Robatoy wrote:
Did you even read the OP and the subsequent reply?

Did you see the word 'guess' in the following (mine) statement?:
"My guess would be that in Powell's mind, such as it is, he lost his
job because of a black man.
That makes him even more dangerous."
I still think there is a probability that my 'guess' might be right.


And by the way, a guess is speculation, even if you "think" it's
probable.


The fact that I am aware that racism still exists amongst power-
tripping Texas cops makes it quite possible that this cop would have
behaved differently had the 'perp' been white. Others here have stated
same, and I agree.

More unfounded speculation.
Using your same rules of logic, you could replace "would have" with
"wouldn't have" and have just as valid an argument.

I did google it and still can't find any evidence that the guy is
racist. I see a lot of people who never met the guy (sounds familiar)
throwing the race card around on blogs and commentaries. But nothing
from him or from anyone who's had dealings with him providing any
evidence of racism. As much press as this is getting, you think there
would be someone, somewhere just chomping at the bit to provide a
"Furman tape."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Robatoy" & -MIKE-

Haven't you two figured out you can't **** up a rope?

Lew

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
You tell me to google something you read about this cop, instead of
simply providing a link. That makes me think you don't really have any
other information on the man. I honestly hope you do and I'm not
dealing with someone who throws the race card at the drop of a hat.

Or, it might simply be that you couldn't be bothered to a type those few
words into the Google search engine yourself. Why should he extend time
and
effort (as minimal as it would have been) on your behalf when it would
have
been so very easy for you to do?

He claims he has evidence but he wants someone else to look for it.
Kind of like a lawyer that, when asked by the judge if he has any evidence,
says "sure I do and if you want to know then go out and look for it".

On Apr 4, 10:53*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
So, I ask you: how the hell does that make me racist?

Where did accuse or even insinuate you of racism?
That's right, I didn't.

And please, don't lecture me bout how wrong racism is as your
condescending tone is not appreciated.

Oh cry about it.

LOL. Hardly. But you do talk out of both corners of your mouth. Pretty
much textbook, if you ask me.
End of discussion.

-MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

I'll try it one more time after you explain what it is you mean by:
"There's a fine line between being a racist and accusing a man of
being a racist without ever having spoken with him. "


I thought I did explain it. There was nothing on the tape to make
anyone without presupposition, to think the cop was being racist.

Racism is hating a race of people simply because of their race.
In essence, the racist is believing something negative or derogatory
about people without having any evidence to support it.

Calling someone a racist without evidence is the same thing. One is
believing something negative or derogatory about the person without
having any evidence to support it.


How about calling someone a racist when he makes a comment about a member of
a race or the race itself that IS the truth? For example, the sports person
who said (paraphrasing) "For 300 years blacks have been bred for strength
and stamina. That's one reason they excel at sports." He was run out of town
on a rail.

How about the Imus comment: "They look like nappy-headed 'ho's" Well, they
did.

No, observations, even if true, that are race specific are evidence of
racism to some.

And the thought doesn't have to be derogatory to brand the thinker as a
racists. Limiting Jews from Ivy League colleges in years past or Orientals
today from top-flight colleges in California is similarily thought to be
racist.

Statistical evidence can be used to establish racism. If the percentage of
"X" in your organization does not match the percentage of "X" in the general
population, that is often sufficient to establish racism in your selection
or promotion protocols.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
-MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

I'll try it one more time after you explain what it is you mean by:
"There's a fine line between being a racist and accusing a man of
being a racist without ever having spoken with him. "


I thought I did explain it. There was nothing on the tape to make
anyone without presupposition, to think the cop was being racist.

Racism is hating a race of people simply because of their race.
In essence, the racist is believing something negative or derogatory
about people without having any evidence to support it.

Calling someone a racist without evidence is the same thing. One is
believing something negative or derogatory about the person without
having any evidence to support it.


How about calling someone a racist when he makes a comment about a member
of a race or the race itself that IS the truth? For example, the sports
person who said (paraphrasing) "For 300 years blacks have been bred for
strength and stamina. That's one reason they excel at sports." He was run
out of town on a rail.

How about the Imus comment: "They look like nappy-headed 'ho's" Well, they
did.

No, observations, even if true, that are race specific are evidence of
racism to some.

And the thought doesn't have to be derogatory to brand the thinker as a
racists. Limiting Jews from Ivy League colleges in years past or Orientals
today from top-flight colleges in California is similarily thought to be
racist.

Statistical evidence can be used to establish racism. If the percentage of
"X" in your organization does not match the percentage of "X" in the
general population, that is often sufficient to establish racism in your
selection or promotion protocols.

And, of course, there are the racist'ists. Moral high ground is damned
dangerous real estate.

HeyBub wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

I'll try it one more time after you explain what it is you mean by:
"There's a fine line between being a racist and accusing a man of
being a racist without ever having spoken with him. "


I thought I did explain it. There was nothing on the tape to make
anyone without presupposition, to think the cop was being racist.

Racism is hating a race of people simply because of their race.
In essence, the racist is believing something negative or derogatory
about people without having any evidence to support it.

Calling someone a racist without evidence is the same thing. One is
believing something negative or derogatory about the person without
having any evidence to support it.


How about calling someone a racist when he makes a comment about a
member of a race or the race itself that IS the truth? For example,
the sports person who said (paraphrasing) "For 300 years blacks have
been bred for strength and stamina. That's one reason they excel at
sports." He was run out of town on a rail.

How about the Imus comment: "They look like nappy-headed 'ho's" Well,
they did.

No, observations, even if true, that are race specific are evidence of
racism to some.

And the thought doesn't have to be derogatory to brand the thinker as
a racists. Limiting Jews from Ivy League colleges in years past or
Orientals today from top-flight colleges in California is similarily
thought to be racist.

Statistical evidence can be used to establish racism. If the
percentage of "X" in your organization does not match the percentage
of "X" in the general population, that is often sufficient to
establish racism in your selection or promotion protocols.

So is the "limiting of Orientals" intended to reduce enrollments below the
level one would expect based on their percentage in the general population,
or is the problem they are addressing that if they did not limit enrollments
then their student body would be almost entirely Oriental?

Upscale wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
I hope it is wrong, because his attitude is one that should be
strongly discouraged, to the point of elimination, in any police force.

I'm guessing that Powell was legally allowed to do what he did, but morally
and humanely, he showed incredibly poor judgement. Even if he's not fired,
any career ambitions he might have had have likely hit an immovable
roadblock. At most, I'd say the rest of his days will be spent as record
keeper in some evidence locker.



Nah. The a** hole read the tea leaves and quit. I just hope that he
doesn't get on another department.

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
I hope it is wrong, because his attitude is one that should be
strongly discouraged, to the point of elimination, in any police force.

I'm guessing that Powell was legally allowed to do what he did, but
morally
and humanely, he showed incredibly poor judgement. Even if he's not
fired,
any career ambitions he might have had have likely hit an immovable
roadblock. At most, I'd say the rest of his days will be spent as record
keeper in some evidence locker.



Nah. The a** hole read the tea leaves and quit. I just hope that he
doesn't get on another department.

I see "Rent-a-Cop" in his future.

"Leon" wrote in message
Nah. The a** hole read the tea leaves and quit. I just hope that he
doesn't get on another department.

I see "Rent-a-Cop" in his future.

Unfortunately, the fact that he "quit", whether it was orchestrated or not,
may mean that he could go work for another police force at some time in the
future. No one knows or at least, no one has stated what exactly is on his
employment record and I don't know if that's publicly accessible information
or not.