Are all men created equal? Is this the United States of America or NOT? Do you want to live in a country where people's rights are violated on the way they LOOK or what they believe? If you do, please leave because I have no use for you and others like you in my America.
john k, do you want to be ALIVE to enjoy the freedoms we have? Then you'd better do your part to fight terrorism, and that means using common sense in the struggle. 80-year old white women didn't take down the WTC, Muslim males did.
I would rather not have my rights violated by someone who is willing to kill me, and my fellow Americans refused to let us use legitmate tools to stop them.
Your right to be stupid about the reality we face stops when it infringes on everyone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So then, from both of your comments I take it you both supported the internment of Japanese American's during World War II, correct?
I think we could save a great deal of time and many lives if we lock up all the Muslims in similar camps right now until the "War on Terror" is won. What do you say? Let's do it!
john k, if your house was on fire would you want the Fire Department to send half of the firefighters to a house that WASN'T on fire just to be fair?? If you need a plumber would you expect him to spend half of his time at the house next door that DOESN'T have a plumbing problem? Do you expect the police to send an equal number of patrol cars to places where a crime ISN'T happening? Then the government owes it to it's citizens to use our resources targeting those likely to be terrorists, not those unlikely to be.
Why is it ludicrous? Pulling people out of lines at airports because of their appearance is exactly the same thing as what happened to the Japanese in WWII, just on a smaller scale. If you are treating people differently because of their religion, appearance, race or sexual orientation for the sake of feeling "safer" I see no discernable difference.
I really am at a loss if you are not for locking up all muslims. You have no problem treading on rights of an individual but not on a larger scale? This doesn't make much sense.
Of course this *all* goes against what Jesus teaches us... "Do unto others as you would have done to you"
john k, you ignore simple common sense. If you get robbed and call the police and tell them that a white male teenager stuck a gun in your face, would you expect the police to stop every 80 year old black woman to try and find the robber? Yes, your logic is ludicrous. We need focus our resources on the most likely suspects in order to efficient combat the threat. In this case, the terrorists are Muslim males. Wasting time on anyone else is a foolish waste of government money, time, and resources, and endangers the life of every American.
Your argument is hollow Jaycee. You know as well as anyone that terrorists are a cagy bunch. Do you really think they will sit by and let themselves be profiled based on their appearance?
No, they will not. They will recruit outside their circle to white males (or even other less obvious types) to perform their deeds and where will that leave you? For the record, not all terrorists are muslim "brown" males. Tim McVeigh was as white as wonder bread. And so was the shoe bomber.
Profiling accomplishes nothing in the end. Tight police work along side with reliable intelligence is the only effective way to fight these people AND stay within the rights of the individual.
john k, all police work involves profiling of "criminal" characteristics. I know, I did it for 25 years. Go look at pictures of the 9/11 hijackers. Do they look like Cheryl Ladd? Or like Muslim males? I thank the Lord every day that folks like you aren't tasked to protect innocent citizens here in the U.S. Oh, and Tim McVeigh was not a Muslim terrorist, in case you didn't realize that.
john k, here's a quiz to help you understand where the threat to the U.S. comes from. It's a tough one, but I think you might be able to struggle through it:
In 1968 Senator Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: A. Superman B. Jay Leno C. Harry Potter D. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by: A. Olga Corbett B. Sitting Bull C. Arnold Schwarzenegger D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: A. Lost Norwegians B. Elvis C. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: A. John Dillinger B. The King of Sweden C. The Boy Scouts D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: A. A pizza delivery boy B. Pee Wee Herman C. Geraldo Rivera D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old Jewish American passenger was beaten and then thrown overboard in his wheelchair by: A The Smurfs B. Davy Jones C. The Little Mermaid D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: A. Captain Kidd B. Charles Lindberg C. Mother Teresa D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: A. Scooby Doo B. The Tooth Fairy C. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: A. Richard Simmons B. Grandma Moses C. Michael Jordan D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: A. Mr. Rogers B. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Bill's extra-curricular activities C. The World Wrestling Federation D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Over Two thousand two hundred people were killed by: A. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd B. The Supreme Court of Florida C. Mr. Bean D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States began a war in Afghanistan to stop terrorist training camps operated by: A. Enron B. The Lutheran Church C. The NFL D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2003 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: A. Bonnie and Clyde B. Captain Kangaroo C. Billy Graham D. Muslim male extremist s mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In March 2003, the United States began a war in Iraq to stop the killing of thousands of Iraqis by a ruthless dictator and stop the terrorist training camps operated by: A. The Simpsons B. Santa Claus C. The Easter Bunny D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. The 2004 Spain Railway bombings were caused by: A. Brittany Spears B. Justin Timberlake C. Tony Blair D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. The July 2005 London Railway bombings were caused by: A. Margaret Thatcher B. Olive Oyl C. Stewie from Family Guy D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. In August 2006, British and Pakistan authorities arrested 31 people, days away from blowing up 10 United States flagged aircraft. The 31 folks were: A. A girl scout troop from Ohio B. Nuns from a New York convent on vacation C. A kindergarten class from a London public school D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Are you beginning to understand?
And while we're at it, would you please describe for us in your own words (and without researching it) just exactly what you think the term "profiling" means? When you think of cops at the airport "profiling" travelers just how do you think they do it? I'm trying to judge your level of knowledge on this subject.
Jaycee, your quiz was great! I think I scored a perfect 100! Now, back to the original topic. I said, lets lock up all the muslims to help save lives and you and Bubba said that I just "Didn't get it". What part don't I get? You just spent probably a good 20 minutes trying to make your point that Muslims are responsible for all the major terrorist attacks in the last century. So by what logic don't you see that locking them all up wouldn't help our general security?
I saw some good logic about sending half the police to the house where the crime didn't occur. That is probably the best explanation for the invasion of Iraq I have seen yet.
john k, the original post by Bubba referencing the ACLU had nothing to do with locking up Muslims. Neither did any response by me or Bubba. Were you reading something else?
Yeah, screw the ACLU and their defence of the civil liberties on which the country was founded! Let's lock up brown people on general principles! We're at war! We don't have time for things like constitutional rights or accurate intel!
"john k, the original post by Bubba referencing the ACLU had nothing to do with locking up Muslims. Neither did any response by me or Bubba. Were you reading something else?"
Yes it did. Just because you didn't mention the M-word, doesn't mean we don't know what you're talking about.
f you get robbed and call the police and tell them that a white male teenager stuck a gun in your face, would you expect the police to stop every 80 year old black woman to try and find the robber?
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard, and not even close to the same thing. Closer to what you are proposing would be, if I think I'm about to get robbed, I should call the police and have them round up all the black males between the ages of x and y because they might rob me. Someday.
nimrod, the original post and referenced article by Bubba DID NOT say anything about "locking up" people based on skin color, nor did I. Go back and read it if you don't understand. And how do you "know" what I or anyone else is thinking, nimrod? Crystal ball? Telepathy? Are you patched into the NSA Mind Reading link? duros62, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law enforcement practices, do you? john k, I'll challenge you once again to explain just what you think "profiling" involves. Tell us how you think that kind of thing works, please. I'm interested in your actual knowledge of what you're spouting off about. My money's betting you don't have a clue about this in the real world.
I trust you wingnuts would be ok if Oklahoma City detained every white male entering OKC, correct? Seeing as how white males in OKC have a proven history of terror.
While you're at it, let's detain all white male conservative Christians passing through Atlanta, seeing how one perpetrated the Olympic Park bombing.
You guys are ok with that, right? Wouldn't want to be inconsistent.
"john k, do you want to be ALIVE to enjoy the freedoms we have?"
So I guess those hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died for our freedom shouldn't have bothered? After all you are the one putting life before freedom.
1. In 1983, Islamic extremists bombed the American Embassy in Beirut, killing 100's. In response, Republican president Ronald Reagan...
a. Invaded Lebanon b. Tried to convict the bombers c. Invaded Iran, joining the French effort to bring the perpetrators to justice d. Invaded Grenada
2. In 1998, Osama bin Laden bombed American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. President Clinton sent cruise missles into Afghanistan to try to kill Osama bin Laden. The Republican's
a. Supported the president in his battle against Islamofascism. b. Called for a full scale war on al Queda c. Enlisted their children in the war against terror d. Screamed "no war for Monica".
3. At the end of 2000, Islamic terrorists bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 Navy sailors. Incoming president George W. Bush, upon taking office did what to avenge the attack?
a. Made war on Yemen. b. Made war on Al Queda. c. Made war on radical Islam. d. Made war on pornography
4. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush promised quick retribution and promised to "smoke [OBL] out of his hole" and bring him to justice. When did the US capture OBL?
a. 9/12/2001 b. 10/12/2001 c. 11/5/2004 d. "I don't think much about him".
5. Following the terror attacks on 9/11, and failing to find OBL in Afghanistan, where did Bush attempt to find OBL next? Choose two.
a. Pakistan b. Saudi Arabia c. "I don't think much about him" d. Iraq
It never ceases to amaze me how the lefto nutcases CAN'T READ! factcheck, you will find NOTHING about putting anybody in jail in anything I or Bubba have written here..NOTHING! Why do you keep lying about things when you know it's a lie you're telling? And, factcheck, each and every single veteran was ALIVE at one time and enjoyed the freedom purchased by the struggles of their forefathers, whether he sacrificed his life in the fight to keep us free or not. They were all heroes who stood up against our enemies so they and the rest of us could enjoy freedom.
Terror attacks under Bill Clinton that he did nothing about: 1)1993 WTC bombing (Al Qaeda) 2)Al Qaeda in Somalia (Al Qaeda) 3)Khobar Towers bombing (Hezbollah) 4)Kenya Embassy bombing (Al Qaeda) 5)Tanzania Embassy bombing (Al Qaeda) 6)bombing of the USS Cole (Al Qaeda)
We triumphed over the Nazi war machine without capturing Hitler. We triumphed over the Japanese war machine without capturing Hirohito. You apparently choose not to even listen to the President or anyone else when the tell you the truth about what's going on. Don't blame the President or me or anyone else for your own ignorance. If you want to go on thinking we fight a war for nothing, it's your own decision, not based on facts. You're free to have your own interpretation of events, but don't expect me to follow your stupidity.
This is a perfect example of why racial profiling is WRONG. This man did nothing wrong and yet his rights were violated because of the writing one of his pieces of clothing. Please explain to me how this is a good thing.
Would you please describe for us in your own words (and without researching it) just exactly what you think the term "profiling" means? When you think of cops at the airport "profiling" travelers just how do you think they do it? I'm trying to judge your level of knowledge on this subject.
Your example is NOT racial profiling, or even an example of profiling at all. You don't know what profiling is, do you? Please get a clue about something before you try and discuss it with those that know what they're talking about. You come off as a dummy when you don't.
factcheck, I said nothing of the kind. Please read my post and try to understand it. What is it with you lefties that you can't read and understand simple terms? Are you so blinded by your Bush hate that it clouds your reading comprehension? Recognizing and acting on demonstrable and articulable criminal characeristics denies nobody their rights. Failing to do that denies innocent people their right to live in freedom. Learn to read, for Pete's sake. Our soldiers and police put their lives on the line each and every day to guarantee you that right, and part of what they do is to stop terrorists/criminals from denying you the right to live in freedom. What don't you understand about that?
Do you know of your own personal knowledge that OBL is alive? You don't KNOW anything of the kind, you've just heard other people say it.
Jaycee, as you would define it, racial profiling is the process by which law enforcement uses race as their primary or motivating factor for who to observe, detain or arrest. Your "Muslim Quiz" makes the point that all significant terror acts of the last half century were perpetrated by Muslim males, hence they are the ones that must be paid special attention to, pulled off planes for no reason other than their race and detained without probable cause. Correct? Have I defined Racial Profiling to your satisfaction?
I am of the thought that Racial Profiling while sometimes helpful, should not be the primary factor for investigative work. If we were living in a police state and we were not protected by the Constitution, then maybe, *maybe* this would be acceptable.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Since the vast majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens, merely being of a race which a police officer believes to be more likely to commit a crime than another is not probable cause.
In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution requires that all US citizens be treated equally under the law. It has been argued that this makes it unconstitutional for a representative of the government to make decisions based on race. This view has been upheld by the US Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky and several other cases.
Lastly, the article I linked to about the man being discriminated against because of his article of clothing is not directly racial profiling, but it is the kind of thing that results when this practice is allowed to continue unfettered. There was no probable cause for what happened to him, and yet you and others like you think what happened was probably perfectly acceptable. It was not.
" John K. said... Jaycee, as you would define it, racial profiling is the process by which law enforcement uses race as their primary or motivating factor for who to observe, detain or arrest."
Absolutely, 100% incorrect. In the first place, *I* didn't define it at all. I was curious to see if you had the same uninformed, ignorant belief that most laymen do about profiling. I was correct. You have no idea what "profiling" is and have gone off on a tangent based on what you BELIEVE it to be. Where did you get the information to form your conclusion about the definition of profiling?
When someone chooses to behave in an abnormal way (as the person in your link article) they can expect to be singled out for further investigation. In no way is that "profiling," not even close. That's a result of law enforcement officers using observation to detect possible troublemakers. I suggest you do some research and find out what "profiling" involves. Here's a hint...police profile drunk drivers, street drug dealers, and serial murderers. Take it from there and LEARN something. I'm not calling you ignorant, just uninformed. You have valid questions about how things like this are done but you only have the liberal rants of politicians and comments on the internet and news to guide you. Go and learn the real deal so we can carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject.
I have a feeling I could have said anything in response to your question and you STILL would have jumped on me. Racial profiling is the police pulling over African Americans for no reason except them being black. Racial profiling is men being pulled out of airline queues and questioned for no reason other than their Mediterranean decent. Racial profiling is a process by which others are pre-maturely judged NOT on their actions, but by their appearance and race. If you don't agree with that assessment, may i humbly suggest you are the one who needs to go look things up. Because these are the facts of the situation.
I also love you you just happen to ignore my arguments about the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in regards to racial profiling. They specifically apply to this practice and the discrimination it represents, but you ignore this because it doesn't fit your neat little view of what you beleive racial profling to be.
By the way, "Racial Profiling" has NOTHING to with drunk driving. Police are not "profiling" someone when they pull a drunk off the road for swerving. They have probable cause and are not acting on assumption when they do this. The person is physically putting others in danger and has given the police probable cause for pulling them over and questioning them. There is a big difference between this and detaining someone based soley on their race. If you can't see this, then I feel pity for you.
Try not to get upset John. I've learned through experience that trying to express your point of view to Jaycee and Bubba is like trying to express yourself to a brick wall.
With them there is no room for disagreement. There is no room for conversation or any hint of concession. They are always on the "right" side of the argument and we are ALWAYS on the wrong, liberal side.
Jaycee is about to respond to your last post with more reasons why in his brain that what you just said is both flawed and dangerous. You see, in their world their right to safety always supercedes our personal liberties and freedoms. Always. "You can't be free if you are dead."
This is what is really wrong with this country right now. People on both sides (right and left) are not willing to actually talk about the merits of the argument, all they are interested in is being proven right or wrong. I myself am perfect willing to make concessions to them if they would agree to reciprocate. But so far I have seen NO evidence of this. None. At all. And so people like you and me continue to beat our heads against the wall when that wall will never, ever hear a word we say.
Unfortuately you are correct Roger. I hear that argument all the time. My response to them is "if you are not free than you might as well be dead." I come from NH and our state motto of "Live free or die" is not just a catch-phrase. Its the words by which this country was founded. And now I fear for its life.
I will say some prayers this evening for both Bubba and Jaycee that the Holy Spirit will enter their lives and bring some temperance and understanding to their gentle nature. So that they may see the blessed truth behind "Do unto others..."
"The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause."
Bad premise.
Probable cause has long been ruled to not be a prime consideration in most areas of crime prevenetion. Profiling is a common tactic used everyday in this country on more mundane matters.
Absent of physial or observed evidence, what "probable cause" exists to arbitrarily bounce a radar signal off your car to determine if you are speeding on the highway? Absent of physical or observed evidence, what "probable cause" allows authorities to stop you at a DUI roadblock?
Perhaps you don't think an act of terror qualifies as a crime?
john k, I've pointed out before that you have no knowledge of the practice of "profiling" and you have just proven your point. As one who practiced "profiling" for 25 years, both here in the U.S and in war zones including Iraq, I can say for a fact that the examples you point out and your assumptions about profiling are 100% incorrect. Companies "profile" your spending habits, telemarketers use "profiles" to determine which products to pitch to you, and lending institutions "profile" potential clients. Ever wonder why billboards for some items appear in one neighborhood and billboards for other items appear in a different neighborhood? Profiling. It has nothing to do with race. As I said, please do some research and find out about the subject and I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
john k said: "Police are not "profiling" someone when they pull a drunk off the road for swerving." See, this is what I'm talking about. This IS profiling...drunk driver profiling. Police know which actions are characteristic of someone driving under the influence...there are many, and together they form a "profile." Do some research so you understand the process, then let's discuss it.
Jaycee, I make a living in advertising so don't preach to me about how targeting a specific audience works. The technique of RACIAL PROFILING (that is what this topic is all about remember?) is about using someone's RACE as a determining factor for LAW ENFORCEMENT. Not selling them soda, not getting them to buy a certain burger. Its in the name of the thing we're talking about... R A C I A L P R O F I L I N G.
Its about people's rights being violated on the sole basis of their race, appearance or beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less. Your effort to make this discussion about something it is not is obviously from a position of weakness. It is YOU not I who needs to brush up on the definition of what we are discussing here. We're not talking about advertising, or even using probable cause to investigate someone. We're talking about pre-judging someone PURELY on characteristics that have nothing to do with if they have actually broken a law.
Spotting a black man driving down a highway and pulling him over not because he was speeding, not because he had a broken tail light, but because he was black. Doing a background check on someone in an airport queue because they have Arabic writing on their t-shirt. These are things you should concern yourself with because one day, it just may be YOU on the other end of the "Racial" profile.
john k, this topic was about profiling, not the bullshit racial profiling crap that you think occurs. I was trying to educate you about the real world, not your belief based on what you've been told about profiling by the mainstream media, liberal politicians, etc. That's not how PROFILING works. I did it for 25 years, I have a bit of experience in that field. Several NC Court of Appeals and Supreme Court case precedents were made on cases I initiated in this area. You have an IDEA that the police pull people over because they're black. Pure ca-ca. Most times you see a violation and you don't even see the race or gender of the driver until the car pulls over.
You answered my question. You know nothing about real profiling, just the politically based claim of racial profiling by people like yourself that know nothing about the subject. I can see that trying to tell you the truth about something you're in the dark about is useless. Goodbye.
Exactly my point, potatostew. The bogus premise that "racial profiling" will be used is just that, bogus. The ACLU "accused" someone of something that doesn't exist in an effort to thwart law enforcement efforts to protect citizens from terrorists. I was challenged by those who don't know what they're talking about to defend a non-existent program. Hard to defend something that doesn't exist. The ACLU would like for you to believe that, however, and many that don't know any better actually do believe it. Sad, isn't it?
Using "racial profiling" as an excuse to attack a security program designed to combat terrorism is not only bogus in itself, it also lessens the credibility of anti-discrimination programs that combat TRUE racial profiling.
The objections to this accomplish nothing of value, and in fact are negatively affecting two distinctly differnet programs designed to protect our citizens.
All this nonsense to satisfy the god of political correctness, and to satisfy some people's misguided priorities!
Are all men created equal? Is this the United States of America or NOT? Do you want to live in a country where people's rights are violated on the way they LOOK or what they believe? If you do, please leave because I have no use for you and others like you in my America.
ReplyDeletejohn k, do you want to be ALIVE to enjoy the freedoms we have?
ReplyDeleteThen you'd better do your part to fight terrorism, and that means using common sense in the struggle.
80-year old white women didn't take down the WTC, Muslim males did.
I would rather not have my rights violated by someone who is willing to kill me, and my fellow Americans refused to let us use legitmate tools to stop them.
ReplyDeleteYour right to be stupid about the reality we face stops when it infringes on everyone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So then, from both of your comments I take it you both supported the internment of Japanese American's during World War II, correct?
ReplyDeleteI think we could save a great deal of time and many lives if we lock up all the Muslims in similar camps right now until the "War on Terror" is won. What do you say? Let's do it!
"So then, from both of your comments I take it you both supported the internment of Japanese American's during World War II, correct?"
ReplyDelete(sigh)
With a comment as farcial as that one, why do we even bother?
Your comparison is ludicrous, and a non sequitur of the first order.
Try again.
john k, if your house was on fire would you want the Fire Department to send half of the firefighters to a house that WASN'T on fire just to be fair??
ReplyDeleteIf you need a plumber would you expect him to spend half of his time at the house next door that DOESN'T have a plumbing problem?
Do you expect the police to send an equal number of patrol cars to places where a crime ISN'T happening?
Then the government owes it to it's citizens to use our resources targeting those likely to be terrorists, not those unlikely to be.
Why is it ludicrous? Pulling people out of lines at airports because of their appearance is exactly the same thing as what happened to the Japanese in WWII, just on a smaller scale. If you are treating people differently because of their religion, appearance, race or sexual orientation for the sake of feeling "safer" I see no discernable difference.
ReplyDeleteI really am at a loss if you are not for locking up all muslims. You have no problem treading on rights of an individual but not on a larger scale? This doesn't make much sense.
Of course this *all* goes against what Jesus teaches us... "Do unto others as you would have done to you"
john k, you ignore simple common sense.
ReplyDeleteIf you get robbed and call the police and tell them that a white male teenager stuck a gun in your face, would you expect the police to stop every 80 year old black woman to try and find the robber? Yes, your logic is ludicrous.
We need focus our resources on the most likely suspects in order to efficient combat the threat. In this case, the terrorists are Muslim males. Wasting time on anyone else is a foolish waste of government money, time, and resources, and endangers the life of every American.
Your argument is hollow Jaycee. You know as well as anyone that terrorists are a cagy bunch. Do you really think they will sit by and let themselves be profiled based on their appearance?
ReplyDeleteNo, they will not. They will recruit outside their circle to white males (or even other less obvious types) to perform their deeds and where will that leave you? For the record, not all terrorists are muslim "brown" males. Tim McVeigh was as white as wonder bread. And so was the shoe bomber.
Profiling accomplishes nothing in the end. Tight police work along side with reliable intelligence is the only effective way to fight these people AND stay within the rights of the individual.
john k, all police work involves profiling of "criminal" characteristics. I know, I did it for 25 years.
ReplyDeleteGo look at pictures of the 9/11 hijackers. Do they look like Cheryl Ladd? Or like Muslim males?
I thank the Lord every day that folks like you aren't tasked to protect innocent citizens here in the U.S.
Oh, and Tim McVeigh was not a Muslim terrorist, in case you didn't realize that.
No, you are right, he wasn't Muslim, but he was a terrorist. Ask the people in Oklahoma city who lost their lives. I stand correct.
ReplyDeletejohn k, here's a quiz to help you understand where the threat to the U.S. comes from. It's a tough one, but I think you might be able to struggle through it:
ReplyDeleteIn 1968 Senator Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
A. Superman
B. Jay Leno
C. Harry Potter
D. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
A. Olga Corbett
B. Sitting Bull
C. Arnold Schwarzenegger
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
A. Lost Norwegians
B. Elvis
C. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
A. John Dillinger
B. The King of Sweden
C. The Boy Scouts
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
A. A pizza delivery boy
B. Pee Wee Herman
C. Geraldo Rivera
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old Jewish American passenger was beaten and then thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
A The Smurfs
B. Davy Jones
C. The Little Mermaid
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
A. Captain Kidd
B. Charles Lindberg
C. Mother Teresa
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
A. Scooby Doo
B. The Tooth Fairy
C. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
A. Richard Simmons
B. Grandma Moses
C. Michael Jordan
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
A. Mr. Rogers
B. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Bill's extra-curricular activities
C. The World Wrestling Federation
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Over Two thousand two hundred people were killed by:
A. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
B. The Supreme Court of Florida
C. Mr. Bean
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States began a war in Afghanistan to stop terrorist training camps operated by:
A. Enron
B. The Lutheran Church
C. The NFL
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2003 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
A. Bonnie and Clyde
B. Captain Kangaroo
C. Billy Graham
D. Muslim male extremist s mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In March 2003, the United States began a war in Iraq to stop the killing of thousands of Iraqis by a ruthless dictator and stop the terrorist training camps operated by:
A. The Simpsons
B. Santa Claus
C. The Easter Bunny
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. The 2004 Spain Railway bombings were caused by:
A. Brittany Spears
B. Justin Timberlake
C. Tony Blair
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. The July 2005 London Railway bombings were caused by:
A. Margaret Thatcher
B. Olive Oyl
C. Stewie from Family Guy
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. In August 2006, British and Pakistan authorities arrested 31 people, days away from blowing up 10 United States flagged aircraft. The 31 folks were:
A. A girl scout troop from Ohio
B. Nuns from a New York convent on vacation
C. A kindergarten class from a London public school
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Are you beginning to understand?
And while we're at it, would you please describe for us in your own words (and without researching it) just exactly what you think the term "profiling" means? When you think of cops at the airport "profiling" travelers just how do you think they do it? I'm trying to judge your level of knowledge on this subject.
Jaycee, your quiz was great! I think I scored a perfect 100! Now, back to the original topic. I said, lets lock up all the muslims to help save lives and you and Bubba said that I just "Didn't get it". What part don't I get? You just spent probably a good 20 minutes trying to make your point that Muslims are responsible for all the major terrorist attacks in the last century. So by what logic don't you see that locking them all up wouldn't help our general security?
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting. And still waiting...
I saw some good logic about sending half the police to the house where the crime didn't occur. That is probably the best explanation for the invasion of Iraq I have seen yet.
ReplyDeletejohn k, the original post by Bubba referencing the ACLU had nothing to do with locking up Muslims. Neither did any response by me or Bubba.
ReplyDeleteWere you reading something else?
Yeah, screw the ACLU and their defence of the civil liberties on which the country was founded! Let's lock up brown people on general principles! We're at war! We don't have time for things like constitutional rights or accurate intel!
ReplyDelete"john k, the original post by Bubba referencing the ACLU had nothing to do with locking up Muslims. Neither did any response by me or Bubba.
ReplyDeleteWere you reading something else?"
Yes it did. Just because you didn't mention the M-word, doesn't mean we don't know what you're talking about.
f you get robbed and call the police and tell them that a white male teenager stuck a gun in your face, would you expect the police to stop every 80 year old black woman to try and find the robber?
ReplyDeleteThat's the dumbest thing I ever heard, and not even close to the same thing.
Closer to what you are proposing would be, if I think I'm about to get robbed, I should call the police and have them round up all the black males between the ages of x and y because they might rob me. Someday.
nimrod, the original post and referenced article by Bubba DID NOT say anything about "locking up" people based on skin color, nor did I. Go back and read it if you don't understand.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you "know" what I or anyone else is thinking, nimrod? Crystal ball? Telepathy? Are you patched into the NSA Mind Reading link?
duros62, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law enforcement practices, do you?
john k, I'll challenge you once again to explain just what you think "profiling" involves. Tell us how you think that kind of thing works, please. I'm interested in your actual knowledge of what you're spouting off about. My money's betting you don't have a clue about this in the real world.
I trust you wingnuts would be ok if Oklahoma City detained every white male entering OKC, correct? Seeing as how white males in OKC have a proven history of terror.
ReplyDeleteWhile you're at it, let's detain all white male conservative Christians passing through Atlanta, seeing how one perpetrated the Olympic Park bombing.
You guys are ok with that, right? Wouldn't want to be inconsistent.
"john k, do you want to be ALIVE to enjoy the freedoms we have?"
ReplyDeleteSo I guess those hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died for our freedom shouldn't have bothered? After all you are the one putting life before freedom.
bubba said
ReplyDeleteIf you need a plumber would you expect him to spend half of his time at the house next door that DOESN'T have a plumbing problem?
Thanks Bubba, what a perfect allegory for the Iraq war! We sent the plumber to Iraq when the plumbing problem was in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia!
No, I'm just not stupid.
ReplyDeleteOoooooh, jaycee has a quiz!!! I have a quiz too!
ReplyDelete1. In 1983, Islamic extremists bombed the American Embassy in Beirut, killing 100's. In response, Republican president Ronald Reagan...
a. Invaded Lebanon
b. Tried to convict the bombers
c. Invaded Iran, joining the French effort to bring the perpetrators to justice
d. Invaded Grenada
2. In 1998, Osama bin Laden bombed American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. President Clinton sent cruise missles into Afghanistan to try to kill Osama bin Laden. The Republican's
a. Supported the president in his battle against Islamofascism.
b. Called for a full scale war on al Queda
c. Enlisted their children in the war against terror
d. Screamed "no war for Monica".
3. At the end of 2000, Islamic terrorists bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 Navy sailors. Incoming president George W. Bush, upon taking office did what to avenge the attack?
a. Made war on Yemen.
b. Made war on Al Queda.
c. Made war on radical Islam.
d. Made war on pornography
4. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush promised quick retribution and promised to "smoke [OBL] out of his hole" and bring him to justice. When did the US capture OBL?
a. 9/12/2001
b. 10/12/2001
c. 11/5/2004
d. "I don't think much about him".
5. Following the terror attacks on 9/11, and failing to find OBL in Afghanistan, where did Bush attempt to find OBL next? Choose two.
a. Pakistan
b. Saudi Arabia
c. "I don't think much about him"
d. Iraq
It never ceases to amaze me how the lefto nutcases CAN'T READ!
ReplyDeletefactcheck, you will find NOTHING about putting anybody in jail in anything I or Bubba have written here..NOTHING! Why do you keep lying about things when you know it's a lie you're telling?
And, factcheck, each and every single veteran was ALIVE at one time and enjoyed the freedom purchased by the struggles of their forefathers, whether he sacrificed his life in the fight to keep us free or not. They were all heroes who stood up against our enemies so they and the rest of us could enjoy freedom.
Terror attacks under Bill Clinton that he did nothing about:
1)1993 WTC bombing (Al Qaeda)
2)Al Qaeda in Somalia (Al Qaeda)
3)Khobar Towers bombing (Hezbollah)
4)Kenya Embassy bombing (Al Qaeda)
5)Tanzania Embassy bombing (Al Qaeda)
6)bombing of the USS Cole (Al Qaeda)
We triumphed over the Nazi war machine without capturing Hitler. We triumphed over the Japanese war machine without capturing Hirohito.
You apparently choose not to even listen to the President or anyone else when the tell you the truth about what's going on. Don't blame the President or me or anyone else for your own ignorance. If you want to go on thinking we fight a war for nothing, it's your own decision, not based on facts. You're free to have your own interpretation of events, but don't expect me to follow your stupidity.
This is a perfect example of why racial profiling is WRONG. This man did nothing wrong and yet his rights were violated because of the writing one of his pieces of clothing. Please explain to me how this is a good thing.
ReplyDeletejohn k, my challenge is still here:
ReplyDeleteWould you please describe for us in your own words (and without researching it) just exactly what you think the term "profiling" means? When you think of cops at the airport "profiling" travelers just how do you think they do it? I'm trying to judge your level of knowledge on this subject.
Your example is NOT racial profiling, or even an example of profiling at all. You don't know what profiling is, do you?
ReplyDeletePlease get a clue about something before you try and discuss it with those that know what they're talking about. You come off as a dummy when you don't.
Yes, the soldiers were heroes, and you spit on them when you say that freedom isn't worth dying for.
ReplyDeleteYou say that when you put your safety above the freedoms of Americans.
I am willing to die rather than see innocent Muslims (or anyone else) be harassed because of their beliefs. Why aren't you?
"We triumphed over the Nazi war machine without capturing Hitler"
ReplyDeleteHe killed himself before we could get to him. OBL is alive and well and planning attacks.
factcheck, I said nothing of the kind. Please read my post and try to understand it. What is it with you lefties that you can't read and understand simple terms? Are you so blinded by your Bush hate that it clouds your reading comprehension?
ReplyDeleteRecognizing and acting on demonstrable and articulable criminal characeristics denies nobody their rights. Failing to do that denies innocent people their right to live in freedom. Learn to read, for Pete's sake. Our soldiers and police put their lives on the line each and every day to guarantee you that right, and part of what they do is to stop terrorists/criminals from denying you the right to live in freedom. What don't you understand about that?
Do you know of your own personal knowledge that OBL is alive? You don't KNOW anything of the kind, you've just heard other people say it.
"bubba said
ReplyDeleteIf you need a plumber would you expect him to spend half of his time at the house next door that DOESN'T have a plumbing problem?"
Try again, little buddy.
Were all of you born to the same mother at roughly the same time, and still live in the same place using the same computer?
Or is it just another example of multiple personality disorder, a common trait among people who think like (all your personalities) do?
It's rare that you get so many people so consistently wrong on a subject.
Jaycee, as you would define it, racial profiling is the process by which law enforcement uses race as their primary or motivating factor for who to observe, detain or arrest. Your "Muslim Quiz" makes the point that all significant terror acts of the last half century were perpetrated by Muslim males, hence they are the ones that must be paid special attention to, pulled off planes for no reason other than their race and detained without probable cause. Correct? Have I defined Racial Profiling to your satisfaction?
ReplyDeleteI am of the thought that Racial Profiling while sometimes helpful, should not be the primary factor for investigative work. If we were living in a police state and we were not protected by the Constitution, then maybe, *maybe* this would be acceptable.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Since the vast majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens, merely being of a race which a police officer believes to be more likely to commit a crime than another is not probable cause.
In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution requires that all US citizens be treated equally under the law. It has been argued that this makes it unconstitutional for a representative of the government to make decisions based on race. This view has been upheld by the US Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky and several other cases.
Lastly, the article I linked to about the man being discriminated against because of his article of clothing is not directly racial profiling, but it is the kind of thing that results when this practice is allowed to continue unfettered. There was no probable cause for what happened to him, and yet you and others like you think what happened was probably perfectly acceptable. It was not.
" John K. said...
ReplyDeleteJaycee, as you would define it, racial profiling is the process by which law enforcement uses race as their primary or motivating factor for who to observe, detain or arrest."
Absolutely, 100% incorrect. In the first place, *I* didn't define it at all. I was curious to see if you had the same uninformed, ignorant belief that most laymen do about profiling. I was correct. You have no idea what "profiling" is and have gone off on a tangent based on what you BELIEVE it to be. Where did you get the information to form your conclusion about the definition of profiling?
When someone chooses to behave in an abnormal way (as the person in your link article) they can expect to be singled out for further investigation. In no way is that "profiling," not even close. That's a result of law enforcement officers using observation to detect possible troublemakers.
I suggest you do some research and find out what "profiling" involves. Here's a hint...police profile drunk drivers, street drug dealers, and serial murderers. Take it from there and LEARN something.
I'm not calling you ignorant, just uninformed. You have valid questions about how things like this are done but you only have the liberal rants of politicians and comments on the internet and news to guide you. Go and learn the real deal so we can carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject.
I have a feeling I could have said anything in response to your question and you STILL would have jumped on me. Racial profiling is the police pulling over African Americans for no reason except them being black. Racial profiling is men being pulled out of airline queues and questioned for no reason other than their Mediterranean decent. Racial profiling is a process by which others are pre-maturely judged NOT on their actions, but by their appearance and race. If you don't agree with that assessment, may i humbly suggest you are the one who needs to go look things up. Because these are the facts of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI also love you you just happen to ignore my arguments about the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in regards to racial profiling. They specifically apply to this practice and the discrimination it represents, but you ignore this because it doesn't fit your neat little view of what you beleive racial profling to be.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, "Racial Profiling" has NOTHING to with drunk driving. Police are not "profiling" someone when they pull a drunk off the road for swerving. They have probable cause and are not acting on assumption when they do this. The person is physically putting others in danger and has given the police probable cause for pulling them over and questioning them. There is a big difference between this and detaining someone based soley on their race. If you can't see this, then I feel pity for you.
Try not to get upset John. I've learned through experience that trying to express your point of view to Jaycee and Bubba is like trying to express yourself to a brick wall.
ReplyDeleteWith them there is no room for disagreement. There is no room for conversation or any hint of concession. They are always on the "right" side of the argument and we are ALWAYS on the wrong, liberal side.
Jaycee is about to respond to your last post with more reasons why in his brain that what you just said is both flawed and dangerous. You see, in their world their right to safety always supercedes our personal liberties and freedoms. Always. "You can't be free if you are dead."
This is what is really wrong with this country right now. People on both sides (right and left) are not willing to actually talk about the merits of the argument, all they are interested in is being proven right or wrong. I myself am perfect willing to make concessions to them if they would agree to reciprocate. But so far I have seen NO evidence of this. None. At all. And so people like you and me continue to beat our heads against the wall when that wall will never, ever hear a word we say.
Unfortuately you are correct Roger. I hear that argument all the time. My response to them is "if you are not free than you might as well be dead." I come from NH and our state motto of "Live free or die" is not just a catch-phrase. Its the words by which this country was founded. And now I fear for its life.
ReplyDeleteI will say some prayers this evening for both Bubba and Jaycee that the Holy Spirit will enter their lives and bring some temperance and understanding to their gentle nature. So that they may see the blessed truth behind "Do unto others..."
"The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause."
ReplyDeleteBad premise.
Probable cause has long been ruled to not be a prime consideration in most areas of crime prevenetion. Profiling is a common tactic used everyday in this country on more mundane matters.
Absent of physial or observed evidence, what "probable cause" exists to arbitrarily bounce a radar signal off your car to determine if you are speeding on the highway? Absent of physical or observed evidence, what "probable cause" allows authorities to stop you at a DUI roadblock?
Perhaps you don't think an act of terror qualifies as a crime?
john k, I've pointed out before that you have no knowledge of the practice of "profiling" and you have just proven your point.
ReplyDeleteAs one who practiced "profiling" for 25 years, both here in the U.S and in war zones including Iraq, I can say for a fact that the examples you point out and your assumptions about profiling are 100% incorrect.
Companies "profile" your spending habits, telemarketers use "profiles" to determine which products to pitch to you, and lending institutions "profile" potential clients. Ever wonder why billboards for some items appear in one neighborhood and billboards for other items appear in a different neighborhood? Profiling. It has nothing to do with race.
As I said, please do some research and find out about the subject and I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
john k said:
ReplyDelete"Police are not "profiling" someone when they pull a drunk off the road for swerving."
See, this is what I'm talking about. This IS profiling...drunk driver profiling. Police know which actions are characteristic of someone driving under the influence...there are many, and together they form a "profile."
Do some research so you understand the process, then let's discuss it.
Jaycee, I make a living in advertising so don't preach to me about how targeting a specific audience works. The technique of RACIAL PROFILING (that is what this topic is all about remember?) is about using someone's RACE as a determining factor for LAW ENFORCEMENT. Not selling them soda, not getting them to buy a certain burger. Its in the name of the thing we're talking about... R A C I A L P R O F I L I N G.
ReplyDeleteIts about people's rights being violated on the sole basis of their race, appearance or beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less. Your effort to make this discussion about something it is not is obviously from a position of weakness. It is YOU not I who needs to brush up on the definition of what we are discussing here. We're not talking about advertising, or even using probable cause to investigate someone. We're talking about pre-judging someone PURELY on characteristics that have nothing to do with if they have actually broken a law.
Spotting a black man driving down a highway and pulling him over not because he was speeding, not because he had a broken tail light, but because he was black. Doing a background check on someone in an airport queue because they have Arabic writing on their t-shirt. These are things you should concern yourself with because one day, it just may be YOU on the other end of the "Racial" profile.
john k, this topic was about profiling, not the bullshit racial profiling crap that you think occurs. I was trying to educate you about the real world, not your belief based on what you've been told about profiling by the mainstream media, liberal politicians, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's not how PROFILING works. I did it for 25 years, I have a bit of experience in that field. Several NC Court of Appeals and Supreme Court case precedents were made on cases I initiated in this area.
You have an IDEA that the police pull people over because they're black. Pure ca-ca. Most times you see a violation and you don't even see the race or gender of the driver until the car pulls over.
You answered my question. You know nothing about real profiling, just the politically based claim of racial profiling by people like yourself that know nothing about the subject.
I can see that trying to tell you the truth about something you're in the dark about is useless.
Goodbye.
Exactly my point, potatostew.
ReplyDeleteThe bogus premise that "racial profiling" will be used is just that, bogus. The ACLU "accused" someone of something that doesn't exist in an effort to thwart law enforcement efforts to protect citizens from terrorists. I was challenged by those who don't know what they're talking about to defend a non-existent program. Hard to defend something that doesn't exist.
The ACLU would like for you to believe that, however, and many that don't know any better actually do believe it. Sad, isn't it?
Using "racial profiling" as an excuse to attack a security program designed to combat terrorism is not only bogus in itself, it also lessens the credibility of anti-discrimination programs that combat TRUE racial profiling.
ReplyDeleteThe objections to this accomplish nothing of value, and in fact are negatively affecting two distinctly differnet programs designed to protect our citizens.
All this nonsense to satisfy the god of political correctness, and to satisfy some people's misguided priorities!