look similar". I don't understand why you can't
>> grasp this simple concept.
>
>Oh, please. You are still a bigot looking for easy solutions that in the end
>will not only be unworkable, but unproductive.
Proof?
>> Also once more: A majority of blacks, who presumably are more
>> sensitive about "profiling", agree with this concept. Are THEY
>> "bigots" too?
>
>And there is another example of your stupidity. Quoting a single poll that is
>already proven factually and fatally flawed.
Where is this "proof"?
>Give it up. Next you will be
>joining DA who believes that Jesse Jackson has all the answers.
The only smart thing Jack$on has done in recent weeks is back off
trying inject himself into this mess, as the public opinion against it
was overwhelming. He should stick to what he does best, profiting
handsomely over racial "guilt" that many CEO's have.
>> And why do you say "victimize" knee-jerk style in this context? Were
>> the 19 helljackers "victims" too?
>
>The vast majority of Arabs living in this country are not only NOT sympathetic
>to the terrorists, they are not terrorists.
No one said they were.
>Your advocated policy will not
>reveal the actual threat in this country. Only the intelligence and
>immigration agencies can do that job. Heaven forbid that someone standing at
>the airport check-in point are given the authority to check the status of your
>"certain demographic". They are likely no more intelligent or trained than
>you. Which means, nil.
I have nothing to hide, they can run my ID thru every database they've
got, no sweat.
>> >> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
>> >> modern-day bigots.
>> >
>> >I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
>> >modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
>> >years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
>> >has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
>> >a bigot when I see him, and you're it.
>>
>> You're blind to all realities, and can see nothing.
>
>I am certainly not open to your cowardly, ignorant crapola, and I see that you
>are full of frightened little boy, anti-American, bigot crap quite clearly.
You see nothing. BTW, do you approve of the role women have under
Islam?
>Kaiju
Eugene Holman
wrote:
>
>
> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
> and INS databases.
>
> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
The 19 hijackers all got through security checks, we have photos of
them picking up their hand baggage after it was checked and found to be
problem free. Photographs also show them calm as cucumbers, even
smiling, as they got omn the airplane. One news report says that one of
them gained access to the cockpit by being invited: the crew evidently
thought he was a pilot colleague.
> >
> >And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
> >looks like them. That is just wrong.
>
> Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
> aboard. It's that simple.
They were checked and found to be clean. They used box cutters.
Resourceful terrorists can make lethal weapons out of their eyeglasses,
their shoes, their ballpoint pens, even their fingernails. Even a glass
of hot coffee or, better yet, the pitchers of hot tea or coffee carried
by the stewardesses can become dangerous weapons. A person who wants a
weapon can always improvise one, particularly if he has been trained.
And all the profiling in the world is not going to reveal the altered
state of mind that comes from terrorist training.
>
> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
> Crime on record?
That can be argued:
€ 6,000,000 European Jews were killed by the Nazis in non-military
operations conducted in the form of mass public shootings, starvation,
brutality, and subjugation to disease at concentration camps, and
systematic mass gassings at extermination centers, mostly in occupied
countries, between 1941 and 1945.
€ More than 60,000,000 people were killed by various forms of
brutality, including artificially induced famines, for being "enemies
of the people" or for refusing to accept a new belief system, by
various sects of the secular religion known as communism between 1917
and 1991.
€ More than 150,000 people were killed by two atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States as partial payback for the
sneak attack on Pearl Harbor at a time when it was clear that Japan
could not win the war.
The one thing they have to be given credit for is kill ratio. Their
250/1 kill/casualty rate far outstripped Tim McVeigh's long standing
record of 168/1.
> Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
> quo?
The status quo needs to be changed, but there is going to come a time
when the time and trouble of ensuring airlíne security is going to make
flying such a traumatic experience that airlines will go bust and
ticket prices will become prohibitive. And a resourceful terrorist will
always figure out a way to beat the system, after all, that's their
job.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
wrote:
>
>
> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
> and INS databases.
>
> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
The 19 hijackers all got through security checks, we have photos of
them picking up their hand baggage after it was checked and found to be
problem free. Photographs also show them calm as can be, even
smiling, as they were waiting to get on the airplanes. No belligerence
or nervousness there, nor would a professional terrorist, convinced
that he will soon be satisfying the carnal desires of 72 virgins, be
likely to be in a surly mood. One news report says that one of
the skyjackers gained access to the cockpit by being invited: the crew
evidently thought he was a pilot colleague.
> >
> >And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
> >looks like them. That is just wrong.
>
> Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
> aboard. It's that simple.
They were checked and found to be clean. They used box cutters.
Resourceful terrorists can fashion lethal weapons out of their
eyeglasses, their shoes, their ballpoint pens, even their fingernails.
Even a glass of hot coffee or, better yet, the pitchers of hot tea or
coffee carried by the stewardesses can become dangerous weapons. A
person who wants a weapon can always improvise one, particularly if he
has been trained. And all the profiling in the world is not going to
reveal the altered state of mind that comes from terrorist training.
>
> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
> Crime on record?
That can be argued:
€ 6,000,000 European Jews were killed by the Nazis in non-military
operations conducted in the form of mass public shootings, starvation,
brutality, and subjugation to disease at concentration camps, and
systematic mass gassings at extermination centers, mostly in occupied
countries, between 1941 and 1945.
€ More than 60,000,000 people were killed by various forms of
brutality, including artificially induced famines, for being "enemies
of the people" or for refusing to accept a new belief system, by
various sects of the secular religion known as communism between 1917
and 1991.
€ More than 150,000 people were killed by two atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States as partial payback for the
sneak attack on Pearl Harbor at a time when it was clear that Japan
could not win the war.
The one thing they have to be given credit for is kill ratio. Their
250/1 kill/casualty rate far outstripped Tim McVeigh's long standing
record of 168/1.
> Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
> quo?
The status quo needs to be changed, but there is going to come a point
when the time and trouble of ensuring airlíne security is going to make
flying such a traumatic experience that airlines will go bust and
ticket prices will become prohibitive due to lack of passengers. And a
resourceful terrorist will always figure out a way to beat the system,
after all, that's his job. Subways can be nervegassed, atomic bombs can
be blown up in major cities, water supplies can be poisoned. As we saw
last week in what was evidently not an act of terrorism but lethal
nevertheless, the necks of bus drivers can be slit. Making the airlines
terrorist-free will only move their act somewhere else.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 01:04:04 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
> >> Anytime a situation occurs, such as we are in now, where a bunch of
> >> gangsters, all of whom fit a very *narrowly* tailored demographic
> >> profile, commit *hate crimes* against humanity.
> >
> >This isn't a "hate crime".
>
> Oh yes it was. The biggest in recorded history. Muhammed Atta and
> his boyz HATED what we stood for. Do yer homework, read the writings
> he left behind, and interviews with folks who met him along the way.
This isn't a "hate crime". Do your own "homework". Your hyperbolic rhetoric
is meaningless. It may sound good to you, but it is still meaningless.
> >It is war, simpleton. You are proposing to
> >conduct war against citizens and legal residents of this country. Worse, you
> >do not have the ability nor the training to wage this type of war. Moreover,
> >those minimum-wage, faintly trained employees at the airport gates do not have
> >the training, either. As a result, the only thing that can result from your
> >disingenuous pogrom is racial/cultural/ethnic/choose-your-descriptive
> >harassment. Unless you are proposing EVERYONE fitting the certain gender,
> >age, and citizenship status, you are still advocating legal bigotry. Guess
> >what? Your president has still condemned such action. What is interesting is
> >you still refuse to acknowledge this.
>
> Acknowledge what? That it works? Of course it does. El-Al does it,
> and we're doing it to, although we're not calling it profiling, for PC
> reasons.
What El-Al is doing is applied to EVERYONE, and most significantly, the El-Al
personnel are highly trained. There is nothing in place in the U.S. that even
remotely compares, and certainly what you propose does not. You want to apply
it only to those of Arab descent, or those who appear to be Arabs. If this
situation was left up to those like you, we'd all be dead.
> Once more, the courts have always upheld this.
You don't understand the court ruling, actually.
> >> >Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
> >> >checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
> >> >most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
> >> >of innocent people for nothing.
> >>
> >> No, and you're incredibly naive for one of your age. Turns out the
> >> majority of these helljackers had expired visas. Right there alone,
> >> we could've grabbed some of those gangsters before they boarded the
> >> plane.
> >
> >The personnel at the airport gates do not have the training to discern who may
> >or may not be a potential terrorist. Neither do you.
>
> My point just sailed over your head.
Your understanding of the entire situation renders you incapable of positing
any sensible point.
> This wasn't about training, this
> was about detaining those with expired visas.
It is training. Any system of determining expired visas will not be
productive if it is only in place at airports. The airports and airlines
don't even want to pay for minimal security that has been highly recommended
for at least a decade. Even with what happened on 9/11, they still don't want
to invest in any substantial security technology or training. Now you want to
subject thousands of citizens to scrutiny, without considering the
ramifications or viable alternatives. You really have nothing to provide
here. You are the proverbial empty vessel.
> >> And in fact, the man believed to be the "20th hijacker" (each plane
> >> was supposed to have 5 guys) *was* picked up shortly before 9/11, thru
> >> profiling. His behaviorial characteristics gave him away.
> >
> >No. The CIA and the INS caught him. Stop lying. This was reported in the
> >news. The fact is, profiling has rarely caught any criminal. The reported
> >statistics bear this out. There really is no reason to continue this type of
> >law enforcement tactic.
>
> I didn't say the CIA/INS didn't catch him, so how am I lying?
>
> The authorities were alerted in response to his strange behavior .
You implied that profiling caught him. This is not true. And even the tip
made to the authorities did not involve your brand of profiling.
> >> >> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
> >> >> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
> >> >> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
> >> >
> >> >Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
> >> >checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.
> >>
> >> There you go again. NOT just "certain racial characteristics" which
> >> may be illegal, but a set of *demographic* characteristics, which the
> >> courts (even liberal ones) have said is OK.
> >
> >It is still bigotry. What you have been advocating isn't even within the
> >specious decision the USSC reached.
>
> Actually, it's even narrower than what previous court decisions have
> endorsed.
Which makes it worse. And pure bigotry.
> >> >As I said, you are still a bigot.
> >>
> >> IOW, you have no argument to rebut my cold hard logic, so you need to
> >> go into name-calling mode instead. Figures.
> >
> >No. You are a bigot, and you have no argument, no logic, no sense. But you
> >are a coward.
>
> Wrong on all counts. But keep on name-calling, that's all you know
> how to do.
I am merely holding up a mirror that you would be well served by looking
into. You are a bigot and a coward vainly seeking some way of justifying what
you are.
> >> >It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
> >> >live, go find one and move there.
> >>
> >> Pretty expensive price, no? Ask the relatives of these few thousand
> >> folks.
> >
> >You don't know that I didn't lose someone there. You assume much. I daresay
> >most of those who lost someone would prefer that their loved ones were killed
> >for the American Ideal, not as losers like you.
>
> Oh, so it's OK that they died for your version of the "American
> Ideal",
"My" version?
> even though you have no idea what that means,
That is patently obvious. You are anti-American.
> and these folks
> didn't know their lives were on the line for this, as if they were
> soldiers.
No, they were victims. But on the basis of the existence of victims, you seek
to usurp our standard of civil rights. ANY relinquishing of our country's
freedoms, the very freedom that hundreds of thousands of humans from other
countries hold up as the highest standard, is nothing more than giving in to
the terrorists. You are a simpering coward of the worst kind. Look. I
believe in this country's strengths. You do not, and are more than willing to
give them up at the first demonstration of adversity. You are a coward. You
are an example of the worst that this country produces. I will fight for this
country's system of freedom. You will go cower under your covers, afraid to
face fighting for what we stand for. Tsk.
> >> >> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
> >> >> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
> >> >> >lifetime, moron.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
> >> >
> >> >If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
> >> >changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
> >> >happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
> >> >it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.
> >>
> >> Frankly, I think your memories are fuzzy. NOTHING like this has
> >> happened before.
> >
> >The ONLY difference is that 19 terrorists used commercial aircraft as weapons
> >of destruction. What you are advocating is even worse. You want civil rights
> >abolished, you want freedom severely curtailed, you do not want the United
> >States to be what we have been for 300 years. You want to turn the clock back
> >on the advances made in the last 40 years, advances made at the price of the
> >lives of this country's citizens...and all because you are afraid and angry.
> >You are pathetic.
>
> You've packed so many lies into one paragraph, I think you've set a
> new record. Each and every sentence is wrong, a lie, and you know it.
I spoke the truth. Too bad you can't face up to it.
> >> >> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
> >> >> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
> >> >
> >> >Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.
> >>
> >> But if that were true, then black leaders would say "we don't need
> >> affirmative action, quotas and setasides, we'll get our share fair and
> >> square."
> >
> >When this country is "fair and square", I'm sure that is what will be said.
> >When that ever actually happens.
>
> Ahhh, I just knew you'd start backing away from competing on a level
> playing ground.
The level playing ground still does not exist. I got ahead by working harder
than white males who take for granted what I had to work damn hard to
get...even though I had smarter and far better educated than 98% of those
white males. But no matter. I knew that I'd have to do that since I was very
young. My parents taught me the same lessons that Powell's and Rice's parents
taught them. In that respect, not much has realistically changed in 40 years.
> >> Your POV explains everything.
> >
> >You don't have a clue what my POV is. The best you can conjure up is a guess
> >what it is, and 99% of the time, you are incorrect.
>
> No guesses here, I'm just reading your lines. Now are you also going
> to claim someone has posted under your name, as others here have?
What in the hell are you talking about now?
> >> >You are responsible for your own stupidity.
> >>
> >> How can I be responsible for something I'm not?
> >
> >Everything you write is stupid. You couldn't think your way out of a wet
> >paper bag.
>
> Daydreaming again, eh?
Poor thing. You are just so lost.
> >> >You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.
> >>
> >> It died legally,
> >
> >It did not die. You are proof of that.
>
> How am I "proof" of that?
You'll never know since you are so steeped in denial. And you are a bigot so
you believe you are justified in what you write.
> >> All you have to do is to look at the 5 or 6 key people that are
> >> closest to President Bush in this national emergency. Not one but 2
> >> are black. That percentage is much, much higher than the overall
> >> percentage of blacks in the population.
> >
> >And you decry quotas? GMAB. Condoleeza Rice says that she got where she is
> >because not only was she qualified, she was MORE qualified than her white
> >peers, and has always had to be twice as good to get half as far. That doesn't
> >speak well of how whites perceive qualified Blacks. Even the Blacks you
> >choose to throw in my face know the playing field is not level. Powell has
> >stated this repeatedly, AND he supports affirmative action.
>
> I AM decrying quotas.
Yet you actually wrote that 2 national advisors are above the percentage of
the Black population. What an idiot you are. Why was that even a necessary
observation if you weren't "keeping track"?
> Neither Powell nor Rice are in Bush's inner
> circle at this time of crisis because of "quotas". That was my point.
That was NOT your point. YOu said their presence is much, much higher than
the overall percentage of blacks in the population. You are actually keeping
a mental quota.
> I disagree with Powell on AA, as do many folks, black and white.
Not that many Blacks. And most whites do not even understand what affirmative
action is. They, like you, believe the existence of any Black in a position
of authority means they got there through affirmative action, and then tell
Blacks they must work harder to "gain respect from whites". Utter bullshit.
> >> >> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
> >> >
> >> >Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
> >> >to those 19 terrorists?
> >>
> >> Not thousands, perhaps a few hundred,
> >
> >You cannot carry out the policy you advocate without victimizing thousands
> >based on their ancestry. It doesn't matter how you try to deny this, dress it
> >up, be disingenuous, you are doing nothing more than advocating legalized
> >bigotry and diminishment of this country's civil rights policies.
>
> Do folks who are here illegally have "civil rights"? Did MLK really
> die for them too?
Nice dodge. No cigars. There are thousands of Arabs in this country who are
here legally. You want to investigate all of them just because they are
Arabs. Weren't you one of those who agreed with DA that even the children
should be shook down? I believe you were.
> >> would fit the narrowly tailored
> >> demographic profile I'm talking about. And once more, it's NOT based
> >> on just because they "look similar". I don't understand why you can't
> >> grasp this simple concept.
> >
> >Oh, please. You are still a bigot looking for easy solutions that in the end
> >will not only be unworkable, but unproductive.
>
> Proof?
Everything you write is proof.
> >> Also once more: A majority of blacks, who presumably are more
> >> sensitive about "profiling", agree with this concept. Are THEY
> >> "bigots" too?
> >
> >And there is another example of your stupidity. Quoting a single poll that is
> >already proven factually and fatally flawed.
>
> Where is this "proof"?
You are taking this asinine disingenuous act beyond the realm of credibility.
The "proof" was provided in this very thread, this very week.
> >Give it up. Next you will be
> >joining DA who believes that Jesse Jackson has all the answers.
>
> The only smart thing Jack$on has done in recent weeks is back off
> trying inject himself into this mess, as the public opinion against it
> was overwhelming. He should stick to what he does best, profiting
> handsomely over racial "guilt" that many CEO's have.
You are truly an idiot. You won't understand this, either. This isn't about
Jackson, period, but you just couldn't resist making a gratuitous slam,
regardless.
> >> And why do you say "victimize" knee-jerk style in this context? Were
> >> the 19 helljackers "victims" too?
> >
> >The vast majority of Arabs living in this country are not only NOT sympathetic
> >to the terrorists, they are not terrorists.
>
> No one said they were.
But you want to check them out, regardless.
> >Your advocated policy will not
> >reveal the actual threat in this country. Only the intelligence and
> >immigration agencies can do that job. Heaven forbid that someone standing at
> >the airport check-in point are given the authority to check the status of your
> >"certain demographic". They are likely no more intelligent or trained than
> >you. Which means, nil.
>
> I have nothing to hide, they can run my ID thru every database they've
> got, no sweat.
What in the hell does your personal status have to do with what I wrote
above? Damn.
> >> >> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
> >> >> modern-day bigots.
> >> >
> >> >I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
> >> >modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
> >> >years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
> >> >has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
> >> >a bigot when I see him, and you're it.
> >>
> >> You're blind to all realities, and can see nothing.
> >
> >I am certainly not open to your cowardly, ignorant crapola, and I see that you
> >are full of frightened little boy, anti-American, bigot crap quite clearly.
>
> You see nothing.
I see you.
> BTW, do you approve of the role women have under
> Islam?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Why don't you go off and
play with your crayons. Maybe your mother will give you some milk and graham
crackers if you are a good little boy.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>My research is top notch and is verifiable.
And so far, unpublished. What's the big secret?
>All Wayne had to do was take me to court.
In what venue? Care to fly out to California?
Wayne "Don't wear a turban" Johnson
*************************************************
Therfore bihoveth hire a ful long spoon
That shal ete with a feend.
- Geoffrey Chaucer, from The Canterbury Tales,
"The Merchant's Tale"
Wayne Johnson
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:58:45 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
>>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>>face.
>>
>>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.
>
>Before you take this fools "research" on any topic seriously, remember
>that his "research" also led him to accuse Wayne Johnson and I off
>forging, hacking and posting kiddie porn. And he has yet to retract or
>apologize for these statements. You can go ahead and take him
>seriously if you want, but he's still a nutcase. And you know you are,
>Jerome...err... Ed.
In this case, Ed did his homework, and published it.
In his lunatic claims of a few months back, he did neither.
There's a difference.
Wayne "Anybody can see that" Johnson
gor...@gorbansk.edu
>
> The level playing ground still does not exist. I got ahead by working harder
> than white males who take for granted what I had to work damn hard to
> get...even though I had smarter and far better educated than 98% of those
> white males. But no matter. I knew that I'd have to do that since I was very
> young. My parents taught me the same lessons that Powell's and Rice's parents
> taught them. In that respect, not much has realistically changed in 40 years.
>
<snip>
>
> Not that many Blacks. And most whites do not even understand what affirmative
> action is. They, like you, believe the existence of any Black in a position
> of authority means they got there through affirmative action, and then tell
> Blacks they must work harder to "gain respect from whites". Utter bullshit.
Why don't asians demand affirmative action? White exclusion is assuredly
tougher on asian immigrants with thick accents than it is on blacks. Or
is it that asians are already overrepresented in the hard-science fields
they desire?
Affirmative action involves dumbing-down exams for civil service,
including that of school janitors in NYC of all things, as well as
Police, Fire etc. It involves setting admissions quotas called "goals"
to get around court decisions against quotas, in university graduate
schools and government hiring. Clearly, that is reverse discrimination
and it is wrong even if it makes up for discrimination - which it
doesn't - most applicants were *born* after anti-discrimination policies
were installed by the place they are applying to. Affirmative action
today is not addressing discrimination; it is fostering "diversity" for
its own sake even where not a single rejected applicant has accused the
institution or agency of minority discrimination in recent years. But
even if it did "correct" discrimination with reverse-discrimination,
didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs don't make a right, also?
BTW, Have you visited http://www.ceousa.org/ yet? There is a section on
medical schools, and it indicates that affirmative action doctors are
substandard quality.
David McDuffee
> But you will be harassing thousands of innocent people for nothing.
The fact is, we're ALREADY harassing thousands of innocent people, and
if it's not exactly "for nothing", there's undeniably a very low return
on investment.
My family and I flew to San Francisco a couple of weeks ago. On the
trip out, we were "randomly selected" for a full search, including our
checked luggage. They didn't find anything, and I was able to board
the plane carrying a knife and several "defensive" weapons. On the way
back, in addition to the knife, we carried explosives. Okay, they were
only those exploding paper balls you buy in Chinatown that pop when you
throw them against a wall, but I suppose they might have been used to
distract a serious hijacker long enough to subdue him, if one had been
flying with us.
The fact is, you will NEVER be able to prevent everyone from boarding a
plane with weapons. You need to make sure they don't carry a bomb big
enough to bring the plane down, and you need to make sure the cockpit
is secure once the plane is in the air, but pre-boarding searches are
not going to make the skies secure.
We flew out of Burbank, but (for reasons which are not important) flew
back into LAX. There, you have the "privilege" of waiting an hour for
a cab, because the Chicken Littles have decreed that it's too dangerous
to let people park their cars in the freaking LAX parking lot. And now
Hahn is proposing to make that situation PERMANENT.
When Osama bin Laden opined that "America is filled with fear, from
the north to the south, from the east to the west", I didn't want to
admit it, but when I look around there do seem to be a lot of Nervous
Nellies running the show. It's irrational and counterproductive, but
I suppose I don't expect a lot more from a nation that embraces
Nostradamus and Miss Cleo (hey, how come none of the psychic friends
warned us about 9/11 ahead of time? How come they weren't standing at
the elevator pleading with people to stay in the lobby?).
I believe we should be able to enhance security in ways which don't
undermine our quality of life, but it seems instead that we're going
to get slapped with a frenzy of cosmetic "security measures" that do
little except annoy the masses. That's a pity.
--
David McDuffee
mcdu...@best.com
Rich Thompson
> I believe we should be able to enhance security in ways which don't
> undermine our quality of life, but it seems instead that we're going
> to get slapped with a frenzy of cosmetic "security measures" that do
> little except annoy the masses. That's a pity.
Wow, this is getting scary.
Whobest54
Unknown
>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 01:04:04 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Anytime a situation occurs, such as we are in now, where a bunch of
>> >> gangsters, all of whom fit a very *narrowly* tailored demographic
>> >> profile, commit *hate crimes* against humanity.
>> >
>> >This isn't a "hate crime".
>>
>> Oh yes it was. The biggest in recorded history. Muhammed Atta and
>> his boyz HATED what we stood for. Do yer homework, read the writings
>> he left behind, and interviews with folks who met him along the way.
>
>This isn't a "hate crime". Do your own "homework". Your hyperbolic rhetoric
>is meaningless. It may sound good to you, but it is still meaningless.
Bombing 5000+ folks in the name of "religion" is NOT a hate crime?
WHAT is a hate crime then?
>> >It is war, simpleton. You are proposing to
>> >conduct war against citizens and legal residents of this country. Worse, you
>> >do not have the ability nor the training to wage this type of war. Moreover,
>> >those minimum-wage, faintly trained employees at the airport gates do not have
>> >the training, either. As a result, the only thing that can result from your
>> >disingenuous pogrom is racial/cultural/ethnic/choose-your-descriptive
>> >harassment. Unless you are proposing EVERYONE fitting the certain gender,
>> >age, and citizenship status, you are still advocating legal bigotry. Guess
>> >what? Your president has still condemned such action. What is interesting is
>> >you still refuse to acknowledge this.
>>
>> Acknowledge what? That it works? Of course it does. El-Al does it,
>> and we're doing it to, although we're not calling it profiling, for PC
>> reasons.
>
>What El-Al is doing is applied to EVERYONE, and most significantly, the El-Al
>personnel are highly trained. There is nothing in place in the U.S. that even
>remotely compares, and certainly what you propose does not. You want to apply
>it only to those of Arab descent, or those who appear to be Arabs. If this
>situation was left up to those like you, we'd all be dead.
Better do your homework on how El-Al operates. They very much do
profiling, and those of Arabic persuasion (esp young men) get a much
more stringent going over from head to toe, than an Israeli Jew, for
example.
>> Once more, the courts have always upheld this.
>
>You don't understand the court ruling, actually.
No I do, you just can't accept it. Deal with it.
>> >> >Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
>> >> >checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
>> >> >most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
>> >> >of innocent people for nothing.
>> >>
>> >> No, and you're incredibly naive for one of your age. Turns out the
>> >> majority of these helljackers had expired visas. Right there alone,
>> >> we could've grabbed some of those gangsters before they boarded the
>> >> plane.
>> >
>> >The personnel at the airport gates do not have the training to discern who may
>> >or may not be a potential terrorist. Neither do you.
>>
>> My point just sailed over your head.
>
>Your understanding of the entire situation renders you incapable of positing
>any sensible point.
No, quite the opposite.
>> This wasn't about training, this
>> was about detaining those with expired visas.
>
>It is training. Any system of determining expired visas will not be
>productive if it is only in place at airports. The airports and airlines
>don't even want to pay for minimal security that has been highly recommended
>for at least a decade. Even with what happened on 9/11, they still don't want
>to invest in any substantial security technology or training. Now you want to
>subject thousands of citizens to scrutiny, without considering the
>ramifications or viable alternatives. You really have nothing to provide
>here. You are the proverbial empty vessel.
This will not be decided by the airlines willingness (or lack thereof)
to cough up funds for the needed improvements to security. That much
should be clear to you if you've been paying attention.
>> >> And in fact, the man believed to be the "20th hijacker" (each plane
>> >> was supposed to have 5 guys) *was* picked up shortly before 9/11, thru
>> >> profiling. His behaviorial characteristics gave him away.
>> >
>> >No. The CIA and the INS caught him. Stop lying. This was reported in the
>> >news. The fact is, profiling has rarely caught any criminal. The reported
>> >statistics bear this out. There really is no reason to continue this type of
>> >law enforcement tactic.
>>
>> I didn't say the CIA/INS didn't catch him, so how am I lying?
>>
>> The authorities were alerted in response to his strange behavior .
>
>You implied that profiling caught him. This is not true. And even the tip
>made to the authorities did not involve your brand of profiling.
Yes, it did, because once alerted, the authorities started digging
deeper. And the Minnesota authorites would have dug even more, except
some bureaucrat at the FBI, thinking just like you, said no.
Too bad, because there was a small window between the time he was
carted away and 9/11. Maybe more info would have yielded warnings
about what was to happen next.
>> >> >> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
>> >> >> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
>> >> >> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
>> >> >checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> There you go again. NOT just "certain racial characteristics" which
>> >> may be illegal, but a set of *demographic* characteristics, which the
>> >> courts (even liberal ones) have said is OK.
>> >
>> >It is still bigotry. What you have been advocating isn't even within the
>> >specious decision the USSC reached.
>>
>> Actually, it's even narrower than what previous court decisions have
>> endorsed.
>
>Which makes it worse. And pure bigotry.
NO, it's actually the reverse. LESS bigotry, because no single
attribute is the sole reason for a determination.
>> >> >As I said, you are still a bigot.
>> >>
>> >> IOW, you have no argument to rebut my cold hard logic, so you need to
>> >> go into name-calling mode instead. Figures.
>> >
>> >No. You are a bigot, and you have no argument, no logic, no sense. But you
>> >are a coward.
>>
>> Wrong on all counts. But keep on name-calling, that's all you know
>> how to do.
>
>I am merely holding up a mirror that you would be well served by looking
>into. You are a bigot and a coward vainly seeking some way of justifying what
>you are.
Nope. You want to talk about bigots, ponder this. Who is more likely
to call you the "N" word today: Me, a local cop, or a young black
man? Think about it.
>> >> >It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
>> >> >live, go find one and move there.
>> >>
>> >> Pretty expensive price, no? Ask the relatives of these few thousand
>> >> folks.
>> >
>> >You don't know that I didn't lose someone there. You assume much. I daresay
>> >most of those who lost someone would prefer that their loved ones were killed
>> >for the American Ideal, not as losers like you.
>>
>> Oh, so it's OK that they died for your version of the "American
>> Ideal",
>
>"My" version?
That's what you just said.
>> even though you have no idea what that means,
>
>That is patently obvious. You are anti-American.
You really are mixed up, aren't you? WHO's the one sympathizing with
the savages who attacked us last month? [Hint: It's not me.]
>> and these folks
>> didn't know their lives were on the line for this, as if they were
>> soldiers.
>
>No, they were victims. But on the basis of the existence of victims, you seek
>to usurp our standard of civil rights. ANY relinquishing of our country's
>freedoms, the very freedom that hundreds of thousands of humans from other
>countries hold up as the highest standard, is nothing more than giving in to
>the terrorists. You are a simpering coward of the worst kind. Look. I
>believe in this country's strengths. You do not, and are more than willing to
>give them up at the first demonstration of adversity. You are a coward. You
>are an example of the worst that this country produces. I will fight for this
>country's system of freedom. You will go cower under your covers, afraid to
>face fighting for what we stand for. Tsk.
You're in denial. Today, the spokesman for Bin Laden's criminal gang,
the Al Queda, said THEY were "victims". He's learned well, listening
to folks like you over the years.
>> >> >> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
>> >> >> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
>> >> >> >lifetime, moron.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?
>> >> >
>> >> >If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
>> >> >changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
>> >> >happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
>> >> >it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.
>> >>
>> >> Frankly, I think your memories are fuzzy. NOTHING like this has
>> >> happened before.
>> >
>> >The ONLY difference is that 19 terrorists used commercial aircraft as weapons
>> >of destruction. What you are advocating is even worse. You want civil rights
>> >abolished, you want freedom severely curtailed, you do not want the United
>> >States to be what we have been for 300 years. You want to turn the clock back
>> >on the advances made in the last 40 years, advances made at the price of the
>> >lives of this country's citizens...and all because you are afraid and angry.
>> >You are pathetic.
>>
>> You've packed so many lies into one paragraph, I think you've set a
>> new record. Each and every sentence is wrong, a lie, and you know it.
>
>I spoke the truth. Too bad you can't face up to it.
OK, prove every word in that paragraph. I could use a laugh or two.
>> >> >> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
>> >> >> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.
>> >> >
>> >> >Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.
>> >>
>> >> But if that were true, then black leaders would say "we don't need
>> >> affirmative action, quotas and setasides, we'll get our share fair and
>> >> square."
>> >
>> >When this country is "fair and square", I'm sure that is what will be said.
>> >When that ever actually happens.
>>
>> Ahhh, I just knew you'd start backing away from competing on a level
>> playing ground.
>
>The level playing ground still does not exist. I got ahead by working harder
>than white males who take for granted what I had to work damn hard to
>get...even though I had smarter and far better educated than 98% of those
>white males. But no matter. I knew that I'd have to do that since I was very
>young. My parents taught me the same lessons that Powell's and Rice's parents
>taught them. In that respect, not much has realistically changed in 40 years.
Not much has changed in the past 40 years ... only in your poor mind.
Blacks who were in their prime 40 years ago would LOVE to change
places with malcontents like you.
Would Powell and Rice have been in a Presidents very innermost circle
40 years ago?
>> >> Your POV explains everything.
>> >
>> >You don't have a clue what my POV is. The best you can conjure up is a guess
>> >what it is, and 99% of the time, you are incorrect.
>>
>> No guesses here, I'm just reading your lines. Now are you also going
>> to claim someone has posted under your name, as others here have?
>
>What in the hell are you talking about now?
About your POV.
>> >> >You are responsible for your own stupidity.
>> >>
>> >> How can I be responsible for something I'm not?
>> >
>> >Everything you write is stupid. You couldn't think your way out of a wet
>> >paper bag.
>>
>> Daydreaming again, eh?
>
>Poor thing. You are just so lost.
Nope. Other way around.
>> >> >You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.
>> >>
>> >> It died legally,
>> >
>> >It did not die. You are proof of that.
>>
>> How am I "proof" of that?
>
>You'll never know since you are so steeped in denial. And you are a bigot so
>you believe you are justified in what you write.
IOW, because I'm a whitey, that makes me a bigot and racist, right?
>> >> All you have to do is to look at the 5 or 6 key people that are
>> >> closest to President Bush in this national emergency. Not one but 2
>> >> are black. That percentage is much, much higher than the overall
>> >> percentage of blacks in the population.
>> >
>> >And you decry quotas? GMAB. Condoleeza Rice says that she got where she is
>> >because not only was she qualified, she was MORE qualified than her white
>> >peers, and has always had to be twice as good to get half as far. That doesn't
>> >speak well of how whites perceive qualified Blacks. Even the Blacks you
>> >choose to throw in my face know the playing field is not level. Powell has
>> >stated this repeatedly, AND he supports affirmative action.
>>
>> I AM decrying quotas.
>
>Yet you actually wrote that 2 national advisors are above the percentage of
>the Black population. What an idiot you are. Why was that even a necessary
>observation if you weren't "keeping track"?
Nothing to keep track: It's very evident.
One reason why I believe GWB will get a lot more than 10% of the black
vote in 2004.
>> Neither Powell nor Rice are in Bush's inner
>> circle at this time of crisis because of "quotas". That was my point.
>
>That was NOT your point. YOu said their presence is much, much higher than
>the overall percentage of blacks in the population. You are actually keeping
>a mental quota.
You're twisting things.
>> I disagree with Powell on AA, as do many folks, black and white.
>
>Not that many Blacks. And most whites do not even understand what affirmative
>action is. They, like you, believe the existence of any Black in a position
>of authority means they got there through affirmative action, and then tell
>Blacks they must work harder to "gain respect from whites". Utter bullshit.
Isn't that another reason why AA no longer serves its purpose?
>> >> >> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?
>> >> >
>> >> >Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
>> >> >to those 19 terrorists?
>> >>
>> >> Not thousands, perhaps a few hundred,
>> >
>> >You cannot carry out the policy you advocate without victimizing thousands
>> >based on their ancestry. It doesn't matter how you try to deny this, dress it
>> >up, be disingenuous, you are doing nothing more than advocating legalized
>> >bigotry and diminishment of this country's civil rights policies.
>>
>> Do folks who are here illegally have "civil rights"? Did MLK really
>> die for them too?
>
>Nice dodge. No cigars. There are thousands of Arabs in this country who are
>here legally. You want to investigate all of them just because they are
>Arabs. Weren't you one of those who agreed with DA that even the children
>should be shook down? I believe you were.
Not "shook down" but not exempt (or coddled) either. Not quite the
same thing. ALL kids today are indulged, way too much.
Back to my question, which *you* dodged, not I: Do folks who are
here illegally have "civil rights"? Did MLK really die for them too?
>> >> would fit the narrowly tailored
>> >> demographic profile I'm talking about. And once more, it's NOT based
>> >> on just because they "look similar". I don't understand why you can't
>> >> grasp this simple concept.
>> >
>> >Oh, please. You are still a bigot looking for easy solutions that in the end
>> >will not only be unworkable, but unproductive.
>>
>> Proof?
>
>Everything you write is proof.
IOW, you have nothing to hang yer hat on.
>> >> Also once more: A majority of blacks, who presumably are more
>> >> sensitive about "profiling", agree with this concept. Are THEY
>> >> "bigots" too?
>> >
>> >And there is another example of your stupidity. Quoting a single poll that is
>> >already proven factually and fatally flawed.
>>
>> Where is this "proof"?
>
>You are taking this asinine disingenuous act beyond the realm of credibility.
>The "proof" was provided in this very thread, this very week.
Where is it?
>> >Give it up. Next you will be
>> >joining DA who believes that Jesse Jackson has all the answers.
>>
>> The only smart thing Jack$on has done in recent weeks is back off
>> trying inject himself into this mess, as the public opinion against it
>> was overwhelming. He should stick to what he does best, profiting
>> handsomely over racial "guilt" that many CEO's have.
>
>You are truly an idiot. You won't understand this, either. This isn't about
>Jackson, period, but you just couldn't resist making a gratuitous slam,
>regardless.
YOU raised his name, not me. Silly.
Hint: If you don't want to see gratitious (but well-deserved)
statements about ol' Jesse, don't bring up his name.
>> >> And why do you say "victimize" knee-jerk style in this context? Were
>> >> the 19 helljackers "victims" too?
>> >
>> >The vast majority of Arabs living in this country are not only NOT sympathetic
>> >to the terrorists, they are not terrorists.
>>
>> No one said they were.
>
>But you want to check them out, regardless.
Only those who fit the profile of Bin Laden's gangsters. A very small
percentage of Arab-Americans. I have addressed this hundreds of times
here, quit playing dumb.
>> >Your advocated policy will not
>> >reveal the actual threat in this country. Only the intelligence and
>> >immigration agencies can do that job. Heaven forbid that someone standing at
>> >the airport check-in point are given the authority to check the status of your
>> >"certain demographic". They are likely no more intelligent or trained than
>> >you. Which means, nil.
>>
>> I have nothing to hide, they can run my ID thru every database they've
>> got, no sweat.
>
>What in the hell does your personal status have to do with what I wrote
>above? Damn.
You raised the issue. Go back and read yer words, carefully.
>> >> >> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
>> >> >> modern-day bigots.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
>> >> >modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
>> >> >years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
>> >> >has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
>> >> >a bigot when I see him, and you're it.
>> >>
>> >> You're blind to all realities, and can see nothing.
>> >
>> >I am certainly not open to your cowardly, ignorant crapola, and I see that you
>> >are full of frightened little boy, anti-American, bigot crap quite clearly.
>>
>> You see nothing.
>
>I see you.
Good for you. I was beginning to think you were blind.
>> BTW, do you approve of the role women have under
>> Islam?
>
>What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Why don't you go off and
>play with your crayons. Maybe your mother will give you some milk and graham
>crackers if you are a good little boy.
Nice rant, and another dodge.
It's been many decades since my momma gave me anything, if you want to
go trash-talking about someone else's momma, I suggest you try another
newsgroup. I won't bring up your momma, because I have higher
standards than that.
So, how about the way women are treated in most Muslim countries, eh?
The Devil's Advocate©
McDuffee) wrote:
>When Osama bin Laden opined that "America is filled with fear, from
>the north to the south, from the east to the west", I didn't want to
>admit it, but when I look around there do seem to be a lot of Nervous
>Nellies running the show.
It's something we're not used to. Of course people in places like
Afghanstan don't walk around as worried as us, war and death is all
they've ever known. Americans aren't used to seeing massive amounts of
civilians killed in our own backyard. When it happens, it's a hell of
a shock and paranoia is certainly understandable. Today, I was on the
110 freeway heading for downtown L.A. I was just about to get off the
freeway when I saw a Southwest plane heading right in the direction of
the buildings and it was flying very low. Of course it's just the
normal flight path of planes approaching LAX from the north or West to
swing out over downtown L.A. and then on into LAX, but maybe because
of the clouds, this plane was flying lower than normal to keep
visibility, but when I saw it, my heart nearly jumped out of my chest
for a second, and if I were inside one of the skyscrapers, I would've
freaked if you saw how low this 737 was flying. If the 9/11 attack
hadn't happened, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. Now I wonder
how all the people in those office buildings feel. 100s of planes a
day fly that same route circling right over the skyscrapers and into
LAX. These people must think every plane approaching is suspect. Could
you blame them?
> It's irrational and counterproductive, but
>I suppose I don't expect a lot more from a nation that embraces
>Nostradamus and Miss Cleo (hey, how come none of the psychic friends
>warned us about 9/11 ahead of time?
Well, how many people really follow that stuff?
Kaiju
SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 14:55:24 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
nd, and interviews with folks who met him along the way.
> >
> >This isn't a "hate crime". Do your own "homework". Your hyperbolic rhetoric
> >is meaningless. It may sound good to you, but it is still meaningless.
>
> Bombing 5000+ folks in the name of "religion" is NOT a hate crime?
> WHAT is a hate crime then?
It is not a hate crime. It will not show up on the FBI report as a hate
crime. It does not fall within the legal definition of a hate crime. It is
exactly what the U.S. government calls it: an act of terrorism.
> >What El-Al is doing is applied to EVERYONE, and most significantly, the El-Al
> >personnel are highly trained. There is nothing in place in the U.S. that even
> >remotely compares, and certainly what you propose does not. You want to apply
> >it only to those of Arab descent, or those who appear to be Arabs. If this
> >situation was left up to those like you, we'd all be dead.
>
> Better do your homework on how El-Al operates. They very much do
> profiling, and those of Arabic persuasion (esp young men) get a much
> more stringent going over from head to toe, than an Israeli Jew, for
> example.
From the report, it is apparent the scrutiny is applied to everyone. Israeli
Jews do not get a pass. Lest you forget, there are some Israeli extremists
that would not be above committing an act of terrorism against Israel.
> >> Once more, the courts have always upheld this.
> >
> >You don't understand the court ruling, actually.
>
> No I do, you just can't accept it. Deal with it.
You do not understand the court ruling. You are perverting what was already
essentially a perversion.
> >> >The personnel at the airport gates do not have the training to discern who may
> >> >or may not be a potential terrorist. Neither do you.
> >>
> >> My point just sailed over your head.
> >
> >Your understanding of the entire situation renders you incapable of positing
> >any sensible point.
>
> No, quite the opposite.
Only in your state of constant denial, perhaps.
> >> This wasn't about training, this
> >> was about detaining those with expired visas.
> >
> >It is training. Any system of determining expired visas will not be
> >productive if it is only in place at airports. The airports and airlines
> >don't even want to pay for minimal security that has been highly recommended
> >for at least a decade. Even with what happened on 9/11, they still don't want
> >to invest in any substantial security technology or training. Now you want to
> >subject thousands of citizens to scrutiny, without considering the
> >ramifications or viable alternatives. You really have nothing to provide
> >here. You are the proverbial empty vessel.
>
> This will not be decided by the airlines willingness (or lack thereof)
> to cough up funds for the needed improvements to security. That much
> should be clear to you if you've been paying attention.
You apparently only pay attention to what suits your agenda, and gleefully
ignore the rest.
> >> I didn't say the CIA/INS didn't catch him, so how am I lying?
> >>
> >> The authorities were alerted in response to his strange behavior .
> >
> >You implied that profiling caught him. This is not true. And even the tip
> >made to the authorities did not involve your brand of profiling.
>
> Yes, it did, because once alerted, the authorities started digging
> deeper.
Because of the tip, not because of profiling.
> >> Actually, it's even narrower than what previous court decisions have
> >> endorsed.
> >
> >Which makes it worse. And pure bigotry.
>
> NO, it's actually the reverse. LESS bigotry, because no single
> attribute is the sole reason for a determination.
Yet below you slipped and admitted that you believe all Arabs, even those who
are citizens and legal residents of this country, are terrorists and should be
treated as such. Of course, that is no big revelation.
> >I am merely holding up a mirror that you would be well served by looking
> >into. You are a bigot and a coward vainly seeking some way of justifying what
> >you are.
>
> Nope. You want to talk about bigots, ponder this.
Using racial epithets is not the only criterion of someone being a bigot. You
are a bigot, regardless.
> >> >> >It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
> >> >> >live, go find one and move there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pretty expensive price, no? Ask the relatives of these few thousand
> >> >> folks.
> >> >
> >> >You don't know that I didn't lose someone there. You assume much. I daresay
> >> >most of those who lost someone would prefer that their loved ones were killed
> >> >for the American Ideal, not as losers like you.
> >>
> >> Oh, so it's OK that they died for your version of the "American
> >> Ideal",
> >
> >"My" version?
>
> That's what you just said.
I definitely did not say that, and I'm leaving what I did write as proof.
There is no "version" of the American Ideal, mine or otherwise. There is only
one. Pity that you do not realize this.
> >> even though you have no idea what that means,
> >
> >That is patently obvious. You are anti-American.
>
> You really are mixed up, aren't you? WHO's the one sympathizing with
> the savages who attacked us last month? [Hint: It's not me.]
"Sympathizing with the savages..."? And which "savages" are those? U.S.
citizens and legal residents who just happen to be of Arab ancestry? Hmmmmm?
Damn. You just can't prevent yourself from displaying the depths of your
bigotry. Tsk.
> >> and these folks
> >> didn't know their lives were on the line for this, as if they were
> >> soldiers.
> >
> >No, they were victims. But on the basis of the existence of victims, you seek
> >to usurp our standard of civil rights. ANY relinquishing of our country's
> >freedoms, the very freedom that hundreds of thousands of humans from other
> >countries hold up as the highest standard, is nothing more than giving in to
> >the terrorists. You are a simpering coward of the worst kind. Look. I
> >believe in this country's strengths. You do not, and are more than willing to
> >give them up at the first demonstration of adversity. You are a coward. You
> >are an example of the worst that this country produces. I will fight for this
> >country's system of freedom. You will go cower under your covers, afraid to
> >face fighting for what we stand for. Tsk.
>
> You're in denial. Today, the spokesman for Bin Laden's criminal gang,
> the Al Queda, said THEY were "victims". He's learned well, listening
> to folks like you over the years.
What in the hell are you blabbering about now? I address those killed in NYC,
Pennsylvania, and DC, and you go on about Bin Laden? What kind of nutcase are
you, anyway? Besides a cowardly, xenophobic bigot, that is.
> >> >> Frankly, I think your memories are fuzzy. NOTHING like this has
> >> >> happened before.
> >> >
> >> >The ONLY difference is that 19 terrorists used commercial aircraft as weapons
> >> >of destruction. What you are advocating is even worse. You want civil rights
> >> >abolished, you want freedom severely curtailed, you do not want the United
> >> >States to be what we have been for 300 years. You want to turn the clock back
> >> >on the advances made in the last 40 years, advances made at the price of the
> >> >lives of this country's citizens...and all because you are afraid and angry.
> >> >You are pathetic.
> >>
> >> You've packed so many lies into one paragraph, I think you've set a
> >> new record. Each and every sentence is wrong, a lie, and you know it.
> >
> >I spoke the truth. Too bad you can't face up to it.
>
> OK, prove every word in that paragraph. I could use a laugh or two.
The last gasp of a loser's argument. Asking for "proof" of what is already
proven.
> >> >When this country is "fair and square", I'm sure that is what will be said.
> >> >When that ever actually happens.
> >>
> >> Ahhh, I just knew you'd start backing away from competing on a level
> >> playing ground.
> >
> >The level playing ground still does not exist. I got ahead by working harder
> >than white males who take for granted what I had to work damn hard to
> >get...even though I had smarter and far better educated than 98% of those
> >white males. But no matter. I knew that I'd have to do that since I was very
> >young. My parents taught me the same lessons that Powell's and Rice's parents
> >taught them. In that respect, not much has realistically changed in 40 years.
>
> Not much has changed in the past 40 years ... only in your poor mind.
> Blacks who were in their prime 40 years ago would LOVE to change
> places with malcontents like you.
Blacks who were in their prime 40 years ago wonder why Blacks like me and
younger are so complacent. You do not know any Blacks to know otherwise.
> Would Powell and Rice have been in a Presidents very innermost circle
> 40 years ago?
What about the other 32,999,998, (give or take a handful), Blacks?
> >> >> Your POV explains everything.
> >> >
> >> >You don't have a clue what my POV is. The best you can conjure up is a guess
> >> >what it is, and 99% of the time, you are incorrect.
> >>
> >> No guesses here, I'm just reading your lines. Now are you also going
> >> to claim someone has posted under your name, as others here have?
> >
> >What in the hell are you talking about now?
>
> About your POV.
You do not have a clue what my POV is.
> >> >> It died legally,
> >> >
> >> >It did not die. You are proof of that.
> >>
> >> How am I "proof" of that?
> >
> >You'll never know since you are so steeped in denial. And you are a bigot so
> >you believe you are justified in what you write.
>
> IOW, because I'm a whitey, that makes me a bigot and racist, right?
Tsk. Your stupidity goes beyond words. There are millions of whites who
would not want to be identified or associated with the likes you, and never
would I deign to insult them in that manner.
> >> I AM decrying quotas.
> >
> >Yet you actually wrote that 2 national advisors are above the percentage of
> >the Black population. What an idiot you are. Why was that even a necessary
> >observation if you weren't "keeping track"?
>
> Nothing to keep track: It's very evident.
Yet you felt compelled to make it an issue. Tsk. Those two individuals hold
their positions because they are the best for the job, not because they are
some percentage of the Black population. Their relative representation of the
Black population is completely immaterial.
> One reason why I believe GWB will get a lot more than 10% of the black
> vote in 2004.
Because he appointed two Blacks to his cabinet? You really are out of touch.
> >> Neither Powell nor Rice are in Bush's inner
> >> circle at this time of crisis because of "quotas". That was my point.
> >
> >That was NOT your point. YOu said their presence is much, much higher than
> >the overall percentage of blacks in the population. You are actually keeping
> >a mental quota.
>
> You're twisting things.
No. I am being quite straightforward about "things". You are pissed because
you got caught with your pants hanging around your ankles, all the while bent
over begging for more.
> >> I disagree with Powell on AA, as do many folks, black and white.
> >
> >Not that many Blacks. And most whites do not even understand what affirmative
> >action is. They, like you, believe the existence of any Black in a position
> >of authority means they got there through affirmative action, and then tell
> >Blacks they must work harder to "gain respect from whites". Utter bullshit.
>
> Isn't that another reason why AA no longer serves its purpose?
To relieve you of your proclivity for being a racist and a bigot? That would
be the last reason in my mind for eliminating "affirmative action". You and
other racists would simply just find other "reasons" to be racist.
> >> >You cannot carry out the policy you advocate without victimizing thousands
> >> >based on their ancestry. It doesn't matter how you try to deny this, dress it
> >> >up, be disingenuous, you are doing nothing more than advocating legalized
> >> >bigotry and diminishment of this country's civil rights policies.
> >>
> >> Do folks who are here illegally have "civil rights"? Did MLK really
> >> die for them too?
> >
> >Nice dodge. No cigars. There are thousands of Arabs in this country who are
> >here legally. You want to investigate all of them just because they are
> >Arabs. Weren't you one of those who agreed with DA that even the children
> >should be shook down? I believe you were.
>
> Not "shook down" but not exempt (or coddled) either. Not quite the
> same thing. ALL kids today are indulged, way too much.
You are an idiot. You also have no concept of the laws, both statutory and
long established by case law, of this country.
> Back to my question, which *you* dodged, not I: Do folks who are
> here illegally have "civil rights"? Did MLK really die for them too?
I did not "dodge" anything. I openly ignored your irrelevant, frankly
ignorant, question. I am still ignoring it. In fact, I will continue to
ignore it.
> >> >> Also once more: A majority of blacks, who presumably are more
> >> >> sensitive about "profiling", agree with this concept. Are THEY
> >> >> "bigots" too?
> >> >
> >> >And there is another example of your stupidity. Quoting a single poll that is
> >> >already proven factually and fatally flawed.
> >>
> >> Where is this "proof"?
> >
> >You are taking this asinine disingenuous act beyond the realm of credibility.
> >The "proof" was provided in this very thread, this very week.
>
> Where is it?
If you can't find it on your hard drive, I suggest you pull up this thread in
google and read it. Since it was just a matter of a few days ago, I am
certain it is easily found on the server. Sheeesh. You really are a loser.
You need to get new material.
> >> >Give it up. Next you will be
> >> >joining DA who believes that Jesse Jackson has all the answers.
> >>
> >> The only smart thing Jack$on has done in recent weeks is back off
> >> trying inject himself into this mess, as the public opinion against it
> >> was overwhelming. He should stick to what he does best, profiting
> >> handsomely over racial "guilt" that many CEO's have.
> >
> >You are truly an idiot. You won't understand this, either. This isn't about
> >Jackson, period, but you just couldn't resist making a gratuitous slam,
> >regardless.
>
> YOU raised his name, not me. Silly.
You are the one who went on a tangent with yet more irrelevant "information",
with the apparent belief that I will find some reason to defend Jackson. Grow
the hell up, already. Your standard material is so stale, it is growing mold.
> >> >> And why do you say "victimize" knee-jerk style in this context? Were
> >> >> the 19 helljackers "victims" too?
> >> >
> >> >The vast majority of Arabs living in this country are not only NOT sympathetic
> >> >to the terrorists, they are not terrorists.
> >>
> >> No one said they were.
> >
> >But you want to check them out, regardless.
>
> Only those who fit the profile of Bin Laden's gangsters. A very small
> percentage of Arab-Americans. I have addressed this hundreds of times
> here, quit playing dumb.
You are the one who referred to all U.S. citizens and legal residents of Arab
ancestry as "savages".
> >> >Your advocated policy will not
> >> >reveal the actual threat in this country. Only the intelligence and
> >> >immigration agencies can do that job. Heaven forbid that someone standing at
> >> >the airport check-in point are given the authority to check the status of your
> >> >"certain demographic". They are likely no more intelligent or trained than
> >> >you. Which means, nil.
> >>
> >> I have nothing to hide, they can run my ID thru every database they've
> >> got, no sweat.
> >
> >What in the hell does your personal status have to do with what I wrote
> >above? Damn.
>
> You raised the issue. Go back and read yer words, carefully.
I never once referred to your personal status. I left what I wrote to satisfy
your requirement for <cough> "proof". If you are having difficulty
comprehending what I wrote, I suggest you read the previous posts and then
re-read what I wrote...this time in context. I don't give a flying fig what
your personal status may be. That you are a known bigot and more than a
little stupid is sufficient.
> >> >> You're blind to all realities, and can see nothing.
> >> >
> >> >I am certainly not open to your cowardly, ignorant crapola, and I see that you
> >> >are full of frightened little boy, anti-American, bigot crap quite clearly.
> >>
> >> You see nothing.
> >
> >I see you.
>
> Good for you. I was beginning to think you were blind.
Then we agree. You are a cowardly, ignorant bigot.
> >> BTW, do you approve of the role women have under
> >> Islam?
> >
> >What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Why don't you go off and
> >play with your crayons. Maybe your mother will give you some milk and graham
> >crackers if you are a good little boy.
>
> Nice rant, and another dodge.
No. Just another instance where your irrelevant, immaterial, totally stupid
question deserves to be ignored, and will remain unanswered.
> It's been many decades since my momma gave me anything, if you want to
> go trash-talking about someone else's momma, I suggest you try another
> newsgroup. I won't bring up your momma, because I have higher
> standards than that.
You are really a dimwit. I trashed you. I said nothing about your mother
other than she should keep you busy with some milk and graham crackers.
Suitable distraction for children such as yourself. If you prefer, your
kindergarten teacher can give you the treat. Whichever. With your mouth and
hands full, perhaps you'll stop asking hyperactively stupid questions that are
ultimately incoherent.
Rich Thompson
> It's something we're not used to. Of course people in places like
> Afghanstan don't walk around as worried as us, war and death is all
> they've ever known. Americans aren't used to seeing massive amounts
> of civilians killed in our own backyard.
I understand what you are saying, but from an individual perspective,
it doesn't make a lot of sense.
We are all, as individuals, much more likely to die of something else.
Even just in the domain of murder, we are more likely to be carjacked
or mugged or killed in a home invasion than be part of a massive
terrorist attack victim list.
Anyone who had this attack change their view of their safety wasn't
dealing with reality before the attack.
This is the reality:
As human beings, we are all going to die.
We are all extremely vulnerable to death and to violence.
When you drive you are just one stupid decision *by someone else* away
from death.
At any point in time, some lunatic who just bought a gun could decide
he doesn't like how you look. A coworker could go postal. Someone
could decide you look like you're carrying more money than you should.
Hell, let's talk about the really likely events. You will probably die
of heart disease or cancer.
Face it, you have always needed to be ready for the possibility that
you will die.
The Devil's Advocate©
Thompson) wrote:
>
>I understand what you are saying, but from an individual perspective,
>it doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
>We are all, as individuals, much more likely to die of something else.
>Even just in the domain of murder, we are more likely to be carjacked
>or mugged or killed in a home invasion than be part of a massive
>terrorist attack victim list.
>
>Anyone who had this attack change their view of their safety wasn't
>dealing with reality before the attack.
>
>This is the reality:
>
>As human beings, we are all going to die.
>
>We are all extremely vulnerable to death and to violence.
>
>When you drive you are just one stupid decision *by someone else* away
>from death.
>
>At any point in time, some lunatic who just bought a gun could decide
>he doesn't like how you look. A coworker could go postal. Someone
>could decide you look like you're carrying more money than you should.
>
>Hell, let's talk about the really likely events. You will probably die
>of heart disease or cancer.
>
>Face it, you have always needed to be ready for the possibility that
>you will die.
But here lies the difference, the reason people have a
disporportionate amount of fear for terrorism, or plane crashes for
that matter is because it is so indiscriminate. When people die of
other causes, we all think, "well, if I don't want to die of cancer,
I'll change my health habits, if I don't want to robbed, I can move to
a safer neighborhood, if I don't want to die in a car accident, I can
drive more defensively and not drink and drive, etc". But when you're
dealing with terrorism, we know that there is no way to prevent being
a victim other than possibly living in a shack in the woods(which
isn't realistic for the majority of us).There is little we can
personally do in our lives to minimize the risk of being the victim of
terrorism. I think that's what gives it the dramatic edge. Every other
way of dying, we humans rationalize by thinking that "that couldn't
happen to me, that was entirely preventable." When people die in ways
that gave them little control of the situation that led to their
death, we freak out, because for once, we're forced to say, "damn,
that could've happened to me." Which is why 200 people can die in car
crashes a day and it doesn't make the news, but if a plane goes down
with half that number of people, it's news for weeks.
Justin Samuels
The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
People who live very "healthy' lifestyels still get cancer, and there is
those who smoke until they are 100.
if I don't want to robbed, I can move to
> a safer neighborhood,
Murders and robberies do occur in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
if I don't want to die in a car accident, I can
> drive more defensively and not drink and drive, etc".
You still can not be totally protected against the actions of others.
But when you're
> dealing with terrorism, we know that there is no way to prevent being
> a victim other than possibly living in a shack in the woods(which
> isn't realistic for the majority of us).There is little we can
> personally do in our lives to minimize the risk of being the victim of
> terrorism. I think that's what gives it the dramatic edge. Every other
> way of dying, we humans rationalize by thinking that "that couldn't
> happen to me, that was entirely preventable."
But those rationalizations are quite wrong.
When people die in ways
> that gave them little control of the situation that led to their
> death, we freak out, because for once, we're forced to say, "damn,
> that could've happened to me." Which is why 200 people can die in car
> crashes a day and it doesn't make the news, but if a plane goes down
> with half that number of people, it's news for weeks.
People who get cancer or die car accidents may have not no control over
the situation. Shit happens, regardless.
>
Rich Thompson
> But here lies the difference, the reason people have a
> disporportionate amount of fear for terrorism, or plane crashes for
> that matter is because it is so indiscriminate. When people die of
> other causes, we all think, "well, if I don't want to die of cancer,
> I'll change my health habits, if I don't want to robbed, I can move to
> a safer neighborhood, if I don't want to die in a car accident, I can
> drive more defensively and not drink and drive, etc".
But none of those are safety guarantees, as much as people would like
to think they are. I work with cancer patients; a lot of them have
had no bad health habits to speak of. You can occasionally change your
odds somewhat, but death is and has always been indiscriminate.
> terrorism. I think that's what gives it the dramatic edge. Every other
> way of dying, we humans rationalize by thinking that "that couldn't
> happen to me, that was entirely preventable." When people die in ways
> that gave them little control of the situation that led to their
> death, we freak out, because for once, we're forced to say, "damn,
> that could've happened to me." Which is why 200 people can die in car
> crashes a day and it doesn't make the news, but if a plane goes down
> with half that number of people, it's news for weeks.
Probably true, but this is perception, not reality. A lot of people
die in car crashes through absolutely no fault of their own. Hell, I
will never forget a couple of years ago where I used to live, a woman
was doing the commute home from work, when a big-ass chunk of concrete
fell off the overpass she was driving under and went through her
windshield, killing her instantly. There was nothing she could have
done to have prevented that.
David McDuffee
> Wow, this is getting scary.
I assume because we agree again?
Imagine how I must feel, agreeing not only with you, but close to quoting
that New Deal Democrat extraordinaire's "We have nothing to fear but fear
itself." I think "nothing" is probably overstating the case, but would
be comfortable with "We have nothing to fear so much as fear itself."
--
David McDuffee
mcdu...@best.com
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>>According to the chart you posted, if we were to go with a sample size
>>of 100 at near 70%, the error margin would be 12 points.
>
>Uhhhh...
>No it wouldn't.
>
>Let me walk your stupid ass through the process.
>
>At a sample size of 100, for near 70%, margin of error is 12.
>
>But you didn't *WANT* to notice a pattern that is *VERY* important.
>
>Population | Error
>---------------------------
> 1500 | 3
> 1000 | 4
> 750 | 4
> 600 | 5
> 400 | 6
> 200 | 8
> 100 | 12
>
>Do you see a pattern here?
Of course I noticed it, stupid ass. Which is why I estimated at 15. If
we are looking at difference of 2 between 400-200(200pt difference)
and a difference of 4 between 200-100(100pt difference), And error of
3 would be reasonable if we were looking at the difference between
100-70(30pt difference). I took that into consideration, check you
damned figures.
If 70 had been the next slot on the chart, we wouldn't expect the full
jump in error as we have with the other figures, as it would be a
comparatively small change in population size, only 30points, not 100,
200, 250, or 500.
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>Then stop mentioning him.
>
>It's as simple as that.
Don't tell me who I can mention. You aren't the damned moderater and
no one asked you to be. I don't take any orders from you, little girl.
gor...@gorbansk.edu
At least they didn't curse me like the white liberals on the
alt.politics.* groups I pasted it to. Blacks love their white liberal
masters, without realizing liberals' power lust over people's lives is
the latest incarnation of nazism. BTW, what the hell did this have to do
with the Beatles?
Whobest54 wrote:
>
> gor...@gorbansk.edu wrote:
>
> > Kaiju wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > The level playing ground still does not exist. I got ahead by working harder
> > > than white males who take for granted what I had to work damn hard to
> > > get...even though I had smarter and far better educated than 98% of those
> > > white males. But no matter. I knew that I'd have to do that since I was very
> > > young. My parents taught me the same lessons that Powell's and Rice's parents
> > > taught them. In that respect, not much has realistically changed in 40 years.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Not that many Blacks. And most whites do not even understand what affirmative
> > > action is. They, like you, believe the existence of any Black in a position
> > > of authority means they got there through affirmative action, and then tell
> > > Blacks they must work harder to "gain respect from whites". Utter bullshit.
> >
> > Why don't asians demand affirmative action? White exclusion is assuredly
> > tougher on asian immigrants with thick accents than it is on blacks. Or
> > is it that asians are already overrepresented in the hard-science fields
> > they desire?
May I add from hard work and good genetics for intelligence.
Eugene Holman
wrote:
> >So, you are proposing that everyone of a certain gender, age, and citizenship
> >status should be checked? Or just those who appear to be of middle-eastern
> >ancestry?
>
> Anytime a situation occurs, such as we are in now, where a bunch of
> gangsters, all of whom fit a very *narrowly* tailored demographic
> profile, commit *hate crimes* against humanity.
News has it now that most of those hijackers did not know they were on
a suicide mission until the airplane had been hijacked by the
"designated pilot", who did know. Talk about cynicism and
deceitfulness. How are you going to protect yourself against criminals
who aren't aware of the gravity of what they are doing until it's too
late to stop?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Byker
news:141020011822207613%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi...
> News has it now that most of those hijackers did not know they were on
> a suicide mission until the airplane had been hijacked by the
> "designated pilot", who did know. Talk about cynicism and
> deceitfulness. How are you going to protect yourself against criminals
> who aren't aware of the gravity of what they are doing until it's too
> late to stop?
Admit it, Eugene: Back before you renounced your American citizenship, you
were fair game to follow any Pied Piper, just as long as he was black and
offered an alternative to the crummy lifestyle you had back then....
DarkStar
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:
Tsk tsk tsk.
An error of 3 would not be reasonable because of the accelerating rate
of change of the error. Your guess doesn't account for that rate of
change.
And again, you don't address the fact that no sociological polls are
considered valid with a sample poll size of less than 100.
Look at the page again:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm
It's a 95% confidence level. It's 95 out of 100.
>If 70 had been the next slot on the chart, we wouldn't expect the full
>jump in error as we have with the other figures, as it would be a
>comparatively small change in population size, only 30points, not 100,
>200, 250, or 500.
That's not correct. With a smaller sample size, you *WOULD* expect a
larger jump because you have a smaller pool to allow for "corrective"
responses.
Gabage in, garbage out. At any sample size < 100, you're dealing with
garbage.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.toad.net/~darkstar/public_key.html
DarkStar
Thompson) put forth:
>The Devil's Advocate? <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<hoc9st47clhmvcfip...@4ax.com>...
>
>> But here lies the difference, the reason people have a
>> disporportionate amount of fear for terrorism, or plane crashes for
>> that matter is because it is so indiscriminate. When people die of
>> other causes, we all think, "well, if I don't want to die of cancer,
>> I'll change my health habits, if I don't want to robbed, I can move to
>> a safer neighborhood, if I don't want to die in a car accident, I can
>> drive more defensively and not drink and drive, etc".
>
>But none of those are safety guarantees, as much as people would like
>to think they are. I work with cancer patients; a lot of them have
>had no bad health habits to speak of. You can occasionally change your
>odds somewhat, but death is and has always been indiscriminate.
D.A. is a punk. At every noise, he's peeing in his diapers.
User271120
Why have niether I or anyone else I know of been asked anything?
I question the validity of the"polls".
Unknown
There are 35 million blacks in the country. Do you know ALL of them?
As of poll validity, just look at elections. They usually get it
right, so they've got their methodology down pretty good.
Wayne Johnson
You're buying into a sample of 75 people?
I wouldn't even try to calculate a margin of error on less than 1,500
responses.
Wayne "Can't even find a standard deviation with 75 sampled out of a
35 million population" Johnson