Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: windword

forced into hard labor to the benefit of honkies, whities and crackers.

and to benefit other blacks, arabs, jews, and every other group at the time (including pagans of various stripe), who were involved in the slave trade. ignoring history will not make it go away.

im confused, are you saying that, since it wasnt only white people partaking in the slave trade, that it was ok?

oh absolutely not. i'm saying the whole world is guilty. we know that, so isolating one group as the only culprit and then applying it to today, in a country with laws against slavery and even laws to protect groups in the society from hate speech, is not applicable. where it does spring up again is the prison system, which is just legalized slavery.

a reply to: undo

Fair enough. I just wanted to clarify.

I, for one, dont know that a single group is being singled out. It seems to me that society as a whole is moving away from accepting bigotry in any form.

Ive seen plenty of black people called out for using gay slurs.
Ive seen plenty of hispanics called out for how they were treating women.
Ive seen plenty of people, of many different races, called out for treating a section of human kind as though they were less than.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Although the police commissioner's verbalized opinion was "possibly" inappropriate, he should have a 1st amendment right to speak his mind, privately or publicly.

He DOES have that right. He spoke his mind publicly. He was not arrested. The government did not intervene. His first amendment right in intact. The first amendment protects us against the government interference.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has made no law disallowing this man to speak his mind. However, the people of his town have exactly the same right to express themselves, which they have.

The waitress, rather than being a busy body should have simply ignored the opinion as it is none of her business. Personally, I would have fired her on the spot for being a busy body.

She was not a waitress. She was a resident of the town. She also has the right to report his statement.

Interesting that you're standing up for the elected officials right to say what he did, without repercussion, but you think the woman should have faced repercussion for speaking her mind...

They BOTH are within their rights. Neither is protected from repercussion, except from the government.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Yes, I am from that failed social experiment called Canadakastan on your northern border, oh noos, I must be incapable of looking at this situation because I am not in the US. Don't be so ridiculous, the laws on hate speech are on the internet at .gov sites for the US. Everything I said was true and now, in atypical PC fashion it's time to attack the messenger rather than the message, you seem to be trying to shift some sort of blame or attention to me or discredit because of my opinions. Play the ball, not the player ;-)

Again, please stop trying to drag this off topic.

Although the police commissioner's verbalized opinion was "possibly" inappropriate

Theres no 'possibly' about it.

, he should have a 1st amendment right to speak his mind,

Which he does, which is why he is not facing any legal action.

privately or publicly.

Privacy and public square are two very different things.

The waitress,

not a waitress

rather than being a busy body

Theres that term that you guys like so much again. Ill ask, for the fifth time, why do you guys feel the need to attach an unfounded label to her?

should have simply ignored the opinion as it is none of her business

If its said in a public place, its her business. If its said in a public place by an elected official, its DEFINITELY her business. If its exclaimed loudly in a public place by an elected official(which is the case here)...it doesnt matter if its her business or not, as HE is the one who yelled it for all to hear.

Personally, I would have fired her on the spot for being a busy body.

Again with the use of that term....you guys really are transparent.

Funny to me, though, that you would protect his right to use a racial slur but would attack her right to express her feelings about it.

The hypocrisy is astounding....

So let's that you over heard your son's teacher refer to all the white kids as "crackers"

would you be okay with it?

I mean free speech afterall

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

agreed. the only missing ingredient is understanding.
people just need to try to understand each other better. with understanding comes compassion and patience for each other's fubars.

a reply to: undo

I actually feel compassion for the guy. He's a bitter, old, ignorant man with hatred in his heart. I even understand him somewhat. But I don't agree with him and I support him being held accountable by those who elected him.

So the guy has a right to be racist or just the right to make racist remarks?

You guys tell me.

originally posted by: Nephalim
So the guy has a right to be racist or just the right to make racist remarks?

You guys tell me.

He has the right to do both. Just as the town has the right to decide if they want someone who is or does either of those things to stay in an elected position.

a reply to: Nephalim

"So the guy has a right to be racist or just the right to make racist remarks?

You guys tell me."

The guy has the right to be an idiot, but also to say as he pleases. What happens when we start censoring peoples opinions? I will tell you this, its nothing good!

Take away this morons right to express himself at the expensive of the rest of our rights to voice an opinion and what are we left with? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or in this instance the rambling bullcrap of one Police official.

a reply to: Nephalim

I think that the guy has a right to be a retired, 82 year old, racist police commissioner. It's time for him to go.

hatred breeds hatred. only way to stop the vicious cycle is stop at yourself. eye for an eye has always been the natural order, but we are better than that as a species. we can do better than that. we should try to do better than that.

originally posted by: Nephalim
So the guy has a right to be racist or just the right to make racist remarks?

Absolutely! He has the right to both.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Take away this morons right to express himself at the expensive of the rest of our rights to voice an opinion and what are we left with?

No one has taken away his right to express himself. He expressed himself. And the town's citizens are expressing themselves. Everyone's rights are intact.

Ok so, you have the right to be who you are color, dress and all,(existence) say what you say (expression), pray who you pray to or not... and you believe this is what.. a first amendment right? Even though you dont agree with some of it. You still protect it, all of it.

originally posted by: Nephalim
and you believe this is what.. a first amendment right? Even though you dont agree with some of it. You still protect it, all of it.

Yes. I support all of it. I supported Fred Phelps right to picket funerals of dead soldiers even though I vehemently disagreed with it. It's his first amendment right.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

"No one has taken away his right to express himself. He expressed himself. And the town's citizens are expressing themselves. Everyone's rights are intact."

Then people can see the Man for what he is, and as they obviously have done, foolish and at least a touch racist but entitled to his opinion nonetheless.

Problem solved!

a reply to: Justwatchingyou

In the end, that really does sum it up.

So far, the defenses (on the surface) for this man that have been continually pushed are:
1)First amendment: obviously thats been shown to be a non issue, yet some posters in this thread claim that the supreme court, constitutional scholars, and the document itself, all of which prove that this is not an free speech issue, are wrong.

2)Right to privacy: Obviously this is foolish, as he exclaimed it loudly in a public place. Yet some in this thread continue to push the idea that everyone else should have somehow turned off their ears.

3)Thought Police: Obviously this is irrelevant, as the moment it was exclaimed loudly in a public place, it no longer was just a thought.

4)Black people say the word so that should make it ok: Obviously 'goose and gander' logic is inherently flawed, yet it is continually pushed by some in this thread, as though it somehow excuses this man's use of the word.

These defenses are so blatantly thin and obviously weak that one cant help but question the REAL motivation behind them.

originally posted by: Nephalim
So the guy has a right to be racist or just the right to make racist remarks?

You guys tell me.

He has the right to be a racist and make racist remarks. But I get so tired of the crybaby, "im a victim" attitudes.

Man up old man and take some personal responsibility for being a racist moron.

I can cut him a little slack because he obviously has a touch of senile dementia.

And perhaps I can cut a little slack to those that support him....you just can't fix stupid! You can fix a lot of things but "stupid" isn't one of them.

I'm still allowed an opinion aren't I............... eh beezer?

thank you all very much.