U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-24-2010, 12:50 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,113,590 times
Reputation: 5741

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown85 View Post
Example: Racial profiling in high crime neighborhoods

Suppose Congress passed a law allowing racial profiling in high crime areas. The Supreme Court upheld it. You would probably support the expansion of federal power.
I know you didn't direct this question at me, but I want to take a shot at it.

The first rejoinder is WHAT sort of sense is this supposed to make????

The whole term "racial profiling" was the creation of the then governor of New Jersey when a so-called "Civil Rights" group complained because blacks were stopped for speeding out of proportion to their numbers in the state. The gov. harumphed and harumped and said something like "racial profiling has no place.." Or some such PC BS.

As it turned out? An independent study was done -- based on video tape evidence -- and guess what the results where? That the stopping of blacks was not because they were black...but because, in demographics, blacks actually DID speed at a greater rate along the New Jersey Turnpike! In fact, when it came right down to it, the numbers of blacks being stopped was actually LESS than the so-called "racial profile" accusation.

Here is a link on it all:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2...profiling-lie/

What IS "racial profiling" anyway? It is just an emotive term to steer what most people know is the truth, into a ditch.

White males are more likely to be serial killers. It only makes sense to draw profiles of the same and disproportionately stop and question them. So the same is true of high-level drug dealers. On the other hand, in certain neighborhoods, it only makes sense to form a "profile" of the suspect. It is absolutely insane to think that some groups do not commit certain crimes far out of proportion to their percentage of the general population. Or that some groups are not more prone to highjack and blow-up airplanes with innocent people on board.

Gawdamighty, this PC lunacy will be the death of us yet....
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2010, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,566,350 times
Reputation: 3232
You can't use links such as that far-right propaganda website to justify your point. Show us an unbiased source on this.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 01:26 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,113,590 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazoopilot View Post
You can't use links such as that far-right propaganda website to justify your point. Show us an unbiased source on this.
Kazoo?

This just shows how much you know about journalism/blogs/etc. If I were you, I would stop before making a real fool of yourself.

By nature, the above are going to be biased. That is, a syndicated column, blog, etc. Gosh, even posts on C-D are going to be slanted. Yours are, mine are, and so are Joe Blows and Sally Roes. Simply because they are opinions commenting on certain facts as percieved and absorbed.

So...listen carefully. Are the FACTS themselves wrong? That is the important thing. How one spins it and what to make of it/them is just the nature of the liberal/conservative beast.

But are the facts themselves wrong?

So when you ask me to show an "unbiased source". Fair enough. Check out the unbiased stats! Are they right or are they wrong?

I can very much understand why some people might get disgusted over the commentary and nature of this particular blog. But point is, the stats and studies are the simple truth and based on solid evidence. The opinion might take a deplorable position...but that doesn't change that facts are not facts. The best way to change the facts is that the group in question change their behavior patterns.

Last edited by TexasReb; 11-24-2010 at 01:58 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,403 posts, read 21,195,492 times
Reputation: 10280
I think its mostly the South East that gets people from the North East. Here in Texas, we get a lot more people from California (like me!), Mexico, and even from the Midwest. There are still people from up north, but they are far outnumbered by Californians (especially in Dallas, Houston, and Austin).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,056,837 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
I think its mostly the South East that gets people from the North East. Here in Texas, we get a lot more people from California (like me!), Mexico, and even from the Midwest. There are still people from up north, but they are far outnumbered by Californians (especially in Dallas, Houston, and Austin).
I wanted to point this out earlier in the thread. Texas is really the oddball when it comes to transplants from parts of the country moving to the Southern US.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 01:59 PM
 
1,728 posts, read 4,128,007 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
I know you didn't direct this question at me, but I want to take a shot at it.

The first rejoinder is WHAT sort of sense is this supposed to make????

The whole term "racial profiling" was the creation of the then governor of New Jersey when a so-called "Civil Rights" group complained because blacks were stopped for speeding out of proportion to their numbers in the state. The gov. harumphed and harumped and said something like "racial profiling has no place.." Or some such PC BS.

As it turned out? An independent study was done -- based on video tape evidence -- and guess what the results where? That the stopping of blacks was not because they were black...but because, in demographics, blacks actually DID speed at a greater rate along the New Jersey Turnpike! In fact, when it came right down to it, the numbers of blacks being stopped was actually LESS than the so-called "racial profile" accusation.

Here is a link on it all:

The Racial Profiling Lie

What IS "racial profiling" anyway? It is just an emotive term to steer what most people know is the truth, into a ditch.

White males are more likely to be serial killers. It only makes sense to draw profiles of the same and disproportionately stop and question them. So the same is true of high-level drug dealers. On the other hand, in certain neighborhoods, it only makes sense to form a "profile" of the suspect. It is absolutely insane to think that some groups do not commit certain crimes far out of proportion to their percentage of the general population. Or that some groups are not more prone to highjack and blow-up airplanes with innocent people on board.

Gawdamighty, this PC lunacy will be the death of us yet....
It was merely an example to show that the only reason he thinks the fed has too much power right now is because he doesn't agree with SC decisions on the issue.

If it were abortion or gay rights, he might say that the fed has the power to regulate, which means expanding fed power.

Right now, he or she disagrees with the SC and fed power because they are asserting authority over issues he THINKS they should not. They are are not asserting authority over issues he THINKS they should be asserting authority over.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 02:01 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,113,590 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
I wanted to point this out earlier in the thread. Texas is really the oddball when it comes to transplants from parts of the country moving to the Southern US.
I wouldnt quite go that far, Spade. What about Florida or NOVA?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:13 PM
 
Location: The Home Base-North Carolina
63 posts, read 80,696 times
Reputation: 54
It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the Federal Government or not. The Federal Govt. should only be doing what power is EXPLICITLY given to them in the U.S. Constitution. As far as abortion goes, it should be a state issue. All powers not EXPLICITLY delegated to the U.S. Govt by the U.S. Const. remain with the States. Bottomline. Local govt best serves their people, not a big massive centralized Federal Govt. You take any issue that I am in favor of, such as anti-abortion as you mentioned, it should not be imposed on the Nation as a whole by a few judges. It should be decided by the people of the State, unless it is EXPLICITLY in the domain of the Federal Govts duties.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:36 PM
 
1,728 posts, read 4,128,007 times
Reputation: 475
That's your viewpoint again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress only has the powers EXPRESSLY or EXCPLICITY given to it. It also has implied powers seen from the "Take Care Clause," "Necessary and Proper Clause," and "General Welfare" clause.

Federal judges did not IMPOSE anything on the Nation with Roe v. Wade. In fact, it got rid of the imposition that did not allow females to secure abortions. By arguing for the government's ability to ban abortion, you are arguing for greater government (state or federal) regulation.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 04:59 PM
 
Location: The Home Base-North Carolina
63 posts, read 80,696 times
Reputation: 54
No where in the Constitution does it say Congress have powers "implied". That is just absurd. I cannot believe any American would argue such. "Implied Powers" is another way of saying, "Well, if it aint directly written in the Constitution that we have such said power, then we will just say its "implied" to supercede the WRITTEN WORD. Their is no imply to it. If it was meant to be implied it would state such. Besides, how are you to imply what "you think" a dead man said who lived 200yrs ago. Chances are what you think he implied is WRONG considering that most Founders would wage WAR against Imperical D.C. Anyway, "impling" and "interpreting" the constitution is just a device used by RADICAL LIBERALS to RADICALLY change this Nation to their liking.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top