Only if..

[greg334]

You can call me a racist if you want, but I see a big problem here.

Reuters - "JENA, Louisiana - Tens of thousands of black Americans descended on a small town in central Louisiana on Thursday to protest what they say is injustice against six black teenagers charged over a high school fight."

But for some reason, something really stinks here. I mean that there seems to be a real need to embrace the cause here but for some reason the race baiting tramps seem to be ignoring the problems of the common peoples in the cities where it really matters for all. I think that the candidate's comments speak for themselves and they are just as cheap as Sharpton and Jackson.

It begs the question, do you really want these candidates as leaders of this country? I wouldn't.

Imagine if these 'protesters' would put efforts into helping in the cities like this instead of marching, what a different this would make.

 

[arkjarhead]

The problem is 6 black boys beat down a white boy for calling them the n word. I don't think he should have done that, but just cause someone says something to you you don't like it doesn't give you the right to beat him down. If this is how they act now how will they act as adults? I'm sure I will be called a racist for this, but if that is how they act they would be going to the pen sooner or later. That's just how I see it. If they get off then they will think if someone does or says something they don't like they can get their gang together and beat them down. Most of these people doesn't know what it means to fight one on one. I went to high school in a 90% black high school. If you fight one of them you have to fight them all.

 

[whitewolf53]

What do you expecrt from them ??? any time a so called social
injustice is called against one of them they all go to the streets.screaming and chimping out and calling the WHITE MAN a racist an everyhing else.And you can bet your life ,if it had been 6 whiteys who tried to kill the black kid ,they would all be up on HATE CRIME charges.I do not hear anything about hate crime charges in this.THAT IS BECAUSE IT ONLY PERTAINS TO THE WHITE FOLKS. We are the only ones who can commit them.
P.S I also want to know ,if someone can tell me is why i see a mass migration of detroit refugees coming into our suburbs????And not a mass migration of WHITEY going back to Detroit ANY ANSWERS???

Mike
Whitewolf 53

 

[x06col]

Me waz just tinkin about this the other day. Wonder'in how so many can get to Louisiana for this foolishness, and, how many couldn't get out of Louisiana during a threat to their life. Something wrong with this picture.

 

[greg334]

Well my I think my point is missed but I can say this, this is not about injustice, it is about money and Public awareness of the civil rights leaders - everyone who traveled down there seems to be duped into thinking it was about justice.

Why do I say this?

Well first thing I see is that the march is about power, not just power of the people (who should be equal) but power to the few. Sharpton, Jackson and King all have a stake in the remaining in power, without it they lose their millions.

The second thing is the bail for Mr. Bell was set at $90,000 - NINETY Thousand dollars - which means the focus of the entire trip down there was to have Mr. Bell set free but no one, especially not the three civil rights leaders, all of which are millionaires (two worked for it, one inherited it) never EVER put up a dime for the bail money for Mr. Bell to be reunited with his family. After the march and protest, the judge decided to have another bail hearing to eliminate the bail altogether and put a gag order on the bail proceedings.

The idea of a hate crime is repugnant to say the least, especially with words. I can understand the need to enforce laws like assault and battery when it comes to certain crimes but to say that words are or should be a matter of a crime goes against the fundamental rights of everyone, not just the person they are directed to. The really scary thing is, they are already conditioning kids to be their own thought police.

What my point is, or was is illustrated by the very people here in Detroit who made a big deal going down there to support the protest but failed to help their own community. While they marched for justice there, three people were shot and killed on the east side and two were shot, robbed and beaten on the west side. Of course the media here does not provide coverage for every day things but it would be nice if the people who are quick to go do something do it in their own neighborhoods first.

 

[cheri1122]

It would be really great if people weren't saturated with the impression that 'conflict resolution' is achieved only by aggression & force.
War, entertainment such as the most popular video games, and even the school's own emphasis on sports, all contribute to the idea that conflict is resolved by beating the opposition, whether in name, or actuality. Aggressive behavior is not only condoned, but applauded, in so many areas of our culture, that it's the norm these days.
I agree that the protesters would be much more credible if they'd stay home, and direct their outrage at prevention of such incidents, rather than just shouting "Racism!" every time a black male is rightfully punished for breaking the law.

 

[arkjarhead]

I'll be honest I'm tired of people coming down south and stirring the pot up and then running back home. If I offend someone oh well. It's not just blacks it's whites to. You have NAACP people coming down from Chicago,Detriot,New York and KKK coming down from Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia and converge on a small Arkansas town. I've seen this happen a few times in my life, but it never hits the news. Then after gets stired up they tuck tail and run. Then we have to deal with the problems. Race riots in the school. School shut down for a week hoping things will calm down. I wish they would stay up there and leave us the h*ll alone. I have a feeling this will get taken down, but oh well. I spoke my peace. I might as well get it all out. If you ask me the NAACP is just as big of a hate group as the Klan.

 

[arkjarhead]

I want to add one thing. I have nothing against people from the North coming down for a visit. Heck I don't care if they move down here. I love it in Arkansas so I can understand why others would. My deal is this. I grew up in a town that was founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest. For those of you who don't know he was a Confederate general who also founded the KKK. So the Klan likes to have rallies in Forrest City,AR. Everytime they do,they come in from other places for the weekend to rally. They publize the fact that they are going to have a rally on such and such date and time and where it will be. Of course they have thier right to peacefully assemble like everyone else which is BS. The only thing is in the State of Arkansas it's against the law for them to wear thier hoods over thier face while in public. Well when the NAACP catches wind of this they have to come in to protest the Klan rally which they have the right to do. Then when the weekend is over the outsiders leave, but the tension remains. It's easy to stir the pot when you know you can go home and forget about, but it's not so easy when you have to live there while things are calming down.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Hey ark...I agree with ya...The KKK is a hate group and just assembling to spread the word should be illegal. A designated hate group should have NO rights under the constitution.
The KKK is NOT allowed in Canada as it is a declared Hate Group.


and the NAACP is a pretty close second.

 

[greg334]

OVM,
If we do outlaw any group it actually goes against our constitution and its intent. The problem we already have with hate speech laws and hate laws is there is no way to make a thought or opinion a crime and we should never approach making thoughts, opinions or feelings a crime but in truth this is where we are going to. Once we pass that line, there is no return and we open ourselves up to abuse that makes 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 look mild.

Europe has laws that say if you don’t believe that the holocaust happened, and say or write that fact you have committed a crime. I know that I read that the holocaust took place, I met people who said the holocaust happened to them and their family but I wasn’t there and can’t say from my experience that it happened – there I just committed a major crime under EU laws. This is not a simplified version of the law or made up but it actually happened; I know someone who made that same comment in England and was in jail that afternoon and expelled from his university for admitting that.

Do we want to go this far?

Of course not.

The KKK is not the worst group that we have had here in the US, there were a few religious and political groups in the 1880’s and 1920’s respectively that were not only extremely but in today’s context are considered terrorist.

Also the KKK holds no power as they used to, they are fading away slowly just like other groups have done. The thing is if we protest their existence, it will draw more people to them to figure out if they fit in because of the attention and the need to be different.

We already have a double standard in this country.

We d*mn the KKK for their history but we forget that the KKK is nothing compared to other groups who support terrorism and fascism, like CAIR. They operate under recognition from the IRS as a charitable organization, but in truth they are the platform for hate. Who cares about the KKK at this point, there is a lot worst things to worry about.

And as I am thinking about it, if we apply the same rules that we apply to the KKK, the words Academic Freedoms means absolutely nothing in the strictest sense. I mean with the more recent Columbia university mess, they would be considered a group that espouse hate by hosting a modern day Hitler and other schools would be on outlawed when there are issues that demonstrators on campus feel they need to voice their opinion on if the subject was considered hate speech.

 

[arkjarhead]

I think you are missing my point Greg. The point I was making was I think it's bs that we have to allow someone from out of town to come in our town only to cause problems. If it was hometown people that would be different because the people would know who is who and then they can take it out on them. The Klan is pretty much dead in the Arkansas but it's thriving in other places where I wouldn't expect it to be. Like Montanna where there are basicly no Black people. It crazy. The one place the Klan is still around in Arkansas is in the northern part of the state that is almost all white.

 

[greg334]

I got your point and agree with you 100%, it is rather odd that a lot of this has been twisted to the point that they ignore the problems in their own backyard and focus on something that has been used as propaganda.

The thing I am pointing out is the idea that we can be like other countries who don't have our form of government and outlaw things that we can't or shouldn't or would lead to abuse.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

To ban groups such as the KKK the courts could rule that the majority of American society finds it offensive and could be an acceptable violation of the constitution. There are some articles in the constitution that haven't kept up to the times and need twinking. The great forefathers couldn't have foreseen everything and was impossible to write in...I am thinking they had faith that the American people and politicians would be smart enough not to immortilize the constitution but make adjustments as society moved on...and as issues arose.
Do taverns have a horse rail out front? Of course not but they have to have parking for patrons. Laws change.

 

[greg334]

“To ban groups such as the KKK the courts could rule that the majority of American society finds it offensive and could be an acceptable violation of the constitution.â€

Once this happens we actually move away from a representative government and into something like socialism or fascism (read up on those forms of great government). The reason that we should not tolerate this form of censorship is clearly the need to have all parts of the constitution to work together. Many times it is our fault that we allow some parts is ignored, like the 10th amendment and other times we forget that we must vote and engage ourselves into the process that has been the foundation of our country since the start.

The issue of having any court decide anything as part of what could be or not be constitutional is also a problem, there has been an imbalance within the three branches of the federal government which actually started in the 30’s. This imbalance has ignore the fact that the congress can pass laws that can not be struck down by the supreme court if the congress and the president formally agrees to tell the supreme court not to hear the case. We ignore the fact about how the checks and balances are supposed to work and think that it is what we are told it should be.

“There are some articles in the constitution that haven't kept up to the times and need twinking.â€

Yep we need to repeal a few of the amendments and there is a process built into the program that allows us to change things around.

“The great forefathers couldn't have foreseen everything and was impossible to write in...I am thinking they had faith that the American people and politicians would be smart enough not to immortilize the constitution but make adjustments as society moved on...and as issues arose.â€

The founding father’s knowledge is not to be discounted; they didn’t just create this sitting around, drinking ale and talking about it. Many of them were much more knowledgeable in history, politics and most of all the English system of rights than most are today in their equivalent stations of life. They looked at different governments and worked out what they thought would be the best one for us at the time and knew that there would be times where change is necessary; hence the amending of the constitution has a process to follow when it is needed.

They also recognized that the individual has the right over the state and the state has the right over the federal government, they expected it to be this way for as long as we are a country. This has been written so much it should be common knowledge but ignored too. But the problem is when we really look at the history of the country, the war between the states specifically which was all about what the founding fathers were talking about when they say talked about the individual has the right over the state and the state has the right over the federal government, we lost all of those rights and the federal government stepped out of their role and into something that was not the intent of the founding fathers.

What we have today can be illustrated with the Department of education and the loss of the rights of each parent to decide what their kids will be taught. Sounds draconian but by shifting the decision making rights from the local level to the state level and then finally to the federal level, we eliminate most of the accountability that the parents should be afforded when their kids come out of school not being able to read or write.

But back to the point, when you start deeming this group or that group as harmful to society, you actually start something that will be abused in the long run and what we end up is a loss of fundamental rights because it won’t end with a group but will extent to individuals - then we will have to change our name to France.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Greg, I only had a few seconds to scan your last post. I hope by "tweeking" the constitution you don't mean that freedom of speech is now obsolete...Groups just can't be banned because we don't like what they say.. I would like to see a few people on this forum banned if that were the case....

 

[greg334]

Greg, I only had a few seconds to scan your last post. I hope by "tweeking" the constitution you don't mean that freedom of speech is now obsolete...Groups just can't be banned because we don't like what they say.. I would like to see a few people on this forum banned if that were the case....

OK?

I think you have OVM and I mixed up, he said to tweak it, I say we leave it alone, there is no reason to restrict freedoms that we have and only need to have people beaten aside of their head with a copy of the constitution to make them understand that there is more to it than the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments.

I have to remind myself that Canada, the UK and other countries don't have a constitution like ours and that many countries are not true democracies including ours. If that makes sense?