I’m considerably unaware of the various gang/group laws over there. To what extent are the Klan outlawed whilst the Crips/Bloods/similar are not?
To the best of my knowledge, neither are outlawed. There have been, IIRC, movements advocated by the left to outlaw the Klan. Not sure why they haven’t come to fruition. I have seen it proposed by members of the right to outlaw the Crips and Bloods. These were met, typically, with accusations of racism from the left.
This is anecdotal and based only upon what I’ve seen, however, so perhaps you should keep in mind that they therefore never really happened. :rolleyes:
Surely, then, your argument there relies on the lefties who are trying to outlaw the Klan being the same lefties that are accusing the right of racism?
Yeah, it’s not like any major cities have anti-gang units or anything.
What you see depends on what you look for. For example, LAPD apparently makes use of gang injunctionsto control the behavior of gangs. Maybe there is liberal opposition to such things, but obviously the opposition is insufficient to prevent these measures from actually being put into place. Which, you know, kind of undermines your argument.
If the entire country was comprised only of Los Angeles, you might have a point.
But on second thought, no, you don’t.
You know why? Because I’m talking about opposition to proposed federal laws, not police policies in some town or another.
And now Hector, it’s time for me to bid everyone a good and happy night.
Goodnight, S&I. Goodnight, RT. 
Goodnight, Sarah. Goodnight, John-boy!
Love ya, Zoe! 
SA, do you want to revise your opinion that The Beatles were responsible for the decline of Western Civilisation? I was thinking you may have forgot about that Elvis fella, pretending to be a black man and wantonly shaking his hips everywhere he went?
'Night!
The thing i’m most concerned about with this Beatles reference is that it was an invasion. What kind of wretched hive of scum and villainy could these monstrous mopheads have come from?
Nah…he was only responsible for duck’s-ass haircuts and real life Fonzies.
Who’d have thunk the 4 horsemen would have had mop-tops though?
I’m speaking of the so-called ‘British invasion’ that followed in the wake of the Beatles. You know, the Stones, the Who, the What, the Why, etc.
And now, believe it or not, I’m out. Take care.
I’m getting a vibe that SA is more of a Country and Western type of guy. He wants more songs about non-cowardly, gun-toting, treachery-despising, one-woman loving, good old white boys…how sweet!
You would be wrong about that. I love the Beatles, just not their aftermath.
Having said that, however, I’m blessed with the ability to like almost everything, with smooth jazz predominating these days.
Never been much of a country fan, though.
And now, to paraphrase luci, how can you miss me if you won’t let me go away?
Now that is confusing! How can you find appeal in something you believe has been so detrimental to the society you love, and want to protect? If I’d thought The Doors were responsible for Thatcher’s Britain, I’d never want to hear Jim Morrison again?!
S’okay. You do your thing - we’ll just talk about you.
What can I say? I’m just a free-spirited, open-minded kind of conservative.
Okay, have at it!
Compare these two statements by SA and tell me if you spot the rhetorical trick:
Do you see it?
I’ve no doubt that there exist a few crackpot leftist out there who would argue that banning the Crips and Bloods would be “racist.” I’ve never seen such an argument myself, but I don’t doubt it exists. But here’s the thing: no average, middle-of-the-road American liberal would think it reasonable to ban the Klan but racist to ban a criminal inner-city gang. Such a position in no way represents mainstream liberal thought.
When we provide mounds of evidence – photos, films, etc – which show how racist and and uncivilized the right has been throughout US history (including film of average McCain supporters standing in line for a rally with, for example, an Obama monkey doll), SA waves it all away as not being “typical” of society at the time. Then he turns around and accuses liberals of supporting the most ridiculous, extreme sort of policies because of some vague memory he has that at some point in the past, somewhere, he read something about someone who felt that way. Our examples are *never *typical of right-wing conservative thought/behavior, regardless of how widespread they were; his examples are *always *typical of left-wing liberal thought/behavior, regardless of how rarely they occurred.
And he’s genuinely uninterested in know what liberals really think. I mean, it couldn’t be that hard to simply ask here, on a board he claims leans so terribly hard to the left, whether or not the majority of posters think it would racist to ban the Crips. He doesn’t care what we really think; he just wants to demonize us.
Another fun trick SA likes to play is the “modify my argument” game. Here’s an example:
SA:
S&I:
SA:
See the trick? Suddenly, evidence presented contrary to his position doesn’t count, because he was talking about something different. In fact, Los Angeles isn’t the only major city in the US with those sorts of policies: they’ve been so successful we’ve been copying them all the way over here in Sweden. But it doesn’t matter, because as we can see, S&I is clearly misrepresenting SA’s argument.
Only, he/she isn’t. He/she is merely responding to argument SA originally made.
It seemed relevant since LA is the home of both the Crips and the Bloods. But I’ll admit to being too lazy to look around to see what initiatives other cities have take to combat gang violence. (I’m not sure what difference it makes if the initiatives are federal or local. If liberal influence is so pervasive and so opposed to interventions in gangs, then it seems like it would prevent local initiatives, as well. But like I said, I am too lazy to research the issue.)
ETA: I see **Mr. Svinlesha’s **got my back. (I’m a he, BTW. Unless **LP **thinks I’m an emasculated liberal half-man, or something.)
Well, I was reserving judgement as long as I could, but having read post #297, I am finally ready to cast my vote:
Insane. Thoroughly.
Free-spirited. Open-minded. Conservative?
What’s this - guess the odd one out?
"One o’ these things is not like the other. One o’ these things just isn’t the same… "
( The “kind of” was an interesting modifier!)
Starving Artist, why do you not answer my question?
I’ve considered several reasons. A few:
Insufficient post count to hobnob with the BigBoys 'o the Board.
Too short a member status which hardly seems to matter presently.
You are too busy responding in defense of your sanity whilst attending to
other life matters unlike other posters.
Likelihood the response won't generate the interaction you prefer.
I'm chopped liver.