# Systemic racism



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Can anyone give me an example of systemic racism?
Institutional racism?
I hear these words being thrown around, but I'm not sure I understand what they mean


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

Cornhusker said:


> Can anyone give me an example of systemic racism?
> Institutional racism?
> I hear these words being thrown around, but I'm not sure I understand what they mean


Sure. Affirmative action.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Making you check a box telling what race you are for nearly everything from the government. Why bother keeping count on how many of this race or that one? It's been going on since Jim Crow days.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Underachieving schools in poor black communities might be considered systemic racism.
Blacks getting harsher sentences than whites for drug offenses might be considered systemic racism.
Lack of grocery stores in poor black neighborhoods might be considered systemic racism.

Please note I did not say these examples are systemic racism, but they might be considered to be. I made up my platform as if I was running for governor of Virginia and I included a commission to examine things like this to determine if they are caused by systemic racism or other causes. These are real problems that need to be addressed, regardless of cause.


----------



## Gayle in KY (May 13, 2002)

Rejecting a person because of their gender or skin color. White males are the worst.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Can anyone give me an example of systemic racism?
> Institutional racism?
> I hear these words being thrown around, but I'm not sure I understand what they mean


The police force in my hometown used to require applicants to be over 6 ft tall. While being large has certain advantages, it isn't necessary to the job. There are good coos who are 5'9" or 5'10". That policy placed applicants from Asian backgrounds (for example) at a disadvantage, as the are much less likely to be taller. That's an example of systemic racism.

I had a Jewish acquaintance who applied to be a cop, and believes he was screened out when he said he wouldn't be able to work on Yom Kippur (even though he was willing to work Christmas, Easter, etc. so Christian cops could have the day off). Assuming he's right, that would be a form of institutional racism.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

The Paw said:


> The police force in my hometown used to require applicants to be over 6 ft tall. While being large has certain advantages, it isn't necessary to the job. There are good coos who are 5'9" or 5'10". That policy placed applicants from Asian backgrounds (for example) at a disadvantage, as the are much less likely to be taller. That's an example of systemic racism.
> 
> I had a Jewish acquaintance who applied to be a cop, and believes he was screened out when he said he wouldn't be able to work on Yom Kippur (even though he was willing to work Christmas, Easter, etc. so Christian cops could have the day off). Assuming he's right, that would be a form of institutional racism.


80 percent of LEO s here couldn't run the hundred yard dash! I wouldn't want to get a wrestling match with them 😉... That's for lawyers to work out.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

It's all about perception. How someone feels and knee jerk reaction. I had a woman this week that asked why I didn't rent to a certain race!!! My response was they haven't applied. All money is green ...


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Colleges/Universities giving preferential enrollment based upon race rather than merit, i.e. the entrance exam.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Underachieving schools in poor black communities might be considered systemic racism.
-This is more due to LBJ passing the Great Society welfare program. Paying women to have babies out of wedlock was and is an egregiously asinine idea. Single parent family is the single most determinant factor in poor school performance.
Blacks getting harsher sentences than whites for drug offenses might be considered systemic racism.
-This was 100% due to Joe Biden's 1986 crime bill. It isn't systemic racism, it is the personal innate racism of Uncle Joe.
Lack of grocery stores in poor black neighborhoods might be considered systemic racism.
-Have you gone into a grocery store in a black neighborhood? They have metal detectors and security guards at the doors and still have incredible rates of pilferage. Every aisle has open partially consumed food packages laying all over. There is poop, pee, and drug paraphernalia all along the sidewalks. The places are dirty. The staff is totally unhelpful. And when they riot, the cops tell the rioters to go ahead and loot the stores. 
None of these things are due to systemic racism, but are due to the content of the character of those involved.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

'redline' zoning in cities


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I would describe the idea of systemic racism as either insanity or lack of common sense. I saw a few days ago where Michelle Obama and Opra Winfrey were on some shown discussing it and they both were talking how systemic racism had personally impacted them. What a bunch of petty people. The things they used as examples happen to everyone occasionally and none of them amounted to anything. Michelle told about the time she was in a long line waiting for an ice cream or something and someone white cut in line in front of her. Hasn't that happened to all of us at some time or another? Sometimes people just don't pay attention to where the line ends or are just living in their own little world and not paying attention. I never once took it as an insult. I found it sad that 2 black women who are both extremely wealthy would even remember such things, let alone use them to show how dumb or insane they are.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Vjk said:


> Underachieving schools in poor black communities might be considered systemic racism.
> -This is more due to LBJ passing the Great Society welfare program. Paying women to have babies out of wedlock was and is an egregiously asinine idea. Single parent family is the single most determinant factor in poor school performance.
> Blacks getting harsher sentences than whites for drug offenses might be considered systemic racism.
> -This was 100% due to Joe Biden's 1986 crime bill. It isn't systemic racism, it is the personal innate racism of Uncle Joe.
> ...


What state do you live in!?!? Town here is 68 percent black and I've never seen that. It's one of the poorer counties in the state.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

ET1 SS said:


> 'redline' zoning in cities


That is another term that was twisted to show racism. Lenders used redlining not for racist reasons but to denote areas where failure to pay mortgage payments was more rampant. It did often involve black neighborhoods but also poor white neighborhoods. I'm sure you have driven through neighborhoods where you knew loaning people there $100 was a lost cause and you would never be paid back. Redlined neighborhoods were always in decline with run down houses no matter what color the people were who lived there. It's just like the reason grocery stores are scarce in black areas is cited as racism. That is silly. You don't see grocery stores in run down white areas either. Ever see them put up a Walmart in a trashy area of any color? That's because theft and other crimes are high in such areas.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

poppy said:


> I would describe the idea of systemic racism as either insanity or lack of common sense. I saw a few days ago where Michelle Obama and Opra Winfrey were on some shown discussing it and they both were talking how systemic racism had personally impacted them. What a bunch of petty people. The things they used as examples happen to everyone occasionally and none of them amounted to anything. Michelle told about the time she was in a long line waiting for an ice cream or something and someone white cut in line in front of her. Hasn't that happened to all of us at some time or another? Sometimes people just don't pay attention to where the line ends or are just living in their own little world and not paying attention. I never once took it as an insult. I found it sad that 2 black women who are both extremely wealthy would even remember such things, let alone use them to show how dumb or insane they are.


Heck, I got cut in front of today by a white woman. Now I'm a victim too. 

Did they really say that? Not doubting your word but that just seems very petty. It happens to all of us.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Did they really say that?


I read the quote where Michelle said that.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

My definition is that systematic racist/Institutional racism is pretty simple. Unachievers looking for excuses as to why they don't measure up or are not as successful as others. "It's not my fault, it's *___*'s fault" Insert whatever institution or system you want. It's all the same. Excuses for failure


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Let the Google be your guide...

*1. How few children’s books are written by authors of color
2. School dress code policies that discriminate about popular Black hairstyles
3. How there are many more white teachers in public schools than white students
4. White human resources professionals screening out job candidates with “Black sounding” names.
5. How common housing discrimination still is even though it’s against the law
6. How history is usually taught from a white perspective in schools
7. The ways systemic racism shows up in the health care system
8. The passage of “show me your papers” laws that racially profile Latinx people
9. The police presence in Washington DC during the Black Lives Matter uprising versus the riot by white Trump supporters*




https://www.rebekahgienapp.com/systemic-racism-kids/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

TripleD said:


> What state do you live in!?!? Town here is 68 percent black and I've never seen that. It's one of the poorer counties in the state.


Maryland and DC


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Vjk said:


> Maryland and DC


What is your bail out plan?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mreynolds said:


> Heck, I got cut in front of today by a white woman. Now I'm a victim too.
> 
> Did they really say that? Not doubting your word but that just seems very petty. It happens to all of us.


Yes they did say it. Heck, I've cut into line before when I was sidetracked looking at something. When I saw what I did I apologized and went to the back of the line. Even before social distancing became a craze some people always lagged back a ways and it was hard to really tell where the end of the line was with people walking by and such.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Vjk said:


> Underachieving schools in poor black communities might be considered systemic racism.
> -This is more due to LBJ passing the Great Society welfare program. Paying women to have babies out of wedlock was and is an egregiously asinine idea. Single parent family is the single most determinant factor in poor school performance.
> Blacks getting harsher sentences than whites for drug offenses might be considered systemic racism.
> -This was 100% due to Joe Biden's 1986 crime bill. It isn't systemic racism, it is the personal innate racism of Uncle Joe.
> ...


That's your opinion. Many have the opinion it is systemic racism.

I don't really care what it is, I just want it fixed. The basis of the US is all equal under the law and under the Constitution and under God.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> That's your opinion. Many have the opinion it is systemic racism.
> 
> I don't really care what it is, I just want it fixed. The basis of the US is all equal under the law and under the Constitution and under God.


Good luck with that. Haters gonna hate, losers gonna lose, life rolls on.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The basis of the US is all equal under the law and under the Constitution and under God.


Are you saying we are not?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Are you saying we are not?


I think we are as equal as possible. Sentences for crime are based on the crime committed and the criminal record of the person being sentenced. 
According to the FBI homicide data for 2019, blacks are 7 times more likely to commit homicide than whites. Population wise we have six times more whites than blacks, but blacks commit 50% more murders than whites. I haven't looked at violent crime rates in a while, but I think they would reflect the same thing.

Most offenders are poor, didn't complete high school, have no job skills, and live in the inner city. Single-parent homes are a big problem.
We allowed our government to do this!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”*

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> *“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”*
> 
> ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Equal under the law and equal are 2 different things.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Equal under the law and equal are 2 different things.


Equal opportunity and equal outcome are 2 different things too. If one attends school regularly, doesn't break the law, doesn't become pregnant, and shows up for work regularly, his/her chance of succeeding in this country is very high no matter the color of his/her skin. We have absolute proof of that because many minority people have done it and continue to. Go to any drive through restaurant and you will notice new faces working there every week because most opt not to show up and are fired or just quit. Such people are self programmed to fail no matter their color. The normal used to be you started out at a low paying job and showed up everyday while keeping you eye out for a better job so you could move up one step at a time.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

poppy said:


> Equal opportunity and equal outcome are 2 different things too. If one attends school regularly, doesn't break the law, doesn't become pregnant, and shows up for work regularly, his/her chance of succeeding in this country is very high no matter the color of his/her skin. We have absolute proof of that because many minority people have done it and continue to. Go to any drive through restaurant and you will notice new faces working there every week because most opt not to show up and are fired or just quit. Such people are self programmed to fail no matter their color. The normal used to be you started out at a low paying job and showed up everyday while keeping you eye out for a better job so you could move up one step at a time.


I don't eat there but the local Wendy's shut down last week. All the employees walked out at the same time. Just glad I cook my own food!!! Nobody wants to work...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

TripleD said:


> I don't eat there but the local Wendy's shut down last week. All the employees walked out at the same time. Just glad I cook my own food!!! Nobody wants to work...



Exactly right. It is just easier to blame it on some ghost racism no one can find or some other fault of society, but certainly not their own fault in any way.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> Equal opportunity and equal outcome are 2 different things too. If one attends school regularly, doesn't break the law, doesn't become pregnant, and shows up for work regularly, his/her chance of succeeding in this country is very high no matter the color of his/her skin. We have absolute proof of that because many minority people have done it and continue to. Go to any drive through restaurant and you will notice new faces working there every week because most opt not to show up and are fired or just quit. Such people are self programmed to fail no matter their color. The normal used to be you started out at a low paying job and showed up everyday while keeping you eye out for a better job so you could move up one step at a time.


The question is has the government's policies, laws, or regulations contributed to the problem and if so, they need to be rectified. One of the primary reasons for having a government is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. Are the rights of a poor, black child who wants to go to school and learn being effectively protected and guaranteed by the government? If that child is threatened by gangs is the government doing its job? If the facility is unsafe, is the government doing its job? If other students are allowed to be disruptive, is the government doing its job?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The question is has the government's policies, laws, or regulations contributed to the problem and if so, they need to be rectified. One of the primary reasons for having a government is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. Are the rights of a poor, black child who wants to go to school and learn being effectively protected and guaranteed by the government? If that child is threatened by gangs is the government doing its job? If the facility is unsafe, is the government doing its job? If other students are allowed to be disruptive, is the government doing its job?


I'm going to chime in here. The government should never be the first line in education. I'm one who is back and forth with home schoolings. I have pluses and minuses either way. I said on another thread I went to the 13th grade. I have home school nephews who can tear a house apart and put it together again. They have very little social skills on interaction with others. I've made them start showing the houses for rent...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

TripleD said:


> I'm going to chime in here. The government should never be the first line in education. I'm one who is back and forth with home schoolings. I have pluses and minuses either way. I said on another thread I went to the 13th grade. I have home school nephews who can tear a house apart and put it together again. They have very little social skills on interaction with others. I've made them start showing the houses for rent...


I'm talking about individual rights, not education. We give the government the use of force to protect our individual rights from those who threaten them. I gave 3 examples of a student's rights being violated and the government not fulfilling its obligation to protect them.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> The question is has the government's policies, laws, or regulations contributed to the problem and if so, they need to be rectified. One of the primary reasons for having a government is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. Are the rights of a poor, black child who wants to go to school and learn being effectively protected and guaranteed by the government? If that child is threatened by gangs is the government doing its job? If the facility is unsafe, is the government doing its job? If other students are allowed to be disruptive, is the government doing its job?



That goes to the question of does government do anything right? Not really. Many years ago education was largely locally controlled but as is typical with government involvement in anything, they assumed more and more control as the years went by. As usual, more and more people assumed government was their friend and willfully gave up more and more of their control of education. Government policies are nearly always one size fits all and that does not suit education very well.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> The question is has the government's policies, laws, or regulations contributed to the problem and if so, they need to be rectified. One of the primary reasons for having a government is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. Are the rights of a poor, black child who wants to go to school and learn being effectively protected and guaranteed by the government? If that child is threatened by gangs is the government doing its job? If the facility is unsafe, is the government doing its job? If other students are allowed to be disruptive, is the government doing its job?


You think it's the governments job to protect kids from gangs? How do you propose they do that? And why single out the poor black kid? Isn't the poor white kid entitled to the same protection? If so, why even mention race? If the facility is unsafe, is it somehow just unsafe for black kids? If other students are disruptive, are only black kids disturbed by it? 

I pointed out an example of government mandated, no question about it, racism. Affirmative action is racist against white people by any definition of racism. Give me a solid example like that one of systemic racism against another race.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> That's your opinion. Many have the opinion it is systemic racism.
> 
> I don't really care what it is, I just want it fixed. The basis of the US is all equal under the law and under the Constitution and under God.


Rule of law, equal justice, nation of laws and all that are just cliches. They are the "Some natural flavor added" in your Orange drink.
The United States version of justice really has never operated on any system other than the rule of political wills.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> Rule of law, equal justice, nation of laws and all that are just cliches. They are the "Some natural flavor added" in your Orange drink.
> The United States version of justice really has never operated on any system other than the rule of political wills.


I’ve not heard of any system any better. Most are far worse.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> You think it's the governments job to protect kids from gangs? How do you propose they do that? And why single out the poor black kid? Isn't the poor white kid entitled to the same protection? If so, why even mention race? If the facility is unsafe, is it somehow just unsafe for black kids? If other students are disruptive, are only black kids disturbed by it?
> 
> I pointed out an example of government mandated, no question about it, racism. Affirmative action is racist against white people by any definition of racism. Give me a solid example like that one of systemic racism against another race.


Yes, it is the government's responsibility to protect a child walking to or from school from gangs, That's what police are for, to make sure we live in a safe environment. We give the government the power to use force so that we don't have to. It would be the wild west if every person was allowed to use force to protect their individual rights. We granted the government the right to create courts to resolve issues and to use force when necessary.

I singled out poor, black kids because the subject of this thread is systemic racism. I used examples used by the left because I think there may be merit to some of them. Whether they are racist or not I was careful to avoid. To me, the issue is any child should be able to safely walk or ride the bus to school every day.

Affirmative action, as written is not racist. The law was written to aggressively look for minority candidates for positions, not to give them priority over other candidates. . Affirmative action is not by itself racist, but the way it has been implemented (quotas) may be.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> That goes to the question of does government do anything right? Not really. Many years ago education was largely locally controlled but as is typical with government involvement in anything, they assumed more and more control as the years went by. As usual, more and more people assumed government was their friend and willfully gave up more and more of their control of education. Government policies are nearly always one size fits all and that does not suit education very well.


I obviously wasn't clear because no one got my point. I was focussing on a child having the right to safely go to school or anywhere else for that matter. We give the government the right to use force (the police, the military), to provide this security. If a child cannot safely walk to school because of gangs, drugs, and other criminals, then the government is not performing one of its primary responsibilities. If this is happening primarily in minority communities, then it might be systemic racism.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Equal under the law and equal are 2 different things.


Are we not equal under the law?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I obviously wasn't clear because no one got my point. I was focussing on a child having the right to safely go to school or anywhere else for that matter. We give the government the right to use force (the police, the military), to provide this security. If a child cannot safely walk to school because of gangs, drugs, and other criminals, then the government is not performing one of its primary responsibilities. If this is happening primarily in minority communities, then it might be systemic racism.


You were clear, just not realistic. 

Utopia is a few more miles down the road. Then turn left.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I am sure you are aware that law enforcement cannot be held liable for a failure to protect you.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Evons hubby said:


> I’ve not heard of any system any better. Most are far worse.


There are none better.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Evons hubby said:


> I’ve not heard of any system any better. Most are far worse.


I guess you have never listened to a Komrade Biden speech. He constantly extols the virtues of the regimes in China, Iran, and Venezuela.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Compare a "Command" economy to the one in which we currently exist under.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

MoonRiver said:


> I obviously wasn't clear because no one got my point. I was focussing on a child having the right to safely go to school or anywhere else for that matter. We give the government the right to use force (the police, the military), to provide this security. If a child cannot safely walk to school because of gangs, drugs, and other criminals, then the government is not performing one of its primary responsibilities. If this is happening primarily in minority communities, then it might be systemic racism.


The fallacy in your argument is simple. It is other blacks doing the oppression, not the White Man. Like all these Commucrats complaining about the police killing a few blacks for committing crimes and resisting arrest, while being silent about blacks murdering more other blacks every week in Chicago than all the blacks killed by police in a year. Which, incidentally, is a lot fewer than the number of whites killed by police.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

It is too bad we spend so much time lining up to take sides. I know that has been said a million times.

If wishes were horse we would all ride.

There are a million things the USA could do better. We can't seem to agree on one.

Giddy up


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

HDRider said:


> Are we not equal under the law?


No. Not by a long shot.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Vjk said:


> No. Not by a long shot.


How so?


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

HDRider said:


> How so?


If you can't afford a good lawyer on your own, you are totally screwed in our legal system. That is systemic classism which is clearly rampant. 
Ask any male in divorce or custody proceedings, I seem to recall a few threads about that. 
etc. etc. etc.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Vjk said:


> If you can't afford a good lawyer on your own, you are totally screwed in our legal system. That is systemic classism which is clearly rampant.
> Ask any male in divorce or custody proceedings, I seem to recall a few threads about that.
> etc. etc. etc.


We are equal under the law in that scenario, just not equal in how much legal firepower we can afford.

Some drive Kia, and some drive Mercedes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vjk said:


> If you can't afford a good lawyer on your own, you are totally screwed in our legal system. That is systemic classism which is clearly rampant.
> Ask any male in divorce or custody proceedings, I seem to recall a few threads about that.
> etc. etc. etc.


I’ve always done well in court sans lawyer. It’s amazing how well telling the truth works! Been divorced twice, in front of grand jury twice. Justice prevailed all four times.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> You were clear, just not realistic.
> 
> Utopia is a few more miles down the road. Then turn left.


You asked what systemic racism was and I gave an example.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> I am sure you are aware that law enforcement cannot be held liable for a failure to protect you.


Certainly, they can. In court, in the court of public opinion, and in elections.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Legally.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Certainly, they can. In court, in the court of public opinion, and in elections.


And why the term "Rule of Law" doesn't apply as much as the rule of political wills.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Vjk said:


> The fallacy in your argument is simple. It is other blacks doing the oppression, not the White Man. Like all these Commucrats complaining about the police killing a few blacks for committing crimes and resisting arrest, while being silent about blacks murdering more other blacks every week in Chicago than all the blacks killed by police in a year. Which, incidentally, is a lot fewer than the number of whites killed by police.


Your comment is not related in any way to what I posted. The main reason we have a government is to protect our rights. Just because city governments and police departments have proven to be incompetent and ineffective doesn't relieve them from their constitutional responsibility. Look at what Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Karak accomplished in NYC. It can be done.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> You asked what systemic racism was and I gave an example.


No you did not. You gave examples of how poverty has negative effects. You have bought into the idea of Nirvana.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Your comment is not related in any way to what I posted. The main reason we have a government is to protect our rights. Just because city governments and police departments have proven to be incompetent and ineffective doesn't relieve them from their constitutional responsibility. Look at what Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Karak accomplished in NYC. It can be done.


You have to back away from your idealism. The current mayor has undone what Rudy did. Some people are better at things than other people. And some people simply suck.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> No you did not. You gave examples of how poverty has negative effects. You have bought into the idea of Nirvana.


I gave examples of what some people call systematic racism and said "Please note I did not say these examples are systemic racism, but they might be considered to be".

You are simply stating that poverty is the cause when that is only your opinion. Can you show me a scientific study that proves the examples I gave are 100% caused by poverty? If not, then isn't it possible that systemic racism does play a part?

In that same post, I also said "These are real problems that need to be addressed, regardless of cause".

I'm up for a good debate, but you have to quote me correctly.

And here's my source for what you call nirvana -

_*The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.

Thomas Jefferson*_


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson


They tore down his statues, and changed the name of the schools. 



MoonRiver said:


> "Please note I did not say these examples are systemic racism, but they might be considered to be".


That is the beauty of this game. You could call ANYTHING "Systemic Racism"


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

[/QUOTE]


po boy said:


> Sentences for crime are based on the crime committed and the criminal record of the person being sentenced.


Just a tidbit on "sentences" from personal experience, someone who had no "criminal record". Sentences that are governed by statutes have a wide range, some not even a mandatory minimum --> long enough to destroy your life if the conviction itself didn't...which makes the length of a sentence "based" upon how a judge's mood that day, and/or how/what he/she personally thinks of you. You can easily be falsely accused and convicted of a "violent" felony crime by a corrupt cop who claims to be your victim/sole state witness. When the judge finds out you filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the corrupt cop (for each one of his civil rights violations against you), you're going straight to prison (after the judge gave the jury instructions deciding facts and erroneous law, making it impossible for you not to have been "found guilty" of even your own testimony to the truth). I still have no idea if I was "found guilty" of his story or the truth and the higher courts wouldn't even comment on the issue. Most appellate court judges in Ohio were prosecutors or assistant prosecutors in their past, they proudly display those facts on the courts' websites...which is something else to think about regarding the criminal "truth and justice" system. And the opinions easily accessible online...they rarely mention every issue a defendant/attorney included in their pleadings, but the public doesn't know that because those documents are in a file folder in storage, rarely easily accessible to the public, so the opinions seem "just" to the public because there were valid issues omitted that they couldn't twist away, making the opinions purposely written by the judges to make the judges look like they're doing the "just" duties. You have no idea about what is actually happening inside those walls until you do. All "trust" goes out the window with the truth.


----------



## stars at night (Mar 12, 2021)

TripleD said:


> What is your bail out plan?


suprisingly, no on has mentioned Hitler and the systemic racism of Jews...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

stars at night said:


> suprisingly, no on has mentioned Hitler and the systemic racism of Jews...


"Jew" isn't really a race, but good point.
The Democrats are doing their best to emulate the Third Reich with their censorship, revisionist history, destruction of our monuments and silencing any and all opposition.
Systemic Racism is in use by those who pretend to be against it.


----------



## stars at night (Mar 12, 2021)

Cornhusker said:


> "Jew" isn't really a race, but good point.
> The Democrats are doing their best to emulate the Third Reich with their censorship, revisionist history, destruction of our monuments and silencing any and all opposition.
> Systemic Racism is in use by those who pretend to be against it.


Studies of autosomal DNA, which look at the entire DNA mixture, have become increasingly important as the technology develops. They show that Jewish populations have tended to form relatively closely related groups in independent communities, with most in a community sharing significant ancestry in common.[195] For Jewish populations of the diaspora, the genetic composition of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jewish populations show a predominant amount of shared Middle Eastern ancestry. According to Behar, the most parsimonious explanation for this shared Middle Eastern ancestry is that it is "consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World"


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> They tore down his statues, and changed the name of the schools.
> 
> 
> That is the beauty of this game. You could call ANYTHING "Systemic Racism"


There has to be some truth to it. The problem is the left screams racism and the right argues no, it's poverty, and nothing changes. These types of social problems have many different causes and addressing one will likely fail. That's why I said the first thing I would do as governor is appoint a commission to look at these so-called systemic race problems, take them apart and identify as many of the causes as possible. Then propose solutions to the problems (applying classical liberalism principles) as practiced by most of the Founders.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> There has to be some truth to it. The problem is the left screams racism and the right argues no, it's poverty, and nothing changes. These types of social problems have many different causes and addressing one will likely fail. That's why I said the first thing I would do as governor is appoint a commission to look at these so-called systemic race problems, take them apart and identify as many of the causes as possible. Then propose solutions to the problems (applying classical liberalism principles) as practiced by most of the Founders.


Now that's what we need another money pit of taxpayer money, some will get a nice payday, for an extended amount of time. These "commissions" never die and generally produce nothing.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

no really said:


> Now that's what we need another money pit of taxpayer money, some will get a nice payday, for an extended amount of time. These "commissions" never die and generally produce nothing.


You are making the assumption I would be as incompetent and stupid as most current governors. There is no reason fixing problems should cost money, actually fixing a problem should save money.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> You are making the assumption I would be as incompetent and stupid as most current governors. There is no reason fixing problems should cost money, actually fixing a problem should save money.


They do in simple situations like a roof repair or drain clog. Somebody wants to tear it all down and start over!!! I know I'm simple minded 😜...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> You are making the assumption I would be as incompetent and stupid as most current governors. There is no reason fixing problems should cost money, actually fixing a problem should save money.


If I had a nickel for every time I heard that from those that feel they have the answer, I'd be doing better than Bill Gates monetarily. Good intentions are important unless the person with these intentions is not being realistic. As a POC I don't think most are looking deep enough at the problem, cosmetic, feel good and a Messiah attitude aren't going to work. If the POC that want safety, economic growth and change they need to understand there will be discomfort, admitting the problems start at home.

In other words, honesty and work.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I obviously wasn't clear because no one got my point. I was focussing on a child having the right to safely go to school or anywhere else for that matter. We give the government the right to use force (the police, the military), to provide this security. If a child cannot safely walk to school because of gangs, drugs, and other criminals, then the government is not performing one of its primary responsibilities. If this is happening primarily in minority communities, then it might be systemic racism.


But safety in schools and such is a state and local issue, so the local people are responsible because they elect the people failing them over and over. There are more than enough black folks in most cities to swing every election one way or the other. So, if schools are failing to do the job, why do the vast majority of black people keep the same party in power for decades? It seems personal responsibility is a thing of the past.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

TripleD said:


> They do in simple situations like a roof repair or drain clog. Somebody wants to tear it all down and start over!!! I know I'm simple minded 😜...


I was in a work meeting one day and my boss congratulated one of the other managers for how many help calls they had received that month. Never known for knowing when to keep my mouth shut, I asked if help calls going down, not up, wouldn't be a better indicator of doing a good job.

My point then, as it is now, is that if a problem is truly fixed, you don't get help calls and you don't have to keep sending out maintenance people.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

no really said:


> If I had a nickel for every time I heard that from those that feel they have the answer, I'd be doing better than Bill Gates monetarily. Good intentions are important unless the person with these intentions is not being realistic. As a POC I don't think most are looking deep enough at the problem, cosmetic, feel good and a Messiah attitude aren't going to work. If the POC that want safety, economic growth and change they need to understand there will be discomfort, admitting the problems start at home.
> 
> In other words, honesty and work.


As I said, the first thing I would do is create a commission to look deeply into the problems, identify as many possible causes as appropriate, and recommend solutions to the various problems.

I'm a problem avoider by nature. I spend extra time on planning and research so I can avoid most future problems. In this case, I would be fixing problems created by others, but the same procedure works. Do a thorough job in the planning and research phase, develop a realistic implementation plan, get it done.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

There's no absolute safety anywhere. My senior year in high school for example. Guy stabbed and died in the hallway. The next morning carpet cut out and back to class.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> But safety in schools and such is a state and local issue, so the local people are responsible because they elect the people failing them over and over. There are more than enough black folks in most cities to swing every election one way or the other. So, if schools are failing to do the job, why do the vast majority of black people keep the same party in power for decades? It seems personal responsibility is a thing of the past.


You are making it about some fictional group of people and I am focused on the individual student. I don't care who someone votes for or why, I care about every child in America having an equal opportunity for a good education. It's up to them and their family to take advantage of it. Different problem.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> As I said, the first thing I would do is create a commission to look deeply into the problems, identify as many possible causes as appropriate, and recommend solutions to the various problems.
> 
> I'm a problem avoider by nature. I spend extra time on planning and research so I can avoid most future problems. In this case, I would be fixing problems created by others, but the same procedure works. Do a thorough job in the planning and research phase, develop a realistic implementation plan, get it done.


May I recommend a simple request? Clean up your own (problem neighborhoods), turn in the gang members, the thieves and the druggies. See how that works.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

no really said:


> May I recommend a simple request? Clean up your own (problem neighborhoods), turn in the gang members, the thieves and the druggies. See how that works.


I listen to Jordan Peterson too.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> You are making it about some fictional group of people and I am focused on the individual student. I don't care who someone votes for or why, I care about every child in America having an equal opportunity for a good education. It's up to them and their family to take advantage of it. Different problem.


But you are focused on the wrong individuals. You and I are not allowed on school property to protect kids or do anything else. Such things must be enforced by school boards and mayors or if they fail it falls to the governor. How many mayors of big cities today would send cops into schools to protect kids? Many of the mayors want to defund the police so you know they have no use for cops. Elections matter. We get the government wanted by the majority whether local or federal. So, it is unreasonable for blacks to complain about schools when they keep voting for the same people election after election. Look at NYC or Chicago for example. Their unsafe schools and streets are a perpetual problem. Giuliani stopped much of it as Mayor but apparently voters didn't like safety because they replaced him with another failure. Chicago has been a failure forever but someone offering a different approach has no chance of winning. The only logical conclusion is that the majorities like things the way they are.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> If I had a nickel for every time I heard that from those that feel they have the answer, I'd be doing better than Bill Gates monetarily. Good intentions are important unless the person with these intentions is not being realistic. As a POC I don't think most are looking deep enough at the problem, cosmetic, feel good and a Messiah attitude aren't going to work. If the POC that want safety, economic growth and change they need to understand there will be discomfort, admitting the problems start at home.
> 
> In other words, honesty and work.


I love you


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I listen to Jordan Peterson too.


JP has not solved any problems either.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I listen to Jordan Peterson too.


Never have but will check him out.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I was in a work meeting one day and my boss congratulated one of the other managers for how many help calls they had received that month. Never known for knowing when to keep my mouth shut, I asked if help calls going down, not up, wouldn't be a better indicator of doing a good job.
> 
> My point then, as it is now, is that if a problem is truly fixed, you don't get help calls and you don't have to keep sending out maintenance people.


I really don't think it can be fixed. Too many offended people so just keep handing out stuff. Total remodel is great, been there done that. Houses are different than the world 🌍...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I love you


Back at ya


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> Never have but will check him out.


I highly recommend him, but you have to go back to see him before he turned into a YouTube Thinker. Still watch that, but go back in time to see him more raw.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

no really said:


> May I recommend a simple request? Clean up your own (problem neighborhoods), t*urn in the gang members, the thieves and the druggies*. See how that works.


That is the problem!
The citizens need to be proactive and turn in criminals and hold the police accountable.
I mentioned 2019 crime rates earlier. That data shows 16,245 murders and 4752 appear to be unsolved. That's not acceptable.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This is a good JP starter too.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> systemic racism.


Or, the police in those communities are simply overwhelmed by the higher percentage of crimes committed by people in those communities. When the police arrest blacks because they committed a crime, they are called racist for picking on the blacks. Blacks are somewhere around fifteen percent of the total population, yet they commit more than fifty percent of the violent crime in the entire country. This higher percentage of violent attacks has created an opinion in the minds of some white people that blacks are more dangerous than whites. Imagine that, an opinion based on facts.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Thanks for the recommendations of those video's!! They should be very interesting.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I obviously wasn't clear because no one got my point. I was focussing on a child having the right to safely go to school or anywhere else for that matter. We give the government the right to use force (the police, the military), to provide this security.


And then we snivel and whine when the police go out and arrest the criminals. And if the percentage of blacks arrested is greater than the percentage of whites, simply because the blacks commit a higher percentage of crimes, we blame the police for being racist.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> Or, the police in those communities are simply overwhelmed by the higher percentage of crimes committed by people in those communities. When the police arrest blacks because they committed a crime, they are called racist for picking on the blacks. Blacks are somewhere around fifteen percent of the total population, yet they commit more than fifty percent of the violent crime in the entire country. This higher percentage of violent attacks has created an opinion in the minds of some white people that blacks are more dangerous than whites. Imagine that, an opinion based on facts.


I really like our Chief of Police. He's black but doesn't give a carp about race!!! Most of the officers are nervous about getting in trouble. I called him last year and he answered the phone while cleaning out his gutters...


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> The basis of the US is all equal under the law and under the Constitution


Yet when the police and the courts try to enforce the law based on the Constitution, they are called racist because they lock up a higher percentage of blacks than whites. The utopian liberals get their panties all in a bunch when they can't have it both ways. If you commit crimes and generally act like a criminal, the system is designed to come down on you because of your actions. Maybe if the people who are committing a higher percentage of crimes, stopped committing those crimes the statistics would change.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

TripleD said:


> I really like our Chief of Police. He's black but doesn't give a carp about race!!! Most of the officers are nervous about getting in trouble. I called him last year and he answered the phone while cleaning out his gutters...


He sounds like a good guy.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I am truly sorry if I have offended any Liberals out there. I know you can't be bothered by silly things like reality, or facts.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> But you are focused on the wrong individuals. You and I are not allowed on school property to protect kids or do anything else. Such things must be enforced by school boards and mayors or if they fail it falls to the governor. How many mayors of big cities today would send cops into schools to protect kids? Many of the mayors want to defund the police so you know they have no use for cops. Elections matter. We get the government wanted by the majority whether local or federal. So, it is unreasonable for blacks to complain about schools when they keep voting for the same people election after election. Look at NYC or Chicago for example. Their unsafe schools and streets are a perpetual problem. Giuliani stopped much of it as Mayor but apparently voters didn't like safety because they replaced him with another failure. Chicago has been a failure forever but someone offering a different approach has no chance of winning. The only logical conclusion is that the majorities like things the way they are.


Again, I don't care what minorities or majorities want. I am focused on the individual and their individual rights as protected by the Constitution.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

no really said:


> Never have but will check him out.


He tells radicals to fix their own problems, then their families, then their communities, before trying to solve the world's problems.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

TripleD said:


> I really don't think it can be fixed. Too many offended people so just keep handing out stuff. Total remodel is great, been there done that. Houses are different than the world 🌍...


We haven't had a real leader as President in a long time. We do have some governors that are showing good leadership in their states.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> He tells radicals to fix their own problems, then their families, then their communities, before trying to solve the world's problems.


So far the videos HD posted have been what I feel is the only viable method of success.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> Or, the police in those communities are simply overwhelmed by the higher percentage of crimes committed by people in those communities. When the police arrest blacks because they committed a crime, they are called racist for picking on the blacks. Blacks are somewhere around fifteen percent of the total population, yet they commit more than fifty percent of the violent crime in the entire country. This higher percentage of violent attacks has created an opinion in the minds of some white people that blacks are more dangerous than whites. Imagine that, an opinion based on facts.


You are focusing on the results, not the cause.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> Yet when the police and the courts try to enforce the law based on the Constitution, they are called racist because they lock up a higher percentage of blacks than whites. The utopian liberals get their panties all in a bunch when they can't have it both ways. If you commit crimes and generally act like a criminal, the system is designed to come down on you because of your actions. Maybe if the people who are committing a higher percentage of crimes, stopped committing those crimes the statistics would change.


So you are arguing that you would have exactly the same feelings stopping a speeding white driver in a compact car at 3 am as a black driver in a Mercedes with darkened windows at 3 am?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> So you are arguing that you would have exactly the same feelings stopping a speeding white driver in a compact car at 3 am as a black driver in a Mercedes with darkened windows at 3 am?


Just keep stirring. Have fun ... This spins better than the dryer at the office!!!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> You are focusing on the results, not the cause.


Yes I am, the results are what we have to live with. The cause is a hypothetical list of "what if's". Maybe, and if only, and I didn't have, are not valid reasons to become a criminal.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> So you are arguing that you would have exactly the same feelings stopping a speeding white driver in a compact car at 3 am as a black driver in a Mercedes with darkened windows at 3 am?


When I was a Deputy, I didn't stop anyone because of my "feelings". When I stopped someone, it was because of something they did. And they all got treated the same.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> JP has not solved any problems either.


No, he wants people to take personal responsibility on fix their own problems not him.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Ziptie said:


> No, he wants people to take personal responsibility on fix their own problems not him.


Exactly and he is getting a world of grief in saying so 

He makes the big mistake of using facts, and data


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Again, I don't care what minorities or majorities want. I am focused on the individual and their individual rights as protected by the Constitution.


What rights are not being protected? Have you seen one person regardless of color who was not allowed to enter a school? Can you find one person of any color without a criminal record or other legal obstruction and who has the education required for that position denied a job anywhere? Find me one person with a legal address who is not a felon who was told 'you cannot vote'. They do not exist.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> When I was a Deputy, I didn't stop anyone because of my "feelings". When I stopped someone, it was because of something they did. And they all got treated the same.


So even though you said African Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, that thought never entered your mind during a 3 am traffic stop? It sure would have entered mine.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Kind of hard to know who or what your pulling over in the dark at 3 am.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> What rights are not being protected? Have you seen one person regardless of color who was not allowed to enter a school? Can you find one person of any color without a criminal record or other legal obstruction and who has the education required for that position denied a job anywhere? Find me one person with a legal address who is not a felon who was told 'you cannot vote'. They do not exist.


I've already said it about 5 times, but I'll say it again. The government has accepted the responsibility of providing a safe environment for our citizens. If a child is not safe on the way to or from school, or while in school, the government has not met their obligation under the Constitution. The question then becomes why hasn't the government provided a safe environment as they agreed to? If it has anything to do with the racial makeup of the community, it would be an example of systemic racism.

You keep arguing against things I never said. Police power is given in the Constitution to the government. We the people gave up the right of being vigilantes and told the government to provide security. I am not talking about voting, about who commits the most crimes, or how bad education is. I am simply saying every child in America is entitled to be safe in their person going to and from school. Whether it is walking, riding a school bus, or riding a city bus, the government has a responsibility to provide the necessary resources to ensure these children are reasonably safe.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> So you are arguing that you would have exactly the same feelings stopping a speeding white driver in a compact car at 3 am as a black driver in a Mercedes with darkened windows at 3 am?


Yup, I’d be covering my backside in either case.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> So even though you said African Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, that thought never entered your mind during a 3 am traffic stop? It sure would have entered mine.


I never said it didn't enter my mind, I said I treated them all the same. Nobody got special treatment.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I've already said it about 5 times, but I'll say it again. The government has accepted the responsibility of providing a safe environment for our citizens. If a child is not safe on the way to or from school, or while in school, the government has not met their obligation under the Constitution. The question then becomes why hasn't the government provided a safe environment as they agreed to? If it has anything to do with the racial makeup of the community, it would be an example of systemic racism.
> 
> You keep arguing against things I never said. Police power is given in the Constitution to the government. We the people gave up the right of being vigilantes and told the government to provide security. I am not talking about voting, about who commits the most crimes, or how bad education is. I am simply saying every child in America is entitled to be safe in their person going to and from school. Whether it is walking, riding a school bus, or riding a city bus, the government has a responsibility to provide the necessary resources to ensure these children are reasonably safe.


Wrong again. The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens.

Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs Gonzales


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> the government has not met their obligation under the Constitution


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government has any obligation to protect citizens from crime.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> why hasn't the government provided a safe environment as they agreed to?


Are you just making this up as you go, have you read the Constitution? Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention providing a safe environment for anybody.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Police power is given in the Constitution to the government.


No it isn't.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Can anyone give me an example of systemic racism?
> Institutional racism?
> I hear these words being thrown around, but I'm not sure I understand what they mean


It's another term for butthurt these days I think. These lunatics have so misused that word that the meaning has become muddied and screwed up.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

georger said:


> It's another term for butthurt these days I think. These lunatics have so misused that word that the meaning has become muddied and screwed up.


Heck, They don't even know what they want themselves. They told us for decades it was racist to notice a person's color but now we are told not noticing a person's color is racism in itself. Everything is racism according to them. Even if you look at your own views and have zero negative opinion of blacks, have black friends, maybe even married a black person and have kids, you are still a racist. Some obviously black people are now being denied positions because they are 'not black enough'. Even if you have very dark skin but do not tow the BLM line to the letter, you are not black enough. You have to look black, act black (whatever that means), and think like a black (whatever that means). All this after decades of telling us color shouldn't matter. It is indeed insanity.


----------



## stars at night (Mar 12, 2021)

georger said:


> It's another term for butthurt these days I think. These lunatics have so misused that word that the meaning has become muddied and screwed up.





poppy said:


> Heck, They don't even know what they want themselves. They told us for decades it was racist to notice a person's color but now we are told not noticing a person's color is racism in itself. Everything is racism according to them. Even if you look at your own views and have zero negative opinion of blacks, have black friends, maybe even married a black person and have kids, you are still a racist. Some obviously black people are now being denied positions because they are 'not black enough'. Even if you have very dark skin but do not tow the BLM line to the letter, you are not black enough. You have to look black, act black (whatever that means), and think like a black (whatever that means). All this after decades of telling us color shouldn't matter. It is indeed insanity.


I have just gotten so sick AND TIRED of being afraid to speak on almost any issue re this country, it's people, their color, religion, sex, politics, police etc et al. This is MY country as much as anyone elses and we were all given the same Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and leaders (at any given time) This country is soooo foobared right now. I have never felt threatened by any one person ever; now I watch my back every time I leave home.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

muleskinner2 said:


> Are you just making this up as you go, have you read the Constitution? Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention providing a safe environment for anybody.


Amazing how many do not think about this.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> I never said it didn't enter my mind, I said I treated them all the same. Nobody got special treatment.


Well I can't admit to living up to such high standards. I once stopped a vehicle for failing to signal a turn and gave the driver a complete pass. One of his passengers was Dolly Parton. Okay, shoot me.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

poppy said:


> What rights are not being protected? Have you seen one person regardless of color who was not allowed to enter a school? Can you find one person of any color without a criminal record or other legal obstruction and who has the education required for that position denied a job anywhere? Find me one person with a legal address who is not a felon who was told 'you cannot vote'. They do not exist.


I can give an example of a qualified person being denied a job, but because of age, not race. Hubby was called for a background check and they asked his birthdate. Oh, whoops, job offer immediately withdrawn.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I know of examples of systemic racism. In the original deed for my property it says that it can never be sold to a black person.

Another example of systemic racism, people of color are ok with others of color calling them the N word. If a white person calls a black person that word, there will be a fight.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I know of examples of systemic racism. In the original deed for my property it says that it can never be sold to a black person.


this sounds like a case of individual racism rather than systemic.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> this sounds like a case of individual racism rather than systemic.


Please differentiate the two. 

All the deeds in this area say the same thing. When I questioned it at the closing I was told it was standard wording dating back several decades.

What about federal laws saying persons of American Indian decent are not allowed to own land east of the Mississippi river? Systemic or individual?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gilberte said:


> Well I can't admit to living up to such high standards. I once stopped a vehicle for failing to signal a turn and gave the driver a complete pass. One of his passengers was Dolly Parton. Okay, shoot me.


You are only human.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Please differentiate the two.
> 
> All the deeds in this area say the same thing. When I questioned it at the closing I was told it was standard wording dating back several decades.
> 
> What about federal laws saying persons of American Indian decent are not allowed to own land east of the Mississippi river? Systemic or individual?


It may be a bit difficult to enforce such deed restrictions as of 1968. As to any federal laws on the books forbidding anyone to own property anywhere I call bs.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

stars at night said:


> This country is soooo foobared right now.


It does seem so.

BTW - It's FUBARed


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> It may be a bit difficult to enforce such deed restrictions as of 1968. As to any federal laws on the books forbidding anyone to own property anywhere I call bs.


You must not have heard of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

As for enforcement of deed restrictions, I never said it could be enforced. But the deed does say the land can never be sold to a black person. Racial deed restrictions were common practice before 1968.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> Wrong again. The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens.
> 
> Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs Gonzales


That case only deals with a restraining order. It has absolutely nothing to do with police being responsible for the general safety of the population.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government has any obligation to protect citizens from crime.


In United States constitutional law, *police power* is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

_"The authority for use of police power under American Constitutional law has its roots in English and European common law traditions.[3] Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two (Latin) principles, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"), to justify restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.[3] The concept of police power in America was further expanded in a series of notable court cases in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, including the landmark 1851 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Alger, and the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. " _






Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> Are you just making this up as you go, have you read the Constitution? Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention providing a safe environment for anybody.


Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two (Latin) principles, _sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas_ ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and _salus populi suprema lex esto_ ("*the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"*), to *justify restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.*[3






Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> No it isn't.


...provide for the general welfare.
Rights not given specifically to the federal government, belong to the states and the people.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> ...provide for the general welfare.
> Rights not given specifically to the federal government, belong to the states and the people.


Moon, you are following in the footsteps of those perverting the intent of the constitution to mean anything they want. The leftist courts have been constructed to support the perversion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> You must not have heard of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
> 
> As for enforcement of deed restrictions, I never said it could be enforced. But the deed does say the land can never be sold to a black person. Racial deed restrictions were common practice before 1968.


I’ve just now reread the Indian removal act. Nowhere does it deny the right of property ownership to individuals East or west of the Mississippi.

racial deed restrictions may have been common in your area but in all the deeds I researched in Kentucky I never ran across one. Certain families yes, but never racial.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The Indian Removal Act forcibly removed people of certain racial backgrounds from property they owned, without recourse or compensation, and marched them across the Mississippi river. 

I'll have to look for the other act later. I ran across it a while back. 

Racial deed restrictions were common in many areas. Just because they are not common in your area does not mean they don't exist. The only ones I could find in reference to Kentucky were in the Louisville area.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Judge: County recorders cannot alter deed restrictions, even if it includes racist language


A federal judge has ruled that Ohio's county recorders cannot remove racist language from old deed restrictions and covenants. In dismissing a




www.dispatch.com


----------



## stars at night (Mar 12, 2021)

HDRider said:


> It does seem so.
> 
> BTW - It's FUBARed


does it really matter?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> The Indian Removal Act forcibly removed people of certain racial backgrounds from property they owned, without recourse or compensation, and marched them across the Mississippi river.
> 
> I'll have to look for the other act later. I ran across it a while back.
> 
> Racial deed restrictions were common in many areas. Just because they are not common in your area does not mean they don't exist. The only ones I could find in reference to Kentucky were in the Louisville area.


Read it again, carefully. Claiming lands isnt the same as owning lands. The act empowered the president to “exchange” lands with various tribes and even compensate them for improvements if they agreed.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Moon, you are following in the footsteps of those perverting the intent of the constitution to mean anything they want. The leftist courts have been constructed to support the perversion.


I'm going by what the Supreme Court has decided. What is your basis?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

gilberte said:


> Well I can't admit to living up to such high standards. I once stopped a vehicle for failing to signal a turn and gave the driver a complete pass. One of his passengers was Dolly Parton. Okay, shoot me.


Nothing wrong with giving a warning, and no ticket. I have given many more warnings than tickets. It isn't special treatment.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I feel like racisim was pretty well on the way out until the Obamas entered the whitehouse. They played the race card hard to get in there and used it the entire time to keep themselves in the news. They are still in the news routinely stirring up trouble regarding race issues. Now anytime some scumbag person of color gets harassed, beat up or killed (in line of duty) by a white cop, the cops get crucified. If anyone steps up to support the white officer, they are immediately called racist.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> In United States constitutional law, *police power* is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.
> 
> _"The authority for use of police power under American Constitutional law has its roots in English and European common law traditions.[3] Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two (Latin) principles, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"), to justify restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.[3] The concept of police power in America was further expanded in a series of notable court cases in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, including the landmark 1851 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Alger, and the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. " _
> 
> ...


The constitution does not give police authority to the federal government, it leaves it to the states. The states can make their own laws, and enforce them or not as they see fit. The constitution does not give them this authority, it denies it to the federal government. The constitution restricts the powers of the federal government, and leaves the states to choose what they wish to do, or not do. It does not grant any police powers, it gives the states the choice of what they will do or not do.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> In United States constitutional law, *police power* is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitant


It defines the states capacity keep the peace, it does not require them to do so. It provides them the choice, not any obligation.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> ...provide for the general welfare.
> Rights not given specifically to the federal government, belong to the states and the people.


Yes, it belongs to the states and the people, but they are not required to do anything. It ensures their right to choose. And those choices end up being made by politicians, who are more interested in their own agenda than keeping the peace. And that leaves the citizen with the short end of the stick.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I've noticed not many of those who believe in Systemic Racism have commented on this.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> The constitution does not give police authority to the federal government, it leaves it to the states. The states can make their own laws, and enforce them or not as they see fit. The constitution does not give them this authority, it denies it to the federal government. The constitution restricts the powers of the federal government, and leaves the states to choose what they wish to do, or not do. It does not grant any police powers, it gives the states the choice of what they will do or not do.


I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
​​


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
> ​​


The general welfare clause places no obligation upon the states Nor upon the federal government. It only grants the power to tax. much farther down the constitution does place one obligation upon the states... to provide a republican form of government to its citizens.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
> ​​


Seems many of us have not been getting our monies worth then. Might be the reason I do not high expectations.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Evons hubby said:


> The general welfare clause places no obligation upon the states Nor upon the federal government. It only grants the power to tax. much farther down the constitution does place one obligation upon the states... to provide a republican form of government to its citizens.


Police powers within a state are defined by that state's constitution, which must be in compliance with the US Constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Police powers within a state are defined by that state's constitution, which must be in compliance with the US Constitution.


Both true, but a state is under no obligation to provide any particular safety measures for their citizens.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I've already said it about 5 times, but I'll say it again. The government has accepted the responsibility of providing a safe environment for our citizens. If a child is not safe on the way to or from school, or while in school, the government has not met their obligation under the Constitution. The question then becomes why hasn't the government provided a safe environment as they agreed to? If it has anything to do with the racial makeup of the community, it would be an example of systemic racism.
> 
> You keep arguing against things I never said. Police power is given in the Constitution to the government. We the people gave up the right of being vigilantes and told the government to provide security. I am not talking about voting, about who commits the most crimes, or how bad education is. I am simply saying every child in America is entitled to be safe in their person going to and from school. Whether it is walking, riding a school bus, or riding a city bus, the government has a responsibility to provide the necessary resources to ensure these children are reasonably safe.



Why is it the governments job to keep the child safe? Is not the parents job?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Ziptie said:


> Why is it the governments job to keep the child safe? Is not the parents job?


I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.


----------



## stars at night (Mar 12, 2021)

MoonRiver said:


> I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.





MoonRiver said:


> I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.


I urge you all to read William Goldings "The Lord of the Flies" even if you read it once before.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I highly recommend him, but you have to go back to see him before he turned into a YouTube Thinker. Still watch that, but go back in time to see him more raw.


Very good video's, they make a person examine closer the perceived problem under discussion. Thanks, he is now on my reading and watching list.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.


When a child is in the mandated custody of a state/federal institution it holds responsibility for the child's well being, on that we agree. But those institutions are failing badly in this. Some so bad they should be held criminally liable.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

no really said:


> When a child is in the mandated custody of a state/federal institution it holds responsibility for the child's well being, on that we agree. But those institutions are failing badly in this. Some so bad they should be held criminally liable.


We agree. Going all the way back to my original point, when this failure seems to happen more frequently in poor, minority schools, it might be that systemic racism is part of the cause. For years, poor school systems have argued that the method a state uses to fund schools often does not provide equal funding to poor communities.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> We agree. Going all the way back to my original point, when this failure seems to happen more frequently in poor, minority schools, it might be that systemic racism is part of the cause. For years, poor school systems have argued that the method a state uses to fund schools often does not provide equal funding to poor communities.


If the schools would allow security and allow said security to handle problems, that would be a major help. But allowing the dangerous to continue on is ridiculous. So fund adequate security, real security, along with punishment, in conjunction with the legal system. I don't see it as systemic racism as it seems to cross all lines. But there should always be punishment not the mealy mouthed saviors that think they can solve anything with there babble.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Vjk. That’s an awful high horse you are riding for a newbie in this forum.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Vjk. That’s an awful high horse you are riding for a newbie in this forum.


I've been around for a while. And I don't like pompous arrogant egomaniacs claiming to know how to run other people's lives.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> Read it again, carefully. Claiming lands isnt the same as owning lands. The act empowered the president to “exchange” lands with various tribes and even compensate them for improvements if they agreed.


I know what the law said. I also know how that law was used to forcibly remove unwilling people from productive homesteads onto trash land where they could not grow crops. There was no compensation. Those forcibly removed were not allowed to take anything with them. Read some historical accounts of the Trail of Tears.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I know what the law said. I also know how that law was used to forcibly remove unwilling people from productive homesteads onto trash land where they could not grow crops. There was no compensation. Those forcibly removed were not allowed to take anything with them. Read some historical accounts of the Trail of Tears.


if you know what the law said, then you should know it didn’t forbid land ownership to anyone. Again, ownership is different than merely claiming.
I’m familiar with the trail of tears, seems like I also read about the Cherokee run after that. oklahoma being so unproductive that many white settlers fought hard (many cheated) to get their 160 acres.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

You are blending 2 statements of mine. I never said the forced removal was the one that said they could not own land. I haven't had time to search the land ownership issue.

You obviously do not know the difference in climate, soils and native vegetation between Oklahoma and the eastern lands the Cherokee were forced from. Since you do not understand the 2 areas have distinctly different growing conditions I cannot explain to you why the Cherokee farmers had a difficult time growing crops in Oklahoma. The govt expected them to become cattle ranchers.

As for the land rush, Americans are stupid. They'll take anything given to them "free" from the govt.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Are you an American?


Danaus29 said:


> Americans are stupid


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Yes, and very stupid at times.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It’s okay to disagree but disagree respectfully


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Evons hubby said:


> if you know what the law said, then you should know it didn’t forbid land ownership to anyone. Again, ownership is different than merely claiming.
> I’m familiar with the trail of tears, seems like I also read about the Cherokee run after that. oklahoma being so unproductive that many white settlers fought hard (many cheated) to get their 160 acres.


History doesn't appear to be your strong suite.

Back then a claim proved ip was ownership, you're equating modern ideas to the past.

As to the strip run, that was just the last governmentl land steal of some basically worthless ground


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> you're equating modern ideas to the past.


And why statues are toppled, books rewritten or banned, speech is censored public school indoctrination is condoned.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> equating modern ideas to the past.


We seem to have a number of movements running under that premise.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> History doesn't appear to be your strong suite.
> 
> Back then a claim proved ip was ownership, you're equating modern ideas to the past.
> 
> As to the strip run, that was just the last governmentl land steal of some basically worthless ground


A claim is only a claim. Anyone can claim anything, doesn’t mean squat. “Proved up“ didn’t make a claim owned. It also required proper legal paperwork, recognized by the government. Somewhere in my stuff I have the original paperwork my grandfather got which granted him ownership of his 120 acres of so-called worthless desert land in eastern Oregon. Nothing on it but rattlesnakes and sagebrush until he cleared it, leveled it, put a cabin on it, built irrigation ditches and was farming it. In today’s market... 8-10k per acre. Hardly worthless!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> You are blending 2 statements of mine. I never said the forced removal was the one that said they could not own land. I haven't had time to search the land ownership issue.
> 
> You obviously do not know the difference in climate, soils and native vegetation between Oklahoma and the eastern lands the Cherokee were forced from. Since you do not understand the 2 areas have distinctly different growing conditions I cannot explain to you why the Cherokee farmers had a difficult time growing crops in Oklahoma. The govt expected them to become cattle ranchers.
> 
> As for the land rush, Americans are stupid. They'll take anything given to them "free" from the govt.


I’m far more aware than you may think. About numerous subjects. 
see my post to coolrunnin directly above.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
> ​​


If you were right, and to do what you want, they would have to put a policeman on every corner. Catching the criminals isn't the problem, the courts keep turning them loose, because the prisons are at capacity now. The problem isn't with the police, it's the growing criminal element. As the population grows the percentage of criminals grows.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Police powers within a state are defined by that state's constitution, which must be in compliance with the US Constitution.


That is the theory, unfortunately it isn't always the case. There is little consistency in the laws from one state to the next. It is often left up to the whim of some politician, with little regard to right or wrong.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> I know what the law said. I also know how that law was used to forcibly remove unwilling people from productive homesteads onto trash land where they could not grow crops. There was no compensation. Those forcibly removed were not allowed to take anything with them. Read some historical accounts of the Trail of Tears.


The Trail of Tears, shows how little regard politicians have for the Constitution, or laws in general. They almost always do whatever will get them the most votes, at election time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

muleskinner2 said:


> The Trail of Tears, shows how little regard politicians have for the Constitution, or laws in general. They almost always do whatever will get them the most votes, at election time.


The trail of tears involved non citizens exempt from any protection under the constitution. They were a conquered people. To the victor goes the spoils and like that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> The trail of tears involved non citizens exempt from any protection under the constitution. They were a conquered people. To the victor goes the spoils and like that.


You did it again


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.


Armoured school buses !?!? Take your own to school and provide their safety. Everyone can't get police escort...


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> If you were right, and to do what you want, they would have to put a policeman on every corner. Catching the criminals isn't the problem, the courts keep turning them loose, because the prisons are at capacity now. The problem isn't with the police, it's the growing criminal element. As the population grows the percentage of criminals grows.


Exactly! It would never stop . Sidewalks highways and anything else!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You did it again


I didn’t do nuthin! I wasn’t even born yet!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

TripleD said:


> Exactly! It would never stop . Sidewalks highways and anything else!


We were safe walking to school or riding the school bus when I went to school. Why would you assume that is not possible now?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> We were safe walking to school or riding the school bus when I went to school. Why would you assume that is not possible now?


Why were you safe then?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Why were you safe then?


It's been going on about safety for years. What's the next plan??? Duck and cover when I was in kindergarten 😊.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> We were safe walking to school or riding the school bus when I went to school. Why would you assume that is not possible now?


Because of the way many of the children in the last couple of generations were raised. Now we’re seeing the results.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

TripleD said:


> It's been going on about safety for years. What's the next plan??? Duck and cover when I was in kindergarten .


When we were kids it was duck and cover from possible atomic bombs and the occasional tornado. 

Now it’s duck and cover from the little thugs and psychos that the politically correct and caring citizens and some so called parental caregivers insist be allowed to run loose in schools.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> When we were kids it was duck and cover from possible atomic bombs and the occasional tornado.
> 
> Now it’s duck and cover from the little thugs and psychos that the politically correct and caring citizens and some so called parental caregivers insist be allowed to run loose in schools.


Spot on!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I skipped about 5 pages but I did see that some were talking about police putting more blacks in prison than white. That has never been true. 

The court puts people in prison, not police. Yet it seems the police get all the blame. If this had been mentioned already then I apologize.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> I’m far more aware than you may think. About numerous subjects.
> see my post to coolrunnin directly above.


And you are still evading the original question. Is it systemic racism or not?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> The trail of tears involved non citizens exempt from any protection under the constitution. They were a conquered people. To the victor goes the spoils and like that.


And who decided they were non-citizens?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> And who decided they were non-citizens?


They did. Like Canada they wanted no part of the newly formed government.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> And you are still evading the original question. Is it systemic racism or not?


I’d have to say no to that, since there is no law in place denying anyone the right to own property.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> They did. Like Canada they wanted no part of the newly formed government.


As a whole they did not. The New Echota treaty was not accepted by the majority.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> I’d have to say no to that, since there is no law in place denying anyone the right to own property.


Since you want to argue semantics, was the Indian Removal Act systemic racism?

Is a land deed stating that the land can never be sold to black people systemic racism?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Since you want to argue semantics, was the Indian Removal Act systemic racism?
> 
> Is a land deed stating that the land can never be sold to black people systemic racism?


No on both counts, for the reasons I stated previously.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I figured you would say that, regardless of the reason.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I figured you would say that, regardless of the reason.


I do tend to go with the facts, no matter how unpleasant.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

So, is the argument there is systemic racism now, or that there was some time in the past? Those are two very different arguments.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

todd_xxxx said:


> So, is the argument there is systemic racism now, or that there was some time in the past? Those are two very different arguments.


That’s also true. But was Jackson practicing systemic racism, or evicting squatters?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

Evons hubby said:


> That’s also true. But was Jackson practicing systemic racism, or evicting squatters?


I don't feel qualified to answer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

todd_xxxx said:


> I don't feel qualified to answer.


From what I’ve read there was a signed treaty exchanging lands and five million dollars. some of the Cherokee refused to leave As agreed so Jackson had them evicted. Racism? Or upholding the law?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> That’s also true. But was Jackson practicing systemic racism, or evicting squatters?


The people living on the land did not agree to the "exchange". The chief elders did not agree to the "exchange". Just like any other time the US govt decided it wanted Indian land they paid off some dupe to sign somthing they had no authority to sign then held that up as law of the land.


What is an example of systemic racism according to Yvonne's Hubby?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> The people living on the land did not agree to the "exchange". The chief elders did not agree to the "exchange". Just like any other time the US govt decided it wanted Indian land they paid off some dupe to sign somthing they had no authority to sign then held that up as law of the land.
> 
> 
> What is an example of systemic racism according to Yvonne's Hubby?


I’m not even sure it exists!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

What exists today is not comparable to days of old and is in most cases confused (or not) with systemic classism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> What exists today is not comparable to days of old and is in most cases confused (or not) with systemic classism.


Another concept I’m not sure exists. So few exhibit any class!


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Can anyone give me an example of systemic racism?
> Institutional racism?
> I hear these words being thrown around, but I'm not sure I understand what they mean


They mean whatever the individuals throwing it out want it to mean.


----------



## traumacist (Apr 8, 2014)

I like to listen to audiobooks for my 1 hr drive to work and 1 hr drive home. That means I might have to "borrow" audiobooks more often than normal, if one is shorter than another.. almost makes listening to fiction more palatable than fact. I was and AM disillusioned by the "bigger, better thing" that many US corporations have clung on to in the name of "diversity", and that Includes the institution I'm employed with. My employer provides a great place to work... love my job, my co-workers, my supervisors.. the part that has me so frustrated is that the unrelenting emphasis on "being offensive" has made everything and anything a target for being an offense, whether it is or not.... People of all ethnicities are forever in fear that their lack of knowledge of other's cultures will offend someone. And while that DOES lead to better humanitarianism, it does NOT work well in the work environment where mostly the "non-protected" are forced into the position to suffer whatever indignities or threats (real or insinuated) by co-workers "protected" on a constant basis. Somewhere.... SOMEWHERE....... THERE HAS TO BE A LINE DRAWN. Cortisol levels will wipe out thousands of many races just because of competition, stress, anxiety, and burnout Exactly WHEN does the insanity stop?? When do humans recognize others as human??


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> Underachieving schools in poor black communities might be considered systemic racism.
> Blacks getting harsher sentences than whites for drug offenses might be considered systemic racism.
> Lack of grocery stores in poor black neighborhoods might be considered systemic racism.
> 
> Please note I did not say these examples are systemic racism, but they might be considered to be. I made up my platform as if I was running for governor of Virginia and I included a commission to examine things like this to determine if they are caused by systemic racism or other causes. These are real problems that need to be addressed, regardless of cause.


No grocery stores in black neighbors is because of crime.
School and blacks is because busing made the problem city wide. Ask me how I know. Baltimore.
Jail time from repeat offenders and because black on black crime.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Forcast said:


> No grocery stores in black neighbors is because of crime.


Are you 100% sure there are no other possible reasons?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you 100% sure there are no other possible reasons?


That is probably the most obvious.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you 100% sure there are no other possible reasons?


Lack of profits?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you 100% sure there are no other possible reasons?


So is it really as simple as "If you are not 100% sure that isn't the reason, then systemic racism." Or are you 100% sure it is systemic racism?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Forcast said:
> 
> 
> > No grocery stores in black neighbors is because of crime.
> ...


That’s a flawed premise.
If Fuller Park is not a “food desert”, where should I be looking?









Granted, there’s not a grocery store in the actual park, but groceries can be found in the neighborhood. Are we just taking political platitudes at face value, now?


----------



## Laurence1a (Apr 24, 2021)

mreynolds said:


> Making you check a box telling what race you are for nearly everything from the government. Why bother keeping count on how many of this race or that one? It's been going on since Jim Crow days.


Jim Crow = Democrats


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you 100% sure there are no other possible reasons?


Why do black people cry when they get burned out of their own neighborhood by other blacks?

Do you think young black men spare the black enterprise when they rob a store?

If there was money to be made, somebody would put business there.

You have developed an oversized apologist muscle. 

We know all the right thing to do. We know all the wrong thing to do. We choose wrong to make us feel better as we turn away from the real problems. Tough problems. Tough choices. We like easy, feel good answers. Problems breed political support and activists'' opportunities. That in itself perpetuates the problem.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> So is it really as simple as "If you are not 100% sure that isn't the reason, then systemic racism." Or are you 100% sure it is systemic racism?


It simply means problems are often quite complicated with a multitude of causes. Isn't it possible both the left and the right might be partially right?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Why do black people cry when they get burned out of their own neighborhood by other blacks?
> 
> Do you think young black men spare the black enterprise when they rob a store?
> 
> ...


Does that mean you believe the groups you are assigned to by others are more important than the individual? Do you think it's OK to stigmatize an honest person just because they happen to be the same race as the individuals who robbed a store or burned the neighborhood?

I believe in judging every person as an individual.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> It simply means problems are often quite complicated with a multitude of causes. Isn't it possible both the left and the right might be partially right?


Bingo Ringo

That does not generate votes. Time tested formula for a powerbase. Create a common enemy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Does that mean you believe the groups you are assigned to by others are more important than the individual? Do you think it's OK to stigmatize an honest person just because they happen to be the same race as the individuals who robbed a store or burned the neighborhood?
> 
> I believe in judging every person as an individual.


I don't know everyone personally. I'm working on it, but I may run out of time.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Laurence1a said:


> Jim Crow = Democrats


Strong outta the gat...
Ouch. Sad face. 

Take a mulligan?


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you 100% sure there are no other possible reasons?


When Walgreens closes a bunch of stores when shoplifting exceeds the sales, if not the only reason, certainly the main reason.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> Lack of profits?


Excess shoplifting causes a lack of profit.

There used to be a nice grocery store here between New Somalia and Little Tijuana but the amount of inventory that left without being paid caused the store to close. There is a Wal-mart close to the empty building and they have security guards. Lowes a couple miles away has a police officer on the premises at all times. The Kroger store there also has security guards on site.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> It simply means problems are often quite complicated with a multitude of causes. Isn't it possible both the left and the right might be partially right?


I agree with that. The problem is that the default response by one side of the equation seems to be that all problems are racism.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> I agree with that. The problem is that the default response by one side of the equation seems to be that all problems are racism.


And the default response of the other side is No, it's not.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Honestly, I don't know what it is, either. 
When asked about her experiences of systemic racism, a prominent black doctor told this story;
I have to *make sure* no one in my car is wearing baggy shirts, their hoods up, or their hats on. We simply* have to* look decent or we will get pulled over by the cops!

Now, I would respond, so you're saying that cops pull you over based on your clothing choices and NOT your race? Interesting.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> I really like our Chief of Police. He's black but doesn't give a carp about race!!! Most of the officers are nervous about getting in trouble. I called him last year and he answered the phone while cleaning out his gutters...


He answered today while in the Court House. Rental got shot up Saturday night. Good neighbor hood , good tenants just an univited guest. Told me to be cautious for another. Tenants are in the motel. I have to check out the inside tomorrow. Fun and games 😛!!!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

There was racism, there is racism, there will always be racism. Humans are tribal by nature, it's in our DNA, believing that your tribe is better than the other tribe is what has kept us evolving, striving, fighting for our lives for thousands of years. It is neither good or bad, it just is. Modern humans telling themselves that we are somehow past all of that, is the biggest lie ever told. Humans like to think that they are better than the other guy. Either by being racist, or telling the other guy that he is racist. No matter what we do, it is all just jacking up our ego.

We have been doing it since we kicked the saber tooth tiger out of his cave, and we will be doing it when we are landing on other planets. Talking about it won't change it, pointing fingers won't change it, fighting wars won't change it. Instead of wasting time fussing about it, we should be trying to do better in spite of it.

But that wouldn't be as much fun.


----------

