• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police chief's anti-racism sign lauded, criticized[W:81]

1.) ZERO insults, if you disagree please quote me insulting you, you will fail it will be a made up false unsupportable assumption
2.) except for that FACTS keep destroying your posts and proving them wrong
3.) translation: he didnt suggested all his officers are racists, thanks thats what we thought and thank you for again proving your own posts wrong

if you disagree AGAIN simply point out where he suggested all his officers are racists, we are waiting
I bet you dodge it again

facts win again

Yes, he did suggested his officers are racists.
 
Yes, he did suggested his officers are racists.
BOOM another dodge just like i said

sorry not one time did he suggest all his officers are racist. Facts prove your assumption was a total strawman and a mentally retarded suggestion that got destroyed by muiltiple posters including your own posts and his own quotes.
facts win again

I know you will dogde it AGAIN but PLEASE, if you disagree, simply quote him suggesting all his officers are racist, why cant you simply do this?
 
Everyone, whose thinking isn't clouded with partisan propaganda, knows what he means.

I agree 100% this is why your assumption and post failed and got destroyed it was based on nothing more than partisan propaganda and assassin assumption. We are going off of facts and what was actually said and you are going off of a made up failed fantasy strawman.

facts win again
 
Yes, he did suggested his officers are racists.

It should only offend the racists that MAY or MAY NOT be within his ranks. Hes not holding a sign up that says "My cops are racist" Hes publicly promising to confront it, should he meet it. No need for bull****.
 
It should only offend the racists that MAY or MAY NOT be within his ranks. Hes not holding a sign up that says "My cops are racist" Hes publicly promising to confront it, should he meet it. No need for bull****.
So he doesn't know whether there is racism or not but he will confront it when he meets it, if he meets it. Is he assuming he is the only one who will be doing this, that other members of the force aren't doing the same, or is he just grandstanding?
 
It does suggest that racism is some large problem in his police force. If my boss was all, "I resolve to challenge racism amongst my employees", I'd resent the implication that it's such a rampant problem.

Lets say ONE person at a jobsite gets hurt as is found to be on drugs. The boss then says, in response to ONE druggie accident, "I resolve to perform more random drug tests for overall safety." Do you assume that the boss is running a company full of junkies?
 
While it is a foreign concept to that police chief, the job of a police chief and police officer is to enforce criminal laws, not use their badge to engage in social crusading nor to force people to be politically correct.

He's in the wrong position.

There also is real damage including to citizens reporting suspicious activities. Remember how they tried to bury Zimmerman for reporting suspicious activities to the police? And how they distorted him answering that Martin was black?

I heard an effect difference yesterday. Someone I know said that last night they saw suspicious activity after hours at a car wash. A car had parked in a stall, not washing the car, staying there for hours. Cars came, a person walked over to the car, a minute later drove off. Then another car, another, another, another.. every 5 to 15 minutes. The person seeing this has a business across the street. That is a high probability of drug dealing.

I asked why the person didn't phone it in. Answer? Those coming and going were all young black men. Didn't want to seem racist.

Now if a person phones the police and they ask the race of the suspect, the person calling should answer "I'm taking the 5th amend to not answer that."

The unspoken assertion of that police chief is that most blacks who are arrested are innocent and were only arrested because they are black.
 
What does he say "white silence" is?
 
Lets say ONE person at a jobsite gets hurt as is found to be on drugs. The boss then says, in response to ONE druggie accident, "I resolve to perform more random drug tests for overall safety." Do you assume that the boss is running a company full of junkies?

If the boss says he has a company full of junkies, yes.
 
Lets say ONE person at a jobsite gets hurt as is found to be on drugs. The boss then says, in response to ONE druggie accident, "I resolve to perform more random drug tests for overall safety." Do you assume that the boss is running a company full of junkies?

exactly its completely nonsensical and dishonest to even suggest that he implied all his officers are racist, its dishonesty that nobody objective takes seriously

Seahawks coach said they are going to focus on thier defense . . . .guess that means he thinks all his players and his team sucks at defense .. . even though they are ranked #1 in the league LOL

its silly and the nonsensical strawman fails
its an unsupportable assumption that is nothing more than that a subjective assumption and NOT what was factually said

until theres a quote of the guys saying he thinks all his cops are racist like it was suggested that type of mentally inane rhetoric will continue to fail
 
:lamo

Oh look, apdst's first post in this thread:
Looks like Pittsburgh has an idiot for a police chief.

And then later, same thread:
Per the Libbo SOP, when one is unable to form an intelligent argument, he, or she, feels compelled to resort to insults.

This comes as no surprise to anyone.

No, not surprised at all, your first post in this thread was an insult.

You really shouldn't put yourself down like that.

:popcorn2:
 
:lamo

Oh look, apdst's first post in this thread:

And then later, same thread:

No, not surprised at all, your first post in this thread was an insult.

You really shouldn't put yourself down like that.

:popcorn2:

Lol, I chuckled at that too.
 
You're the only one that thinks this Police Chief is stupid. How can it be possible to hold an anti-rascism
sign as a symbol that the police are rascist. This guy holds a sign that says Pittsburgh police are anti rascist.
The Police Unions seem to be run by an Al Sharpton imitator seeking a cause. He can just keep piling it higher
and deeper, just like Al.

As posted above, I agree with apdst so he's not alone.

If the Police Chief was smart and wanted to start a dialogue and not blatantly accuse his new command of racism he would have held up a sign that said "I Resolve to Challenge Racism Wherever I Find It". That would be leadership.
 
As posted above, I agree with apdst so he's not alone.

agree with him on what?
do you agree with this statement:

" He's suggesting that all his officers are racists."

yes or no
 
1.)I'm not interested in any discussion with you
2.) - have a good day.

1.) translation: his statement is wrong and you dont want to admit it. thanks thats what i thought.
2.) i will thanks, you just helped make it one
 
Correct, at work is specified. That does not mean he will encounter it alot, or regularly, or that every one is racist, or anything else. Simply that when he does encounter it, he will challenge it. When you have to assume he means stuff, because it fits the narrative you want to build, you are creating a dishonest, integrityless argument. How about actually discussing what the sign does say, instead of what you wish it said so you be all outraged.

I'm not outraged. If it had said, "I resolve to challenge racism wherever I encounter it" I might agree with you. I'm just not going to pretend that his little sign has nothing to do with everything else that's been going on. There's a reason this is drawing criticism. There is also a reason the most vocal cop bashers will love it. To ignore the context and circumstances surrounding this, is I think also dishonest, like it just came out of nowhere. It didn't.
 
I'm not interested in any discussion with you - have a good day.

Well, for myself, I resolve to challenge AJ whenever he posts like a lunatic douchebag with AD/HD.

Nobody should have any issue with my comment, should they? All the same defenses should apply. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of potential uses for this template and, if it gets me in trouble, I'll be sure to point out in this thread all the things I'm not saying.
 
Last edited:
Well, for myself, I resolve to challenge AJ whenever he posts like a lunatic douchebag with AD/HD.

Nobody should have any issue with my comment, should they? All the same defenses should apply. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of potential uses for this template and, if it gets me in trouble, I'll be sure to point out in this thread all the things I'm not saying.

so you are welcome to answer the same question

do you agree with this statement:

"He's suggesting that all his officers are racists."

yes or no

if yes please present the facts that support the assumption and make it true
if no then facts win again

thanks
 
so you are welcome to answer the same question

do you agree with this statement:

"He's suggesting that all his officers are racists."

yes or no

if yes please present the facts that support the assumption and make it true
if no then facts win again

thanks

Of course he's not suggesting that all his officers are racist. Who here has argued that's what he meant? I've just repeatedly stated that this sign did not just suddenly pop up and that everything else that's occurred since the Ferguson shooting is just all irrelevant.

Of course that sign would be viewed and interpreted in the context of all the other allegations being made against cops, lately, and if that chief really did not realize that then, while he may not be stupid, he's incredibly naive.
 
Correct, at work is specified. That does not mean he will encounter it alot, or regularly, or that every one is racist, or anything else. Simply that when he does encounter it, he will challenge it. When you have to assume he means stuff, because it fits the narrative you want to build, you are creating a dishonest, integrityless argument. How about actually discussing what the sign does say, instead of what you wish it said so you be all outraged.

Incidentally, I said it would be viewed as an admission that racism is this large problem with the police and look at the very first response to this thread.

I applaud him for accepting the fact that there is institutional racism in the criminal justice system. I think that his approach is the correct one. This is not something that can be changed through legislation, it is a cultural thing. We live in a culture where minorities are seen as trouble makers. No legislation can change that. It will take people like this police chief, and minorities that denounce the use of violent protest and looting as a method of advancing their views.

Now, to be consistent with what you're telling me, you should disagree with what I've bolded. Do you?
 
Lets hope the PC vows to stamp out racism on all fronts, so that we can move on to distinguishing right from wrong once again without making excuses based on color of skin.
 
1.)Of course he's not suggesting that all his officers are racist.
2.) Who here has argued that's what he meant?

1.) thanks then facts win again, just like i said
2.) the author of the quote who is wrong
the rest of your opinions/post has nothing to do with anything I was discussing or the inane assumption I (and others) pointed out to not be logical.

thanks for agreeing with us and supporting/agreeing my posts in this thread
 
1.) thanks then facts win again, just like i said
2.) the author of the quote who is wrong
the rest of your opinions/post has nothing to do with anything I was discussing or the inane assumption I (and others) pointed out to not be logical.

thanks for agreeing with us and supporting/agreeing my posts in this thread

Sure, whatever.

I made this point once before. We're often told that the Ferguson shooting by itself is not the issue and that we must view it in light of all other police action to understand Ferguson protestors, yet, in this case, we're to view that sign in a vacuum and without any context at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom