PDA

View Full Version : Kayne West Outburst Live On NBC


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


MitchMZ
09-12-2005, 04:43 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html

What does everyone think of this? I personally feel that it took too long to get help to people and that more could have been done to prevent this disaster. But, I don't think a rap artist is all of a sudden an expert on politics, or knows the president's true intentions. He should go back and do what he does best; making music.

Did I vote for Bush? Nope. But, it does get a little redundant when people blame all the world's problems on him. Somewhere down the line other people are responsible too. In fact, isn't the mayor of New Orleans African American? I'm not sure of this but I thought he was.

Anywho, I think first and foremost the city governments are responsible for a city. (Imagine that for a concept) Think about if the president had to get involved in every problem in every major city; he would have to be a god. He is only a man. I think people who support this president or not do really deify him in a way.

-God bless the people who were all touched by this terrible disaster. May we be better prepared for events such as this in the future.

Hogan
09-12-2005, 05:01 PM
I like Chris Rock's later outburst in a similar, later program:

"George Bush hates midgets".

Neil Mick
09-13-2005, 03:28 AM
Kanye West bravely stood up to the mic and went off-script to speak what most African-American's already know.

It's plain as day: Bush hates black folks. You can see it in his policies--his budgetary slashes of funds to the poor (the majority of Af-Am's) as if he's some drunken spectre of death on a toot; his security's appallingly poor treatment of S. African's in his visit there; in his snubbing of the NAACP; in his closed-door policy to the Congressional Black Caucus, etc, etc.

Katrina merely pulled back the facade that most already knew: whatever the concerns of the poor, W is too busy...he needs his lil' nap.

Personally, I say bravo, Kanye.

And I'm sorry, but I think that the President of the most powerful country IS responsible, when a monster the size of the Gulf of Mexico ravages the poorest area in the country! Call me a wild speculator, but I think that a fellow who appoints a horse judge to be head of the Fed org. charged to tackle this monster has much to answer for.

And the comparisons to Iraq are becoming uncomfortably close. First, the Army Times (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/03/alcajun_army_times_c.html) calls Katrina victims an "insurgency." Then, you have to consider that half the LA national guard, all of their amphibious vehicles and all but 2 of their helicopters are over fighting the good fight in Iraq (which was started by...).

Now today, interviewers discovered that Blackwater (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml) is now deploying in New Orleans.

New Orleans - Heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, are openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans. Some of the mercenaries say they have been "deputized" by the Louisiana governor; indeed some are wearing gold Louisiana state law enforcement badges on their chests and Blackwater photo identification cards on their arms. They say they are on contract with the Department of Homeland Security and have been given the authority to use lethal force. Several mercenaries we spoke with said they had served in Iraq on the personal security details of the former head of the US occupation, L. Paul Bremer and the former US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte.

It's more than a little eerie, the comparisons.

Big question for the Bush'ster: hey there, Mr. CinC: why can't the most powerful country in the world spare a little of its resources to airdrop in some needed supplies?

Take your time in answering: you've ignored most of my letters and emails so far.

But while we're on the subject: I think that sacking Michael Brown is a good first step. Bush's resignation can come in there, maybe fifth or sixth.

Hogan
09-13-2005, 08:12 AM
...It's plain as day: Bush hates black folks. You can see it in his policies--his budgetary slashes of funds to the poor (the majority of Af-Am's) ....

I thought the majority of the poor are white ?? Didn't you say that in another recent thread ??

Neil Mick
09-13-2005, 09:18 PM
I thought the majority of the poor are white ?? Didn't you say that in another recent thread ??

Quite right, my mistake. Good call.

odudog
09-14-2005, 12:34 PM
The majority of Americans that are poor are white since they are the majority of all Americans. However, the majority of the people living in New Orleans are black and the President signed an order that FEMA will be in charge of the operation before the damage was done but FEMA was very slow to act and Bush showed no visible outrage or rolled any heads, hence, the claim that "..Bush hates black people." I wonder if the majority of the black population lives under the poverty line? Maybe this is what Mr. Nick was trying to convey.

Hogan
09-14-2005, 01:38 PM
The majority of Americans that are poor are white since they are the majority of all Americans. However, the majority of the people living in New Orleans are black and the President signed an order that FEMA will be in charge of the operation before the damage was done but FEMA was very slow to act and Bush showed no visible outrage or rolled any heads, hence, the claim that "..Bush hates black people." I wonder if the majority of the black population lives under the poverty line? Maybe this is what Mr. Nick was trying to convey.

For whatever reason aid was delayed, by feds, by locals, by state, doesn't translate into hate. With that logic, the mayor of New Orleans hates black people, too.

It was a stupid comment, and still is a stupid comment.

Mashu
09-14-2005, 02:42 PM
It was worth it just to see Austin Powers cringe.

Cheers,

Matthew (eagerly awaiting more unscripted moments)

Kevin Leavitt
09-14-2005, 04:43 PM
Neil,

Two things: first, to clairify, for those that may not know, the Army Times is a indenpendent weekly paper not endorsed or sponsored by the army published by Gannett publishing, so it does not represent the opinions, or express the views or the Army or the National Guard.

Second, what is your source about the number of helicopters that the LA ARNG has available? Just curious.

Aiki LV
09-14-2005, 05:37 PM
I personally have never liked Kanye West, in fact one of my co-workers and I were discussing his music a few weeks back before all this occurred. I told my coworker I didn't like him because he seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder when it comes to white people. I'm a big neo-soul, hip hop & r&b fan, but I refuse to buy his album because of what I perceive as prejudice on his part. If you listen to the lyrics in his songs it's very apparent. If he has had bad experiences with white people in his life I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean that everyone of that same skin color is going to act the same way. Well anyway... As far as the NBC thing he can say what he likes. I don't know George W. Bush, but from what I've seen him do through policies and things he's said, I don't doubt what Kanye West said was true. Although I think you would have to add all poor people into that statement as well. The strange thing is I think Kanye West is just as guilty from the other side of the coin as George W. Bush.

odudog
09-14-2005, 08:33 PM
For whatever reason aid was delayed, by feds, by locals, by state, doesn't translate into hate. With that logic, the mayor of New Orleans hates black people, too.

It was a stupid comment, and still is a stupid comment.

I don't understand the logic on why the mayor also hates black people from what was written but oh well.

MitchMZ
09-14-2005, 09:40 PM
I personally have never liked Kanye West, in fact one of my co-workers and I were discussing his music a few weeks back before all this occurred. I told my coworker I didn't like him because he seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder when it comes to white people. I'm a big neo-soul, hip hop & r&b fan, but I refuse to buy his album because of what I perceive as prejudice on his part. If you listen to the lyrics in his songs it's very apparent. If he has had bad experiences with white people in his life I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean that everyone of that same skin color is going to act the same way. Well anyway... As far as the NBC thing he can say what he likes. I don't know George W. Bush, but from what I've seen him do through policies and things he's said, I don't doubt what Kanye West said was true. Although I think you would have to add all poor people into that statement as well. The strange thing is I think Kanye West is just as guilty from the other side of the coin as George W. Bush.

I agree with you 100%

Neil Mick
09-14-2005, 10:32 PM
The majority of Americans that are poor are white since they are the majority of all Americans. However, the majority of the people living in New Orleans are black and the President signed an order that FEMA will be in charge of the operation before the damage was done but FEMA was very slow to act and Bush showed no visible outrage or rolled any heads, hence, the claim that "..Bush hates black people." I wonder if the majority of the black population lives under the poverty line? Maybe this is what Mr. Nick was trying to convey.

Yes, this was what I was trying to convey. Thanks

Neil Mick
09-14-2005, 10:33 PM
Neil,
Second, what is your source about the number of helicopters that the LA ARNG has available? Just curious.

Phyllis Bennis, of the Brookings Institute...a comment she made in a radio interview.

Neil Mick
09-14-2005, 10:42 PM
I personally have never liked Kanye West, in fact one of my co-workers and I were discussing his music a few weeks back before all this occurred. I told my coworker I didn't like him because he seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder when it comes to white people. I'm a big neo-soul, hip hop & r&b fan, but I refuse to buy his album because of what I perceive as prejudice on his part. If you listen to the lyrics in his songs it's very apparent. If he has had bad experiences with white people in his life I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean that everyone of that same skin color is going to act the same way.

Frankly, I don't know West's songs, except one ("George Bush Don't Like Black People"), which is played here on Free Radio Santa Cruz all the time.

Bush's cavalier attitude toward Katrina is only the final proof that W hates black ppl. My previous post, above: shows other, more telling evidence, throughout his tenure.

The strange thing is I think Kanye West is just as guilty from the other side of the coin as George W. Bush.

Sorry, I do not see that at all.

Just recently, to SC's shame: the main musical venue in town ("The Catalyst") hosted a reggae singer named "Sizzla." (http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18432/index.php) Sizzla likes to sing songs promoting the murder of gays and lesbians. He even breaks during his act to encourage ppl to go out and shoot and beat up gays and lesbians.

Now Sizzla I see as guilty from the other side of the coin as W. West? Maybe he IS racist: but do his lyrics suggest beating up, robbing or murdering whites? If they did, then I'd have to agree with you.

Hogan
09-15-2005, 08:22 AM
I don't understand the logic on why the mayor also hates black people from what was written but oh well.

The stupid comment was made that Gge. Bush hates black people because of the delay in aid in getting to the people of New Orleans. Yes, federal aid was delayed. But local aid was delayed, as well. Hence, if local aid was delayed, then the head of the local government, the mayor, must hate black people, too - following the logic that if the head of the federal government hates blacks because the federal aid was delayed, then the head of the local government must also hate black people if local aid was delayed.

aikigirl10
09-15-2005, 09:44 AM
Did George Bush not appoint Condoleezza Rice as his Assistant for National Security Affairs? Last time i checked , she was black. Or is the national security council appointed some other way? i could be wrong , just a thought.

James Davis
09-15-2005, 11:08 AM
Did George Bush not appoint Condoleezza Rice as his Assistant for National Security Affairs? Last time i checked , she was black. Or is the national security council appointed some other way? i could be wrong , just a thought.
Yeah, and Colin Powell before that. How many blacks did Clinton employ in high government positions? :confused:

James Davis
09-15-2005, 11:20 AM
It's plain as day: Bush hates black folks. You can see it in his policies--his budgetary slashes of funds to the poor (the majority of Af-Am's) as if he's some drunken spectre of death on a toot; his security's appallingly poor treatment of S. African's in his visit there; in his snubbing of the NAACP; in his closed-door policy to the Congressional Black Caucus, etc, etc.


What appallingly poor treatment of S. Africans? I did a couple searches and didn't find anything. You'd think the news agencies would be all over something like that!

aikigirl10
09-15-2005, 11:52 AM
IMO, the claim that our President hates black people is a VERY poor excuse for the delays that have happened in New Orleans. George Bush has openly taken blame for the delays, so has the governor of Louisianna and the mayor of New Orleans. It was just poor planning and underestimation. Everyone makes mistakes.

George Bush has visited New Orleans 4 times since the disaster. To me, that doesnt sound like someone who is a racist and doesnt care about the lives of other people. I truly believe that he is doing everything in his power to contribute to what has happened.

Anyway, George Bush will be addressing the nation tonight at 9:00 at which point i am sure he will cover all of these issues.

peace,
Paige

Hogan
09-15-2005, 12:19 PM
I think Clinton was the one hated blacks, through racial divisive policies:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA163.html

Neil Mick
09-15-2005, 03:53 PM
Did George Bush not appoint Condoleezza Rice as his Assistant for National Security Affairs? Last time i checked , she was black. Or is the national security council appointed some other way? i could be wrong , just a thought.

A few corporate tokens and suddenly W is a friend of blacks? Ignore his wholesale war on the poor; ignore his attitude toward the NAACP and the Congr. Black Caucus...he put Condi and Colin on his staff, that's all that matters.

George Bush has openly taken blame for the delays

which means nothing.

George Bush has visited New Orleans 4 times since the disaster.

Clinton would have been there, a week ago.


To me, that doesnt sound like someone who is a racist and doesnt care about the lives of other people.

To me, that sounds like someone who responds only to media pressure.

Anyway, George Bush will be addressing the nation tonight at 9:00 at which point i am sure he will cover all of these issues.

peace,
Paige

Maybe he'll include something about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Niger, too. :crazy:

Neil Mick
09-15-2005, 03:58 PM
What appallingly poor treatment of S. Africans? I did a couple searches and didn't find anything. You'd think the news agencies would be all over something like that!

His security was agressive and heavy-handed. It was compared unfavorably to Clinton, who visited the same area when he went there. HE went around to the ppl with no guards at all.

aikigirl10
09-15-2005, 04:18 PM
A few corporate tokens and suddenly W is a friend of blacks? Ignore his wholesale war on the poor; ignore his attitude toward the NAACP and the Congr. Black Caucus...he put Condi and Colin on his staff, that's all that matters.



Well u can definitely take out the words "... hates black people.." due to this evidence. hate is such a strong word.

The thing is the fact of whether or not Bush was reacting to media pressure or out of his own generosity will never be known. You have no evidence of why he went to New Orleans so what makes your opinion more valid than those of the more moral party. Its just one word against another.

James Davis
09-15-2005, 04:21 PM
His security was agressive and heavy-handed. It was compared unfavorably to Clinton, who visited the same area when he went there. HE went around to the ppl with no guards at all.
Your source?

Hogan
09-15-2005, 04:43 PM
His security was agressive and heavy-handed. It was compared unfavorably to Clinton, who visited the same area when he went there. HE went around to the ppl with no guards at all.

Now there is a thing called a war on terrorism, where bad people want to kill Bush, and the secret service wants to stop that.

Adam Alexander
09-15-2005, 04:48 PM
What does everyone think of this?

Possibly correct...but, definitely irrelevant.

The relevant topic is that the blacks that West refers to are/were responsible for themselves and they failed to meet their individual needs.


Further, certainly he said what a lot of individuals are thinking. We all grasp for straws when we don't want to take responsibility for our bad decisions.


(this may sound bad, but I think it's the way conservatives see it.) News Flash to West: Each person is responsible for themselves. The white man, the gov, and/or Bush is not obligated to care for you at all!

If you belive that poor people should be educated in a certain way, if you believe that the poor should be cared for in a certain way, we've got this wonderful system here that ALLOWS YOU TO START A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THAT CAUSE. Please stop crying and start DOING!!!! And I mean for longer than this occasion.

Don't cry that the community doesn't have money...money is a unit of labor...the more people you have the more potential money you have. You figure out how to unlock the potential...you're not owed that.

No one owes you anything--not because of slavery, not because of bad schools within your community which you are responsible for (that means, Mr. West, the bad school is your fault if you're a member of that community.).


--drum roll---------stop crying and act productively.


Here's a question: What does the opinion of some ba***rd who doesn't do everything he can for "his community" but produces one of the ridiculous products that leeches money from "his community" matter?

odudog
09-15-2005, 08:41 PM
The stupid comment was made that Gge. Bush hates black people because of the delay in aid in getting to the people of New Orleans. Yes, federal aid was delayed. But local aid was delayed, as well. Hence, if local aid was delayed, then the head of the local government, the mayor, must hate black people, too - following the logic that if the head of the federal government hates blacks because the federal aid was delayed, then the head of the local government must also hate black people if local aid was delayed.

Local aid was delayed for everyone was waiting for FEMA to give the directions of what to do, where to do it, and when. Once Bush signed the order, everyone was supposed to follow FEMA's direction. They are the ones that are supposed to be the experts with years of experience, training, and tons of resources at their disposal that nobody else has. There is no way that FEMA's lack of responce falls on the mayor. So your logic that mayor "..hates black people too" is wrong.

odudog
09-15-2005, 08:56 PM
It's amazing on how a lot of people just don't get it. I'm hesitant to write this but I'll put it out there anyway, this points mainly to white people. I hear a lot of comments by white people that the people in N.O. should be fending for themselves. I heard one lady made a comment that they should not be looking out for federal financial handouts for they should have their bank accounts etc... How are these people supposed to get access to those accounts with all their ID washed away or paper documents destroyed by the water? What if they banked at a local branch that is also under water and therefore can't get any access to their funds? They need the federal money until they can get their stuff straight. I wish it was possible to take people like this and place them in the middle of a hostile environment, say an Arab country that don't like Americans, take all their money, credit cards, passport, ID, etc... and tell them to go fend for themselves. We'll be back in 3 years to check on you and see how much progress you've made {bought a car, have house, started own business, etc...}. I feel like telling these people that the next time that they need an ambulance, or a cop, or the fire department to just suck on it and like it for they have to get to the hospital, find their stolen car, or put their house fire out all by themselves. I don't advocate giving anyone a mansion when I don't have one myself but we are all responsible to each other in a small portion. Once those small portions are meet, then anything else that you can get on top of that by yourself is gravy.

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 02:31 AM
Well u can definitely take out the words "... hates black people.." due to this evidence. hate is such a strong word.

Yes, you're right: I really don't know what W feels about black ppl, and so the comment was unjustified.

The thing is the fact of whether or not Bush was reacting to media pressure or out of his own generosity will never be known.

But on here we disagree; unless W's generosity means that its tied to his political careeer. This seems to be the only thing motivating him, at present. He waited so long to act, and was so out of touch with reality. If he really cared, he'd have cut his vacation short, that Sunday or sooner. He'd have never said "no one knew that this was going to happen," because ppl who care knew it was going to happen.

If he really cares about New Orleans, he'd be doing things other than for reasons of damage control.

You have no evidence of why he went to New Orleans so what makes your opinion more valid than those of the more moral party. Its just one word against another.

Sure is: it's just my opinion. But you watch politician's and you come up with one thing: they're just salesmen. Georgie is just selling you his personality. Maybe he's really like that; that "heart o' gold, good ole' boy, down wi' the homie's yet up with the captains of industry" routine.

But understand one thing: even if he is, it's all just a product. Crawford is one big set, Bush is a terrible cattleman (from what I hear); he's a ivy-leaguer, not a Texas redneck, he has to practice to get his accent; to win the Texas governorship, he needed coaches to tell him how gov't works, etc. It's an image: an act.

Strip down this heart o' gold image, and you see a failed entrepeneur with a questionable service record who sleazed into office on a contentious supreme court vote and has led this country from one disaster to another (please, someone: tell me one concrete thing this guy has accomplished...just 1), and now this guy suddenly finds compassion??

Uh huh.

But, I don't think that Bush is solely responsible for New Orleans.

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 02:41 AM
Your source?

My mistake. it was Senegal (it was awhile ago). And, they herded the residents into a stadium "for security," while Bush was there.

Not exactly a "man of the people" type move.

As Bush Travels to South Africa We Hear From Nelson Mandela, Poet and Activist Dennis Brutus, Greg Palast and Others (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/09/1342222&mode=thread&tid=47)


President Bush met with South African President Thabo Mbeki today.
South Africa is the third stop in Bush’s 5-day African tour.

His first stop was Goree Island, Senagal. Goree Island is the symbol of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. That is where hundreds of thousands of Africans were taken before being forced onto slave ships bound for the West.

In his speech yesterday, President Bush did not apologize for slavery. He said Americans throughout history “clearly saw this sin and called it by name.”

But ordinary residents of Goree Island were not allowed to attend. Residents told Reuters they had been taken to a football field on the other side of the island and told to wait there until Bush departed.

The only people to be seen on the main beach were US officials and secret service agents. Frogmen swam through the water and a gunship patrolled offshore.

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 02:54 AM
And one more thing: the hurricane laid bare the third-world status of the poor, and how neglect can cause catastrophe. A lot of this misery would have been lessened, if better services were given for the poor.

But, the racism is still ongoing, even as this crisis unfolds. Why is the New Orleans diaspora being spread out so much? What about this talk of Laura's about a "gleaming new city?" sounds awfully squeaky (read: "white") clean to me.

Why are there no catalogues of where the refugee's have been relocated? Why were refugee's trying to cross the bridge into MS turned back at gunpoint?

Hogan
09-16-2005, 08:49 AM
Local aid was delayed for everyone was waiting for FEMA to give the directions of what to do, where to do it, and when. Once Bush signed the order, everyone was supposed to follow FEMA's direction. They are the ones that are supposed to be the experts with years of experience, training, and tons of resources at their disposal that nobody else has. There is no way that FEMA's lack of responce falls on the mayor. So your logic that mayor "..hates black people too" is wrong.

If you fail to see the similar logic used in the hate black people thing, then I fear you cannot understand anything, but I will try this one more time:

Federal gov is NOT THE FIRST RESPONDER TO ANY EMERGENCY. The LOCAS are. The LOCALS failed at the beginning. Here is one example (of many) - I was watching the news the other night, and they said another city with another superdome type of building that is also in 'hurrican way'. Unfortunately I don't remember the city - but they said that their dome is ALSO a shelter of last resort, just like N.O.'s was. But guess where they differ ? They have food, water & security always ready. But N.O. didn't. Why ? Because the LOCAL officials didn't do it. The N.O. Mayor also sent a CD to his folks saying that if anything should happen, you'r on your own. The LOCALS failed to provide buses to evacuate. The LOCALS failed to enforce a mandatory evacuation. The LOCALS waited to give such order (the city required 72 hr notice to completely evacuate - they waited too long despite being BEGGED by BUSH and the head of the hurrican office to evacuate). The LOCAL mayor did this, not BUSH.

The LOCAL mayor STILL refuses to accept responsibility, as the Prez & Guv has.

The deaths of people in N.O. rests SOLELY on the head of the Mayor - he has to sleep at night with that. HE failed, MISERABLY.

IMPEACH !

Hogan
09-16-2005, 08:56 AM
It's amazing on how a lot of people just don't get it. I'm hesitant to write this but I'll put it out there anyway, this points mainly to white people. I hear a lot of comments by white people that the people in N.O. should be fending for themselves. I heard one lady made a comment that they should not be looking out for federal financial handouts for they should have their bank accounts etc... How are these people supposed to get access to those accounts with all their ID washed away or paper documents destroyed by the water? What if they banked at a local branch that is also under water and therefore can't get any access to their funds? They need the federal money until they can get their stuff straight. I wish it was possible to take people like this and place them in the middle of a hostile environment, say an Arab country that don't like Americans, take all their money, credit cards, passport, ID, etc... and tell them to go fend for themselves. We'll be back in 3 years to check on you and see how much progress you've made {bought a car, have house, started own business, etc...}. I feel like telling these people that the next time that they need an ambulance, or a cop, or the fire department to just suck on it and like it for they have to get to the hospital, find their stolen car, or put their house fire out all by themselves. I don't advocate giving anyone a mansion when I don't have one myself but we are all responsible to each other in a small portion. Once those small portions are meet, then anything else that you can get on top of that by yourself is gravy.


There is a little thing called preparation. If everyone else in 'hurrican way' in other parts of the country can prepare for hurricans, why can't New Orleans ? Of you have important docs, have copies stored securely. If you have a bank, use one that has ATM's so that you can access your money anywhere. If you live in a flood plain, get flood insurance. And it's not because people are poor that they didn't do this - I have been poor, and I was able to do it. And... AND, most importantly, if a hurrican is coming, EVACUATE !

And let's talk about federal aid. Everyone is familiar with those $2000 debit cards that the GOV handed out. Now there are reports that spending of those cards have taken place at HOOTERS, VICTORIA SECRET, CIRCUIT CITY...

Yes... people need aid to get back on their feet, indeed. They can put those Victoria Secret thongs right next to those big screen TV's they looted.

Should N.O.be rebuilt ? Should this be allowed to happen again ?

Hogan
09-16-2005, 09:00 AM
My mistake. it was Senegal (it was awhile ago). And, they herded the residents into a stadium "for security," while Bush was there.

Not exactly a "man of the people" type move.

As Bush Travels to South Africa We Hear From Nelson Mandela, Poet and Activist Dennis Brutus, Greg Palast and Others (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/09/1342222&mode=thread&tid=47)


Neil - you have evidence that these folks were put there on Bush's orders ? Or were they put there by their leader ? Who hates black peope ? Their own leader that out his own people there or Bush ?

(And whether Bush should've been there is another debate).

Hogan
09-16-2005, 09:04 AM
And one more thing: the hurricane laid bare the third-world status of the poor, and how neglect can cause catastrophe. A lot of this misery would have been lessened, if better services were given for the poor.

But, the racism is still ongoing, even as this crisis unfolds. Why is the New Orleans diaspora being spread out so much? What about this talk of Laura's about a "gleaming new city?" sounds awfully squeaky (read: "white") clean to me.

Why are there no catalogues of where the refugee's have been relocated? Why were refugee's trying to cross the bridge into MS turned back at gunpoint?

Neil - one way to stop the level of politics and anger is to stop using buzz words like refugee.

Refugee is defined in Webster as follows:

Main Entry: ref·u·gee
Pronunciation: "re-fyu-'jE, 're-fyu-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French réfugié, past participle of (se) réfugier to take refuge, from Latin refugium
: one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

The people who are displaced from the hurrican in no sense fit that description, and you are doing a disservice to those actual refugees who exist in the world. I understand your dislike for Bush, but using these politically charged words accomplish nothing and hurt our country in the long run.

odudog
09-16-2005, 10:46 AM
Federal gov is NOT THE FIRST RESPONDER TO ANY EMERGENCY. The LOCAS are. The LOCALS failed at the beginning. Here is one example (of many) - I was watching the news the other night, and they said another city with another superdome type of building that is also in 'hurrican way'. Unfortunately I don't remember the city - but they said that their dome is ALSO a shelter of last resort, just like N.O.'s was. But guess where they differ ? They have food, water & security always ready. But N.O. didn't. Why ? Because the LOCAL officials didn't do it. The N.O. Mayor also sent a CD to his folks saying that if anything should happen, you'r on your own. The LOCALS failed to provide buses to evacuate. The LOCALS failed to enforce a mandatory evacuation. The LOCALS waited to give such order (the city required 72 hr notice to completely evacuate - they waited too long despite being BEGGED by BUSH and the head of the hurrican office to evacuate). The LOCAL mayor did this, not BUSH.

The LOCAL mayor STILL refuses to accept responsibility, as the Prez & Guv has.

The deaths of people in N.O. rests SOLELY on the head of the Mayor - he has to sleep at night with that. HE failed, MISERABLY.

IMPEACH !

I agree with you that the local government is the first responders to a disaster but that is only if the disaster was not forseen as in an earthquake or volcano eruption. However, we saw this hurricane coming. The mayor did not send CDs saying that they were on there own. The CDs were made instructing people on what to do in case of hurricane by the mayor with disaster experts and things like that and were schedule to be sent out at the end of this month. None were ever mailed. The buses were place in an area that has never been flooded before so the fact that it happened totally shocked the city government, besides, the city doesn't hae the amount of drivers needed to drive all the buses. The manditory evacuation was put in place the day before the storm because FEMA was given the powers to be in charge the day before that. The 72hr. evacuation time needed had already passed by the time FEMA gave the order. By your logic, I guess you blame the local government for the levees failure as well despite the fact the city engineers, mayor {current & previous}, governors, state senators, and congressmen have been begging for more money from the federal government to improve the levees. They were always told no.

odudog
09-16-2005, 11:01 AM
There is a little thing called preparation. If everyone else in 'hurrican way' in other parts of the country can prepare for hurricans, why can't New Orleans ? Of you have important docs, have copies stored securely. If you have a bank, use one that has ATM's so that you can access your money anywhere. If you live in a flood plain, get flood insurance. And it's not because people are poor that they didn't do this - I have been poor, and I was able to do it. And... AND, most importantly, if a hurrican is coming, EVACUATE !

And let's talk about federal aid. Everyone is familiar with those $2000 debit cards that the GOV handed out. Now there are reports that spending of those cards have taken place at HOOTERS, VICTORIA SECRET, CIRCUIT CITY...

Yes... people need aid to get back on their feet, indeed. They can put those Victoria Secret thongs right next to those big screen TV's they looted.

Should N.O.be rebuilt ? Should this be allowed to happen again ?

Most people are not prepared for these type of catastrophic emergencies. NYC and the Federal government was no were prepared for 9/11 despite the fact that a former FBI official that did not get along with the higher ups screamed about it. Rememer the twin tours had been attacked two times previous. The FBI official died in the towers that he knew was vulnerable to attacks and would be attacked again. The % of people with flood insurance is miniscual and it also goes with all the other major disasters. Interesting, I didn't see any of the so called looted big screen tvs being loaded on the airplanes and buses. I see, black people eating at Hooters is now a crime. The people have to buy underwear somewhere. Victoria Secrets does sell regualar underwear as well. You should go in one someday and take a look.

James Davis
09-16-2005, 11:10 AM
By your logic, I guess you blame the local government for the levees failure as well despite the fact the city engineers, mayor {current & previous}, governors, state senators, and congressmen have been begging for more money from the federal government to improve the levees. They were always told no.
Army Corps of Engineers projects in Louisiana received a budget of aprosimately $1.9 Billion, larger than any other state. California, with a population seven times as large as Louisiana's, came second with only $1.4 Billion. :eek: The funds were diverted by louisiana representatives to a project to create a lock on the New Orleans Industrial Canal. The purpose of the lock was dealing with increasing barge traffic on the canal. Unfortunately, barge traffic had steadily dropped since 1994.

Yes, infact the local government can be blamed for the misuse of funds that should have been used on the levees. :(

Hogan
09-16-2005, 12:16 PM
I agree with you that the local government is the first responders to a disaster but that is only if the disaster was not forseen as in an earthquake or volcano eruption.

Wha !? Sorry, nice try. But how many volcanos are in the continental US ?

However, we saw this hurricane coming.
Yes, so did the mayor, and he did NOTHING.

The mayor did not send CDs saying that they were on there own. The CDs were made instructing people on what to do in case of hurricane by the mayor with disaster experts and things like that and were schedule to be sent out at the end of this month. None were ever mailed. The buses were place in an area that has never been flooded before so the fact that it happened totally shocked the city government

They could have gotten the buses out before flooding, but they ahd no drivers. Some planning.

...besides, the city doesn't hae the amount of drivers needed to drive all the buses
Then why have such a plan in the evacuation plan and tell people buses would be provided ? POOR LOCAL PLANNING.

The manditory evacuation was put in place the day before the storm because FEMA was given the powers to be in charge the day before that. The 72hr. evacuation time needed had already passed by the time FEMA gave the order.

Sorry, nice try again. The head of the national hurrican offie and Bush called the mayor to order an evacuation, he didn't.

By your logic, I guess you blame the local government for the levees failure as well despite the fact the city engineers, mayor {current & previous}, governors, state senators, and congressmen have been begging for more money from the federal government to improve the levees. They were always told no.
I do - for decades those levees could have been improved, but weren't. Even the N.O Picayune came out against it once (the local paper!). I posted another link that said a flood gate was going to be built, but ENVIRONMENTALISTS stopped it. Lets also blame those that are responsible for decades of destruction of the wetlands around the area, that could've provided additional protection against flooding. This is one of the purposes of wetlands, you know.

I have an idea, why don't we take ALL THE PORK in the current budget, and send it to N.O. You think the local officials who are affected by that money would allow that ?? It would provide 10's of billions of dollars. Do we really need a bridge in alaska that goes nowhere ? Send it ot New Orleans !!!!

IMPEACH THE MAYOR !

Hogan
09-16-2005, 12:24 PM
Most people are not prepared for these type of catastrophic emergencies.

So, everyone then must pay because they're too damn lazy to prepare ?

NYC and the Federal government was no were prepared for 9/11 despite the fact that a former FBI official that did not get along with the higher ups screamed about it. Rememer the twin tours had been attacked two times previous. The FBI official died in the towers that he knew was vulnerable to attacks and would be attacked again.

You're right,and they should've been.

The % of people with flood insurance is miniscual and it also goes with all the other major disasters.
Again, so we should foot the bill for those that were too lazy to get some, or think that Uncle Sam will provide for them if they flood ? People shouldn't be living in ANY flood plan, PERIOD - Uncle Same makes it much too easy to get flood insurance. If it was too expensive to get, PERHAPS less people would live there.

Interesting, I didn't see any of the so called looted big screen tvs being loaded on the airplanes and buses.
Yeah, wonder where they put them... Hmmmm... if they EVACUATED like they were supposed to, none of this would've happened.

I see, black people eating at Hooters is now a crime. The people have to buy underwear somewhere. Victoria Secrets does sell regualar underwear as well. You should go in one someday and take a look.

What about Circuit City ? And I didn't say black people were eating at Hooters, I said that the people who have used the cards charged at Hooters. But it's interesting you thought blacks did it. If you're hungry, go to White Castle, or Denny's or how about buy food at a store. I think there was something else at Hooters they were interested in, as well. V. Secret does have underwear, yes, but so does WalMart. I bet it's cheaper there, too. What should have happened is a placement of restrcitions as to where one can use the card - like, only food, clothes, etc.... Not Circuit City.

Hogan
09-16-2005, 12:54 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342186/

More local corruption that screwed them over....

IMPEACH THE LOCALS !

aikigirl10
09-16-2005, 03:39 PM
It just seems like to me that no one can get past the whole "republican/democrat stereotypes". People tend to look at the opposite party and hate that person just because they are of that party. Part of me thinks that democrats hate Bush simply because hes not democrat. If Clinton had reacted the exact same way as Bush to Katrina, would u be on here talking bad about him? I would bet not.

But dont get me wrong Republicans can be just as guilty, which is why i dont declare myself either party. And of course its not always, there are people who can see past a title but i just think that discussions about politics can sometimes be pointless, if you dont look past a heading to see the real person.

Im not calling anyone out or anything like that. Just something to think about

-Paige

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 03:58 PM
Neil - you have evidence that these folks were put there on Bush's orders ? Or were they put there by their leader ? Who hates black peope ? Their own leader that out his own people there or Bush ?

(And whether Bush should've been there is another debate).

Oh please: I don't know of a leader in the world that would put his own ppl in a stadium without the orders and approval from Bush.

Your partisanism is getting so thick it's going beyond the bounds of common sense, and human behavior.

The LOCAL mayor STILL refuses to accept responsibility, as the Prez & Guv has.

The deaths of people in N.O. rests SOLELY on the head of the Mayor - he has to sleep at night with that. HE failed, MISERABLY.

IMPEACH !

If by "impeach," you mean "Impeach Bush first: then establish an independent commission to find whom to impeach, next:" I'd hav to agree.

Otherwise, I suspect that this broadbased call to impeach is another partisan attempt to spread the blame around so that it gets diffused.

Neil - one way to stop the level of politics and anger is to stop using buzz words like refugee.

Refugee is defined in Webster as follows:

Main Entry: ref·u·gee
Pronunciation: "re-fyu-'jE, 're-fyu-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French réfugié, past participle of (se) réfugier to take refuge, from Latin refugium
: one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

The people who are displaced from the hurrican in no sense fit that description, and you are doing a disservice to those actual refugees who exist in the world. I understand your dislike for Bush, but using these politically charged words accomplish nothing and hurt our country in the long run.

Yes, true enough. Refugee is a misnomer. But your spending a whole post on one word is overkill, IMO.

Actually, the proper word is "survivor."

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 04:02 PM
It just seems like to me that no one can get past the whole "republican/democrat stereotypes". People tend to look at the opposite party and hate that person just because they are of that party. Part of me thinks that democrats hate Bush simply because hes not democrat. If Clinton had reacted the exact same way as Bush to Katrina, would u be on here talking bad about him? I would bet not.

Wrong. I'd be the first to yell for Clinton's head on a platter, in that case.

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 04:09 PM
I posted another link that said a flood gate was going to be built, but ENVIRONMENTALISTS stopped it. Lets also blame those that are responsible for decades of destruction of the wetlands around the area, that could've provided additional protection against flooding. This is one of the purposes of wetlands, you know.

I'm sorry, but pointing the finger at environmentalists is more partisan blaming, IMO. I've heard several rumors that the levee was dynamited to flood the lower income areas, saving the tonier properties.

I don't buy it. At this point, an independent commission should be established to determine who should get the measure of the blame. At this point, all we can expect is another bi-partisan whitewash committee...just like 9-11.

I have an idea, why don't we take ALL THE PORK in the current budget, and send it to N.O.

Such as, the $5B lost by the Pentagon, in Iraq? Or, the trillions of dollars slated for a "missile defence" system that will destabilize nuclear disarmament attempts?

Excellent idea: perhaps now we can also consider paying our due to the UN, as well.

IMPEACH THE MAYOR !

For every 10 calls you make to impeach the local pol's, you make one call to impeach the Pres. An oversight on your part? I don't think so.

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 04:18 PM
Now there are reports that spending of those cards have taken place at HOOTERS, VICTORIA SECRET, CIRCUIT CITY...

source?

Should N.O.be rebuilt ? Should this be allowed to happen again ?

I find that question insulting to N.O.'eans. If YOUR city were demolished: YOU'D want it rebuilt, no matter WHAT corruption, etc were going on in your city.

The question is NOT "should N.O. be rebuilt;" but "now that Halliburton, et al is hiring outside help and not consulting the Af-Am community: what color will the New, New Orleans be?"

Will it be the Shiny (White) new City? But we can thank God that Trent Lott's new house will be good as new, after repairs are done. :disgust:

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 04:54 PM
Victoria Secrets does sell regualar underwear as well. You should go in one someday and take a look.

Nah...it's much easier for him to join the media-chorus typecasting blacks as looters and "holdouts."

*Picture of a white person exiting a store in New Orleans with a bag under his hands* .....a man caring for his family in times of emergency.

*Picture of a black person exiting a store in New Orleans with a bag under his hands* ....Looter! Holdout! Deadbeat!

And a note to those ppl who decry those who "aren't working:"consider this:

The Militarization of New Orleans: Jeremy Scahill Reports from Louisiana (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/16/1222257)

. I also, two days ago, had the chance to meet one of the wealthiest of citizens of New Orleans, F. Patrick Quinn III. He is the single greatest owner of private rooms in New Orleans. He owns the largest hotel chain in the state of Louisiana, to cater to hotels. He is currently -- he told me that his hotels are being looked at by FEMA to house the workers for the long haul of the so-called reconstruction. I was talking to him, as his head of security and after he pulled off in his S.U.V., about 30 Mexican workers came out of his hotel, and one of his security guards said that they had been brought in from Texas, and in fact another news report, about Patrick Quinn, said that he had brought in workers from Texas as well. So, we have the reality of these shelters full of people wanting work and then you see Mexican workers being brought in from Texas, and when they're done, doing this dirty work, they will be put on the back of trucks, piled into trucks and they go to wherever it is that they were staying.
This man, Patrick Quinn is bidding for these contracts where FEMA potentially could come in and rent out hundreds and hundreds of rooms in his hotel and other businesses are struggling to simply stay alive or scramble to get federal money to rebuild, he is standing to gain a tremendous amount of money from these lucrative federal contracts. It must be noted that he is a major contributor to the Republican party. In fact, his wife was just elected in the special election to the state Senate. Her name is Julie Quinn. And Amy, he has brought in security from a company called B.A.T.S. in Alabama: Bodyguard And Tactical Services. And I was talking to his head of security, I told him I was from New York, he said, I've been to New York during the daily news strike, referring to the strike the at the New York Daily News. Democracy Now! co-host, Juan Gonzalez, is a Daily News columnist was one of the leaders of the strike. I told him that Juan Gonzalez was a colleague of mine and he told me that he spiked Juan Gonzalez's car. He said he had put sugar in the gas tank of Juan Gonzalez's car. The man's name is Michael Montgomery, and he is the head of security for B.A.T.S. Security in Alabama, bragging about spiking the car of Juan Gonzalez and other strike leaders in the New York Daily News strike. He is heading up security for the Decatur Hotel chain, owned by Patrick Quinn, a major businessman in New Orleans, his wife a Republican state senator. This is just one example of cronyism that we see on the ground where the wealthy Republican contributors are being considered now for these tremendous federal contracts.

Let's also not forget that Our Low-Income-Loving President has cut the wage requirements for ppl working under contractors in the disaster area.

So, it's not just a host of (black) deadbeats laying around waiting for handouts: a lot of fatcats are using this situation to their advantage, and completely ignoring the potential manpower in the local community. The repression and the racism is ongoing: and no it's not just at the top.

Hogan
09-16-2005, 05:01 PM
Oh please: I don't know of a leader in the world that would put his own ppl in a stadium without the orders and approval from Bush.

Your partisanism is getting so thick it's going beyond the bounds of common sense, and human behavior.

I will look past your attitude and ask again, you have proof that Bush requested these citizens of a forein country to be rounded up and put in a stadium ?

Your paranoia is getting thick, huh ?


If by "impeach," you mean "Impeach Bush first: then establish an independent commission to find whom to impeach, next:" I'd hav to agree.

ahahah... stop trying to be so sly...No, this isn't a broadbased call to impeach, this is a direct call to impeach one person.


Yes, true enough. Refugee is a misnomer. But your spending a whole post on one word is overkill, IMO.

Actually, the proper word is "survivor."

Your hate of Bush is overkill.

Hogan
09-16-2005, 05:02 PM
Wrong. I'd be the first to yell for Clinton's head on a platter, in that case.

Monica has 1st dibs on that...

Hogan
09-16-2005, 05:06 PM
I'm sorry, but pointing the finger at environmentalists is more partisan blaming, IMO. I've heard several rumors that the levee was dynamited to flood the lower income areas, saving the tonier properties.

Talking about two different things - I was referring to a "flood gate", not levee.

And with the recent supreme court ruling about eminant domain, it wouldn't surprise me that this will be allowed again, regarding your rumors.

I don't buy it. At this point, an independent commission should be established to determine who should get the measure of the blame. At this point, all we can expect is another bi-partisan whitewash committee...just like 9-11.
:hypno: good god, we agree the 9-11 commission was a waste ? (But I am sure for different reasons).

I actually think congress should do its job and investigate it. But it has become so partisan that they can't be objective. Too bad.


For every 10 calls you make to impeach the local pol's, you make one call to impeach the Pres. An oversight on your part? I don't think so.
I make one call to impease Prez ? Huh ?

IMPEACH MAYOR NOW !

Hogan
09-16-2005, 05:09 PM
source?
CNN this am on the news.



I find that question insulting to N.O.'eans. If YOUR city were demolished: YOU'D want it rebuilt, no matter WHAT corruption, etc were going on in your city.
Sorry, but so what ? Questions have to asked. Why continue to waste money for people to live in flood plains without protection. Why encourage it ?

The question is NOT "should N.O. be rebuilt;" but "now that Halliburton, et al is hiring outside help and not consulting the Af-Am community: what color will the New, New Orleans be?"

Shhhh... calm down..... there was only one gunman.... there are no x-files..... cat's don't steal your breath....

Hogan
09-16-2005, 05:10 PM
Nah...it's much easier for him to join the media-chorus typecasting blacks as looters and "holdouts."

*Picture of a white person exiting a store in New Orleans with a bag under his hands* .....a man caring for his family in times of emergency.

*Picture of a black person exiting a store in New Orleans with a bag under his hands* ....Looter! Holdout! Deadbeat!



Now I never said any of that.... but you keep on trying to pollute the waters of debate with politics....

Neil Mick
09-16-2005, 05:19 PM
I will look past your attitude and ask again, you have proof that Bush requested these citizens of a forein country to be rounded up and put in a stadium ?

Your paranoia is getting thick, huh ?

This comment is insulting...you are treading past the bounds of our agreement, not to insult.

I'm only going to ask this once: please do not resort to this form of name-calling, or I'm going to assume that our agreement is over.

(and please: don't start in with your usual "well, YOU did it FIRST!" I said that your "partisanism" was getting thick. IMO, "partisanism" is not an insult. We are ALL partisan. Hopefully, few of us here are paranoid).

Hogan
09-17-2005, 01:35 PM
This comment is insulting...you are treading past the bounds of our agreement, not to insult.

HA !! But making sly references that I must be rascist is not ? Puhlease.

I'm only going to ask this once: please do not resort to this form of name-calling, or I'm going to assume that our agreement is over.
You must REALLY want to start it up again, since you are making things up and reading stuff into things that don't exist, and hinting that I am something I am not just to get an argument. If you want to try to find excuses to go back to idiotic behavior, then go right ahead.

MitchMZ
09-17-2005, 03:10 PM
I am not one to try and generalize; but most of the "racism" I have seen personally lately has been fabricated by the person who is claiming to have been discriminated against. Thats not to say racism doesn't happen this day and age, because it does.

Who were the ones to bring all this attention to the news claiming blacks were looked at as looters while whites were looked at as surviving? Because honestly, that was the last thing on my mind when this disaster happened. I sure as hell didn't judge the people for looting...you gotta do what you gotta do.

For example; I work in a deli and we were very busy one day. I was asking who was next and just helping customers as they came along. Apparently, there was an African American woman that felt she was being discriminated against because she was standing like 20 feet away and not speaking up when I asked who was needing help. Her race was the last thing on my mind. She made it a racial issue, when it was not. She assumed I was racist. Thats discrimination in itself!

Call me insensitive, but I really don't give a damn what race/gender someone is! People are people to me.

Neil Mick
09-17-2005, 05:23 PM
HA !! But making sly references that I must be rascist is not ? Puhlease.

Yeah, puh-leeze. Exactly. You seem to be of the school that "well, Neil does (what I think is "x"); so it's OK for me to do it, too.

Newsflash, John: it isn't. If you have a problem with the tone of something that I said: do you really think that it will solve JACK by next implying that I am paranoid??

Hey, I know, here's an idea: instead of engaging in subtle backbiting: how about simply stating out in the open that you resent any implications of racism? It seems like this is a far more open and honest approach.

You must REALLY want to start it up again, since you are making things up and reading stuff into things that don't exist, and hinting that I am something I am not just to get an argument.

You gotta watch those summations about others, John. More often than not, you're wrong. If I wanted to "start up again:" I simply would--no warnings, no discussion.

And, I'm sorry that you think I am intimating that you are a racist: actually, I haven't a clue as to your inclinations.

But statements such as this:

The coast guard evacuated over 10,000 people (and still going) and the mayor is saying there could be 10,000 dead. That's some number of hold outs.

sound quite racist, to me. Notice, tho? There is a quantum difference between

1. You are a racist; and
2. This is a racist statement.

#1 is an insult; #2 is a critique on a comment. Very different spin.

If you want to try to find excuses to go back to idiotic behavior, then go right ahead.

If I find a comment insulting, it does neither of us any good to deride or downplay my concerns. Just a teensy suggestion: but how about seriously considering my concerns, rather than attempting to downplay their importance?

Neil Mick
09-17-2005, 05:40 PM
Her race was the last thing on my mind. She made it a racial issue, when it was not. She assumed I was racist. Thats discrimination in itself!

Call me insensitive, but I really don't give a damn what race/gender someone is! People are people to me.

Let me explain something I learned from this, by way of Studs Terkel.

When I was very, very small (about 7): I used to ride the bus alone. I had to, I was a latch-key kid. Well, one day: a black man spat at me, before getting off the bus. I looked up, completely surprised (I barely was even conscious of his existence, till that moment), and he was looking at me with such seething hatred. At first I was very angry, and glared back. Why did the mean man spit at me (I thought)? But as with many young kids who are lashed at for no good reason; I was quickly less angered, than confused.

Years went by, and I thought a lot of that incident. I couldn't understand it until I heard a similar story from Studs Terkel. It went something like this:

Studs wanted to cross the street. Now, he's getting on in years, and it takes him some time to get across. Not quite trusting cars and being nearsighted, he's taken to holding up his hand in a "halt" sort of gesture as he crosses the street.

A black man behind the wheel of a waiting car started yelling at him. At first, Studs was confused. HE meant no harm: why was this guy yelling? Apparently, the guy thought that he was being given the finger.

Now Studs thought: how many times had that man been given the finger by white pedestrians, for this man to be conditioned to see a finger from a harmless, upraised gesture from Studs?

And so, I think that you might consider that woman's perspective, Mitch. Perhaps she wasn't reacting to you, so much as acting out a conditioned response to constantly being discriminated against.

At the very least, it makes her misinterpretation of your motives easier to understand.

Adam Alexander
09-17-2005, 06:14 PM
When I was very, very small (about 7): I used to ride the bus alone. I had to, I was a latch-key kid. Well, one day: a black man spat at me, before getting off the bus. I looked up, completely surprised (I barely was even conscious of his existence, till that moment), and he was looking at me with such seething hatred. At first I was very angry, and glared back. Why did the mean man spit at me (I thought)? But as with many young kids who are lashed at for no good reason; I was quickly less angered, than confused.

No offense, but this post is a load of it.

An adult messing with a child should receive a dose of reinforcement that insures it'll not happen again...ideally from the parents of that child.

The question isn't "why did he do it?" The question is "where were the individuals who were responsible for you?"

The question in the deli isn't "why did she do it?" The question is "why did she get away with it?"

The man in the car who thought he was being flipped-off shouldn't of received a dose of "aww, I wonder why"...he should of received a dose of why it would be unwise for him to do it again.


When I was eighteen or so, I worked a register in a store on the border of Detroit. It was a mixed crowd, but black dominated.

A woman pulled the race card once. I'll never forget it. Nor will I ever give the benefit of the doubt to someone calling the race card.

Entitlement is a disease. Tolerance and justifying is what it feeds off of.

Neil Mick
09-17-2005, 06:29 PM
No offense, but this post is a load of it.

An adult messing with a child should receive a dose of reinforcement that insures it'll not happen again...ideally from the parents of that child.

The question isn't "why did he do it?" The question is "where were the individuals who were responsible for you?"


You misread a lot in my post. I was talking about possible motives of why ppl act as they do, not apologies for adults spitting on children. Do I think that the guy was reprehensible? Absolutely.


The question in the deli isn't "why did she do it?" The question is "why did she get away with it?"

The man in the car who thought he was being flipped-off shouldn't of received a dose of "aww, I wonder why"...he should of received a dose of why it would be unwise for him to do it again.


When I was eighteen or so, I worked a register in a store on the border of Detroit. It was a mixed crowd, but black dominated.

A woman pulled the race card once. I'll never forget it. Nor will I ever give the benefit of the doubt to someone calling the race card.

I've had ppl pull the race card on me, too. It's not a "get out of jail, free" card, IMO; but it does explain why some ppl act as they do.

Entitlement is a disease. Tolerance and justifying is what it feeds off of.

With respect...garbage. Entitlement and affirmative action are means to balance racist ideas that hold minorities back in the workplace. Without them, I firmly believe that we'd still be back in the '70's (or earlier), race-relations-wise.

Adam Alexander
09-17-2005, 06:48 PM
1)You misread a lot in my post. I was talking about possible motives of why ppl act as they do, not apologies for adults spitting on children. Do I think that the guy was reprehensible? Absolutely.


2)With respect...garbage. Entitlement and affirmative action are means to balance racist ideas that hold minorities back in the workplace. Without them, I firmly believe that we'd still be back in the '70's (or earlier), race-relations-wise.

1)I think that's what I was responding to...It doesn't matter why he did it.

2)That's the gist of it. Minorities are holding themselves back by believing that they "shouldn't" be held back.

No-one has a "right" to a job or promotion. What we have is a right to not be impeded by the government in making a job for ourselves.


I'm not saying this mean-spiritedly, but I think you're not in-touch with these issues. You've got the understanding of someone with "victim-mentality." Like everyone else needs to help...However, the world doesn't owe any of us anything.

The perspective I carry will always rule...that's because there'll always be a Katrina to eventually hit...Whether it's in the office or it's "black-on-black" crime...nature always rears her head.

That's what our system is based on: Human nature.
It's the only thing that works.

parker
09-17-2005, 10:01 PM
I am always amazed at how people feel that they are owed things. YOU EARN THINGS.
Do we have affirmative action for jewish people? NO. They were slaughtered by the thousands and descriminated against. What did they do? They did not let it hold them down.
What about the Arab population? Hmmm?
Our Nation's pandering to certain races does NOTHING but make them feel entitled to things that they will not work for. It truly sickens me.
If people hate stereotypes, then quit fitting into the stereotype.

Good posts from Jean de Rochefort!

Neil Mick
09-18-2005, 02:34 AM
1)I think that's what I was responding to...It doesn't matter why he did it.

2)That's the gist of it. Minorities are holding themselves back by believing that they "shouldn't" be held back.

Sorry, but this is plain silly. There are 12 women in Congress, with 50% of the population. I find it beyond rational to accept that women merely are held back because they "believe" that they shouldn't be . To me, this sounds like utter denial that racism and sexism exist, and it's counterlogical. Racism manifests, no matter what the object of racism feels about it.

And I know one thing: I've seen racism more apparent in situations where AA doesn't exist.

No-one has a "right" to a job or promotion. What we have is a right to not be impeded by the government in making a job for ourselves.

It's not about a "right" to a promotion: it's about acknowledging the imbalance.

This idea of the "rugged, lone individual" is both harmful and weakening, in this society. The idea that "all one needs to do is pull one up by one's bootstraps" is a load of crap. Some people simply start out in disadvantageous situations, or in an environment where racism is part of the system.

I'm not saying this mean-spiritedly, but I think you're not in-touch with these issues. You've got the understanding of someone with "victim-mentality."

You do not know my background. Please don't attempt to psycholanalze...it is insulting.

spective I carry will always rule...that's because there'll always be a Katrina to eventually hit...Whether it's in the office or it's "black-on-black" crime...nature always rears her head.

Like everyone else needs to help...However, the world doesn't owe any of us anything.

Talk about ME having a "victim mentality!"

Look, let's face it: this idea of a "lone, rugged individual" is an unhealthy societal attitude, but one prevalent throughout American society. We can't help ourselves, tho: our movies glorify it. A society best survives with a "community" to support it. This "rugged solitary individualism" is the reason why most of us feel cut off from each other, and most barely know their neighbors.

And, "the people who 'make it'" only "made it," in most cases, at the bload and toil of their workers, who saw only a sliver of that great profit.

Really, you should read "Nickle and Dimed," by Barbara Ehrenreich. She talks about what it's like to struggle with barely not getting by. But, try this, sometime: go into a McDonald's, Burger King, or any fast food big-chain, in a big city, where you might see a lot of minorities. Look around: who is the manager?

First person who jumped up and said "the only white male" in the place gets a cigar. In most cases, the white male gets the job.

Did he get it because everyone else there because all the other minority folks believe in some notion, or idea? No, the white guy gets the big job because of the racism inherent in the system, that favors white males, for that job.

That's what our system is based on: Human nature.
It's the only thing that works.

Human nature is coming to someone's aid, when they are injured...and that's what I expect that you're missing, when you talk about others trying to help. The only people who call into question our ability to help ourselves is ppl like Bush, who draw away our resources to fight pie-in-the-sky oil-dreams. One half the LA Natl Grd, out of the country! All of their amphibious vehicles, gone!

I think that the rest of the world responded as any member of a community might: with offers of help. The US responded like a sick, overproud cowboy with a serious wound: "Nah...never yew maind....Ah'll be all raight...aaak"

Neil Mick
09-18-2005, 02:42 AM
I am always amazed at how people feel that they are owed things. YOU EARN THINGS.

Hello?? Do you think that Colin Powell and Condi Rice simply "earned" it??

And, please, please: get your message out to Our Beloved President...I fear that HE hasn't heard your message, either.


Do we have affirmative action for jewish people? NO. They were slaughtered by the thousands and descriminated against.

Oh, here we go. Ooh! Who wants to be the victim, first?

What did they do? They did not let it hold them down.
What about the Arab population? Hmmm?

Yes, yes: racism is all a big myth. :crazy: :crazy:

Our Nation's pandering to certain races does NOTHING but make them feel entitled to things that they will not work for. It truly sickens me.

What truly saddens me is people who can think that they know how it is for all minorities, everywhere. But, you labor under the misapprehension that AA makes ppl feel "entitled." Sad, really.

If people hate stereotypes, then quit fitting into the stereotype.

Yes, of course: the Jewish people were hated and reviled because they,,,ahem: held that hatred and revilement within themselves. :hypno: :hypno:

Wow...someone needs a little sit-down, and a long, long chat. :dead:

parker
09-18-2005, 08:37 AM
I never said racism is a myth...it comes from all sides.
It's just that if you always feel that people owe you something, you can never take self-responsibility.
You have to agree with that statement.

I mentioned the examples of Jewish and Arab to show that these people, though faced with racism, have risen above the hatred and done very well...lo and behold, without AA.

Please do not misunderstand what I say as hate. I just truly want all races to achieve based on their own merit. Others have done it. So, obviously it is achievable.

I never said I know what it is like for all races. Only that we have a ready-made model. People who feel entitled always feel like people owe them. People with the drive and self-respect to make things happen for themselves...achieve.

parker
09-18-2005, 09:27 AM
"Someone needs a sit-down and a long long chat"?

Can you stop responding childishly and condescendingly? I hope so.
Let's have a discussion based on opinion and intelligent debate.

Adam Alexander
09-18-2005, 02:36 PM
1)Sorry, but this is plain silly. There are 12 women in Congress, with 50% of the population. I find it beyond rational to accept that women merely are held back because they "believe" that they shouldn't be . To me, this sounds like utter denial that racism and sexism exist, and it's counterlogical. Racism manifests, no matter what the object of racism feels about it.

2)And I know one thing: I've seen racism more apparent in situations where AA doesn't exist.



3)It's not about a "right" to a promotion: it's about acknowledging the imbalance.

4)This idea of the "rugged, lone individual" is both harmful and weakening, in this society. The idea that "all one needs to do is pull one up by one's bootstraps" is a load of crap. Some people simply start out in disadvantageous situations, or in an environment where racism is part of the system.



5)You do not know my background. Please don't attempt to psycholanalze...it is insulting.



6)Talk about ME having a "victim mentality!"

7)Look, let's face it: this idea of a "lone, rugged individual" is an unhealthy societal attitude, but one prevalent throughout American society. We can't help ourselves, tho: our movies glorify it. A society best survives with a "community" to support it. This "rugged solitary individualism" is the reason why most of us feel cut off from each other, and most barely know their neighbors.

8)And, "the people who 'make it'" only "made it," in most cases, at the bload and toil of their workers, who saw only a sliver of that great profit.

9)Really, you should read "Nickle and Dimed," by Barbara Ehrenreich. She talks about what it's like to struggle with barely not getting by. But, try this, sometime: go into a McDonald's, Burger King, or any fast food big-chain, in a big city, where you might see a lot of minorities. Look around: who is the manager?
First person who jumped up and said "the only white male" in the place gets a cigar. In most cases, the white male gets the job.

10)Did he get it because everyone else there because all the other minority folks believe in some notion, or idea? No, the white guy gets the big job because of the racism inherent in the system, that favors white males, for that job.



11)Human nature is coming to someone's aid, when they are injured...and that's what I expect that you're missing, when you talk about others trying to help. The only people who call into question our ability to help ourselves is ppl like Bush, who draw away our resources to fight pie-in-the-sky oil-dreams. One half the LA Natl Grd, out of the country! All of their amphibious vehicles, gone!

1)I think you're misapplying the argument.

However, I think that your example illustrates that it has nothing to do with sexism-- by that rationale, women (51% of the pop. or so) are holding back women from public office?

2)Seems better if it's open. Atleast then, the local minority knows what they're dealing with.

3)There's a big differnence between "acknowledging" and taking action. I think you're using double-speak.

4)Because you don't understand how it's done, doesn't mean that you should be shown how to do it...and the ideal that you're clinging to is why thousands of people were in N.O. expecting the gov. to fix a problem that was theirs.

5)Sorry if you feel that way.

Perhaps you don't have "victim-mentality" but I consider the liberal idea that people "need" help to be the mentality of a victim.

6)So, if I've offended you, why would you turn-around and do the same?

That's another demonstration of why your ideal doesn't work. Because, it doesn't recognize how bad people are-- that we're all the same...even the people who you expect to fix things...they are all the same!

7)Excellent, you do understand. "Community" yes. Groups of individuals who cooperate because it's in their best interest, not because the threat of law over-shadows.

That's conservatism:) You're really one of us at heart.

8)No body owed those workers any more if that's what they agreed to.

9)Actually, I went to McD's for a disgusting lunch. It was a central American woman.

None-the-less, I'm sure it's frequently a white male. So what? What's that prove? A white male was the best for the job, that's it.

10)Then let's all recognize that and let the minorities start their own Mc restaurant to fix it...let them do it Neil--stop these disgusting social programs that'll tax them to death before they can get it going.

11)Human nature is selfish. People will help...momentarily. But in months to come, the help will trickle away. What will still remain is the human's tendency to do things out of self-interest...that's what you want to eliminate.


That's ok. Times are changing. The pendulum is swinging back.

Neil Mick
09-18-2005, 09:45 PM
"Someone needs a sit-down and a long long chat"?

Can you stop responding childishly and condescendingly? I hope so.
Let's have a discussion based on opinion and intelligent debate.

I am. I was ridiculing the notion that, somehow: minorities are responsible for racism, by some form of self-labelling victimhood.

I was merely showing the absurdity of your argument, by applying it to your example of persecution of the Jews. And anyone who follows this logic, IMO: really DOES need a long chat.

My motto is "attack the statement: not the person." What you say is fair game: but I hope that I never lose it enough to attack you, personally. Actually, I have some respect for anyone who posts here. It's not for the timid. :cool:

Neil Mick
09-18-2005, 09:57 PM
I never said racism is a myth...it comes from all sides.
It's just that if you always feel that people owe you something, you can never take self-responsibility.
You have to agree with that statement.

I mentioned the examples of Jewish and Arab to show that these people, though faced with racism, have risen above the hatred and done very well...lo and behold, without AA.

With respect: you have got to be kidding me. The problem remains unsolved, and IMO, is worsening. We're talking about an issue that is at least 65 years old.

And in Israel: there is incredible racism against Arabs working there, from what I understand (admittedly, my info is a little dated).

Please do not misunderstand what I say as hate. I just truly want all races to achieve based on their own merit. Others have done it. So, obviously it is achievable.

I never said I know what it is like for all races. Only that we have a ready-made model. People who feel entitled always feel like people owe them. People with the drive and self-respect to make things happen for themselves...achieve.

OK, but here's the thing:

We are looking at AA from two totally different perspectives.

From what I understand, you are looking at it from the perspective of someone expecting entitlement. In effect, you are looking at the reciprient.

I look at it from a systemic view. I look at business without AA, and they mostly seem to have white men running them. I look at who the managers and owners mostly are, and it is clear that some minorities were passed up.

Just look at it this way: it's a known fact that violence against Arab's increased after 9-11. Now, how many Arab-American applicants for jobs and promotions got passed up, after 9-11? Anti-Arab sentiment was high, after all.

If there's no AA, these workers can all expect to wait at the back of the line, for awhile. Why? Is it because they are lazy? Stupid? Unqualified? Maybe: but until racism is demonstrably shown to be eradicated from all living (housing, college/school, work) decisions (and discrimination is notoriously hard to prove, esp in things like housing), then AA is absolutely necessary, to attain some sort of social parity.

Otherwise, you get general feelings of malaise and apathy.

Neil Mick
09-18-2005, 10:18 PM
4)Because you don't understand how it's done, doesn't mean that you should be shown how to do it...and the ideal that you're clinging to is why thousands of people were in N.O. expecting the gov. to fix a problem that was theirs.

See, here's where you're wrong. There is a tremendous amount of community effort going on. Supplies are being trucked in (by private citizens, not NGO's), a 60 watt radio station (KAMP) is now up, catering to the folks in the dome, local districts not hit by the flooding are helping out. Sure there are ppl who sit around and expect help, but that's simply human nature...there are ppl who do that all the time...nothing will change that.

I consider the liberal idea that people "need" help to be the mentality of a victim.

Some ppl need help, in their lives. It's not about being a victim, it's about getting a hand up. Some others take advantage of that handout: human nature.

6)So, if I've offended you, why would you turn-around and do the same?

I was referring to the tone of your argument, not to you. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

That's another demonstration of why your ideal doesn't work. Because, it doesn't recognize how bad people are-- that we're all the same...even the people who you expect to fix things...they are all the same!

That's the point...we ARE all the same! We all deserve basic food, a shelter, clothing, and clean water. OK? I'm sorry, but if someone wants to live a life where he contributes nothing to society but wishes to live in it: I say great! You go! Because, who am I to decide what "benefit to society" he really does(n't) give?

Maybe he's nice to the local cats, or he has a pet dog, or he likes to sing opera in the shower?

I think that him, and everyone else: should be doled out a bare wage, just to get by. Everyone else can earn more by his wits or merits.

7)Excellent, you do understand. "Community" yes. Groups of individuals who cooperate because it's in their best interest, not because the threat of law over-shadows.

Yes, but there are some good laws, too. Laws protecting the environment and corporate limits are vitally important.

Still, I think that the greatest single thing we can do to reverse a big wrong in this society is to remove the status of "person" from corporations. It gives them WAAY too many rights.

That's conservatism:) You're really one of us at heart.

Brrr....um, thank you, but no: I am a decentralist.

8)No body owed those workers any more if that's what they agreed to.

Most of the world gets by on $1/day. This is an outrage: and believe me, ppl work because they have no choice. In most parts of the world, "agreement for wages" is a foreign concept...they HAVE to take what they get.

9)Actually, I went to McD's for a disgusting lunch. It was a central American woman.

None-the-less, I'm sure it's frequently a white male. So what? What's that prove? A white male was the best for the job, that's it.

Oh, please.

10)Then let's all recognize that and let the minorities start their own Mc restaurant to fix it...let them do it Neil--stop these disgusting social programs that'll tax them to death before they can get it going.

Oh, stop. "Disgusting social programs?" You mean like START and other jobs producers?

11)Human nature is selfish. People will help...momentarily. But in months to come, the help will trickle away. What will still remain is the human's tendency to do things out of self-interest...that's what you want to eliminate.

Altruism is also a human (animal) behavior, you forget that. You forget all the social and communal work that was done during the Great Depression. How did FDR get this country back on its feet? SSC and the WPA.

Done for the right reasons: welfare is not a handout, it's an investment...a far cheaper investment than paying for jailtime.

That's ok. Times are changing. The pendulum is swinging back.

We can only hope. :ai: :ki: :do:

Hogan
09-19-2005, 08:57 AM
Yeah, puh-leeze. Exactly. You seem to be of the school that "well, Neil does (what I think is "x"); so it's OK for me to do it, too.

Newsflash, John: it isn't. If you have a problem with the tone of something that I said: do you really think that it will solve JACK by next implying that I am paranoid??

Hey, I know, here's an idea: instead of engaging in subtle backbiting: how about simply stating out in the open that you resent any implications of racism? It seems like this is a far more open and honest approach.

Neil: Hi John, how are you.
John: OK, how are you ?
Neil: You're a rascist.
John: So are you !
Neil: Hey, you can't call me one just because I called you one. I have no proof you are, but you still are.
John: Please.
Neil: Quit engaging in subtle backbiting. If you don't want to be called rascist, then say so.
John: Well, why should I have to ? I have written nothing rascist. How about not calling people rascist ?

But statements such as this:
"The coast guard evacuated over 10,000 people (and still going) and the mayor is saying there could be 10,000 dead. That's some number of hold outs."

sound quite racist, to me. Notice, tho? There is a quantum difference between

1. You are a racist; and
2. This is a racist statement.

#1 is an insult; #2 is a critique on a comment. Very different spin.
Me quoting facts at the time is rascist ? How in the world is that rwascist in ANYONES definition. Coast guard evacuated over 10,000, 10,000 may be dead. Oh my god, rascist !

Well, here is some more updated info...

Over 125,000 have been evacuated. They were asked why they stayed. 35% said they couldn't evacuate on their own because they were poor/had no means, etc... That leaves how much ? Yes, 65% stayed BY CHOICE ! But OK, lets pay for their stupidity. Oh, oh... that must mean I am rascist.

If I find a comment insulting, it does neither of us any good to deride or downplay my concerns. Just a teensy suggestion: but how about seriously considering my concerns, rather than attempting to downplay their importance?
Oh, you have concerns ? Then, with an open mind, without political buzzwords, without accusations (Bush ordering foreign citizens of a country held in a stadium to prove he is rascist... ahem... source (as you like to ask) resulting from your prior bias, then say them.

James Davis
09-19-2005, 12:17 PM
I used to be a file clerk in a hospital. I completed birth certificates for the OB department. There was a program called "Healthy Start" that was meant to provide help for moms that needed it with their newborns. Help was provided based on a points sytem with a number of contributing factors. All in all, I think that it's a good idea to help people that need it, but how in the heck could handing a young lady piece of paper describing her child as "at risk", "underpriveledged", or "disadvantaged" ON THE DAY OF THEIR BIRTH, based on their skin color, be described as a healthy start?! :grr:

News agencies filming a white guy stealing food and calling him anything different than a black guy that does the same thing is CRAP. :grr:

Knocking a fast food chain's decision to employ a white guy (who might have been to college) as a manager, instead of one of the minority employees (who are probably TEENAGERS) is a bit wierd. :freaky:

Making generalizations based on race (or anything else, really) is risky behavior. 'Book by it's cover and all that... ;)

Neil Mick
09-19-2005, 07:57 PM
Neil: Hi John, how are you.
John: OK, how are you ?
Neil: You're a rascist.
John: So are you !

And you call this "nayah, nyah, so are you" behavior "adult?"
I don't.

Neil: Hey, you can't call me one just because I called you one. I have no proof you are, but you still are.
John: Please.

Yes, please.

1. "You are a racist" DOES NOT = "This statement is racist."

BIIIG Difference.

Neil: Quit engaging in subtle backbiting. If you don't want to be called rascist, then say so.
John: Well, why should I have to ? I have written nothing rascist. How about not calling people rascist ?

Hello?

Me quoting facts at the time is rascist ? How in the world is that rwascist in ANYONES definition. Coast guard evacuated over 10,000, 10,000 may be dead. Oh my god, rascist !

Emphasis is on the word "holdout." You see? When you get this way: understanding flies out the window. The term "holdout" is racist: not your quotation of statistics.

Well, here is some more updated info...

Over 125,000 have been evacuated. They were asked why they stayed. 35% said they couldn't evacuate on their own because they were poor/had no means, etc... That leaves how much ? Yes, 65% stayed BY CHOICE ! But OK, lets pay for their stupidity. Oh, oh... that must mean I am rascist.

Noooo: that means that 65% HAD the means, but did not, for their own reasons. Now, I'd hesitate to call you racist for these assumptions (I don't know you); but assuming that the rest are holdouts IS an assumption rooted in racism.

ALERT: THIS IS NOT LABELLING YOU A RACIST. PONDER CARFULLY THE DIFFERENCE, before responding!

Oh, you have concerns ? Then, with an open mind, without political buzzwords, without accusations (Bush ordering foreign citizens of a country held in a stadium to prove he is rascist...

That was only one example...an example you are beating to death. I can also cite his tax policies, his ignoring his promises to Africa, his snubbing political Af-Am leaders (which I have mentioned about 4 times, and you have chosen to equally ignore).

But you go on and beat this one example to death...it makes you sound SO objective... :rolleyes:

ahem... source (as you like to ask) resulting from your prior bias, then say them.

This sentence makes no sense to me. I supplied a source: you questioned whether or not Bush ordered it. I countered that it is beyond reason to suggest that Bush was blissfully unaware of the security measures taken.

Put the shoe on the other foot: if Bush is so concerned about African's, then why didn't he deride the African leaders/his security, for going overboard?

By the way, I still await that (ahem) unbiased survey about the (cough) "fair and accurate" style of news coverage that (aaak!) FoxNews (vomits) serves up to its (mostly white, male) constituentcy.

Neil Mick
09-19-2005, 08:00 PM
Knocking a fast food chain's decision to employ a white guy (who might have been to college) as a manager, instead of one of the minority employees (who are probably TEENAGERS) is a bit wierd. :freaky:

You're missing the point. If you went into one store and did this: I'd say that it was weird. Try going to 10 fast food stores and note the race and sex of the manager (compared to those of the staff).

Now, please: just try to tell me that all those white males were better qualified, than anyone else. Go on: you can do it... :hypno: :hypno:

Hogan
09-20-2005, 07:48 AM
And you call this "nayah, nyah, so are you" behavior "adult?"
I don't.

And calling/hinting people rascist with no proof is ?




1. "You are a racist" DOES NOT = "This statement is racist."

BIIIG Difference.

But the problem is is that the statement wasn't rascist.

If you think it is rascist, then get thee to a dictionary.
Holdout means rascist ?

AHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAH!!!!

O MERCY that is just TOO much, man...

Hey, anyone else, how many people think the word HOLDOUT is rascist !?!

aahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA HAHAH!!! O man, I canlt stop....

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH !!!!
Ohhhh, stop it ! stop.... I can't... my side hurts....


Noooo: that means that 65% HAD the means, but did not, for their own reasons.
Uhhh, yes, that means they stayed by choice.


Now, I'd hesitate to call you racist for these assumptions (I don't know you); but assuming that the rest are holdouts IS an assumption rooted in racism.

C'MON !!! Stoooop ! Aha ahHAHAHAHAAHAHHAH....

ALERT: THIS IS NOT LABELLING YOU A RACIST. PONDER CARFULLY THE DIFFERENCE, before responding!

ehehehahhAHHAHAA... oh, too much.... just toooo much....


...
That was only one example...an example you are beating to death. I can also cite his tax policies, his ignoring his promises to Africa, his snubbing political Af-Am leaders (which I have mentioned about 4 times, and you have chosen to equally ignore).[/quoe]
Well, there you go, that wasn't hard was it ? Not only nothing personal in here, but I am sure you can back these up, in your mind.



[quote]This sentence makes no sense to me. I supplied a source: you questioned whether or not Bush ordered it. I countered that it is beyond reason to suggest that Bush was blissfully unaware of the security measures taken.
Source for your accusation ? The shoe IS on the other foot, you like to ask, 'source' everywhere, but you have not provided one. Beyond reason doesn't cut it.

Put the shoe on the other foot: if Bush is so concerned about African's, then why didn't he deride the African leaders/his security, for going overboard?
We were talking about your source... no need to divert.


By the way, I still await that (ahem) unbiased survey about the (cough) "fair and accurate" style of news coverage that (aaak!) FoxNews (vomits) serves up to its (mostly white, male) constituentcy.
I am searching when I have free time.... excuse me but I don't have the time to spend on here as you have. It'll come, and I expect a full apology.

Hogan
09-20-2005, 07:50 AM
You're missing the point. If you went into one store and did this: I'd say that it was weird. Try going to 10 fast food stores and note the race and sex of the manager (compared to those of the staff).

Now, please: just try to tell me that all those white males were better qualified, than anyone else. Go on: you can do it... :hypno: :hypno:

Perhaps they were older than teenagers and had already graduated ?

Hogan
09-20-2005, 07:58 AM
You probably think use of the term 'drug bust' is rascist, too, Neil ?


http://www.tonguetied.us/

The Heights, a student newspaper at Boston College, has been branded racist for a headline reading, "[Resident Directors] Resign Following Drug Bust," according to the Daily Free Press.

Members of minority student group say use of the term "drug bust" in a story about the arrest of three black Resident Directors caught smoking dope was insensitive and racist. They even burned some copies of the newspaper to make their point. They insisted that the term would not have been used had the perpetrators been white.

The paper printed an apology on the front page of the following issue expressing regret for "the pain that the mistake inflicted on the BC community."


Yet another example of society caving into the politically correct schmucks.

James Davis
09-20-2005, 11:42 AM
Perhaps they were older than teenagers and had already graduated ?
Exactly my point, John. There are plenty of other factors besides a person's appearance! When you've employed a forty year old white guy with some college and a sixteen year old black girl who has yet to complete high school, who do you put in a position of authority?

Aiki LV
09-20-2005, 02:47 PM
Okay...... I think all of this has gone a little bit too far. Debate becomes fight when people take it to a personal level. People are never going to 100% agree with what others say and that's okay. I understand people are passionate about their point of view, but that doesn't mean you should resort to direct or indirect name calling/accusations. With some exception we all don't know each other personally, because of this we are in no position to judge anyone based on an opinion posted on a forum. I hate to be Mom, but please can we agree to disagree and be civil to one another. Just a suggestion, at the very least it will keep everyone's blood pressure lower.
Sincerely,
:) Mindy Imbuido ;)

Adam Alexander
09-20-2005, 03:12 PM
I think that him, and everyone else: should be doled out a bare wage, just to get by. Everyone else can earn more by his wits or merits.


You're a sick person, Neil.

A nation of welfare recipients. LOL. It's a shame every vote counts.

LOL. So, if everyone's getting some welfare, who's going to pay for it? I thought socialism already died?

markwalsh
09-20-2005, 05:16 PM
"Did George Bush not appoint Condoleezza Rice as his Assistant for National Security Affairs"

She's not black, she's the heart of darkness and the eclipse of all things that light the human soul.

Shouldn't get involved in politics now really, gotta get back to my husband...I mean boss now :blush:

PS - Why are there no white or black smilies - is it some kind of conspiracy? :) :D :mad: :crazy:

Hogan
09-21-2005, 10:29 AM
BURGER KING HATES MUSLIM PEOPLE -

Burger King (search) has recalled its ice cream cone desserts from British restaurants, after a Muslim man in Park Royal, England, complained that the treats were offensive and "sacrilegious." Specifically, the man insisted that the design on the lid of the dessert resembled the Arabic word for Allah, or god. He threatened to launch a "jihad" if the lid wasn't changed.

Burger King, quoted by The Scotsman newspaper, says the design "simply represents a spinning ice cream cone." Still, it has apologized, and is now spending thousands of dollars to redesign the lid.

James Davis
09-21-2005, 11:39 AM
BURGER KING HATES MUSLIM PEOPLE -

Burger King (search) has recalled its ice cream cone desserts from British restaurants, after a Muslim man in Park Royal, England, complained that the treats were offensive and "sacrilegious." Specifically, the man insisted that the design on the lid of the dessert resembled the Arabic word for Allah, or god. He threatened to launch a "jihad" if the lid wasn't changed.

Burger King, quoted by The Scotsman newspaper, says the design "simply represents a spinning ice cream cone." Still, it has apologized, and is now spending thousands of dollars to redesign the lid.
He threatened them with Jihad?! This dude was just looking for something to complain about. Thank goodness he didn't look at the lid upside down in a mirror, or he would have been really mad! :p
If someone is allowed to decare holy war over ice cream, I am allowed to whine about ANYTHING I WANT!!! :grr: :D

Neil Mick
09-21-2005, 01:33 PM
Source for your accusation ? The shoe IS on the other foot, you like to ask, 'source' everywhere, but you have not provided one. Beyond reason doesn't cut it.

Sorry, but I hold Bush responsible for the security measures taken to protect him. Either he IS responsible, or he should come forward and denounce the measures as overkill.

I don't need a source to tell me that the obvious. YOU, OTOH: seem content with defending a habitual liar-in-thief, just because.


and I expect a full apology.

What you can expect is a survey to counter your propagandistic source. Please: any objective observer can see that the habitual FoxNews viewer is a. patently misinformed about world events; and b. wholeheartedly in support of Bush.

The only news sources that accomplish this feat are unabashedly propaganda.

And actually, I am planning to post a new thread, for this subject. FoxNews's partisan'ism is somewhat off-topic, IMO.

Neil Mick
09-21-2005, 01:35 PM
You're a sick person, Neil.

A nation of welfare recipients. LOL. It's a shame every vote counts.

Perhaps you'd prefer to have ppl's votes with whom you disagree, taken away? :freaky: :freaky:

LOL. So, if everyone's getting some welfare, who's going to pay for it? I thought socialism already died?

Out of the pocket of the biggest welfare reciprients of all: corporations (Boeing, Halliburton, et al) and the Pentagon.

Hogan
09-21-2005, 01:53 PM
Sorry, but I hold Bush responsible for the security measures taken to protect him. Either he IS responsible, or he should come forward and denounce the measures as overkill.

I don't need a source to tell me that the obvious. YOU, OTOH: seem content with defending a habitual liar-in-thief, just because.


Sorry, but as someone who IS involved in security, I can tell you flat out that the president does NOT order citizens of a foreign country to be held during a visit. Also, did you even give a source that it happened ? The round-up, I mean ? Did I miss that ?

What you can expect is a survey to counter your propagandistic source. Please: any objective observer can see that the habitual FoxNews viewer is a. patently misinformed about world events; and b. wholeheartedly in support of Bush.
Wow, as someone who prefesses to be open minded, you sure are closed minded when it comes to people who watch Fox News. And who said the survey was conducted by Fox News ? It wasn't, by the way.

.. I am planning to post a new thread, for this subject. FoxNews's partisan'ism is somewhat off-topic, IMO.

You go, girlfriend !

Ron Tisdale
09-21-2005, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I'd LOVE to get Halliburton's welfare check. I hear they got the bid for the cleanup in La as well as Iraq. Boy, what a boy's club that is...

Best,
Ron

Hogan
09-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Yeah, I'd LOVE to get Halliburton's welfare check. I hear they got the bid for the cleanup in La as well as Iraq. Boy, what a boy's club that is...

Best,
Ron

I like it how they get criticized for doing the same work they were doing before Cheney got there. Cheney was there a short time.... Where wer you criticizing them prior to Cheney joining ?



Their role seems rather limited in NO, by the way:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/hurricane_katrina.html

The US Navy asked Halliburton to repair naval facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina, the Houston Chronicle reported today. The work was assigned to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary under the Navy's $500 million CONCAP contract awarded to KBR in 2001 and renewed in 2004. The repairs will take place in Louisiana and Mississippi.

KBR has not been asked to repair the levees destroyed in New Orleans which became the primary cause of most of the damage.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/halliburton-gets-nola-clean-up.html

The Navy has hired Houston-based Halliburton Co. to restore electric power, repair roofs and remove debris at three naval facilities in Mississippi damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
The company is not involved in the Army Corps of Engineers' effort to repair New Orleans' levees.

Ron Tisdale
09-21-2005, 03:26 PM
Where ever you weren't, apparently...been criticizing them a long time.

Best,
Ron

Hogan
09-21-2005, 03:48 PM
Where ever you weren't, apparently...been criticizing them a long time.

Best,
Ron

Really ?? Prior to Cheney joining in 1995 ? You were criticising Haliburton over 10 yrs ago ?

Ron Tisdale
09-21-2005, 03:51 PM
And a bunch of other major corporate interests. So?

R

Hogan
09-21-2005, 05:23 PM
And a bunch of other major corporate interests. So?

R

Well, good for you. At least you are consistent and don't criticize a corporation just because Cheney was part of it. That was my point, if you recall I said I loved it when people criticized Haliburton for doing the same work they were doing before Cheney got there, as if Cheney was the root of all evil... (okay, door open ....).

Adam Alexander
09-21-2005, 06:05 PM
Out of the pocket of the biggest welfare reciprients of all: corporations (Boeing, Halliburton, et al) and the Pentagon.


You're a "decentralist" who's a fan of corporations? A decentralist who's a fan of centralization?

See, when you encourage corporations, you discourage individual action through business...since your idea is based on corporations, you're discouraging individual action...that's a liberal for you, I suppose.

Also, everyone does have the means to support themselves...except the stupid, uncreative, and/or lazy. Those people should starve because they don't give what the community needs...if they did give what the community needs, the community would compensate them for it...even if it was petting a cat. (the local community would recognize it quickly, so you can't say that the feds have to do it...that would be centralizing money anyway.)

Money is the measure of someone's communal value. If you have no money, that's because no one's willing to give it. If no one's willing to give it, that's because they don't think the service you provide is valuable. If the value of your product (petting cats or whatever) has a social value and you're not being compensated, the community will suffer when you stop providing that product and will create a demand...resulting in you getting some money:)


Further, you've convinced me to give to the GOP again this coming election season. The ideology that you're encouraging and the illness within the community that was exposed to Katrina reminds me of why I voted for Bush for his first term.

Sure, Iraq's a bunch of BS. However, you've got to keep the war machine primed...and let's face it, those soldiers dying over their aren't there because someone drafted them.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a shame. What do you pick, the corporate prostitute or the apologist of the lazy?

Well, I like guns and will never need an abortion...and darn it...I really like Roberts.

Who knows, maybe a Perot-esque candidate will emerge. Until then, I'm going to concern myself with local politics.

Nathan Gusdorf
09-21-2005, 09:28 PM
Money is the measure of someone's communal value. If you have no money, that's because no one's willing to give it. If no one's willing to give it, that's because they don't think the service you provide is valuable. If the value of your product (petting cats or whatever) has a social value and you're not being compensated, the community will suffer when you stop providing that product and will create a demand...resulting in you getting some money

Or your job will get outsourced and you won't make the money because someone in India has your job. Or perhaps you never had the opportunity and support to become successful. But I guess im just being silly because everything must be black and white with no exceptions.

Sure, Iraq's a bunch of BS. However, you've got to keep the war machine primed...and let's face it, those soldiers dying over their aren't there because someone drafted them.

Of course- how else will we create an aristocracy? Oh and perhaps those soldiers are people who said 'Hey, my life isnt headed to a great place, but if I go into the army i can go to college and become successful'. First you say that everyone who wants to be successful can be. But now when people take advantage of an opportunity in the way you suggest you say that because they made that choice they can die and its alright because they chose to be there. And whats worse is that you admit that its "BS" yet we should still be there solely to "keep our war machine primed". Is this in case the terrorists launch a massive land invasion of the U.S. or is it because we need to be ready to invade more countries? However it seems that I'm just apologizing for those lazy people who decided to try to take advantage of available opportunites and got killed in the process for a war based on lies.

Well, I like guns and will never need an abortion...and darn it...I really like Roberts.

And clearly your own personal needs are the only considerations. You're not a woman so why do women's reproductive rights matter? Perhaps you could look at his whole resume and how he will affect the whole country as opposed to the simple effects on your own life.

Perhaps if Bush gave another big tax cut my parents would help me buy a car. I will never need an abortion, Im not really worried about getting shot, and I don't need to get a gay marriage. I especially don't need to worry about having sodomy be a crime, but the idea the the government could violate that privacy scares the crap out of me. Oh and I believe (but im not sure) it was Arlen Specter who said that he did not like the supreme court ruling on that Texas law however it was Antonin Scalia who said it would lead to beastiality. The point being that while one justification may seem legitimate it is often a cover for a reasoning that is archaic and prejudiced. I cannot support Bush at all because of so many things he does that do not affect me directly, but I am opposed to. My mom is a doctor but I am not a strong proponent of medical malpractice reform in the way the government wants to implement it because I am ideologically opposed to it. These are important factors in politicians and judges because they affect the whole country, and eventually your own personal life.

Hogan
09-22-2005, 07:56 AM
..Further, you've convinced me to give to the GOP again this coming election season. The ideology that you're encouraging and the illness within the community that was exposed to Katrina reminds me of why I voted for Bush for his first term.

I will never speak ill of you again....
:D

odudog
09-22-2005, 09:02 AM
The problem that most people are having with Haliburton and their subsidiaries is the fact that they are getting all of these contracts handed to them. There was no bidding process what so ever! When asked about it by reporters, the administration just dismisses the question or say that it is secret. They do so much stuff in secret.

A white lady affected by the hurricane in New Orleans was complaining about some white contractors from TX who were sent over by the administration to assess the damage to her property. She personally knew several people within wallking distance that could have done the same thing and need the money. She personally was not happy with the situation.

James Davis
09-22-2005, 11:44 AM
A white lady affected by the hurricane in New Orleans was complaining about some white contractors from TX who were sent over by the administration to assess the damage to her property. She personally knew several people within wallking distance that could have done the same thing and need the money. She personally was not happy with the situation.

Yeah, but were all of those contractors within waking distance ABLE to come and assess the damage? Are the contractors even back in town yet? You can't evacuate everybody and expect the locals to still take care of all the business; you gotta send some help, man.

If no local contractors were available and the government hadn't sent those guys from Texas, plenty of people would hate the government for the lack of action! :freaky: :crazy:

Hogan
09-23-2005, 08:37 AM
ST. PETERSBURG, FL HATES WHITE PEOPLE (& GAYS, TOO!):

http://www.tonguetied.us/

Where's the Outrage?
A city council candidate in St. Petersburg, Fla. was told she is unfit to serve a predominantly black district because she is white, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

In a town hall meeting with a largely black audience, candidate Darden Rice was also berated for being a lesbian. Theresa "Momma Tee" Lassiter, described as an outspoken city activist, said of Rice's sexuality: "God's not down with that."

Members of the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement, also in attendance, said a white person is unfit to serve the district. They said she was part of an "oppressive politic" bent on taking over the African community.

odudog
09-23-2005, 02:53 PM
Mr. Davis, according to tone of the ladies voice. I got the sense that the people were right down the street and could have possibly done the job. It seems that she wanted to keep as much money and work done by the locals as much as possible.

James Davis
09-23-2005, 04:11 PM
Mr. Davis, according to tone of the ladies voice. I got the sense that the people were right down the street and could have possibly done the job. It seems that she wanted to keep as much money and work done by the locals as much as possible.
I hear you. There's probably plenty of work for people who are in the business of assessing damage in New Orleans, probably too much!Here's hoping they don't get too much more with this second hurricane! :eek:

Adam Alexander
09-23-2005, 05:35 PM
Or your job will get outsourced and you won't make the money because someone in India has your job. Or perhaps you never had the opportunity and support to become successful. But I guess im just being silly because everything must be black and white with no exceptions..

You're not owed the job or the money...You negotiated the wage for the work you performed when hired...in it, unless you've got a contractual stipulation citing the length of the relationship it really doesn't matter who gets the job after you lose it to a better competitor...Better because of price or whatever.

It is black and white.

First you say that everyone who wants to be successful can be. But now when people take advantage of an opportunity in the way you suggest you say that because they made that choice they can die and its alright because they chose to be there. .

The government or anyone else is not here to tell you how or to give you the supplies to become succesful--it and them are only to stay out of your way while you figure it out...Same as those people you refer to...and yes, they can die.


And clearly your own personal needs are the only considerations. You're not a woman so why do women's reproductive rights matter? Perhaps you could look at his whole resume and how he will affect the whole country as opposed to the simple effects on your own life..

A woman's right to abort a child because she was irresponsible is not my concern.

Roberts is going to crush the liberals by leading the charge to reinstitute The Constitution:) Soon, we'll be a little more free again...See, I'm concerned about more than reproductive "rights."

but the idea the the government could violate that privacy scares the crap out of me.

Then you might want to steer clear of liberals...they want to tell you how to live--how you spend your money, how you treat your kids, how you run your community, etc. If that's not the ultimate invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.

MitchMZ
09-26-2005, 01:12 AM
*I think government in general violates a lot of our privacy. That goes for conservatives and liberals in our system. I was under the impression disappearing freedoms were a bipartisan issue.

I would rather not have the government take huge gobs of tax money from the middle class to spend on pork and the lower class, while many of those highest in society find ways around paying much at all to the goverment. That just screws the middle class/majority of America.

I'm all about free trade and finding more efficient ways to run our nation.

I also find it ridiculous that the government gets invloved in moral issues such as censorship; I really think the only place true censorship takes place is in the home.

A good example of goverment BS is a law that was just passed in my city here in Iowa. Pop and candy are now not allowed in Des Moines public schools, and they are shrinking food portions. I find that a ridiculous waste a taxpayer's money. If kids want to eat a lot or drink pop they will. And don't get me started on the conservatives and liberals that have been picking on video game developers; frankly, I think they should be slapped.

Erik
09-26-2005, 02:23 PM
I would rather not have the government take huge gobs of tax money from the middle class to spend on pork and the lower class, while many of those highest in society find ways around paying much at all to the goverment. That just screws the middle class/majority of America.

It also screws the middle class to spend extravagantly and not tax. Well, it screws them eventually, that is, but we seem to be a country that figures eventually will never arrive.

Also, the rich, by far, pay the most taxes. The discrepancy is huge, in fact. That being said, I would agree that the Bush tax cuts have favored the wealthy to an extreme. We need to roll the tax cuts back.

Our leadership, on both sides, stinks in this country. It's probably the only thing I agree with the troll from Santa Cruz on.

And you know who, you are still on ignore.

Neil Mick
09-26-2005, 03:59 PM
You're a "decentralist" who's a fan of corporations? A decentralist who's a fan of centralization?

See, when you encourage corporations, you discourage individual action through business...since your idea is based on corporations, you're discouraging individual action...that's a liberal for you, I suppose.

This (*holding hands out a spans-width*) is the pier...and THIS (*holding hands out a span-and-a-half*) is your stroll of logic, along said pier.

I do not, nor never have, encouraged corporations. Try not to read meanings into things I've never propounded.

Also, everyone does have the means to support themselves...except the stupid, uncreative, and/or lazy.

Absolute, unequivocal nonsense. The sick, the aged, the ppl stuck in the Superdome?? All unable to help themselves.

Those people should starve because they don't give what the community needs...

With respect: SOMEONE needs a severe and thorough re-examination of their morals. NO ONE, I mean NO ONE: "deserves to starve."

Money is the measure of someone's communal value.

Ah, now we're into nice, pat fairy-tales. This might be a nice theory, but in reality: money has an altogether different value--tied to ppl's conception of its value (i.e., the market), the value of goods produced and sold, and a myriad of other factors.

If you have no money, that's because no one's willing to give it. If no one's willing to give it, that's because they don't think the service you provide is valuable. If the value of your product (petting cats or whatever) has a social value and you're not being compensated, the community will suffer when you stop providing that product and will create a demand...resulting in you getting some money:)

If you have no money: there are many reasons for not having it--your corporation in which you poured your heart and soul left town; you invested unwisely; you were cheated out of it; etc.

Further, you've convinced me to give to the GOP again this coming election season.

Well, if it were THAT easy: then I fear for your cognitive ability to discern right from wrong.

The ideology that you're encouraging and the illness within the community that was exposed to Katrina reminds me of why I voted for Bush for his first term.

And still: you'd rather vote for the Party that foisted up the single most danger to the US gov't, due process, and checks and balances, than thinking outside your concrete box.

I feel much sorrow, for your self-imposed mental conscriptions. :uch:

Sure, Iraq's a bunch of BS. However, you've got to keep the war machine primed...and let's face it, those soldiers dying over their aren't there because someone drafted them.

No, the vast majority of them are over there because they need the money.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a shame. What do you pick, the corporate prostitute or the apologist of the lazy?

What do YOU pick... corporate greed, or guilt-tripping the poor (based upon a few backsliders)?

Nah, don't bother answering...you already have.

Well, I like guns and will never need an abortion...and darn it...I really like Roberts.

How nice for you.

Who knows, maybe a Perot-esque candidate will emerge. Until then, I'm going to concern myself with local politics.

You'll get no protest from me, on THAT score.

Neil Mick
09-26-2005, 04:03 PM
It's probably the only thing I agree with the troll from Santa Cruz on.

And you know who, you are still on ignore.

Oh, I am so aggrieved. :dead: :dead:

A man who comes on (here, and on other threads) only to proclaim that I'm a troll, from the comfy safety of ignore.

Newsflash, bubulah: SOMEONE needs a definition check:

TROLL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Trolls)

In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe such messages.

And so, I bid thee well, with these three simple words...(see title)

Neil Mick
09-26-2005, 04:11 PM
Then you might want to steer clear of liberals...they want to tell you how to live--how you spend your money, how you treat your kids, how you run your community, etc. If that's not the ultimate invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.

How long have you labored under this misapplied definition of "Liberal?" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, that attempts to maximise individual liberty through a system of rights under law, in a system allowing economic competition and competition of ideas within a defined framework.

Principle tenets of liberalism include:

That all people have equal rights under the law.
That no person shall be deprived of life or property without due process of law.
That the freedom of individuals shall not be arbitrarily abridged.
That governments rule with the consent of the governed.

Nathan Gusdorf
09-26-2005, 10:02 PM
but the idea the the government could violate that privacy scares the crap out of me.



Then you might want to steer clear of liberals...they want to tell you how to live--how you spend your money, how you treat your kids, how you run your community, etc. If that's not the ultimate invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.


Really? Thats interesting. I'm not sure what you are referring to though. Because its the Republican party that supports the Patriot Act. Whether or not you think that giving the government incredible power to infringe on our rights to catch terrorists or embezzlers is a good thing its an infringment on privacy. It was conservative judges who dissented in Roe v. Wade which is largely a privacy concern. The conservative judges dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, another privacy issue. Our republican president is the one who wants to be able to lable citizens as enemy combatants to hold them indefinitely without attorney. He also wants to tell you who you can marry. These all seem like fairly significant violations of privacy to me. Where is it that liberals are the ones who are infringing on privacy?

Hogan
09-27-2005, 09:01 AM
Really? Thats interesting. I'm not sure what you are referring to though. Because its the Republican party that supports the Patriot Act. Whether or not you think that giving the government incredible power to infringe on our rights to catch terrorists or embezzlers is a good thing its an infringment on privacy. It was conservative judges who dissented in Roe v. Wade which is largely a privacy concern. The conservative judges dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, another privacy issue. Our republican president is the one who wants to be able to lable citizens as enemy combatants to hold them indefinitely without attorney. He also wants to tell you who you can marry. These all seem like fairly significant violations of privacy to me. Where is it that liberals are the ones who are infringing on privacy?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Patriot Act was passed unanamously. That means it was supprted by both democrats and republicans - liberals and conservatives.

Re Roe - the conservative argument is that it should be left to the states & their legislatures, i.e., the will of the people, and not the courts, i.e., unaccountable government. Which way would be more invasive ? An unaccountable branch of government or the branch that has elected folks ?

Re marriage - both sides are telling us who we can marry. If it's the conservatves who say we can marry only the opposite sex, or if its the liberals who say we can mary both sexes. But another argument is why should the government be in that argument at all ?? However, if it is 'the publics' opinion that 'family' should be encouraged, then whatever government is in power has the right, through the electoral system, to enact tax laws, etc. to encourage 'the publics' definition of a happy marriage. Should their be marriage between adult and child ? Between brother and sister ? Between cousins ?

However,
-who is more likely to pass laws that define what free speech is ? A liberal who wants to 'protect' the little guy, or a conservative who says, free speech for all, hate speech, bigoted speech, whatever ?
-who is more likely to pass gun control laws, a liberal or conservative ? And what kind of laws will be passed by the liberal ? Restrictive laws ?
-who is more likely to want a supreme court that is involved in personal issues, like abortion, etc., a conservative or a liberal ? Would a conservative say, "The Supreme Court is the word of God", or "The Supreme Court makes laws" ? No, these quotes were given by liberals, and both of these quotes are quite invasive and activist.

Adam Alexander
09-27-2005, 12:36 PM
Absolute, unequivocal nonsense. The sick, the aged, the ppl stuck in the Superdome?? All unable to help themselves.

It's all about your perspective on helplessness. To me, their helplessness is the result of many decisions that led up to that moment.

I feel bad for those ppl, but the reality is that they've had an entire life to prepare for such catastrophes and chose not to. Therefore, they were not helpless.


With respect: SOMEONE needs a severe and thorough re-examination of their morals. NO ONE, I mean NO ONE: "deserves to starve."

Depends. I mean "deserve" as simply the expected consequence of an action, group of actions or course of life chosen.


Ah, now we're into nice, pat fairy-tales. This might be a nice theory, but in reality: money has an altogether different value--tied to ppl's conception of its value (i.e., the market), the value of goods produced and sold, and a myriad of other factors.

We're saying the same thing.



If you have no money: there are many reasons for not having it--your corporation in which you poured your heart and soul left town; you invested unwisely; you were cheated out of it; etc.

Yes, all things that the individual should have gaurded against...again, a situation where the result is deserved...or, if you prefer, to be expected...All of which I would categorize as manifestations of stupidity, laziness, lack of creativity, etc.



No, the vast majority of them are over there because they need the money.

No, Neil, because they want the money. Maybe they prefer hurting innocent people over homelessness. That's still a choice.

But, for the most part, it's far less severe consequences they're trying to escape.

Hmph--the effimination of America. Let's all make excuses for why everyone does anything.

James Davis
09-27-2005, 05:28 PM
It's all about your perspective on helplessness. To me, their helplessness is the result of many decisions that led up to that moment.

I feel bad for those ppl, but the reality is that they've had an entire life to prepare for such catastrophes and chose not to. Therefore, they were not helpless.




Depends. I mean "deserve" as simply the expected consequence of an action, group of actions or course of life chosen.




We're saying the same thing.





Yes, all things that the individual should have gaurded against...again, a situation where the result is deserved...or, if you prefer, to be expected...All of which I would categorize as manifestations of stupidity, laziness, lack of creativity, etc.





No, Neil, because they want the money. Maybe they prefer hurting innocent people over homelessness. That's still a choice.

But, for the most part, it's far less severe consequences they're trying to escape.

Hmph--the effimination of America. Let's all make excuses for why everyone does anything.


Need the money/want the money...
Just how rich are these soldiers getting anyway? I know a few guys that went into the armed forces and not one of them joined the military with the intention of "hurting innocent people". Sure, some of them wanted help with college tuition, but there are other ways to get that. Maybe they felt that they would be defending our right to do what we're doing right now? :confused:
All I seem to be reading or hearing from the media lately is that our servicemen are either dumb hucklebucks that were duped into joining the military, or sadistic bastards that want to torture and kill innocent people. :disgust: This might sound like a crazy idea to some, but maybe these guys joined the military with good intentions and an idea to "give back to their communities"? :eek:
I know someone will probably be posting here in no time at all to badmouth some of my friends, family, sempai and kohai. That's okay. They couldn't look through an electron microscope and see the rat's behind that I give about their opinion. ;)

Nathan Gusdorf
09-27-2005, 05:51 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Patriot Act was passed unanamously. That means it was supprted by both democrats and republicans - liberals and conservatives.

Well I don't have time to respond to all your comments because that would mean not doing homework. Then I can't go to Aikido or watch Boston Legal. So I'll make it quick. The Patriot Act was not technically passed unanimously, but it was for all intents and purposes. After people read it however you must admit that in general conservatives supported it and liberals did not.

Here's one of the things on the first page of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT)"

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

That 'for other purposes' part seems kinda invasive to me.


However,
-who is more likely to pass laws that define what free speech is ? A liberal who wants to 'protect' the little guy, or a conservative who says, free speech for all, hate speech, bigoted speech, whatever ?

Im going to assume that "whatever" includes 'cursing speech' on the radio. Flag burning is also a form of speech. Typically liberals seek to allow these more than conservatives.

-who is more likely to pass gun control laws, a liberal or conservative ? And what kind of laws will be passed by the liberal ? Restrictive laws ?

Concerning ourselvse with privacy, to me carrying a gun in public is more than privacy issue. If you are referring to other issues cite them.

-who is more likely to want a supreme court that is involved in personal issues, like abortion, etc., a conservative or a liberal ? Would a conservative say, "The Supreme Court is the word of God", or "The Supreme Court makes laws" ? No, these quotes were given by liberals, and both of these quotes are quite invasive and activist.

As long as we are following our constitution the Supreme Court must have some say in personal issues as the constitution gives us rights (like privacy) and the only way to keep states from violating those rights is to have a check, i.e. the Supreme Court. And I don't know any liberals who share those sentiments.

Adam Alexander
09-27-2005, 06:09 PM
I know a few guys that went into the armed forces and not one of them joined the military with the intention of "hurting innocent people".

Yup. And mentally ill arsonists set fire to help people; Some pedophiles think what they do makes their victims feel good; etc.

It doesn't matter what their intention was/is. What matters is what is the result of their actions...in this case, helping create a whole new welfare state...in the mid-east. And a colony.

Wake up!!!

Neil Mick
09-27-2005, 06:59 PM
It's all about your perspective on helplessness. To me, their helplessness is the result of many decisions that led up to that moment.

I feel bad for those ppl, but the reality is that they've had an entire life to prepare for such catastrophes and chose not to. Therefore, they were not helpless.

Again, nonsense. What about the ppl locked in the prison (note: a short-term facility, not long-term. They had one guy in there who was arrested for reading tarot without a license) who drowned because the guards didn't bother to get them out? Did THEY deserve what they got?

What about the infirm who were left in the Superdome with promises of food and water and were forgotten?

What about the mom of 2+ kids who did not receive a proper education from ANYONE, much less public education, about family planning? Does SHE deserve our scorn?

Please: let's not go around pointing fingers and casting blame at the lot of the poor, merely because they weren't ready for whatever disaster sent them to their present fate. The old Indian adage applies here: "Grant that I may not judge my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his mocassins."

You cannot judge a poor, single mother on welfare, because you'll never, ever be in that situation; so don't even try.

Depends. I mean "deserve" as simply the expected consequence of an action, group of actions or course of life chosen.

I care not in the least HOW you define "deserve." NO ONE "deserves" to starve. Everyone has a basic right to live.

Yes, all things that the individual should have gaurded against...again, a situation where the result is deserved...or, if you prefer, to be expected...All of which I would categorize as manifestations of stupidity, laziness, lack of creativity, etc.

You see? You get into this judgemental attitude towards the lot of ppl, and you cast broad-net assumptions about them (i.e., they are "stupid, lazy," etc).

I'll give you a personal example. I once applied for a job (independent contractor status) where the boss/interviewer told me that he expected a year's commitment from me.

Now, from this: one might well assume that the employer was planning to keep the job active for a year as well, right?

Wrong. After about 6 weeks, he "sold" that part of the business to another contractor, who promptly turned to me and fired me, with 2 weeks' notice. Now, was I "stupid," "lazy," or "naive" for making the assumption of the job's security? Perhaps, but I tend to think that the employer was being less than honest, in asking for a years' commitment when he was clearly planning to sell that part of the business, even as he was interviewing me. At the least, he could have told me of his plans.

So, it is presumptive and arrogant to make assumptions about ppl's life choices, when you know so little about their lot.





No, Neil, because they want the money. Maybe they prefer hurting innocent people over homelessness. That's still a choice.

Again, your presuming.

Hmph--the effimination of America. Let's all make excuses for why everyone does anything.

It beats blaming the poor and the downtrodden on their lot based upon your limited understanding of them, by a mile, IMO.

aikido funky monkey
09-27-2005, 07:08 PM
I thought the majority of the poor are white ?? Didn't you say that in another recent thread ??
ya. I beleive that only 25percent or so of the poor people are african american(never refer to someone as black or whit in front of me),(if i new how to start a thread Id start one about it). :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :ai: :ki: :do:

Neil Mick
09-27-2005, 07:25 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Patriot Act was passed unanamously. That means it was supprted by both democrats and republicans - liberals and conservatives.

And another thing: you like to present facts and ignore the tiny, yet highly significant details: such as the fact that there was war hysteria going on at the time, and the people were pressuring Congress to get something done. The Patriot Act was presented without time for debate--a tactic that BushCo likes to do a lot, these days.

Re Roe - the conservative argument is that it should be left to the states & their legislatures, i.e., the will of the people, and not the courts, i.e., unaccountable government.

Wrong. The Conservatives want Roe dead. They cannot attack it directly (as it's the law of the land), and so they make little end-runs around it, limiting its effectiveness (i.e., the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, etc).

This narrow interpretation of the Constitution of "only applying it to limited circumstances, and let the states decide" is another end-run. Many Con's want nothing more than the good old days of the 19th C, where Social Security and gov't assistance are nonexistant.

Just watch: we'll get an ideologue in the Supreme Court who will use this idea of "narrowly interpreting the Constitution" to effectively neutralize Roe.

And THEN, just watch the social misery rise.

Re marriage - both sides are telling us who we can marry. If it's the conservatves who say we can marry only the opposite sex, or if its the liberals who say we can mary both sexes. But another argument is why should the government be in that argument at all ?? However, if it is 'the publics' opinion that 'family' should be encouraged, then whatever government is in power has the right, through the electoral system, to enact tax laws, etc. to encourage 'the publics' definition of a happy marriage. Should their be marriage between adult and child ? Between brother and sister ? Between cousins ?

An interesting point, but you are slightly off in the Liberal perspective. Personally, it should be about consent. Cousins should be allowed to marry, if they are in mutual consent and aware of their familial ties, IMO.

A child cannot properly consent to marriage, because a child cannot be fully informed of the consequences of his/her actions.

However,
-who is more likely to pass laws that define what free speech is ? A liberal who wants to 'protect' the little guy, or a conservative who says, free speech for all, hate speech, bigoted speech, whatever?

huh??? Conservatives, as I understand it, do not promote bigoted or hate speech. And, any issue can become partisan, but the issue would be to define "free speech" to protect people from unjust prosecution.

I just read about half of "Perilous Times," (http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall04/005880.htm) in which the author pointed out that this issue was at the core of free speech: defining it so that the Supreme Court could
determine who could be jailed for citing insurrection, and who could not.

-who is more likely to pass gun control laws, a liberal or conservative ? And what kind of laws will be passed by the liberal ? Restrictive laws ?

Depends upon the Liberal. If it were me, I would not bother with gun control.

-who is more likely to want a supreme court that is involved in personal issues, like abortion, etc., a conservative or a liberal ?

Both.

Would a conservative say, "The Supreme Court is the word of God", or "The Supreme Court makes laws" ? No, these quotes were given by liberals, and both of these quotes are quite invasive and activist.

Really, John: it's time for those history lessons (maybe take them along with the civics classes you so desperately need). You seem to lack understanding of the role of the Supreme Court. Liberals certainly do not claim that the Supreme Court is "the word of God," any more than they would claim that it is responsible for making laws.

The Supreme Court acts as a legal interpretor of the Constitution, in reference to laws passed by Congress, as well as maintaining a check upon Presidential power. If anything, "activist judges" tend to come more from the "Conservative" side, rather than the "Liberal."

Remember the Scopes Monkey trial? Or, the Dred Scott decision? Or even more recently, the case of Bush v. Gore, which selected our current walking disaster to be the Pres?

And remember? The decision, for the first (and hopefully, only) time in history, abandoned the notion of precedent? The decision was meant to be a "once-only" affair: because if it were widely applied, all states would have had to revamp their electoral process.

If this isn't a Conservative Judicial activist decision: I dont know what is (and, let's not forget Jon's fave S.C. nominee--John Roberts--who decides in favor of allowing the Gitmo detainee's no habeas corpus, even as he is being interviewed for the Supreme Ct. decision, by the very man named as defendant in this trial...George Bush the Lesser.

"Activist?" Hell, yeah!)

Neil Mick
09-27-2005, 07:28 PM
ya. I beleive that only 25percent or so of the poor people are african american,(if i new how to start a thread Id start one about it). :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :ai: :ki: :do:

To clarify:

1. The majority of blacks, are poor.
2. The majority of poor, are white.

never refer to someone as black or whit in front of me

No, I wouldn't. I just use it as shorthand instead of typing out "African American's," or "Caucasian."

Apologies to anyone offended by this shorthand.

Hogan
09-28-2005, 08:20 AM
Well I don't have time to respond to all your comments because that would mean not doing homework. Then I can't go to Aikido or watch Boston Legal. So I'll make it quick. The Patriot Act was not technically passed unanimously, but it was for all intents and purposes. After people read it however you must admit that in general conservatives supported it and liberals did not.

So, the liberals don't read legislation as important as this before they vote ? And we pay them how much ?

Hogan
09-28-2005, 08:31 AM
And another thing: you like to present facts and ignore the tiny, yet highly significant details: such as the fact that there was war hysteria going on at the time, and the people were pressuring Congress to get something done. The Patriot Act was presented without time for debate--a tactic that BushCo likes to do a lot, these days.

Then the liberals shoulda' read the act and had some backbone.


Wrong. The Conservatives want Roe dead. They cannot attack it directly (as it's the law of the land), and so they make little end-runs around it, limiting its effectiveness (i.e., the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, etc).
You're right, they do want it dead; they want it left to the states.


huh??? Conservatives, as I understand it, do not promote bigoted or hate speech.
No, they just don't want to restrict it - free speech and all.

... I would not bother with gun control.
I love you.



Really, John: it's time for those history lessons (maybe take them along with the civics classes you so desperately need). You seem to lack understanding of the role of the Supreme Court. Liberals certainly do not claim that the Supreme Court is "the word of God," any more than they would claim that it is responsible for making laws.
Sorry - Nancy Pelosi said just that. She said the US Supreme Court is the word of GOD. During the hearings, there were several democrats that remarked that the supreme court MAKES LAWS. It is not me that needs the history lesson, it is those that made these remarks. Read my post carefully; I was quoting - these are not my views.

If anything, "activist judges" tend to come more from the "Conservative" side, rather than the "Liberal."
Remember the Scopes Monkey trial? Or, the Dred Scott decision? Or even more recently, the case of Bush v. Gore, which selected our current walking disaster to be the Pres?
And Kelo v CT ? By the way, the relevant court decision re Bush v Gore was decided 7 to 2; the 5 to 4 decision was whether FL had enough time to finish recount, which time frame is governed by the US constitution.


And remember? The decision, for the first (and hopefully, only) time in history, abandoned the notion of precedent? The decision was meant to be a "once-only" affair: because if it were widely applied, all states would have had to revamp their electoral process.
You know, there has to be a first time for precedent. It has to start somewhere. By they way, precedent had been over-turned on numerous occasions by the court.

Hogan
09-28-2005, 08:37 AM
...No, I wouldn't. I just use it as shorthand instead of typing out "African American's," or "Caucasian."

Apologies to anyone offended by this shorthand.

C'mon, Neil, don't cave into this politically correct blackmail !! Free speech ! Why, it's as simple as black & white (free speech, that is) !

James Davis
09-28-2005, 11:18 AM
[QUOTE=Jean de Rochefort]It doesn't matter what their intention was/is. What matters is what is the result of their actions.../QUOTE]
Jean,
I hope we never heve to injure or kill someone to protect ourselves or those we love. I hope a kid never chases a ball in front of our cars. I hope our duties, responsibilities, choices, or destinies never lead us to do something unpleasant, because it won't matter if we're good people or not. ?? :confused:

Adam Alexander
09-28-2005, 01:00 PM
I hope we never heve to injure or kill someone to protect ourselves or those we love. I hope a kid never chases a ball in front of our cars. I hope our duties, responsibilities, choices, or destinies never lead us to do something unpleasant, because it won't matter if we're good people or not. ?? :confused:

I'm with you--I hope it doesn't happen...you know, someone not wathcing their children in order to keep them out of the street and all...


"never refer to someone as black or whit in front of me"

What kind of BS is that? Never refer to someone as short or tall, fat or skinny, funny or boring in front of me!!!

Adam Alexander
09-28-2005, 05:04 PM
Please: let's not go around pointing fingers and casting blame at the lot of the poor, merely because they weren't ready for whatever disaster sent them to their present fate. The old Indian adage applies here: "Grant that I may not judge my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his mocassins."

LOL. Yeah, they couldn't help not having a few bottles of water stored away...they're so poor they needed the bottle deposits for cigarrettes. LOL.

You reep what you sow.


You cannot judge a poor, single mother on welfare, because you'll never, ever be in that situation; so don't even try.

LOL. Not only can I, but I'm obligated as an American and a victim of tax-theft to judge.

Here's my verdict: No one owed her the "education" you refer to. She chose to spread them. She chose to have children. She chose not to be prepared for the emergency. And I find her defense guilty of victim-mentality.



I care not in the least HOW you define "deserve." NO ONE "deserves" to starve. Everyone has a basic right to live.

LOL. Where'd you get this? So proper use of words isn't contingent on definitions. LOL.


You see? You get into this judgemental attitude towards the lot of ppl, and you cast broad-net assumptions about them (i.e., they are "stupid, lazy," etc).

That's right. However, the beauty of my judgement is that I want a government that gives those people the opportunity to break free from the misery that ideologies such as yours impose on people...victim-mentality and dependance.


I'll give you a personal example. I once applied for a job (independent contractor status) where the boss/interviewer told me that he expected a year's commitment from me.

So? You were foolish. I've been there too. That's life. Live and learn...and I recommend never working for a lawyer either...I've done work for a handful and they've been consistently snakes who ripped me off.


Now, from this: one might well assume that the employer was planning to keep the job active for a year as well, right?

Years ago, I would of assumed that. However, I recognize that talk is talk now and don't maintain the foolish belief the employer OWED me that...that's called learning from mistakes.

If you wanted to do something good, start telling the story at schools or something.


So, it is presumptive and arrogant to make assumptions about ppl's life choices, when you know so little about their lot.

No more presumptive and arrogant than believing the person you witness murder someone was a killer. The evidence is in the paycheck.


It beats blaming the poor and the downtrodden on their lot based upon your limited understanding of them, by a mile, IMO.

Come on Neil, I WAS POOR!!! I grew up on welfare!!! I lived just outside of Detroit where the social cancer had spread.

I know all about the poor. I'm here to tell you, they reep what they sow.

Neil Mick
09-28-2005, 10:30 PM
Then the liberals shoulda' read the act and had some backbone.

Yes, and no. On one level I agree with you.

The Liberal Senators SHOULD have had some backbone. They SHOULD have stood up to a power-grabbing cabal that took over the White House.

But on the other: this is taking things out of context. Consider the pressure the Senators were under, to do something. Along comes the "Patriot" Act...now, in the wake of 9-11: how many Senators are going to say: now, wait a minute. Let's discuss this bill for a few weeks, sit down and talk about it. No: They're going to do the thing that covers their a**.

Is it high-minded? No. Is it human nature? Surely.

You're right, they do want it dead; they want it left to the states.

Where it will be whittled down; or banned. Sorry, but this is the law of the land. The anti-abortion nutcases want to see the return to the days of back-alley operations and teen suicides. No thanks.

No, they just don't want to restrict it - free speech and all.

Where they can legislate and lock up ppl for "treason" for speaking out, as they tried to do with the St. Patrick's Four. If the gov't managed to ram that one through: then ANY person expressing his free speech rights against Bush would be locked up.

You see: when you fail to legally define and protect free speech, you leave a BIIG loophole for the gov't to call dissenters treasonous. All this "free speech should not be legally defined" nonsense is a big legal smokescreen.

I love you.

Scary. ;)

Sorry - Nancy Pelosi said just that. She said the US Supreme Court is the word of GOD. During the hearings, there were several democrats that remarked that the supreme court MAKES LAWS. It is not me that needs the history lesson, it is those that made these remarks. Read my post carefully; I was quoting - these are not my views.

Great, but one Congressman grandstanding to the cameras, doth not the general view of Liberals make. In her attempt to grandstand, she misrepresented the role of the Supreme Court.

Besides: since when is one Democratic Senator the "Voice of The Liberal?"

You'll need a few more examples, to prove your point.

And Kelo v CT ?

Don't know that one. My point is that "activist judging" (whatever THAT means) is not the sole province of "Liberal" judges.

By the way, the relevant court decision re Bush v Gore was decided 7 to 2; the 5 to 4 decision was whether FL had enough time to finish recount, which time frame is governed by the US constitution.

Sorry, but to me the relevant court decusion WAS the 5-4 decision to allow Florida to recount, as was their reasoning behind not allowing it.

You know, there has to be a first time for precedent. It has to start somewhere. By they way, precedent had been over-turned on numerous occasions by the court.

The point is: this was the first time the Supreme Court said that precedent would NOT be used, in their decision.

And whether or not, precedent is overturned isn't the point: never has the S.C. stated that their decision CANNOT be used, as precedent.

Neil Mick
09-28-2005, 11:08 PM
LOL. Yeah, they couldn't help not having a few bottles of water stored away...they're so poor they needed the bottle deposits for cigarrettes. LOL.

You reep what you sow.

Ah, and here we exhibit the usual and always amazing Conservative
ability to read minds, and discern the fate of people.

Yes, yes: you were poor. Me too: welcome to the club.

But, I don't judge ppl as lazy and worthy of "reaping what they sow;" when I hear about the lot of maquiladora's in Mexico, for instance: in towns where the Company owns everything: your house, your job, your groceries, your doctor's: and there is no chance to change or improve your lot....and then people such as yourself come along and smugly state that they "reap what they sew."

Such arrogance and presumption is saddening, to witness. :(

LOL. Not only can I, but I'm obligated as an American and a victim of tax-theft to judge.

Here's my verdict: No one owed her the "education" you refer to. She chose to spread them. She chose to have children. She chose not to be prepared for the emergency. And I find her defense guilty of victim-mentality.

And so you act as judge, jury and prosecutor: without allowing her a proper defence.

Tsk. Your judgementalism narrows your perspective. To you: it seems to be all about "making mistakes," or not: and if she does, well...she has to live with them, and that's that.

Sorry: but this "rugged individualism" nonsense is unhealthy, within a society. The kids she raises without dads will not likely be well-adjusted contributors to society, so your constant, somewhat brutal attempts to judge them as "reaping what they sew" when they already started out several notches back is a narrow and parochial view, IMO.

Certainly, it doesn't advance anyone's interest to not offer incentives for these disadvantaged a leg up. Plenty of statistics and empirical evidence to prove my point.

LOL. Where'd you get this? So proper use of words isn't contingent on definitions. LOL.

As John likes to say: "get thee to a dictionary"


That's right. However, the beauty of my judgement is that I want a government that gives those people the opportunity to break free from the misery that ideologies such as yours impose on people...victim-mentality and dependance.

Ahh, more garbage...here comes an avalanche... :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

So, I guess Colin Powell and Condi Rice (both recipients of A.A.) are dependents, with a victim-mentality (hmm...that WOULD explain a lot....) :hypno:

So? You were foolish. I've been there too.

And here we see the Leaning Tower of Jon's Logical Pisa, fall earthward.

CRash!!!

Newsflash, Jon: You don't know Jack about me. Nor, can you especially talk Jack the lot of a woman, no matter what her economic level.

Go ahead, just ask any woman within the sound of your typing....CAN JON SPEAK, FOR ANY OF YOU???

(um, be prepared to duck, Jon.... :eek: )

and I recommend never working for a lawyer either...I've done work for a handful and they've been consistently snakes who ripped me off.

Another thing we agree on...altho I HAVE met one or two good lawyers....but not too many...


The evidence is in the paycheck.

I bet Michael Brown got a nice, fat paycheck: guess he deserves it all, by your logic.

Come on Neil, I WAS POOR!!! I grew up on welfare!!! I lived just outside of Detroit where the social cancer had spread.

I know all about the poor.

I worry about post'er's with Messiah complexes...I mean, ya gotta worry about a guy who thinks he can speak for approx 25% of America... :hypno:

Hogan
09-29-2005, 08:27 AM
...Great, but one Congressman grandstanding to the cameras, doth not the general view of Liberals make. In her attempt to grandstand, she misrepresented the role of the Supreme Court.

Besides: since when is one Democratic Senator the "Voice of The Liberal?"
She is the democratice leader of the Senate. The Big Tomale. The One. And since she said the court spoke as if it was the word of god, then she must not have any problem with their Bush v Gore decision....


Don't know that one. My point is that "activist judging" (whatever THAT means) is not the sole province of "Liberal" judges.
Kelo was the recent eminant domain case, where all the liberal judges threw precedent out the window, and voted for business and against the little guy, by defining public use as including private use as well.

..Sorry, but to me the relevant court decusion WAS the 5-4 decision to allow Florida to recount, as was their reasoning behind not allowing it.
One man one vote wasn/t enough of a reason for you ? Just time to finish recount without standards ? Anyway, recounts were conducted and Bush won them all.

.. never has the S.C. stated that their decision CANNOT be used, as precedent. Huh ? What about Kelo ? It said that their decision doesn't prohibit states from overriding their decision - in other words, states can go beyond supreme court decision and do the opposite. Doesn't that mean that states don't have to follow their precedent ?

Adam Alexander
09-29-2005, 12:42 PM
Ah, and here we exhibit the usual and always amazing Conservative
ability to read minds, and discern the fate of people.

If you don't trust your own observations, what do you trust?...That there's hundreds of dead in the basement of the dome that turns out to be six? Another perfect example of what happens in the poor community: Collusion to exploit a situation.

When you get some real experience with the poor, you'll understand...but only if you're strong enough to resist the opportunity to take advantage of the situation.

Regrettable, I must admit, I wasn't strong enough until I was well into my adulthood--I'm still learning.

The only saving grace of my life was that I had a guy in my life who said "That's what men do" when I was bitching about something. From that moment on, I changed in many ways.

However, being surrounded by permissive liberals, I found it extremely easy to slip back into dependance.


Yes, yes: you were poor. Me too: welcome to the club.

Sincerely, I hope you learn to break free of the victim-mentality. Although I'm not the great success (or anywhere near) I hoped to have been, it's empowering to know the reasons why...and that it wasn't anyone else's fault...except maybe the liberals ("victims") I grew up around.

But, I don't judge ppl as lazy and worthy of "reaping what they sow;" when I hear about the lot of maquiladora's in Mexico, for instance: in towns where the Company owns everything: your house, your job, your groceries, your doctor's: and there is no chance to change or improve your lot....and then people such as yourself come along and smugly state that they "reap what they sew."

Keep it in context, Neil: lazy, stupid, uncreative, etc.

If they'll not leave, it's one of those reasons.

And so you act as judge, jury and prosecutor: without allowing her a proper defence.

Well, it's like this, I shouldn't be put in the place to judge her. However, that's what happens when you've got national welfare systems--then it becomes an obligation as a taxpayer to judge her...and since I don't have time to visit with every beggar, you know the routine.

Tsk. Your judgementalism narrows your perspective. To you: it seems to be all about "making mistakes," or not: and if she does, well...she has to live with them, and that's that.

No, no, Neil. I'd be more than happy to help. However, not when my help is in the form of robbing me via taxation by the threat of law.

You see, the more that liberals try to take, the more severe the knee-jerk.


Sorry: but this "rugged individualism" nonsense is unhealthy, within a society. The kids she raises without dads will not likely be well-adjusted contributors to society, so your constant, somewhat brutal attempts to judge them as "reaping what they sew" when they already started out several notches back is a narrow and parochial view, IMO.

Agreed. The solution has little to do with ruggedness--it's actually laughably easy and totally social.

Well, look at it in regard to natural selection. The weak one's don't make it. That's the point. Those who possess those attributes that are beyond laymen description will move on, those who don't will die--ending the sickness.

It doesn't make sense to spread social cancer. That's what welfare (non-private) does.


Certainly, it doesn't advance anyone's interest to not offer incentives for these disadvantaged a leg up. Plenty of statistics and empirical evidence to prove my point.

It advances my interests to significantly reduce tax burdens and allow me the opportunity to help my community rather than building bridges in Alaska or rebuilding a city who's residents were so incredibly stupid that they voted Nagin into office.


As John likes to say: "get thee to a dictionary"

And how, sir! Seek thy dictionary, from which I'll read the definition of "postulate."


So, I guess Colin Powell and Condi Rice (both recipients of A.A.) are dependents, with a victim-mentality (hmm...that WOULD explain a lot....) :hypno:

Hmm, and funny that they're on the conservative side?

You see, although they may have benefited from it, two things must be recognized.

One, when they understood how the world worked, they became conservatives.

Two, they possessed something more--drive, intelligence, I don't know what. But, they're not average.

Now, if the black community was left to itself without liberal handholding (and I mean that in "holding them back") and a conservative explanation of the world, I think a whole lot more good would come from the black community.

Time and time again the black community has proved it's ability to develop success without the help of the government...Unfortunately, they're being bogged down with learned-helplessness by sick liberals.


Newsflash, Jon: You don't know Jack about me. Nor, can you especially talk Jack the lot of a woman, no matter what her economic level.

If it quacks like a victim...

I worry about post'er's with Messiah complexes...I mean, ya gotta worry about a guy who thinks he can speak for approx 25% of America... :hypno:

You're silly. I'm not speaking for 25% of America. I'm only speaking for one person's money.

Neil Mick
09-30-2005, 02:05 PM
If you don't trust your own observations, what do you trust?

A little girl on the eve of the Dewey-Truman elections was asked whom she thought would win the election. She looked at the reporter with an expression later generations would translate as, "Duh!!" and said of course: Dewey would win.

When asked why she thought this, she said that EVERYONE she knew was voting for Dewey.

It is a rationalizing fallacy to presume that you know EVERYTHING about a person(s), based upon your observations.

Another perfect example of what happens in the poor community: Collusion to exploit a situation.

Another perfect example of seeking evidence to support your unprovable theory that the glass is half-empty.

When you get some real experience with the poor, you'll understand...

I HAVE experience with the poor. :rolleyes:

Sincerely, I hope you learn to break free of the victim-mentality.

Sincerely, I hope you learn to break free of the concrete barriors of your self-imposed judgementalism.

We can go round and round this topic (and I think that we are done, soon): but here it is--your logic is roughly akin to being treated in a hospital, getting well, and then turning around and castigating all the others who still need care or are taking longer to recover as having a "victim mentality."

You're willing to slam a whole system based upon a few backsliders (which, I fully acknowledge that some exist. EVERY system has its corrupt elements and abusers).

So, by this logic: we should not only close all schools because there are a few dropouts; but we should also close all police dept's because a few officers abuse the law; not to mention hospitals, day-care centers...heck, ANYTHING that has a system in which backsliders are present.

Worse, in your eternal crusade to pick on the little guy, you ignore the forest through the trees. While you bemoan the tax-burden of taking care of a few (you don't know how many, because in YOUR mind, they are ALL suffering from victim-mentality) abusers, you ignore the REAL abusers. Consider: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/29/1812254)

The company that provided the family money that Bill Frist used to buy himself a Senate seat from the State of Tennessee was obtained by fraud, and fraud on the government. H.C.A. defrauded for years and years the programs designed to help poor Americans get healthcare. H.C.A. defrauded Medicaid. It defrauded Medicare. And it defrauded Tricare, which is of course, the federal program that covers the military and their families. The government case against H.C.A. was basically that the Frist family company kept two sets of books and fraudulently overbilled the government. It inflated its expenses. It billed the government for inflated overrun.

It violated both law and medical ethics when the company increased its Medicare billings by exaggerating the seriousness of illnesses they were treating. It bribed doctors in a whole scale bribery operation. It gives them partnerships in H.C.A. hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to H.C.A. It gave them free gifts, loans that were never expected to be paid back, gave them free rent, free office furniture, free drugs from hospital pharmacies. All of this to bribe the doctors into referring patients to H.C.A. companies.

When the Bushies came in at a time when this investigation, which the deputy F.B.I. director said was one of the most important the F.B.I. had ever conducted into corporate America, it was expected that Bill Frist's brother, Thomas, who was one of the richest men in America -- Fortune estimated he had over $2 billion -- was going to be indicted, along with a raft of H.C.A. executives.

But the Bushies and John Ashcroft decided otherwise. And they arranged a little sweetheart deal with the Frist family, with Bill Frist's brother, Tom, and the executives of the Frist family business, H.C.A., that let them get off the hook without any jail time. They did have to pay a fine, and the size of the fine tells you just how massive the fraud was, because the fine was for $1.7 billion, with a "b", $1.7 billion that H.C.A. had to pay the government for the fraud that it had committed.

So, while you are deriding the few backsliding trees (of whom you have NO idea how many there are, exactly): that forest of thieves (the HCA) is robbing you and your tax-dollars blind.

Well, look at it in regard to natural selection. The weak one's don't make it. That's the point. Those who possess those attributes that are beyond laymen description will move on, those who don't will die--ending the sickness.

It doesn't make sense to spread social cancer. That's what welfare (non-private) does.

Again, individualist drivel. The only ppl with whom I know bandy about words like "social cancer" are radical extremists, like the KKK, et al. Go ahead, try looking up "social cancer" in a sociological or medical text. It's pure supposition.

And, this idea of "letting the social sickness die" with the less fortunate members of society probably goes very well with the Bushie's. Unfortunately, history proves you wrong. This idea has been propounded in the past numerous times, and it always ends in death for the poor, and no end of poverty.

It's determinist nonsense, plain and simple.

It advances my interests to significantly reduce tax burdens and allow me the opportunity to help my community rather than building bridges in Alaska or rebuilding a city who's residents were so incredibly stupid that they voted Nagin into office.

And, um: what about those US residents so "incredibly stupid" that they voted Bush in office, hmmm? :hypno:


And how, sir! Seek thy dictionary

Right-eeo, then!

Deserve (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deserve)

To be worthy of; merit. See Synonyms at earn1.

v. intr.
To be worthy or deserving.

Synonyms (Earn): earn, 1deserve, merit, rate, 1win
These verbs mean to gain as a result of one's behavior or effort: earns a large salary; deserves our congratulations; a suggestion that merits consideration; an event that rates a mention in the news; a candidate who won wide support.

So let's go with "earn." Sorry, but, say, a poor farmer who unwisely invested in the wrong crop or didn't rotate his crops does not "deserve" to starve. He didn't "earn" death.

You have a severly warped definition of "deserve." You think that welfare and social programs creates a sense of dependency and a continuing pattern of entitlement, or a feeling that they "deserve" a handout from the gov't.

I acknowledge that there are some ppl who (wrongly) have this idea: but to cast this mindset on all ppl who enter into welfare or social programs is an exaggeration, deterministic, and plain inaccurate. I have heard plenty of cases of ppl who were on welfare, food stamps, etc, and used this aid as a springboard off it, to better themselves.

A pity that your mindset blinds you to these examples of ppl helping themselves, as well as the real abusers of the system: corporate raiders like the HCA.

You're silly. I'm not speaking for 25% of America. I'm only speaking for one person's money.

Nope, sorry. You said

I know all about the poor. I'm here to tell you, they reep what they sow.

You cannot possibly know all the factors in the life of a poor, black woman with kids. Sorry, but unless you've invented a ray to turn you into a poor, black woman with kids (and her values): you're simply employing the concrete walls of judgementalism, again.

Adam Alexander
09-30-2005, 04:46 PM
We can go round and round this topic (and I think that we are done, soon): but here it is--your logic is roughly akin to being treated in a hospital, getting well, and then turning around and castigating all the others who still need care or are taking longer to recover as having a "victim mentality."

It boils down to this: You make excuses. I make solutions.

You're a socialist. I'm a capitalist.

You believe the world owes you and others something. I believe the world only needs to stay out of your way to let the God given abilties show.


On the other point of that paragraph: I don't consider being helped by the system. Only hindered.

As being "recovered": I'm "recovered" not because of, but in spite of the system that's purported to "heal".

The system only serves to hold back those of us with that natural ability...to help those less able.

WTF? Get with the program. Read something real instead of that liberal whiny crap.

aikigirl10
09-30-2005, 05:08 PM
.

WTF? Get with the program. Read something real instead of that liberal whiny crap.

Sadly, thats all liberals know how to do is whine. Its not Neils fault... its the liberal stereotype within him.

Adam Alexander
09-30-2005, 05:29 PM
Sadly, thats all liberals know how to do is whine. Its not Neils fault... its the liberal stereotype within him.

I don't think that's necessary.

I like the play on the victim thing...unfortunately, it's malicious. I was p'ed when I wrote the original, but it wasn't an attack...just frustration with the mindset.

aikigirl10
09-30-2005, 08:11 PM
I don't think that's necessary.

I like the play on the victim thing...unfortunately, it's malicious. I was p'ed when I wrote the original, but it wasn't an attack...just frustration with the mindset.

Well, they certainly attack republicans enough...

but i agree i shouldnt have even said anything, for one i absolutely cant stand politics, and 2 its really not worth my time seeing as how im 15, when im legally able to vote and participate then maybe i'll worry about it .. then again maybe not.

It wasnt meant to be an attack tho... like u said... frustration.

Nathan Gusdorf
09-30-2005, 09:25 PM
It boils down to this: You make excuses. I make solutions.

Often times there are excellent excuses for things. For example: "My house burned down so I didn't finish my homework" is a pretty good excuse. You could call them justifications or if you prefer to ignore reality and see the world in black and white you can call them excuses. Saying that everyone who is poor is responsible for their own misfortune and they all have a victim-mentality however is no solution.

Sadly, thats all liberals know how to do is whine. Its not Neils fault... its the liberal stereotype within him.

As long as whiny is going to be used as it has been in this thread to essentially mean speaking out against the government or defying authority i wouldn't consider this an attack at all. Under that definition I personally am proud to be whiny. You could call Jesus a whiny liberal Jew (I do my best to also be a whiny liberal Jew). He was a rabble rouser who spoke out against the government. You could call people like MLK Jr., Ghandi, John Ball, and other leaders of revolts whiny liberals. Whiny as in mindlessly complaining without reason is bad. However simple complaining is not what has been presented so the context is instead a complex thought out argument that opposes the government and tries to place responsibility on that government.


Well, they certainly attack republicans enough...

Actually the Democrats don't attack the Republicans nearly as much as they could or should. This is especially true when you consider that the Republicans have Fox News and Karl Rove and have baselessly attacked the Democrats countless times through means such as blatantly lying, push polling, etc. For example when Bush took office his admin suggested that the Clinton admin. had completely trashed the White House. A private investigation later turned up that no such thing had occured.


An on another note, Neil Young's new album is incredible.

aikigirl10
09-30-2005, 10:05 PM
Often times there are excellent excuses for things. For example: "My house burned down so I didn't finish my homework" is a pretty good excuse. You could call them justifications or if you prefer to ignore reality and see the world in black and white you can call them excuses. Saying that everyone who is poor is responsible for their own misfortune and they all have a victim-mentality however is no solution.



As long as whiny is going to be used as it has been in this thread to essentially mean speaking out against the government or defying authority i wouldn't consider this an attack at all. Under that definition I personally am proud to be whiny. You could call Jesus a whiny liberal Jew (I do my best to also be a whiny liberal Jew). He was a rabble rouser who spoke out against the government. You could call people like MLK Jr., Ghandi, John Ball, and other leaders of revolts whiny liberals. Whiny as in mindlessly complaining without reason is bad. However simple complaining is not what has been presented so the context is instead a complex thought out argument that opposes the government and tries to place responsibility on that government.




Actually the Democrats don't attack the Republicans nearly as much as they could or should. This is especially true when you consider that the Republicans have Fox News and Karl Rove and have baselessly attacked the Democrats countless times through means such as blatantly lying, push polling, etc. For example when Bush took office his admin suggested that the Clinton admin. had completely trashed the White House. A private investigation later turned up that no such thing had occured.


An on another note, Neil Young's new album is incredible.


Good God .. politics drive me absolutely insane....

im not saying that republicans dont whine... truthfully it has nothing to do with either political party... its really just a character trait for each individual.

I've met plenty of democrats who are humble and understanding of republicans... and vice versa. And i've also met democrats who will argue u to the death that bush is the root of all evil. (those kind are particularly annoying and very irrational)

I personally wouldnt mind politics if it wasnt for those bitchy , loud-mouth type of people who dont care who/what you are , they just think that their opinion is above all others. And its those type of people (mainly b/c those are the only ones u hear from) that give the democrat party a bad name, or that stereotype i should say. And of course this can go both ways, it just seems more common among democrats. And im not saying anyone on this thread is one of those people.

Anyway, my point is... if those are the only people we hear from, whether its on quote "Fox News" or any where else... then we wont get anywhere because you're not hearing opinions from different types of people.

I consider myself understanding and i have views from both parties which is why i try to post, but i just cant take it. i hate arguing especially over politics. Its a waste of time, because usually the only people discussing are the people that wont ever open their minds to opposite views, or try to see things from a different angle.

I hope you all can see my point without being offended, i really didnt want to offend anyone, or start trouble.
Just explaining my point of view.

-Paige

aikigirl10
09-30-2005, 10:07 PM
*frustration*

Adam Alexander
10-01-2005, 02:38 PM
Often times there are excellent excuses for things. For example: "My house burned down so I didn't finish my homework" is a pretty good excuse. You could call them justifications or if you prefer to ignore reality and see the world in black and white you can call them excuses. Saying that everyone who is poor is responsible for their own misfortune and they all have a victim-mentality however is no solution.

Sure, there's plenty of reasons for things to happen.

However, the problem is trying to legislate all the possibilities and then giving power to individuals with mimimal, if any, cosequence for running those projects.

For example, if your house caught fire because you store open containers of fuel in the basement near the water-heater...people close to you might know you do this and as a result choose not to accept the excuse for your failure to deliver homework...whereas, people far away, not knowing or considering your irresponsibility in the situation, see you as a victim.

Since you've now got people encouraging you to be a victim, you naturally let the sense of responsibility slide away...it's easy to do. Responsibility sucks!! That's why it's hard to develop.


Saying everyone's a victim, etc. isn't a solution. Recognizing that individuals must look into themselves to change rather than depend on others is the solution.

However, you took that out of context. It was a reference to me and Neil as individuals...our ideologies.

Nathan Gusdorf
10-01-2005, 03:58 PM
Since you've now got people encouraging you to be a victim, you naturally let the sense of responsibility slide away...it's easy to do. Responsibility sucks!! That's why it's hard to develop.


Saying everyone's a victim, etc. isn't a solution. Recognizing that individuals must look into themselves to change rather than depend on others is the solution.


I agree that everyone must take responsibility. But that means everyone- not just the poor but also every other American including the ones who run corporations. I'm not saying that we should pour loads and loads of money into welfare, simply that not all people who are poor are poor because they are lazy unmotivated bums who want to leech off the government. Sure there are plenty of people like that but there are also plenty who aren't so its not fair to put everyone in the same category. I think its more important however that we make corporations take responisiblity. As long as poor people are responsible for overcoming and protecting themselves from situations they did not create, corporations must protect others from situations they did create. If you truly do believe in taking responsibility then you must say that it applies to everyone. Its not solely the consumers responsibility to protect themself, it is also the responsibilities of companies to not act negligently and act solely for profit while putting other people at a serious risk. I can agree to making everyone take responsibility as long as it is truly everybody and does not make certain people take responbility for the irresponsible actiosn of others.

Neil Mick
10-01-2005, 08:16 PM
It boils down to this: You make excuses. I make solutions.

It boils down to this: you make broad-brush judgements. I do not.

You believe the world owes you and others something. I believe the world only needs to stay out of your way to let the God given abilties show.

You also like to put words in my mouth. Personally, I think that it goes back to this mistaken and expanded idea of "deserve."

Nooo: I don't think that the "world owes me something." I think that gov't assistance, in sum: helps more than harms.

You think otherwise. In so doing, you attempt to force-fit your incorrect notions onto me.

WTF? Get with the program. Read something real instead of that liberal whiny crap.

Oh, you mean, like: FoxNews? And, I suppose we ARE done. When you get to insults like "liberal, whiny crap:" I suppose that the courteous portion of the conversation is ended.

Aiki LV
10-04-2005, 06:04 PM
Paige,
Be careful what you say out of anger. Once it's out there you'd better be prepared to defend your statement. In the past I learned this the hard way. Think about it before you make a statement like that. You are entitled to your opinion, but be prepared to take responsibility for it. No two people are the same even when they have similar political views. Hang in there kid ;)

Adam Alexander
10-05-2005, 01:17 PM
I agree that everyone must take responsibility. But that means everyone- not just the poor but also every other American including the ones who run corporations.

I know, I know. When I was a kid, I used to say,"But Billy's parents let him."

Individuals who run corporations do take responsibility. However, whether because of birth-right or good choices, their responsibilities are different...and no amount of laws will level that field...even if there was any reason to level that field.

People with money have demonstrated that they know how the world works. As a result, they get a better deal than those who don't.


Neil, Come on. I wouldn't recommend any of the shows or channels on today...I'm not a fan of propaganda.

I'm saying read something that's a little more optimistic about the ability of individuals...like the Constitution. LOL.

Welcome to the U.S. You know, the place where lots of folks where rugged individualists or groups of individualists who risked all to come here...not sissies who talked about the welfare waiting for them in the new world.

Neil Mick
10-05-2005, 10:09 PM
Neil, Come on. I wouldn't recommend any of the shows or channels on today...I'm not a fan of propaganda.

I'm saying read something that's a little more optimistic about the ability of individuals...like the Constitution. LOL.

Look, Jon: I'm not really interested in getting the "last word" in. But, I think I understand your thinking; but I fear that the opposite is not the case.

Just to prove my point: let me list the things we so far haven't discussed, but I believe we both agree:

1. I think that it is far better for a society to work as a form of "meritocracy:" where each person is accorded his due based upon his merits, than as an oligarchic plutocracy, where the wealthy few earn more simply because they are wealthy, and they keep their wealth by establishing a chokehold over the gov't.

The latter is more indicative of our gov't, today.

2. I believe that it is also better for a person to be earning his/her own way, rather than living on the dole (surprised?).

3. I think we both agree (but for different reasons) that the current tax laws and welfare system (such that it is) needs reforming.

4. I think that the current system of welfare DOES encourage some form of "cheating," amongst a few of its reciprients. Where we disagree, IMO, is how much "cheating" is going on...you think it's widespread, I think that the system helps, more than hurts (but the reform laws of 1996 changed a lot of that. A lot of ppl were sorely hurt by those reforms: laws largely passed to satisfy the welfare naysayers).

Can you think of any other mutual agreements, btween us?

Welcome to the U.S. You know, the place where lots of folks where rugged individualists or groups of individualists who risked all to come here...not sissies who talked about the welfare waiting for them in the new world.

That's right: but this isn't the 17th C; we aren't "rugged pioneers;" and we face threats (personal, societal, and national) that our ancestors couldn't have imagined, in their widest dreams.

IMO, you obsess overmuch on this idea of "victim identification." I also noticed that you completely failed to respond to my point about the Frist family's shady theft of welfare...the point where you the taxpayer are being robbed...at a far, far greater rate than any lazy, backsliding group of welfare-cheat's could ever orchestrate.

Adam Alexander
10-06-2005, 01:48 PM
Look, Jon: I'm not really interested in getting the "last word" in. But, I think I understand your thinking; but I fear that the opposite is not the case.

Quite possible. However, I think I understand but am not expressing it clearly.


Just to prove my point: let me list the things we so far haven't discussed, but I believe we both agree:

1. I think that it is far better for a society to work as a form of "meritocracy:" where each person is accorded his due based upon his merits, than as an oligarchic plutocracy, where the wealthy few earn more simply because they are wealthy, and they keep their wealth by establishing a chokehold over the gov't.

The latter is more indicative of our gov't, today..

Meritocracy. I don't know if we have the same interpretation of the word.

To me, it implies a level of "deserve"...Plenty of people do the right thing. However, that doesn't mean they deserve something in return except for the personal satisfaction of doing the right thing.

I don't believe our government is in a choke-hold. It's more just a case of the cat being away.

Finally, on that one, I'd question what you mean by "wealthy earning more." Because of investments? Or, because a wealthy person might run a bank they shouldn't get a significantly better compensation that someone operating a fork-lift?

In either case, I'd say the wealthy should recieve it based on 1)It's their money putting people to work. No matter how you slice it, it all starts with money. If you take away the right to that property, I think you'll see a reduction in motivation. 2)The banker in this case has a high-demand job...high-demand, high price.


2. I believe that it is also better for a person to be earning his/her own way, rather than living on the dole (surprised?).

I'm not surprised. However, I don't think that's really what the issue has been in regard to getting assistance...but what kind of assistance and who should be handing it out.


3. I think we both agree (but for different reasons) that the current tax laws and welfare system (such that it is) needs reforming. .

You could say that.

4. I think that the current system of welfare DOES encourage some form of "cheating," amongst a few of its reciprients. Where we disagree, IMO, is how much "cheating" is going on...you think it's widespread, I think that the system helps, more than hurts (but the reform laws of 1996 changed a lot of that. A lot of ppl were sorely hurt by those reforms: laws largely passed to satisfy the welfare naysayers)..

Our disagreement isn't on the cheating. My issue is the cultural effect of welfare.

I believe that people will always try to do what's easiest. If you make it a little easier, they'll adapt so that what you've accomplished is just a hair shy of what they appear to "need". Then, you adapt to give them a little more...it's a cycle.



That's right: but this isn't the 17th C; we aren't "rugged pioneers;" and we face threats (personal, societal, and national) that our ancestors couldn't have imagined, in their widest dreams.

I've read a lot of stuff. And the more I read, the more I'm certain that the system was made to handle all of it.

The system was made for the independant type. And now the threats that we face today demand that type. Environmental threats demand individuals to come together to legislate against the ones who diregard it's value. Terrorist threats demand that individuals not cower in their homes while the power-holders continually erode our rights.

I think the further we get away from the "rugged" types, the further we see freedom and liberty drift away. I think that's the basis of the conservative ideology: Man will suffer. Man will die. Do what you must to maintain freedom.

Your's, I believe, is an ideology of cowardice. Claiming that soldiers are "only doing their jobs" or that welfare recipients need help. Both disregard that death and personal sacrifice is the cost of freedom and our form of government.


IMO, you obsess overmuch on this idea of "victim identification." I also noticed that you completely failed to respond to my point about the Frist family's shady theft of welfare...the point where you the taxpayer are being robbed...at a far, far greater rate than any lazy, backsliding group of welfare-cheat's could ever orchestrate.


I didn't think it was really on topic.

Neil Mick
10-06-2005, 08:59 PM
Meritocracy. I don't know if we have the same interpretation of the word.

Earning your due based upon your contribution to society.

I don't believe our government is in a choke-hold. It's more just a case of the cat being away.

The gov't is in a chokehold held by an ideologically extreme group of pol's and oil-men. They don't even represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Finally, on that one, I'd question what you mean by "wealthy earning more." Because of investments? Or, because a wealthy person might run a bank they shouldn't get a significantly better compensation that someone operating a fork-lift?

No, I mean the incredibly wealthy top 5% of the US. You know, the Bill Gates's, the Rupert Murdoch's of the US.

Our disagreement isn't on the cheating. My issue is the cultural effect of welfare.

I believe that people will always try to do what's easiest. If you make it a little easier, they'll adapt so that what you've accomplished is just a hair shy of what they appear to "need". Then, you adapt to give them a little more...it's a cycle.

It's a reasonable view. But one in which I disagree (more or less).

I've read a lot of stuff. And the more I read, the more I'm certain that the system was made to handle all of it.

Well, I think that the system is overloaded. We're seeing a widespread failure of whole branches of gov't and society failing to do their duties (the media for example).

Your's, I believe, is an ideology of cowardice. Claiming that soldiers are "only doing their jobs" or that welfare recipients need help. Both disregard that death and personal sacrifice is the cost of freedom and our form of government.

Please: just what, exactly: does "doing their jobs" have to do with an ideology of cowardice??? :freaky: :confused:

Sorry, but I completely fail to see how accepting that some ppl need help (or soldiers doing their jobs) disregards that death and personal sacrifice is necessary.

I'll even go one better...I think that personal sacrifice is sometimes necessary, for this gov't to evolve. Civil rights, the right of universal suffrage, child labor laws, the right to form unions...all of these things did not spring forth, just because some pol thought it was a good idea.

Men and women protested, went to jail; some died, to enjoy what we have today.

You see: your ideas of welfare ignore history. Before the welfare state existed: ppl didn't just either "sink or swim," depending upon his/her merits. There were just more people suffering.

I didn't think it was really on topic.

You gotta be kiddin' me. It IS the topic. You claim that "x" number of welfare reciprients are self-identified victims, with "x" being very close to 100%.

One of your beefs for this backsliding is the taxes they suck up.

That tree full of backsliders, looks mighty slender, compared to the forest of Frist's takings. So, it puts your whole argument about welfare reciprients drawing too much from Joe taxpayer in perspective.

In short: you're arguing about the pennie's: when the bank's getting robbed.

Adam Alexander
10-07-2005, 01:47 PM
Earning your due based upon your contribution to society.

For me, "due" and "contribution" is questionable. You work out what you're due and who'll pay it before you contribute or else you risk not getting what you believe you are due.

I gather what you're implying is that there's values to be applied to contributions--I agree. However, I believe it's between two parties: The seller and buyer. No-one else.



The gov't is in a chokehold held by an ideologically extreme group of pol's and oil-men. They don't even represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Although they may very well guiding the power, all that has to happen is the populace needs to awaken.



No, I mean the incredibly wealthy top 5% of the US. You know, the Bill Gates's, the Rupert Murdoch's of the US.

No doubt, their practices that lean toward monopolization must be limited. However, I think their incomes are justified...they figured out the system.



It's a reasonable view. But one in which I disagree (more or less).

Atleast we've got one out of the way.


Well, I think that the system is overloaded. We're seeing a widespread failure of whole branches of gov't and society failing to do their duties (the media for example).

I would say 1)The Founders didn't see the government as embodied in The Constitution to be a utensil of social service beyond some very basic activities. I think that the government "failing" in it's duties would be more accurately expressed "the government as Lincoln and FDR saw it is failing." We were warned not to give to much responsibility to politicians well before either of those guys. Now, the U.S. is reaping what it sewed. Who's fault is that? The citizenry. So, is the government failing, or did the citizenry fail? 2)The media isn't failing. The citizenry is failing to recognize the difference between media, rumor and entertainment.



Please: just what, exactly: does "doing their jobs" have to do with an ideology of cowardice??? :freaky: :confused:

If someone believes that being in Iraq is morally wrong, yet they still participate out of fear of the repercussions, that's cowardice.

Those who permit that are advancing an ideology of cowardice.


Sorry, but I completely fail to see how accepting that some ppl need help (or soldiers doing their jobs) disregards that death and personal sacrifice is necessary.

If someone used the government to feed the poor or "needy," they're infringing on one person's freedom to feed another.

The "needy" dying is a sacrifice of freedom.


I'll even go one better...I think that personal sacrifice is sometimes necessary, for this gov't to evolve. Civil rights, the right of universal suffrage, child labor laws, the right to form unions...all of these things did not spring forth, just because some pol thought it was a good idea.

Evolution in our government is bad. It's the turning of the gears towards the end of it's lifecycle.

Civil "rights", universal suffrage, the "right" to form unions are all bad.


Men and women protested, went to jail; some died, to enjoy what we have today.

What do I enjoy today because of them?


You see: your ideas of welfare ignore history. Before the welfare state existed: ppl didn't just either "sink or swim," depending upon his/her merits. There were just more people suffering.

Not according to what I've read. Although there was definitely suffering, there was strong communities.

Give me some references. I'll check it out.


You gotta be kiddin' me. It IS the topic. You claim that "x" number of welfare reciprients are self-identified victims, with "x" being very close to 100%.

One of your beefs for this backsliding is the taxes they suck up.

That tree full of backsliders, looks mighty slender, compared to the forest of Frist's takings. So, it puts your whole argument about welfare reciprients drawing too much from Joe taxpayer in perspective.

In short: you're arguing about the pennie's: when the bank's getting robbed.

Actually, my big concern is the cultural effect.

The reason I didn't think (or currently think) that it's relevant is that I see you as trying to argue two wrongs make a right. Or, maybe that I shouldn't be against welfare (SS, medical, etc. included) because there's bigger fish to fry.

If you want to make it about corporations ripping us off, then make it a point by itself, not as something related to welfare for the poor--That's all I'm saying.

Neil Mick
10-13-2005, 09:40 PM
For me, "due" and "contribution" is questionable. You work out what you're due and who'll pay it before you contribute or else you risk not getting what you believe you are due.

I think we're getting semantical, here.


I gather what you're implying is that there's values to be applied to contributions--I agree. However, I believe it's between two parties: The seller and buyer. No-one else.

Well, I think that there are more contexts, than seller and buyer. Consider workers in the public sector, for example. How are given their due? It varies from city to city.

Although they may very well guiding the power, all that has to happen is the populace needs to awaken.

Partly yes. But the populace needs to do more than that. They need to take action. Right now: they seem like sleepers that just want it all to go away, IMO.

No doubt, their practices that lean toward monopolization must be limited. However, I think their incomes are justified...they figured out the system.

No friggin' way (pardon my language). Sorry, but there is something wrong with a system that allows Nike factories (http://www.toolness.com/nike/faq.html) with children to work all their lives, earning barely a dollar for a pair of sneakers; the US public--gulled into the allure of branding--purchases these sweatshop-shoes for over $100...and the CEO of Nike buys another jet.

Or even here, right in CA: where an Enron-controlled power-company played little power-games with power outages: falsely reporting technical problems, laughing all the way to the bank.

They slammed Martha Stewart: but I'm still waiting for the full hammer to fall on Kennie boy, for all the billions he stole.

I get the feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. But, one thing this isn't--it isn't "cultural pollution:" it's the raw, naked greed of the "have-more's" (Bush's phrase) stealing from the rest of us.

I would say 1)The Founders didn't see the government as embodied in The Constitution to be a utensil of social service beyond some very basic activities.

Sorry, but again we disagree: "Promote the general welfare" is a very specific mandate in the preamble of the Constitution, to actively invest in the health of the social body. "Promote" does not mean to give away our protections and rights, wholesale: to this short-sighted Admin, which is exactly what is happening.

I think that the government "failing" in it's duties would be more accurately expressed "the government as Lincoln and FDR saw it is failing." We were warned not to give to much responsibility to politicians well before either of those guys. Now, the U.S. is reaping what it sewed. Who's fault is that? The citizenry. So, is the government failing, or did the citizenry fail?

Both. But it is hardly helpful to constantly tell the citizenry that they failed, and not to offer alternatives.

It's the citizenry's job to demand better preformance from their leaders. This is why we don't have a horse inspector as head of FEMA anymore: the people demanded more (sadly, Bush seems to be tone-deaf. Note his attempt to implant an anti-abortion extremist with no judicial experience on the bench. Such arrogance :disgust: )

2)The media isn't failing. The citizenry is failing to recognize the difference between media, rumor and entertainment.

That's because there is little choice. Even NPR is getting it's "political correctness" monitor.

And, the media certainly IS failing. It's their job to inform, not disinform or cater to ideological extremists. They even admit their own failure. The NYT said "if we knew then what we know now: we wouldn't be IN Iraq." Surprise, NYT! Ppl from all corners were saying that Iraq was not a threat!

Judith Miller dutifully reported what nonsense Achmad Chalabi (who was fed intel by the Pentagon, and so the echo-chamber commences) was fed, himself. Almost no anti-war voices in the mainstream, even tho there were HUGE demonstrations (in fact, they STILL underreport, and misreport).

IMO, they failed, bigtime.

If someone believes that being in Iraq is morally wrong, yet they still participate out of fear of the repercussions, that's cowardice.

Yes, we agree. But, this does not represent the majority of soldiers, there. A lot of soldiers are, IMO: just trying to do their jobs. But, we agree: the one's that commit abuses, or even those who regularly obey orders they find morally wrong, are cowards.

Overall, I think that the Armed Forces (as a whole) commit, collaborate, or organize far too many abuses and abusive institutions in the world. They are an institution responsible for a lot of misery in the world.

But of course: it's beyond silly to suggest that we have no Armed Forces. But really, do we really need to have a "School of the Assassins?" Or Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc? Do we really need hundreds of permanent bases around the world, just so we can stay #1??

Not in my book: the price is too high.

The "needy" dying is a sacrifice of freedom.

Sorry, but this is not rational. I cannot seem to find any source that equates "freedom" with the the death, of the needy.

Just look at the definition: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom)

Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Political independence.

Oppression can take many forms. Racial, social and economic oppression is easily manifest, in looking at places like NOLA.

Evolution in our government is bad. It's the turning of the gears towards the end of it's lifecycle.

We disagree. Evolution is healthy. Otherwise, we'd be jailing teachers for teaching evolution; or awarding Af-Am's 3/5 person-hood.

Civil "rights", universal suffrage, the "right" to form unions are all bad.

Well, if you like the good old days of little girls getting bombed in church, lynchings, and separate entrances based on skin color...we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What do I enjoy today because of them?

Not according to what I've read. Although there was definitely suffering, there was strong communities.

Give me some references. I'll check it out.

"Try A People's History of the US," by Howard Zinn. Also, "Nickel and Dimed," by Barbara Ehrenreich.

, maybe that I shouldn't be against welfare (SS, medical, etc. included) because there's bigger fish to fry.

Yes, exactly.

If you want to make it about corporations ripping us off, then make it a point by itself, not as something related to welfare for the poor--That's all I'm saying.

But you see: the ARE related.

Ron Tisdale
10-14-2005, 10:58 AM
Civil "rights", universal suffrage, the "right" to form unions are all bad.

Hi,

This quote concerns me...but I haven't been following the thread closely enough these days to be sure of the context. Could you perhaps frame it a little better for me?

Thanks,
Ron

Adam Alexander
10-15-2005, 01:16 PM
I think we're getting semantical, here.

Honestly, it's not my intent to get anal about the def's. I just think there's a lot more being implied with the words.




Well, I think that there are more contexts, than seller and buyer. Consider workers in the public sector, for example. How are given their due? It varies from city to city.

City: Buyer. Workers: Sellers.



Partly yes. But the populace needs to do more than that. They need to take action. Right now: they seem like sleepers that just want it all to go away, IMO.

Agreed.



No friggin' way (pardon my language).

That's because you think people are owed something.

Or even here, right in CA: where an Enron-controlled power-company played little power-games with power outages: falsely reporting technical problems, laughing all the way to the bank.

I'd say that's a call for regulation or, better yet, locally publicly owned industry.


I get the feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. But, one thing this isn't--it isn't "cultural pollution:" it's the raw, naked greed of the "have-more's" (Bush's phrase) stealing from the rest of us.

If you say so. To me, if I pay one hundred dollars to Nike for a pair of crappy shoes, that's between me and Mr. Nike...and Pedro, Tyrone or Jim-Bob dont' deserve I dime of it.



Sorry, but again we disagree: "Promote the general welfare" is a very specific mandate in the preamble of the Constitution, to actively invest in the health of the social body. "Promote" does not mean to give away our protections and rights, wholesale: to this short-sighted Admin, which is exactly what is happening.

Mmm hmmm...well, sounds to me like a bad interpretation...becuase now, the general folks are competing with global labor and they're losing.

So, what's good welfare? A group of people who think that the market doesn't affect them, or a group of people who's got jobs?



Both. But it is hardly helpful to constantly tell the citizenry that they failed, and not to offer alternatives.

In my life, changes always occur in me in this order: I do something stupid; I refuse to recognize what I did and make excuses for a time; I acknowledge my responsibility; I change the problem.

Not blaming the citizenry is still step two...that's where liberals stay stuck.


It's the citizenry's job to demand better preformance from their leaders. This is why we don't have a horse inspector as head of FEMA anymore: the people demanded more (sadly, Bush seems to be tone-deaf. Note his attempt to implant an anti-abortion extremist with no judicial experience on the bench. Such arrogance :disgust: )

People have one chance every four years to demand from the Pres. That's it.

Other than that, you've got the chance to let your money do the talking when you support your candidates run-up.



That's because there is little choice. Even NPR is getting it's "political correctness" monitor.

And, the media certainly IS failing. It's their job to inform, not disinform or cater to ideological extremists. They even admit their own failure. The NYT said "if we knew then what we know now: we wouldn't be IN Iraq." Surprise, NYT! Ppl from all corners were saying that Iraq was not a threat!

In my mind, when you see it failing, it's your duty, as an American, to get out their and start reporting the news yourself...that's what I consider to be the American way...I know, it's naive...but I think people have an obligation to their country to actually act...not expect others to act.

Judith Miller dutifully reported what nonsense Achmad Chalabi (who was fed intel by the Pentagon, and so the echo-chamber commences) was fed, himself. Almost no anti-war voices in the mainstream, even tho there were HUGE demonstrations (in fact, they STILL underreport, and misreport).

IMO, they failed, bigtime.

mainstream isn't the only source.



Yes, we agree. But, this does not represent the majority of soldiers, there. A lot of soldiers are, IMO: just trying to do their jobs. But, we agree: the one's that commit abuses, or even those who regularly obey orders they find morally wrong, are cowards.

Overall, I think that the Armed Forces (as a whole) commit, collaborate, or organize far too many abuses and abusive institutions in the world. They are an institution responsible for a lot of misery in the world.

Sometimes, just doing your job is the wrong thing to do...In Iraq? I don't know. I like to think that I'm moral enough to take some time and a dishonorable discharge.

But of course: it's beyond silly to suggest that we have no Armed Forces. But really, do we really need to have a "School of the Assassins?" Or Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc? Do we really need hundreds of permanent bases around the world, just so we can stay #1??

No one suggested it.

Not in my book: the price is too high.

Then we disagree.



Sorry, but this is not rational. I cannot seem to find any source that equates "freedom" with the the death, of the needy.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots."


Oppression can take many forms. Racial, social and economic oppression is easily manifest, in looking at places like NOLA.

LOL. I think we have different views of what oppression is. Would you describe yours?



We disagree. Evolution is healthy. Otherwise, we'd be jailing teachers for teaching evolution; or awarding Af-Am's 3/5 person-hood.

We disagree then. Teachers teaching what the community desires is right...going off and teaching their beliefs is wrong...it's a shame it was only a dollar fine.

It's seems foolish to me that individuals who couldn't even read and spent a life in slavery were counted as equal.

We see the results of it in New Orleans today.



Well, if you like the good old days of little girls getting bombed in church, lynchings, and separate entrances based on skin color...we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Not that I think those things are right, but I can't see how it is right for a community to open it's doors to people it wishes to lock out.

From the Fed, all should be equal...but locally, it's their choice...barring Constitutional illegality...when illegal due to real Constitutional issues and not issues made by judicial activists.



But you see: the ARE related.

By how many degrees of separation?


RT: I'll answer yours later. Suffice to say for now, I don't agree with most of the Civil Rights legislation...the Fed took over State problems.

I figure you respond because of the effect to black folks in the rights....I think most of it's BS...even the right to vot.

I'll explain later though.

Neil Mick
10-15-2005, 04:16 PM
That's because you think people are owed something.

That's YOUR mindset: not mine. Being "owed" had nothing to do with it.

I'd say that's a call for regulation or, better yet, locally publicly owned industry.

Agreed...no argument here.

If you say so. To me, if I pay one hundred dollars to Nike for a pair of crappy shoes, that's between me and Mr. Nike...and Pedro, Tyrone or Jim-Bob dont' deserve I dime of it.

Only if you say so. To do this, of course: you have to ignore all of the behind-the-scenes machinations it took to get those shoes into that store...the allowances NAFTA gave, to let that Nike factory move out of a US town (when the workers demanded better wages); the kickbacks and bribes that Nike (or Shell, in the case of Nigeria and oil) gave to the Indonesian gov't to limit or hinder collective worker action (sometimes, to buy the police and/or the military); the unfair airtime (and yes: it IS unfair...the FCC was established to protect the public airwaves and give equal access to community interests--something seemingly forgotten, since at least 1996) and outrageous costs to promote and advertise those shoes; the silence of the US media in the face of sweatshop practices; the unfair wages of the sweatshop worker in relation to the CEO...you ignore all these aspects of the sale, just so you can state that it's between "you, and Mr. Nike."

In ignoring the totality of the oppression and the injustice, you play right along with the rest of America, when they seem to switch off their moral radar, whenever we buy everything from (artificially subsidized) gasoline, to sweatshop clothes made everywhere around the globe.

Sorry, but it's not just about you, and Mr. Nike...it's much, much more.

Mmm hmmm...well, sounds to me like a bad interpretation...becuase now, the general folks are competing with global labor and they're losing.

So, what's good welfare? A group of people who think that the market doesn't affect them, or a group of people who's got jobs?

IMO, this is off-topic. But in short, this is what I think you really mean:

global labor = multinational corp's.

Hey, remember the WPO and the New Deal? Roosevelt didn't tell ppl to "buck up, and wait it out until the market gets better," lucky for the US. If he had, the Depression would have lasted longer, more ppl would have died in poverty; and in all likelihood there would have been a revolt in the US. Hoover told ppl to "buck up," and his policies made things worse.

So, "promote the general welfare" means looking at the plight of ppl; not sitting around and telling them to wait for a more favorable market.


In my life, changes always occur in me in this order: I do something stupid; I refuse to recognize what I did and make excuses for a time; I acknowledge my responsibility; I change the problem.

How very quaint and simplistic, a philosophy. And, according to your own stated beliefs: how very likely fatal for you, should you be born

a. of the wrong ethnicity;
b. disabled to the point of not being able to take care of yourself;
c. in a position where you're at some disadvantage, while some bureaucrat sees your position as "doing something stupid" (perhaps your wife is sick, and you're too poor to pay her hospital bills. If you happen to be a resident of Louisiana and you're an artist: the hospital can take ownership rights and patents over all of your creative work...it's too bad that you were so "stupid" as to be unlucky enough to live in LA, right Jon? :disgust: )

Not blaming the citizenry is still step two...that's where liberals stay stuck.

YOU call it "corn:" WE call it "maize." :crazy:

Personally, I think criticizing the PATRIOT Act (which weakens our privacy rights) is hardly "blaming the citizenry." I think it odd, that you do.

People have one chance every four years to demand from the Pres. That's it.

And that's not enough. Both parties have been hard at work for quite some time (at least 40 years) to limit 3rd party access to the electoral process.

Other than that, you've got the chance to let your money do the talking when you support your candidates run-up.

Wrong. It's the responsibility of the citizenry to maintain an active participation of gov't. The Founding Fathers were well aware of this. Failure to do so results in the sham gov't we have today: a gov't monopolized by an isolated cabal of ideologues, out of touch with the mainstream of American opinion.

In my mind, when you see it failing, it's your duty, as an American, to get out their and start reporting the news yourself...that's what I consider to be the American way...I know, it's naive

Good, I'm glad you ackowledge this, it saves time. There already IS an alternative media reporting the wrongdoings perpetrated by our country. Unfortunately, the mainstream of America barely gets to see this other media because the corporate media dominates the main networks.

This is something I hear a lot from ppl outside of America...their media shows things we NEVER get to see in the US. This is because the media here is sanitized, and acts more as a press release corp for the White House, than as a critical source of information.

Sometimes, just doing your job is the wrong thing to do...In Iraq? I don't know. I like to think that I'm moral enough to take some time and a dishonorable discharge.

Well, on this: we agree. But morality is, by nature: an moral compass that varies from person to person. I cannot fairly say that a soldier in the Armed Services is "wrong" if he feels that being in Iraq isn't "morally" wrong.

I CAN accuse them of a lack of considered thought on the subject, tho...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots."

"The Blood of Patriots" does not = "The Blood of the Needy"

LOL. I think we have different views of what oppression is. Would you describe yours?

I'll go with the dictionary definition: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oppression)

an unjust or excessive exercise of power: as a : unlawful, wrongful, or corrupt exercise of authority by a public official acting under color of authority that causes a person harm b : dishonest, unfair, wrongful, or burdensome conduct by corporate directors or majority shareholders that entitles minority shareholders to compel involuntary dissolution of the corporation c : inequality of bargaining power resulting in one party's lack of ability to negotiate or exercise meaningful choice

If a corrupt official was at least partly responsible for keeping the poor people of NOLA stuck in their cycle of poverty: then this certainly abides by the dictionary definition of "oppression."

We disagree then. Teachers teaching what the community desires is right...going off and teaching their beliefs is wrong...it's a shame it was only a dollar fine.

It's seems foolish to me that individuals who couldn't even read and spent a life in slavery were counted as equal.

What an odd barometer to gauge the worthiness of a man's freedom...by whether or not he can read or write, or under what conditions he lived his life. :disgust:

We see the results of it in New Orleans today.

We see the results of racism and corruption in New Orleans today.


Not that I think those things are right, but I can't see how it is right for a community to open it's doors to people it wishes to lock out.

From the Fed, all should be equal...but locally, it's their choice...barring Constitutional illegality...when illegal due to real Constitutional issues and not issues made by judicial activists.

What a joke, that term is..."judicial activism." When mouthed by Conservatives, it sounds as if it's some form of Liberal-borne judicial disease.

Of course the reality is much more complex: BOTH sides of the ideological line are "activists." Judicial choices are made all the time, for political reasons.

But when BushCo uses the term: they mean "judges who make decisions we don't like." This sort of thinking winds us up with ppl like Harriet Miers in line for the Supreme Court.

Her qualifications...? W thinks she's a "nice person," and she goes to an anti-choice church.

Whoah. What's next for old Harriet? The Medal of Freedom? :yuck:

RT: I'll answer yours later. Suffice to say for now, I don't agree with most of the Civil Rights legislation...the Fed took over State problems.

I figure you respond because of the effect to black folks in the rights....I think most of it's BS...even the right to vot.

I'll explain later though.

Yeah, I hope so. As it stands, these sentiments sound pretty racist, to me.

Adam Alexander
10-16-2005, 05:20 PM
ism=verb? ist=adj? Maybe common-sense isn't so common...I don't know.

I think we've come to a conclusive understanding here. Although I wouldn't say I'm able to paraphrase either of our beliefs, it's seems clear to me that our disagreement boils down to assumptions that surround what people are entitled to.

That's it. Feel free to respond to this, I'll probably not continue it...this conversation seems to have a circular feel to it or just a sinking effect...sinking a lot of unproductive time.

I think--not sure, but think--you're views are leaning towards an ideal world...One where people are trustworthy and aren't self-focused. My views, I believe, lean towards what I think I've witnessed throughout my life...my experience of humanity contradicts your beliefs.

On Civil Rights: Racism, sexism, etc. I think the way you define racism (like Sharpton and "Screwie" Louie Farrakhan) or any of the other -isms is more related to tainting the pool of discourse than coming to understandings.

Most people I know, when they think of racism, for instance, think of a guy getting chained to a truck or not getting a job simply on the basis of race. However, I think when you use it, it's used in another whole context...Because of that, people like myself can't talk to your type.

In the example, no-one I've ever known would agree that those things are ok. However, I recognize a difference between the races...and therefore must be a racist...Even though I've spent more time than you can imagine around black folks and know for fact that there's an incredibly huge difference in culture...in the least, a lot of entitlement.

I don't believe blacks or anyone else deserve anything extra than whites on the basis of heritage...that makes me a racist to people like you...Atleast that's the impression I get.

Best of luck to you...I think you're nuts...but I like some of what you say...but not much.

Neil Mick
10-17-2005, 11:39 PM
ism=verb? ist=adj? Maybe common-sense isn't so common...I don't know.

I think we've come to a conclusive understanding here. Although I wouldn't say I'm able to paraphrase either of our beliefs, it's seems clear to me that our disagreement boils down to assumptions that surround what people are entitled to.

That's it. Feel free to respond to this, I'll probably not continue it...this conversation seems to have a circular feel to it or just a sinking effect...sinking a lot of unproductive time.

I think--not sure, but think--you're views are leaning towards an ideal world...One where people are trustworthy and aren't self-focused.

Perhaps you're right: good observation, in any case. If ppl are generally untrustworthy, as a rule--then I think you're right...welfare is merely a crutch, for losers who can't make it on their own.

But, I can cite a lot of examples, studies, and schools of thought that humans, as a rule: ARE prone to be more loving and trusting, than they are to act selfishly.

My views, I believe, lean towards what I think I've witnessed throughout my life...my experience of humanity contradicts your beliefs.

Here's the thing:

1. My beliefs only need the proof that racism and discrimination exists, and harms ppl. This is beyond argument.

2. Your beliefs require the majority of humanity to act with selfish motives, on the whole. This idea does not hold up to casual observation. On the whole, ppl are ppl: and will work to build up a society, rather than wish to tear it down for selfish reasons.

On Civil Rights: Racism, sexism, etc. I think the way you define racism (like Sharpton and "Screwie" Louie Farrakhan) or any of the other -isms is more related to tainting the pool of discourse than coming to understandings.

Most people I know, when they think of racism, for instance, think of a guy getting chained to a truck or not getting a job simply on the basis of race. However, I think when you use it, it's used in another whole context...Because of that, people like myself can't talk to your type.

My "type?"

In the example, no-one I've ever known would agree that those things are ok.

Yes, but someone did, not too long ago. And not very long ago in the country's history, we had Emmet Till. Parents would caution their kids to be "careful around white folks, or you may end up like Emmet Till."

However, I recognize a difference between the races...and therefore must be a racist...

That all depends upon what you mean by "differences."

Racism, IMO: is not a person...it's a mindset. We are all "racists."

Even though I've spent more time than you can imagine around black folks and know for fact that there's an incredibly huge difference in culture...in the least, a lot of entitlement.

I've also spent "more time than you can imagine," around "black folks."

But, when I think of racism: I think of a big wall. Actually, the image that comes up is the Apartheid Wall, in the West Bank).

Racism, to me: is about denying ppl dignity and happiness based upon wrong, incorrect, and stupid ideas.

I don't believe blacks or anyone else deserve anything extra than whites on the basis of heritage...

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere.

The heritage argument is one thing: but I'm talking about class and poverty, not race. But, race certainly does play a role in the spiralling cycle of poverty.

that makes me a racist to people like you...Atleast that's the impression I get.

Nah...see above.

Best of luck to you...I think you're nuts...but I like some of what you say...but not much.

*shrug* Well, Jon: we don't have to see the world, completely the same.

I have much respect for someone who voted for Bush, and has since come to see what a complete sham, this guy is. It takes guts to look at yourself in the mirror and say: "We were duped."

If we don't agree, well: what consequence is that? No big deal. :ki:

So, best of luck: to you, too.

Ron Tisdale
10-18-2005, 03:39 PM
It's seems foolish to me that individuals who couldn't even read and spent a life in slavery were counted as equal.

We see the results of it in New Orleans today.

I think you are on really dangerous ground with this statement. By the same token, the life of the majority of people in say, India, are not worth the life of the average American who can read and write? (please forgive me if I misunderstand the literacy rate in India...no offense meant)

You talk about AAs having a sense of entitlement...can you be more specific about how you define entitlement?

I believe I am entitled to be treated as a 100% human being, not 3/4s or anything else, whether I can read or not. And based on my actions. If my actions harm someone else as defined by law, then I should pay the same price as the next guy, be he black, white or purple. But I'd still be a human being...and not 3/4s.

If you have a law that says I can't learn to read without being flogged, jailed or hung...and then turn around and say it's foolish that I be thought of as a 'whole' person because I can't read...what does that say about you??

If I'm qualified for a job, I shouldn't be denied it just because I'm black.

I'd like to say I shouldn't have to read tripe like that quoted above...but we aren't entitled to that...free speech and all...no matter how disgusting...you just have to learn to live with it.

I think I'd better stop reading this thread...it's starting to piss me off. :confused:

Best,
Ron

aikigirl10
10-18-2005, 04:50 PM
I think you are on really dangerous ground with this statement. By the same token, the life of the majority of people in say, India, are not worth the life of the average American who can read and write? (please forgive me if I misunderstand the literacy rate in India...no offense meant)

You talk about AAs having a sense of entitlement...can you be more specific about how you define entitlement?

I believe I am entitled to be treated as a 100% human being, not 3/4s or anything else, whether I can read or not. And based on my actions. If my actions harm someone else as defined by law, then I should pay the same price as the next guy, be he black, white or purple. But I'd still be a human being...and not 3/4s.

If you have a law that says I can't learn to read without being flogged, jailed or hung...and then turn around and say it's foolish that I be thought of as a 'whole' person because I can't read...what does that say about you??

If I'm qualified for a job, I shouldn't be denied it just because I'm black.

I'd like to say I shouldn't have to read tripe like that quoted above...but we aren't entitled to that...free speech and all...no matter how disgusting...you just have to learn to live with it.

I think I'd better stop reading this thread...it's starting to piss me off. :confused:

Best,
Ron

awesome post!

Neil Mick
10-18-2005, 05:35 PM
awesome post!

Yep! +1

Nathan Gusdorf
10-18-2005, 05:43 PM
It's seems foolish to me that individuals who couldn't even read and spent a life in slavery were counted as equal.

Wow. I never thought I'd ever have to make an argument for why everyone should is equal. It was not their fault they were not literate; they were made that way by the plantation owners. Many of the original slaves were kidnapped and taken over here packed into a ship like sardines where lots of them died. Your logic is incredibly skewed. Alright this is honestly making me ill. You might want to familiarize yourself with the Dred Scott case. Cheif Justice Robert Taney and the Dred Scott decision are not something that most americans are proud of.


We disagree then. Teachers teaching what the community desires is right...going off and teaching their beliefs is wrong...it's a shame it was only a dollar fine.

Teachers are supposed to teach. That means teaching what we know to be true, not what a small group of people believe is the truth. Can teachers teach that the earth is flat and the center of our universe, or teach that the Greek gods are real and watching us, or teach that blood letting is the best form of medicine just because a community believes it? Of course not, because we know those are false. Teachers must teach based on fact, not on the popular belief of a small group of people. And evolution is not a faith, or just some teachers personal belief. Its a scientific theory. 'Scientific theory' is different from just the word 'theory'. Look it up. One question- You said slaves who couldn't read shouldn't have been considered equal. If person A learns in his community only theology because those are his community's beliefs, and person B learns math and science and history because he lives in a society of intellectuals, is person B 'more equal' than person A because he is more educated?

awesome post!

I concurr. With the post and with this sentiment.

I think I'd better stop reading this thread...it's starting to piss me off.

Especially that part.

Adam Alexander
10-20-2005, 01:14 PM
Neil,

Although I was and am p'ed off at Bush for a couple reasons...I'd vote for him in a heart-beat if given the chance again.

Although his practices are not perfectly in-line with mine, he's still on my side.

The only mistake I made was not voting for him last time.

As far as rest of your post, I think it's ridiculous. However, I don't have time for you anymore...Something about arguing with someone who doesn't seem to be arguing ideologies, but instead dancing with words.


1)I think you are on really dangerous ground with this statement. By the same token, the life of the majority of people in say, India, are not worth the life of the average American who can read and write? (please forgive me if I misunderstand the literacy rate in India...no offense meant)

2)You talk about AAs having a sense of entitlement...can you be more specific about how you define entitlement?

3)I believe I am entitled to be treated as a 100% human being, not 3/4s or anything else, whether I can read or not. And based on my actions. If my actions harm someone else as defined by law, then I should pay the same price as the next guy, be he black, white or purple. But I'd still be a human being...and not 3/4s.

4)If you have a law that says I can't learn to read without being flogged, jailed or hung...and then turn around and say it's foolish that I be thought of as a 'whole' person because I can't read...what does that say about you??

5)If I'm qualified for a job, I shouldn't be denied it just because I'm black.

6)I'd like to say I shouldn't have to read tripe like that quoted above...but we aren't entitled to that...free speech and all...no matter how disgusting...you just have to learn to live with it.

I think I'd better stop reading this thread...it's starting to piss me off. :confused:

Best,
Ron

Ron, 1) the "right" to vote isn't comparable to the "right" to live. When the issue is voting, the question is the stability and longevity of the nation which is in-line with the ideals of the Founders.

The nation is what matters. Not feelings.

2)Any belief that an individual is due anything by another (or another group of people) with exception to the other minding their own business.

3)WTF is 3/4 about?

As far as law goes, the state does the least necessary to eliminate crime. If more purples than blues commit crimes, then the consequences must be more severe for the purples because it's apparently purple-wide and require more action.

If individuals of all different colors had the same culture, then we ought to be treated equal. However, that's not the case.

4)It says that I'm not concerned about the why's. Which is true. I don't care why people can't read or why they're in poverty or why they elected Nagin and ended up going on a hard swim as a result.

What I care about is preservation of some American ideals such as not depending on government to do anything but the absolute least for us.

5)I totally agree. However, if the black shop-owner down the street doesn't want to hire me because I'm white, I'm ok with it. I'm also ok if the white guy doesn't want to hire you because you're black.

I don't like it--but it's his choice. And it's your choice to go start your own business to make those decisions.

6)What's wrong with it?

Ron Tisdale
10-20-2005, 02:43 PM
Yep, time to just stop reading the thread.

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
10-20-2005, 05:05 PM
Neil,

Although I was and am p'ed off at Bush for a couple reasons...I'd vote for him in a heart-beat if given the chance again.

Although his practices are not perfectly in-line with mine, he's still on my side.

The only mistake I made was not voting for him last time.

Then how sad for you, that you seem doomed to repeat your mistake. The only side Bush is on is with the "have-more's."

As far as rest of your post, I think it's ridiculous.

We ridicule the most, that which we understand the least.

Something about arguing with someone who doesn't seem to be arguing ideologies, but instead dancing with words.

Sorry you feel that way. But, what you call "dancing:" I call "rephrasing the argument."


Yep, time to just stop reading the thread.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I credit Jon for candidly expressing his views: but I fear that he cannot seem to get beyond his preconceptions of what "the other side" thinks.

But I will end with a quote I heard recently from an interview with Marshall Rosenberg, the creater of Nonviolent Communication: "Skin-color is often an incitement to violence."

Somehow, that sentiment fits well here, as a coda. :ai: :ki: :do:

Adam Alexander
10-20-2005, 06:29 PM
But I will end with a quote I heard recently from an interview with Marshall Rosenberg, the creater of Nonviolent Communication: "Skin-color is often an incitement to violence."

Somehow, that sentiment fits well here, as a coda. :ai: :ki: :do:

Agreed: It's the final exaggeration.

Ron, It's unfortunate you're unwilling to explain why I should feel a different way. Truth be told, I'm open-minded. I think that's demonstrated in my willingness to express my views in such a way.

Best of luck to you.