Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Civil Wrongs

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

  • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

    If you will recall, the black police chief in Dallas called upon the black community to come and join the force just to prove the lie about biased police officers and got no takers.
    He cared so much he's retiring: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...901-story.html

    But I.don't know where you are getting your info because following the speech applications tripled: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...p-344-percent/
    Also
    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/03/488566...-are-a-concern
    Last edited by JDJarvis; 09-20-2016, 05:16 AM.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

      He cared so much he's retiring: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...901-story.html

      But I.don't know where you are getting your info because followinng the speech applications tripled: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...p-344-percent/
      Also
      http://www.npr.org/2016/08/03/488566...-are-a-concern
      You will notice that NPR judiciously left out how many of those applicants were black.And the WaPo article said:

      Employment applications to the Dallas Police Department have more than tripled since the shooting July 7 that killed five officers and injured nine more, according to statistics posted on the department’s Facebook page. It is not known whether any of the applicants were protesters or connected to the Black Lives Matter movement.

      I can't find the article now but I read that they got hardly any applicants from blacks.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

        What is being done to correct the conditions behind the higher rate by black men? Employment? No. Dems pay people to be unemployed, and GOP insists on the bootstraps method. While the D. method is obviously doomed to failure, the GOP method is more subtle. Guaranteed that 5% will succeed, being motivated and self-educated because they are deviant in a positive way. The rest -95%- are doomed by their average nature. They are facing a system of mediocre/poor schools, bad neighborhoods, a distrust of the "white" system that goes back centuries, not decades. Is society doing much to correct education in bad neighborhoods? No. A few cities are introducing non-profit or local-run charter schools, but successful examples are few and far between. The last factor is one of few that lies mostly at the feet of urban black culture -dysfunctional families. Solution there is obvious, a bumper sticker that applies to dirt-poor white people as well as their black counterparts: "Stupid people shouldn't breed". Brutal, but the truth hurts. Point is, neither party is taking on the issue effectively, nor are any racial groups within the citizenry. We are doing the wrong things to correct problems that should be almost non-existent by now.

        As to your other point, of course violent offenders need to be arrested and tried, regardless of their race. But that will spiral downward, blighted areas of cities will continue to fester, unless there is an active employment policy that replaces welfare and public schools are funded per student on a statewide basis. Zone-based funding guarantees bad neighborhoods stay bad.
        So are we in agreement that a disproportionate amount of the black population is in jail, because of the disproportion amount of crimes they commit?

        As for the reason of why the crimes are being committed in abundance by black men, I agree that history and living condition plays a large part. But I'll have to agree with SupPackFan's original comment. Talking about skin color indefinitely, as if necessary to heal, is counteracting progress and returning to division and separation of races.

        Don't you think it would make a big difference if Obama, (the leader of our country) and other leaders, empowered black people and all Americans to embrace their individual strengths and abilities to overcome adversity as their ancestors have. And share all the success stories of black people, such as himself who has risen to the highest office in the land. (I did it, so can you). Don't you think that may empower the black community to know it's possible if they work at it, instead of encouraging black people to feel defeated because the white society isn't giving them a fair shake. (You are oppressed). Obama's speech confirms in black parents that they were right to tell their children they'll never get ahead because they're black, which leaves their children to say, (why bother), and are taught to live their lives with resentment. Wouldn't it be better speech to say to black people, "you don't need others to lift you up, because you are perfectly capable of lifting yourself up."

        I'll tell you the most divisive and offensive thing done to the reputation of the black community is when the officers in Baltimore were told to stand down during the riot because of the death of Freddy Gray. And Marilyn Mosby also did the greatest injustice to the minds of the black community in prosecuting the officers, specifically black officers, without legitimate evidence, and based only on a narrative and assumption.

        Here you have black men that have become officers, worked hard and have made something of their lives, civilized and prosperous human beings, living the American Dream, though Marilyn Mosby gives the benefit of the doubt to the criminal black man who has not contributed and in fact has caused havoc on society. What message is that sending? She also says to the black community that it's their time for justice. Virtually saying that it is the criminal that represents the black community not the officer.

        Then the stand down order. I believe it was inferred that "protesters" were given time to vent, because they needed it. This kind of venting is not tolerated in a civilized society. So in other words, this is how black people vent? We can not expect black people to behave in a civilized manner when they're angry and gather. They are being held to a lower standard, not the high standard of behavior that the rest of society is capable of, this is why more appropriate behavior is expected and the higher standard of law applies only to those who are capable, non-blacks? Do you think this "venting" time helped to enforce the fact that all people are equal in intelligence and ability? Or, do you think that fearing black people was endorse by the violent, uncivilized behavior that they had permission to participate in and exhibited? Animalistic behavior only being tolerated by the black community. What kind of message did this send to the black AND white community.

        Then we have Chicago. This is unacceptable. Why is law not enforced? Why do all good people in the community live their lives feeling threatened and being violently abused and murdered? Well, the majority of killers and abusers in the area are black. Again are we saying that black people are not capable of following the high standard of civilized law as the rest of society. It seems that black criminals get a pass, even if the majority of people being killed are black. How is this justice for the civilized good black people? Does it hurt less when a black loved one is killed by a black person opposed to a white person?

        Who is being protected here by BLM, Obama, and leaders? The black criminals over the good black people? And again, what message is being sent to the minds of society?

        What is being done to the black community by these liberal leaders is a sin. Deplorable!
        Last edited by msc; 09-20-2016, 05:29 AM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

          You will notice that NPR judiciously left out how many of those applicants were black.And the WaPo article said:

          I can't find the article now but I read that they got hardly any applicants from blacks.
          So you support racial quotas in hiring all of a sudden?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

            So you support racial quotas in hiring all of a sudden?
            How do you get that out of what I posted? What I was saying was that the Dallas Police Chief challenged those protesting to come to work for the police department if they thought the current police were racists. No one took him up on the offer.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

              How do you get that out of what I posted? What I was saying was that the Dallas Police Chief challenged those protesting to come to work for the police department if they thought the current police were racists. No one took him up on the offer.
              You have no evidence at all to support that statemet, not a speck of it in light of triple the rate applying and a large class. Post some evidence, I'd love to see it.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

                You have no evidence at all to support that statemet, not a speck of it in light of triple the rate applying and a large class. Post some evidence, I'd love to see it.
                Yeah, they were so successful recruiting in Dallas, they are now moving on to Memphis,

                http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/...his-millington

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                  Yeah, they were so successful recruiting in Dallas, they are now moving on to Memphis,

                  http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/...his-millington
                  This does nothing to support you argument, nothing at all. The NYPD recruits all over the place and they have oneof the largest policeforces in the world a large professional organization has to constantly recruit.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                    How do you get that out of what I posted? What I was saying was that the Dallas Police Chief challenged those protesting to come to work for the police department if they thought the current police were racists. No one took him up on the offer.
                    Dallas PD was given kudos by the BLM leadership for their conduct during the protest, and condemned the attack on their officers. A small number of black people supported the attacks, but no one from the BLM leadership was among them. The other point on this issue is that it is all of 2 or 3 months later, so "recruitment efforts" typically don't register that quickly. This is at best a minor issue, maybe a non-issue. Here's a link on actual reactions by BLM leadership, in case anyone's interested:
                    https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosebuchana...BEq#.ghpl3YLDr

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by msc View Post

                      So are we in agreement that a disproportionate amount of the black population is in jail, because of the disproportion amount of crimes they commit?

                      As for the reason of why the crimes are being committed in abundance by black men, I agree that history and living condition plays a large part. But I'll have to agree with SupPackFan's original comment. Talking about skin color indefinitely, as if necessary to heal, is counteracting progress and returning to division and separation of races.

                      Don't you think it would make a big difference if Obama, (the leader of our country) and other leaders, empowered black people and all Americans to embrace their individual strengths and abilities to overcome adversity as their ancestors have. And share all the success stories of black people, such as himself who has risen to the highest office in the land. (I did it, so can you). Don't you think that may empower the black community to know it's possible if they work at it, instead of encouraging black people to feel defeated because the white society isn't giving them a fair shake. (You are oppressed). Obama's speech confirms in black parents that they were right to tell their children they'll never get ahead because they're black, which leaves their children to say, (why bother), and are taught to live their lives with resentment. Wouldn't it be better speech to say to black people, "you don't need others to lift you up, because you are perfectly capable of lifting yourself up."

                      I'll tell you the most divisive and offensive thing done to the reputation of the black community is when the officers in Baltimore were told to stand down during the riot because of the death of Freddy Gray. And Marilyn Mosby also did the greatest injustice to the minds of the black community in prosecuting the officers, specifically black officers, without legitimate evidence, and based only on a narrative and assumption.

                      Here you have black men that have become officers, worked hard and have made something of their lives, civilized and prosperous human beings, living the American Dream, though Marilyn Mosby gives the benefit of the doubt to the criminal black man who has not contributed and in fact has caused havoc on society. What message is that sending? She also says to the black community that it's their time for justice. Virtually saying that it is the criminal that represents the black community not the officer.

                      ....
                      Who is being protected here by BLM, Obama, and leaders? The black criminals over the good black people? And again, what message is being sent to the minds of society?

                      What is being done to the black community by these liberal leaders is a sin. Deplorable!
                      What is being done to the poor community by the GOP's bootstraps argument is negligent. I lifted my self up by my bootstraps, and at least two other critical factors: a good education and fair treatment by local law enforcement. My bootstraps would have failed if I were forced to deal with crappy schools, growing up in a bad neighborhood and dealing with law enforcement who were not going to cut me any slack.

                      I maintain that bootstraps -alone- works for perhaps 5% of the population, regardless of race. I repeat the hypothesis that the rest of us (95%) are average in motivation and talent, and will be (not "might be") ground into mediocrity or even failure, when we are forced to deal with bad education, unfair law enforcement and neighborhoods suffering high unemployment. Your bootstraps argument depends entirely on the wrong hypothesis, that a majority of people can successfully deal with those 3 negative factors.

                      See? No mention of race is necessary. Bootstraps -alone- still fails for the majority of people. Your particular criticisms of how activists or other major players behaved in Baltimore or Chicago are valid points, still going back to the issue of using good judgement before defending individuals who are killed or injured by police activity. In my post previous to this one, a positive example of BLM leadership is given -the reasonable reaction to Dallas police during the protest, as well as defending the PD when officers were murdered by a disturbed individual.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        That young black man who wants to be a police officer? He doesn't qualify, because he was busted with a cannabis joint when he was 17. His white counterpart across town was also caught with a joint at the same age, but doesn't have a record. So the white kid goes to the academy, black kid doesn't. Stats on drug use vs. penalty paid shows a disparity in prosecution and incarceration, despite usage rates being nearly the same. The $500 bucks paid by the police administration might attract the few blacks left who were disciplined or lucky enuf to not get caught; maybe they were smart and wealthy enough to fight an arrest in court, like their white counterparts. Is the chief trying to attract a less qualified person, or just one who is more difficult to find because a juvenile conviction is a lifetime penalty as far as getting a job in law enforcement?
                        Returning to what we had discussed earlier in this thread - it is very important to analyze this on a department by department basis. Nation wide the numbers show that blacks are three times more likely to be arrested for drug possession than whites. Yet all statistics show they use at approximately the same percentages. I know such numbers are used as proof that police are racist - but those numbers come nowhere close to proving such an assumption.

                        All those numbers prove is that blacks are more likely than whites to be caught with illegal drugs. One reason may be blacks commit more crimes than whites. For example, blacks are 8 times more likely to be arrested for robbery. When the thief is arrested he and everyone else in his entourage will be searched - and then charged with drug possession. The numbers for rape and assault are similar. This could easily explain the difference.

                        The idea that these numbers mean a black kid and white kid caught with the same amount of marijuana will be treated differently is a great stretch. The only way to root out the real racism is to analyze numbers on a city by city basis - and to look for examples of different sentences for equal crimes. I am quite confident that such examples are very rare.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Here's the standard liberal line. Link:
                          Higher arrest and incarceration rates for African Americans and Latinos are not reflective of increased prevalence of drug use or sales in these communities, but rather of a law enforcement focus on urban areas, on lower-income communities and on communities of color as well as inequitable treatment by the criminal justice system.
                          http://www.drugpolicy.org/race-and-drug-war

                          That would mean we could test the hypothesis that cops don't risk their careers by walking into a well-heeled, predominantly white business (owner, employees, clients) to attempt to bust people for possession of nose candy (cocaine). There is much less risk -legally and financially- busting an urban poor person for having crack cocaine on their person. Same risk assessment for the DA, who work with the cops.

                          The roughly equal use of illicit drugs between racial groups, coupled with the disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates between same groups, points to one or two conclusions, which may or may not be linked:
                          1) Police/DA's are less concerned with arrests and incarceration, if it involves only use/sale of illicit drugs
                          2) Law enforcement uses a drug charge when some charges fail to achieve a desired conviction and/or sentence for more serious crimes (fe armed robbery, homicide).

                          ...Well worth checking out. A nationwide, anonymous survey of cops and DA officials should confirm hypothesis #1. That should put the final nail in the coffin, holding the zombie corpse formerly named War on Drugs. That issue is resolved by placing an "intoxication multiplier" when sentencing for more serious crimes, allowing cops and DA's to send people up the river for longer sentences (and drug rehab) if they test positive for alcohol or other drugs upon arrest. Allowing cops and DA's to remove people for increasingly longer sentences, even if they are only arrested for public intoxication multiple times, would be much appreciated. Liberals can claim addicts are placed in rehab where they get help, and conservatives can claim they are being tough of crime without clogging the prison system. The only ones who wouldn't like that reform might be Reagan conservatives.
                          Hypothesis #2 is tested, as you note, one DA zone at a time. That also means some form of immunity based on anonymous survey, if there is any failure to make a bust stick for violent crimes. If instead they use a drug charge to jail the perp, that involves a degree of impunity for violent crimes, or an uncertainty if the perp was indeed the right suspect. Not good publicity for law enforcement, it could even jeopardize some careers. Hence the anonymous survey.

                          Bottom line, the drug issue, particularly stats on arrest/convictions doesn't cast a very good light on law enforcement, at the same time it points to serious problems with the rest of US society.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Here's the standard liberal line. Link:
                            http://www.drugpolicy.org/race-and-drug-war

                            That would mean we could test the hypothesis that cops don't risk their careers by walking into a well-heeled, predominantly white business (owner, employees, clients) to attempt to bust people for possession of nose candy (cocaine). There is much less risk -legally and financially- busting an urban poor person for having crack cocaine on their person. Same risk assessment for the DA, who work with the cops.

                            The roughly equal use of illicit drugs between racial groups, coupled with the disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates between same groups, points to one or two conclusions, which may or may not be linked:
                            1) Police/DA's are less concerned with arrests and incarceration, if it involves only use/sale of illicit drugs
                            2) Law enforcement uses a drug charge when some charges fail to achieve a desired conviction and/or sentence for more serious crimes (fe armed robbery, homicide).

                            ...Well worth checking out. A nationwide, anonymous survey of cops and DA officials should confirm hypothesis #1. That should put the final nail in the coffin, holding the zombie corpse formerly named War on Drugs. That issue is resolved by placing an "intoxication multiplier" when sentencing for more serious crimes, allowing cops and DA's to send people up the river for longer sentences (and drug rehab) if they test positive for alcohol or other drugs upon arrest. Allowing cops and DA's to remove people for increasingly longer sentences, even if they are only arrested for public intoxication multiple times, would be much appreciated. Liberals can claim addicts are placed in rehab where they get help, and conservatives can claim they are being tough of crime without clogging the prison system. The only ones who wouldn't like that reform might be Reagan conservatives.
                            Hypothesis #2 is tested, as you note, one DA zone at a time. That also means some form of immunity based on anonymous survey, if there is any failure to make a bust stick for violent crimes. If instead they use a drug charge to jail the perp, that involves a degree of impunity for violent crimes, or an uncertainty if the perp was indeed the right suspect. Not good publicity for law enforcement, it could even jeopardize some careers. Hence the anonymous survey.

                            Bottom line, the drug issue, particularly stats on arrest/convictions doesn't cast a very good light on law enforcement, at the same time it points to serious problems with the rest of US society.
                            I like the idea of anonymous polling throughout the police and entire court system - which may encourage some hidden truths to be shared.

                            Drug use is often referred to as a victimless crime - but of course - the families of 40 (27 Black, 3 White, 3 Hispanic, 7 Other) murdered Chicagoans so far this September may disagree. The reason police presence is so much more intrusive in Englewood than The Gold Coast is because they are trying to save a few of those predominantly black lives. BLM appears less concerned than law enforcement. This seems fairly obvious to even me - a Reagan conservative.
                            Last edited by SupPackFan; 09-22-2016, 10:07 PM.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • That should always go back to a history of drug abuse being a multiplier when sentencing for all violent crimes. The drug abuser who is merely a vagrant or commits some other less serious crime should be subject to involuntary (if he insists) mental health treatment. The Reagan comment I made was a reference to Reagan's policy on reducing gov't. costs on mental health care. The quick and dirty method is to simply close down (de-fund) a given number of mental health clinics. One could choose some other measures (home visits, outpatient requirements, shorter involuntary intake/detention, etc.). Apparently, Reagan and that era's Congress chose the dirt cheap option. We pay the price today.

                              The war on drugs should have received a review at that time, as mental health and drug abuse are often connected. It isn't something that should see people land in jail on that charge alone, nor is it something that just gets a disapproving look from mother. The involuntary intake, with detention depending on each case, was (and still is) the answer.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                That should always go back to a history of drug abuse being a multiplier when sentencing for all violent crimes. The drug abuser who is merely a vagrant or commits some other less serious crime should be subject to involuntary (if he insists) mental health treatment. The Reagan comment I made was a reference to Reagan's policy on reducing gov't. costs on mental health care. The quick and dirty method is to simply close down (de-fund) a given number of mental health clinics. One could choose some other measures (home visits, outpatient requirements, shorter involuntary intake/detention, etc.). Apparently, Reagan and that era's Congress chose the dirt cheap option. We pay the price today.

                                The war on drugs should have received a review at that time, as mental health and drug abuse are often connected. It isn't something that should see people land in jail on that charge alone, nor is it something that just gets a disapproving look from mother. The involuntary intake, with detention depending on each case, was (and still is) the answer.
                                Let's hear it for the good Reagan https://ffrf.org/

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X