RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal

RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Jaybeee -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 3:16:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Presumptions at war with presumably reliable statistics have no proper place in the analysis of this issue Thats what they said. Muslims are the ones who blow up planes. I want them profiled getting on planes. If Christians blow up abortion clinics, I want them profiled going into abortion clinics. Should be clear now. Good luck with that. I'm a Christian absolutely and utterly, and I look LESS like a Christian that most do. I regularly engage in promiscuous sex, excess alcohol (not regularly but often) but that doesn't stop me believing. Any attempt to profile is ultimately self-defeating as an extremist group will choose it's most atypical member for a mission. As for the 10 signs on how to spot islamic terrorists...isn't one of them to look for cheek skin that is consipicuously lighter, having been freshly shaved, than the rest of the cheek?

truckinslave -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 3:31:42 PM)
Why, yes it is. Of course, no single one is conclusive, and one is not applicable in certain weather conditions. But they claim that everyone who has been observed matching all 10 was a suicide bomber.

DomKen -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 3:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave "US v Armstrong was ruled that the defendant had not proven his claim not that profiling was legal." He claimed to have been profiled. Read the entire opinion. I'll help. From the second paragraph: quote: Held: For a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that he was singled out for prosecution on the basis of his race, he must make a threshold showing that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. Pp. 4-14. IOW the defendant had to prove he was prosecuted based on his race. It is made clear that if it was proven it would have been ok for the lower courts to dismiss the case.

Jaybeee -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 3:51:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Why, yes it is. Of course, no single one is conclusive, and one is not applicable in certain weather conditions. But they claim that everyone who has been observed matching all 10 was a suicide bomber. Oh don't be coy. Any fool can deduce you're talking about cold weather making it easier to conceal explosives under winter clothing.

truckinslave -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 4:39:32 PM)
Exactly. Heavy or generally inappropriate, loose clothing is one of the ten.

AnimusRex -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 4:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave That was Rohrbacher you and your site tried to malign, not Dornan, who has been out of the House for well over a decade. No one is looking for a new axis of evil- two of the original three are still pursuing nuclear terror, nobody yearns for the Confederacy despite your pathetic lillte guilty liberal weakness, etc etc etc. You attempts at superiority, both moral and intellectual, sometimes rise above parody; this is just farcical. When you are right, you are right- I meant Rohrabacher, and typed Dornan; But in fact, much of the Southern Republican base DOES in fact yearn for, romantacize, and apologize for, the Confederacy. It isn't liberals who are celebrating Confederate History Month, throwing mock Confederate Inauguration Balls, and endlessly trying to claim that black people really, really, liked the Confederacy. On topic in that racial profiling, and its companion, racial oppression, is what the Right yearns for; all this stuff about security and the need for it is just an excuse. It isn't liberals who constantly beat the drum for increased police power, for open ended wars, and it isn't liberals who are always shouting for more security.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 4:52:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex On topic in that racial profiling, and its companion, racial oppression, is what the Right yearns for; How are they companions, and once again you spout total bullshit about what the "right" or "conservatives" want, believe or identify with. Please stop until you know wtf youre talking about.

truckinslave -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 4:54:10 PM)
Held: For a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that he was singled out for prosecution on the basis of his race, he must make a threshold showing that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. Pp. 4-14. One of us is misreading that and it isn't me. You are aware SCOTUS was reinstating an improperly dismissed conviction? I don't see us failing to prosecute Christians caught trying to blow up airplanes....

AnimusRex -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/11/2010 5:25:39 PM)
Racial profiling is the companion of racial oppression, since once you label a racial group as dangerous, it inevitably leads to their being shunned, feared and hated. Kind of like how calling a school pageant a "holiday" party instead of Christmas, inevitably leads to white Christians being rounded up and sent to FEMA camps. Or so Fox news tells us. And this business of the Confederacy- sorry, but it is your side who keeps bringing it up; us liberals would love to spend the rest of our lives without evey hearing another word about those traitorous scum. But alas, the Lost Cause endures on the rear window of half the pickup trucks in Dixie. Well, and the governor's mansion in Virginia, where February was declared Confederate History month. And the state flag of Mississippi. And the Texas State School Board textbook comittee. And the numerous Sons of The Confederacy groups that are spending the next 4 years renacting it, celebrating it, and trying to rewrite the history of it. Mark Simpson, commander of the South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, acknowledged that an event such as the Dec. 20 Secession Gala in Charleston is seen by some Americans as politically incorrect. But "to us it's part of our nature and our culture and our heritage." Sorry, dude- try telling Mr. Simpson that the Confederacy is not part of the conservative Southern culture. If it was up to me, I would think that they all are merely fiscal conservative concerned about the federal deficit. And that the drumbeat of calls to profile dark skinned people is simply an attempt to keep America safe.

thishereboi -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/12/2010 3:51:20 AM)
quote: So the right wing press is telling lies about Supreme Court decisions. How utterly unsurprising. Yea, no shit. He already knows the left wing press lies, why would he think the right is any different.

thishereboi -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/12/2010 4:03:54 AM)
quote: How are they companions, and once again you spout total bullshit about what the "right" or "conservatives" want, believe or identify with. Please stop until you know wtf youre talking about. You do the same thing to the left, so what's the problem. He's the ying to your yang[8\|]

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/12/2010 4:13:40 AM)
I think you've got your yin and yang back to front (isn't yin the negative aspect?)

DomKen -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/12/2010 5:57:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Held: For a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that he was singled out for prosecution on the basis of his race, he must make a threshold showing that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. Pp. 4-14. One of us is misreading that and it isn't me. You are aware SCOTUS was reinstating an improperly dismissed conviction? I don't see us failing to prosecute Christians caught trying to blow up airplanes.... To start with there had been no conviction. The trial court dismissed the case when the prosecutors refused to participate in discovery about racial profiling. SCOTUS ruled that the dismissal was premature and should have waited till evidence of racially motivated prosecution had been presented. No where does it say the lower court could not dismiss the case if such evidence was prtesented. As a matter of fact it strongly suggests thatthe SCOTUS believed such a dismissal would have been proper. All of which would be clear if you had read the entire opinion. You have read the entire opinion haven't you?

thishereboi -> RE: Whaddaya know? Profiling is legal (12/12/2010 4:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I think you've got your yin and yang back to front (isn't yin the negative aspect?) Actually you are correct. I suppose I should change it, how about two sides of the same worn out coin?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125