The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 4 of 13

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Damn straight!!!

Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to?

Ahh c'mon, you know I'd do a better job than Texan's

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?

Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.
No. People join the Klan because it's a violent racist organisation.

Attempting to draw a parallel between someone who is a member of a violent racist organisation and someone who was born with black skin is beyond ridiculous.

Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?

I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.

That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.

And yes, you not being able to be President is discrimination.

But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.

But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?

Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?

Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.

Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?

FREDGIBLET

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Damn straight!!!

Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to? [
Ahh c'mon, you know I'd do a better job than Texan's

Hmmmmmmm.....Citizen...or...Cheney/Rice...decisions, decisions.....

FELLOWTRAVELER

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Second, even if he manages to keep his personal feeling seperate from his job think about this: he arrests a black man for something, the charge goes to court, the black mans lawyer finds out that the cop is a KKK member, the black man walks free, regardless of innocence or guilt, not a good outcome. *cough*O.J.*cough*

Third, if he is known to be a KKK member, then in all likelyhood people around him will react quite negatively, this can cause serious issues for a cop. Consider: if he is investigating a crime in a predominantly black area (or even an area with just a few blacks) and he has to get information from black people, what will the result be if they know of his affiliation? Probably not nearly as good as if he wasn't a KKK member. So what has to be done? Should the police have to send someone else whenever a black person is being interviewed?

These are excellent points that I (hangs head in shame) didn't consider.

FREDGIBLET

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
These are excellent points that I (hangs head in shame) didn't consider.

Thank you, and no reason to hang your head, after all we can't all be super-geniuses (why no that isn't a blimp, it's my head!).

CITIZEN

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.

And drawing a parallel between an organisation whose only reason for existence is too perpetuate racist violence and Christianity or Judaism is just as ridiculous.

Quote:
But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.

That was basically my point yes.

Quote:
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?

I wasn't aware that the purpose of the Nation of Islam's existence was to burn churches and kill minorities. If that isn't the NoI's reason for existence there is no parallel between them and the Klan.

Quote:
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?

Ditto. Though I already said I wouldn't let a member of Westbro Church or similar hold a police position.

Quote:
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.

Last I checked not everyone was a member of violent organisations whose only reason for existence was to attack people who they were prejudice against. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm in a minority here?

Quote:
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?

Last I checked I wasn't advocating killing all white supremacists, nor silencing them. I merely said that such a person should not be put in a position of authority over other people.

You don't join a group by accident; you join a group because you agree with its ideals and purpose. The Ku Klux Klan's ideals and purpose are to terrorise and kill anyone not Christian and white, such a person can not be trusted in a position of authority over anyone not white and Christian.

Further more nothing in your posts refutes that this trooper should be removed from his position, it is merely asking where you draw the line, a question I think I answered already.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:46 PM

Quote:
It's easy to treat situations even handedly if one hates everybody.

Yeah it does make it easy, and if you ever need to learn how, take up cab driving.

Quote:
another thought-- maybe they oughtta partner this dude with a black trooper who has seniority on him,
stick 'em both in a black-n-white eight hours a day, six days a week, for like a year, in a high risk situation, and find out what he really believes, by how he reacts to that situation.

Works for me, and if there are no problems, then there are no problems, right ?

I think it's a major conflict of interest, but even in a case like this I will not go levelling judgements without some evidence of misconduct while in uniform, or misuse of police data outside the job.

That last I would have internal affairs quietly investigate, as it's been a common practice for a great many years in the south to put a guy like this on the force, and have him behave himself, but pass on 'useful' information garnered by his job, to the Klan... so in essence the officer himself doesn't get his hands dirty, but in the end it amounts to the same thing.

I'd be real close on information security with this guy around.

Quote:
Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?

Umm, sort of off-topic, but we kinda did the exact opposite of that...
You see, that punk Chertoff went around and hired most of his little inner circle from ex-KGB and ex-STASI sleazeballs.
So, being that we specifically hired, rather than blocked, these guys, the assumption falls flat, alas.

Fred made some good points, but I have a hard time comprehending them because I see the police themselves as an adversarial thing, much like any other street gang, just that this one is officially sponsored and recognized....

Still, whether we like what he believes, whether we agree with what he believes, that's not our business so much as how he ACTS, and besides, Law Enforcement officers take an Oath (most of which ignore it..) and logically, in a person of character that Oath would supecede any responsibility to what is primarily a social organisation, even one with such a bent.

Just some thoughts,

-Frem

CITIZEN

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
in a person of character that Oath would supecede any responsibility to what is primarily a social organisation, even one with such a bent.

The further question would be can a person of character join an organisation like the Klan?

I think not.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.
And drawing a parallel between an organisation whose only reason for existence is too perpetuate racist violence and Christianity or Judaism is just as ridiculous.
Quote:

But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.
That was basically my point yes.
Quote:
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?
I wasn't aware that the purpose of the Nation of Islam's existence was to burn churches and kill minorities. If that isn't the NoI's reason for existence there is no parallel between them and the Klan.
Quote:
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?
Ditto. Though I already said I wouldn't let a member of Westbro Church or similar hold a police position.
Quote:
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.
Last I checked not everyone was a member of violent organisations whose only reason for existence was to attack people who they were prejudice against. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm in a minority here?
Quote:
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?
Last I checked I wasn't advocating killing all white supremacists, nor silencing them. I merely said that such a person should not be put in a position of authority over other people.

You don't join a group by accident; you join a group because you agree with its ideals and purpose. The Ku Klux Klan's ideals and purpose are to terrorise and kill anyone not Christian and white, such a person can not be trusted in a position of authority over anyone not white and Christian.

Further more nothing in your posts refutes that this trooper should be removed from his position, it is merely asking where you draw the line, a question I think I answered already.

Your first point: Nice bait and switch, brother/sister, but that's not what I said.

I said that both you and the Klan are making assumptions based on membership of a certain group. In no way did I compare the Klan to the Jewish or Catholic faith (although, I did to Evangelical Christians). Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you assume that this guy can't do his job because he's a member of a specific group. The Klan assumes many things about people because they are members of a specific group. Both assumptions are not based on any facts, but on prejudice.

Second point: We agree

Third point: It may not be, but hatred is hatred.

Fourth point: We (appear) to agree.

Fifth point: I think I understand. It's not that the guy is a racist f*ck that is the problem? It is his membership in that particular organization?

Sixth point: I would agree if his boss didn't explicitly say there are no issues with his treatment of minorities.

Seventh point: Fair enough. I have not taken a position because I find the entire affair troubling. I understand the concern one would have with this man being charged to uphold the law, but I am not comfortable with the government limiting speech of any kind.

While "slippery slope" is a fallacy, I've seen that you give these guys an inch, they take a mile (thinking patriot act, then NSA in cahoots with the telecoms, then warrentless surveillance, God knows what's next).

I don't know what the answer is. I'm not sure there is an answer.

MISBEHAVEN

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:34 PM

To me, the answer to this seems obvious. Anyone involved with an organization such as the KKK, which preaches hatred and employs violence, has ablsolutely no business working in a position of authority. Can you honestly expect that a white supremacist will treat people of color in the same manner that he would treat other whites? I don't think so. The man's a racist, and he shouldn't be wearing a badge. After all, the police are supposed to be there to protect and serve. Something tells me that this guy would have a problem protecting and serving the very races he apparently despises.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE