What a long strange trip its been. Born and raised in Texas, seen ugly stuff. But I have lived to see the day that someone suggests an incident in Texas might have racial overtones, and someone else is so astonished at the notion they demand evidence for such an outlandish suggestion. Like if someone says they saw Sasquatch fuck a unicorn.
Take me now, Jesus, I’ve seen it all.
Read my post #1561 above. This is your perception. Not everyone will see it that way.
See my reply above about perceptions.
What do believe is the difference between what you term race baiting and speaking out against the treatment of black people?
The conversation devolved into the validity of underlying racism in the area. D’Anconia dismissed an earlier cite as not contemporary enough so I provided a more recent example.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Texas (because you know, that a*hole politician was talking about DPS, which covers the whole state) is a racist hellhole.
Does that mean that the police should be instructed “Don’t ever throw a black woman on the ground again. Don’t ever do that again.”?
Be a shame if such a valuable tool for de-escalating a tense situation were to be set aside.
If you believe that only a black person can be “race-baiting” then you are racist and you are race-baiting yourself in saying that.
If you haven’t been affected by any of the black lives lost in these events of the last (fill in time frame) and don’t care, just say so. People can kindly disagree. But it’s not a democratic conspiracy to bait you.
This seems to be a Foxnews hijack.
Of course not. It’s rhetoric. Why is it so noteworthy that a politician would employ rhetoric? You should know better.
Actually, even Fox News was outraged by the arrest video.
Race-baiting rhetoric.
That’s your perception, and it has been noted.
Could you answer my question:
*What do you believe is the difference between what you term race baiting and speaking out against the treatment of black people? *
I would suggest that it’s good journalistic practice to report all of the possible reasons the sheriff was fired. The article even said, “not all of which involved racial issues”.
It doesn’t look like the reporter looked for ANY evidence that might exist in the public record. I suggest that the reporter looked for anything that would suggest racism because the reporter wanted to report on racism.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Is this mutually exclusive? Sure not all Assholes are Racist, but you can’t be a Racist without being an Asshole.
Your post is your cite? Really?
I didn’t want to repeat myself.
If a personal opinion requires a “cite”, I’d like to see a “cite” for your opinion that a man can’t be emotional 17 days after a tragic incident.
He can be emotional, but in this situation, it’s unprofessional, and racial.
Yes there is - it’s a dumb ass analysis which even the author acknowledges in the comments below. The biggest problem is Hispanics could be black or white, apparently:
Might be any number of reasons, lots of them, or just a few of them. He might have been assigned a ten percent drop in car theft and only delivered five. He might have had poor controls on overtime pay, or failed to schedule shifts effectively. And he might well be fired even if he had no blemish from racism.
But even if he were to be A-one outstanding in every logistical and managerial respect, a top notch and efficient executive, if he is a bigot, if he enforces the law in a racial unjust manner…he has to go. Period, full stop. Unjust and inhumane people are sometimes very efficient. It is not an improvement.
Inhumane is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?