I hate headlines like this.
Washington Post: “Blacks Conflicted About Supporting Appointee”
It makes it sound as if black people had a secret meeting to discuss this issue, and even though the thrust of the story is disagreement it has the smell of secrecy still around it. Maybe I’m too sensitive about it, but you surely never see things like “Whites Conflicted On Bush Legacy”.
I’ll never forget the time I introduced two black friends to one another. They acted like perfect strangeers–no fist bump, secret handshake, nothing! I wasn’t fooled, though; I could tell they were playing it cool for my benefit.
Why the idiotic assumption that an ethnic group is some huge family whose members all know and communicate with one another?
Eddie Murphy had the mirror-image fantasy. On SNL he created a skit in which whites on a bus acted stiff and self-absorbed when he was sitting among them, then partied as soon as he got off. Funny, and revealing.
yeah, we queers get that a lot too.
The memo about voting for Democrats seems to have been well circulated.
Politically, it is smart for minorities to vote in blocks, because it gives them more power. However, it is important to note that there are more differences with ethnic groups than there are between ethnic groups.
Wait, we had another meeting and I missed it? Damn. This is the second straight black folks meeting I’ve missed–the last one was the Barack Obama ain’t black enough meeting.
Thank God the media was their to give me the gist of the meeting or I would’ve been lost.
“The memo about voting for Democrats seems to have been well circulated.”
Or maybe blacks separately analyzed the parties based on their positions and attitudes and decided to go with the party that DOESN’T treat them like 2nd class citizens.
You probably wouldn’t hear that because it isn’t as if the one white guy in the Senate just left and now he may or may not be replaced by another white guy. If white people were actually underrepresented, you might see headlines like that.
“the party that DOESN’T treat them like 2nd class citizens”
Unless you think being treated as a second class citizen means being treated as an an equal rather than an inferior.
Or maybe they decided to go with the party that panders for thier vote. The party that gives them preferential treatment to qualify for employment and educational opportuntiy. That uses racial discrimination through affirmative action to treat them them not as equals as prescribed by the 14th amendment but as inferiors that require special treatment to compete. The party that champions group identity over individual merit.
By voting in a monolithic fashion blacks diminish much of their political clout. Democrats give them lip service because thier support has already been paid for and Republicans don’t have much incentive since it is a foregone conclusion that the african vote is lost to them.
Look at education, the Democrats have chosen the NEA over blacks. They support union rules that have had the perverse effect of making teachers unaccountable for thier performance and fight against vouvhers that would give black parents the chance to put thier kids into competing school systems that have superior results compared to many public school systems. This in part has left blacks with levels of much lower educational achievement. A tragic result of blacks selling out thier vote.
Amused 0: The party that gives them preferential treatment to qualify for employment and educational opportuntiy.
…
This in part has left blacks with levels of much lower educational achievement.
Ah, how nice to start off the new year with more bizarre “reality” from the ever delusional and self-contradictory Amused O. (Yes, that’s a zero.)
Unless you think being treated as a second class citizen means being treated as an an equal rather than an inferior.
Yes, the Republican party, the party of “magic negro” songs. And of course, the Republican party, the party of the first black president, right… oh, nevermind.
The Republican party , the party of Lincoln who set the slaves free. The Republican party, the party that rammed the 64 Civil rights bill through Congress despite Democratic opposition…never mind.
So which part is delusional Sean? The part about affirmative action being preferential discrimination or the part about black educational achievement?
So which part is delusional Sean?
In one way or another, nearly every sentence. But let’s just cover it all by pointing out everything you said is wrapped in the basic delusion that the modern Republican party is not discriminatory towards blacks.
And even if we were to throw reality to the winds and except your basic premise that blacks are better served by the Repubs, your contention that despite this blacks still vote overwhelmingly for Dems reveals how stupid you personally must think blacks are.
I’ve written about how stupid it is to push that “Magic Negro” song, as it’s mainly a chance for adolescent idiots to giggle and call Obama a “negro” in public, but the idea was first put forward by a liberal, black, gay male columnist in LA. The satirist merely attributed the attitude to Al Sharpton and set it to music.
J.
AO shat out of his bung the following:
The Republican party , the party of Lincoln who set the slaves free. The Republican party, the party that rammed the 64 Civil rights bill through Congress despite Democratic opposition…never mind.
You GOP apologists LOVE to bring up those facts.
They’re true: Democrats – specifically, conservative Southern Democrats – opposed the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts. The GOP was somewhat more moderate back then.
Here’s the part of the story you always conveniently forget to mention: many of those opposition Dems were lured into, and became a cornerstone of, the GOP, thanks to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.”
“..but the idea was first put forward by a liberal, black, gay male columnist in LA.”
Right, because being a columnist is the same thing as being the head honcho of a major political party.
“The satirist merely attributed the attitude to Al Sharpton…”
And such an attribution is completely warranted, since we all know how many times Al Sharpton has gone around calling Barack Obama a “magic negro” (rolls eyes).
Yes that makes perfect sense, The Democrats that were defeated by the Republicans who passed the civil rights bill retaliated by joining forces with the Party who defeated them.
The legend of the Southern Strategy has much more to do with the radical swing to the left that the Democrats made during the Viet Nam years. Anti military, pro welfare, pro gun control, pro union, anti law enforcement etc. etc. etc.
AO, you are one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. Really. You cannot be serious. If you aren’t playing a massive practical joke on everyone here, if you truly are serious – then I find it unbelievable that you haven’t gotten yourself killed before you learned to use a keyboard.
If you think that Lincoln bears any resemblance to the members of the Republican party of the last 30 years, you’re a fucking idiot.
If you think that the party divisions on the Civil Rights Act in 1968 bear any resemblance or relevance to the current political climate, you’re a fucking idiot.
If you don’t understand that it was conservatives that opposed the Civil Rights Act, and that the modern Republican party is mostly comprised of conservatives, and the Democratic party of liberals, you’re a fucking idiot.
In summation, you’re a fucking idiot. Go DIAF.
Mambo,
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are a product of your environment and that you are ignorant as opposed to stupid.
Amused Observer: “The memo about voting for Democrats seems to have been well circulated.”
You wonder why blacks don’t vote Republican?
Here’s a hint, they don’t vote Republican because the Republican party is filled with racist assholes like you.
“I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are a product of your environment and that you are ignorant as opposed to stupid.”
And I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and that you are massively racist, and not merely retarded.
Either way, enjoy the next two years of being in the minority. If your party keeps acting this way, in 2010 they will fade into oblivion. 2012 will be a complete disaster. And by 2016 there will be a new conservative party. One that values individuals over religious and ethnic divisions.
CSS,
Realist perhaps, politically correct not at all but racist? Poking fun at liberal pretensions doesn’t make one a racist, neither does speaking frankly.
As a Canadian just which dog in the fight is yours anyway?
CSS: Either way, enjoy the next two years of being in the minority. If your party keeps acting this way, in 2010 they will fade into oblivion.
Much as I’d like to see that happen, I’m always skeptical of predictions that one or the other of the major political parties is destined for oblivion. Has about as much chance as “a permanent Republican majority”. The pendulum swings and those in power (particularly when they are Dems sigh) are seriously capable of giving those who are out openings to get in.
Shorter AO: “Why don’t those stupid negros vote the way I want them to?”
The Republican party , the party of Lincoln who set the slaves free. The Republican party, the party that rammed the 64 Civil rights bill through Congress despite Democratic opposition…never mind.
Translation: “Nothing changes. For example, I was alive yesterday, and I am alive today. Therefore, I am immortal.”
So which part is delusional Sean? The part about affirmative action being preferential discrimination or the part about black educational achievement?
For the last time, the reason you didn’t get into Yale was because your essay was a death threat to the U.N., it had nothing to do with AA.
LOL Zython,
Each of my statements and questions highlighted in your comment are true, none of yours are.
Each of my statements and questions highlighted in your comment are true, none of yours are.
*Pats AO on the head*
Sure there are, son, sure they are.
Gosh Daddy,
It’s a shame to see your intellect fading. You’re having a bit of a senior moment.
Affirmative Action is racial discrimination.
Blacks do have a poor level of acadamic achievement compared to other Americans.
Republican votes were the key to passing the 64 bill.
As the holidays draw to a close you do realize we’ll have to take you back to the senior home, we’ve already explained why you can’t stay with us, and you know you can’t take care of yourself anymore.
Amused Observer: “Realist perhaps, politically correct not at all but racist?”
No, AO, you are racist.You could not be more racist if you joined the clan and started burning crosses on the White House lawn.
It is as simple as that.
“As a Canadian just which dog in the fight is yours anyway?”
The competent one. I want the United States run by a competent leader, as should you.
People tend to vote (god forbid) out of self-interest. This is a feature, not a bug, of democracy. There is simply no reason for blacks ca. 2008/2009 to vote Republican, the party of the “magic negro” song (and more laughably, the party that _keeps defending_ the stupid song), the party of wink-nod racist Rush Limbaugh, the party that actively slurred Barack Obama throughout his campaign.
But please, Republicans, you _should_ want more of the black vote, since frankly the only demographic block that votes Republican these days (although less and less so) is older white males. So please, let the reach-out begin.
Here’s a hint — telling people Lincoln was a Republican won’t work, since The Southern Strategy effectively flipped things around in the 1960’s. But please, continue to lecture people about history instead of actually increasing the strength of your failed, dying party.
“Affirmative Action is racial discrimination.”
Did you know that if you send in two identical resumes one with a ‘white’ name like John and another with a black name like ‘Jamal’ the white sounding name will get a call back 50% more ofter?
There is systemic racism in the United States (as there is in all nations). Affirmative Action correct for racial discrimination.
“Blacks do have a poor level of acadamic achievement compared to other Americans.”
Stereotype Threat. Look it up. While you are at it, look up the correct spelling of ‘acadamic’.
“Republican votes were the key to passing the 64 bill.”
I think looking at the facts, we see that it is not an issue of party, but region. At the time there were more Democrats from the south, therefore, most of the negative votes came from the Democrats.
If you look at the south, Democrats voted in favor by a higher percentage than Republicans did. This is true also in the north.
Furthermore. The Democrats who opposed the measure left the party and were welcomed by the Republicans. (Look at the voting patterns from post-civil war till now.) They are key to the Southern Strategy, which is something Trent Lott admitted the Republicans have been using.
According to Franky, you would be an agist, AO. Of course, since I’m not even 25, I can take it in stride.
But please, continue to lecture people about history instead of actually increasing the strength of your failed, dying party.
Exactly, Lincoln freeing the slaves occurred over 140 years ago, most of the Republicans who were there are dead.
CS,
Regarding your resume racism, are you sure it is 50%? Not 49% or 51%, how extraordinary it works out to an even 50%. Who would have thought.
As a Canadian you aren’t expected to know anything about our Constitution, let alone the 14th Amendment. Why should you? It’s not like it concerns you or anything. But here in America we think racial discrimination is wrong. Our Constitution provides us with equal protection under the law. Your rules might be different. We get to bear arms too.
I’m not sure what stereotype threat means as you use the phrase, maybe thats a bit of Canadian vernacular I am unfamiliar with. Statistics regarding educational achievement in the USA are readily available.
There are the four major demographic groups in the US, asians, whites, hispanics, and blacks. Thier levels of educational achievment, except for a subset of whites who measure highest are as ranked above, I think. Maybe you can look it up and give us all a report.
Many thanks for the spelling critique. I wonder, do you Canucks use some of the British spellings? I don’t know what the word ofter means. Is that a British spelling? We have a word that is similar but it ends with an n. the word is often, it means frequently.
It is quite possible that grammatical differences exist between our two countries. For example, Affirmative Action correct for racial discrimination. We wouldn’t put it quite that way. We might say Affirmative Action is correct for racial discrimination, or possibly Affirmative Action corrects for racial discrimination. In our country even though the words are quite similar the sentences have different meanings. But perhaps Canada has different grammatical customs, in any event your meaning is unclear down here in the USA.
Jaim,
How curious this concept of self interest. Do you think Blacks might vote for Democrats because Republicans don’t support Affirmative Action and Democrats do? That might explain it. Taken to its logical conclusion that means blacks don’t favor equal protection under the law but do favor racial discrimination. As I said how curious.
“Regarding your resume racism, are you sure it is 50%? Not 49% or 51%, how extraordinary it works out to an even 50%. Who would have thought.”
Wow. That’s all you’ve got? You are so fucking racist that you must defend it when it is presented in a scientific study. Fascinating.
“But here in America we think racial discrimination is wrong.”
That’s ironic since you are so fucking racist.
“I’m not sure what stereotype threat means…”
No surprise there. I guess you didn’t bother to look it up either. Type it into Google followed by the word, ‘wiki’ and read the first result.
The fact remains that the effect of racism is so ingrained on society, that without some measures in place, certain groups are not given the same opportunity to succeed.
“Many thanks for the spelling critique.”
I pointed it out because it was ironic. Not surprised you didn’t catch that.
CS,
You’re a little dense aren’t you. I had a little fun at your expense. I am well aware of the resume racism experiments that have been carried out. I think it highly unlikely that the experiment came out at exactly 50%. In fact I think that the John and Jamal example was made up out of whole cloth, that you remembered reading or hearing about an experiment and filled in the details including the 50% number. Perhaps I’m wrong, your cite will show us.
You try to make points by belittling my spelling mistakes. It is most amusing that you do this when your own work has mistakes. Now that’s ironic isn’t it.
Stereotype threat, again a little fun at your expense. It is quite hard to fit all the components of a sentence even with an implied subject with only two words.
But let us return to stereotype threat. Social psychology is a soft as opposed to a hard science. You can come up with any theory you want and craft an experiment to back up your hypothesis. Claude Steele has “proven” his theory on the basis of only a few experiments with only a few subjects. Very few datapoints and questionable controls. Educational achievement is a cumulative thing, it can be measured and has established metrics. Relative intelligence between various groups of humans is a can of worms you don’t want to open. The results will not be pretty.
Claude Steel and his theories are interesting to consider. He and his twin brother are polar opposites. One brother thinks it is all the fault of the man and blacks are victims. That thier problems are external in nature and won’t be solved unless others change themselves. He creates elaborate theories and experiments to prove that the metrics of countless tests are wrong. The other brother rejects the concept of being a victim and believes blacks should suck it up, that the problems are internal and can be solved by the person himself through focused effort. One brother is the darling of progressive thought, the other a pariah.
You sling the term racist around with great abandon. Perhaps you might define that for me. I reject the concept of relativism. I believe a society or culture based on individual liberty and freedom is superior to one based on servitude.
“The fact remains that the effect of racism is so ingrained on society, that without some measures in place, certain groups are not given the same opportunity to succeed”
Affirmative Action is formalized racial discrimination. It is an odious thing and contrary to our Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment.
Opportunity to succeed is not the same for all people and never will be. This country is the land of opportunity. You make your own choices and with those choices come consequences. Outcomes are always uncertain, but the harder you try the better your chances.
I am assuming that our choice for our president pleases you. Our countries have much in common but there are large differences. Both nations have vast natural resources and come from common stock. Yet the colonies seized liberty from the British and created thier own nation. Canada did not. We have traveled in different directions. Our nation was built upon a different foundation than yours and the results have been quite different. While Canada has been hindered by it’s location in the northern latitudes is it possible that climate alone is the difference? I don’t think so, but perhaps.
By most metrics our nation has been the more successful of the two. But as long as you’re happy, does it really matter? We still have a bit of time left on the world stage, I’m not sure that Canada really matters. Our time will pass, as did Britains. But the longer we stick to our roots that have been so successful, the longer our place in the sun. Perhaps someday Canada may emerge into a world power and we will look up north to our big cousin and think thier political choices important enough to argue about.
You sling the term racist around with great abandon. Perhaps you might define that for me.
Fascinating.
After ducking uncountable challenges to provide this very same definition, you know lay this challenge on CSS?
I bet you also pass off as gifts the fruitcakes you receive from others.
“You’re a little dense aren’t you.”
You’re one to talk. Nothing says intelligence like saying LOL in front of half your posts.
“I had a little fun at your expense.”
No you didn’t. You made yourself sound like a racist ‘tard who is in serious denial.
Perhaps that’s because you are a racist ‘tard who’s in serious denial.
“I am well aware of the resume racism experiments that have been carried out.”
So instead of dealing with the results…
“I think it highly unlikely that the experiment came out at exactly 50%.”
You dismiss them out of hand.
By the way, if you check out the study, they break down the results by name. But you won’t want to do the research, because it doesn’t back up your racist notions.
“You try to make points by belittling my spelling mistakes.”
More proof that you are humor impaired.
“Stereotype threat, again a little fun at your expense.”
Is this your new LOL?
“But let us return to stereotype threat. Social psychology is a soft as opposed to a hard science. You can come up with any theory you want and craft an experiment to back up your hypothesis. Claude Steele has ‘proven’ his theory on the basis of only a few experiments with only a few subjects.”
Wrong. You are simply wrong here.
“You sling the term racist around with great abandon. Perhaps you might define that for me. I reject the concept of relativism. I believe a society or culture based on individual liberty and freedom is superior to one based on servitude.”
No, you don’t believe in liberty and freedom. You think of black people when you think of welfare and vice versa. That much is clear from your writings.
The headline in the WaPo is just a reminder that Mr. Blackety-black was appointed by the gov to try to make nice with Mr. Blackety-black president.
The fact that they’re both black has nooooothing at all to do with the headline!
CS,
You must be mighty short since everything goes over your head. You don’t understand what the welfare state is do you? It’s not all about some poor folks living off the dole, it’s about the state taking care of you from cradle to grave. About the state making your decisions for you and protecting you from yourself. Creating jobs that accomplish very little but suck up tax money from the people in the private sector that actually create the economy. The welfare state is socialism. I don’t think primarily of black people, I think of England, Sweden, and Europe.
Countries where people don’t work very hard because there are no incentives to work, a government that gives them everything and takes care of all of thier needs also has to take everything in the form of taxes. Where companies won’t hire people because the government won’t allow companies to lay them off when they need to.
Europe just doesn’t really matter any more. We protected them from the Russians so long during the cold war that they have lost the will to even defend themselves. Thier socialism costs so much and thier workers are so unproductive that they can’t compete on the economic front any better than they can project military force. Asia is going to eat them up. Maybe us too, but we’ll have a chance to learn by watching Europe fail. Europe is about a generation ahead of us down the road to ruin. Black people aren’t our big problem, liberals are.
The so called progressive movement wants nothing more than to emulate the socialism of Europe. What they fail to grasp is this country was founded as the antithesis of Europe. We were created upon the foundation of individual freedom and liberty. The government is to be our servant, we are not minions of the government. The government doesn’t give us our rights, we possess those rights independently of the government.
Europe just doesn’t really matter any more. We protected them from the Russians so long during the cold war that they have lost the will to even defend themselves. Thier socialism costs so much and thier workers are so unproductive that they can’t compete on the economic front any better than they can project military force. Asia is going to eat them up. Maybe us too, but we’ll have a chance to learn by watching Europe fail. Europe is about a generation ahead of us down the road to ruin
Which explains exactly why Europe’s economy is in the shitter, but America’s is just peachy. Oh wait…
The so called progressive movement wants nothing more than to emulate the socialism of Europe. What they fail to grasp is this country was founded as the antithesis of Europe. We were created upon the foundation of individual freedom and liberty. The government is to be our servant, we are not minions of the government. The government doesn’t give us our rights, we possess those rights independently of the government.
Conservatives don’t believe that. If they did, they wouldn’t support Sherrif Joe, America’s own military junta.
I’ve always found the ultra-con’s insisting of abolishing the government fascinating, as they would be dead within a week without it. AO, why do you hate America so much?
Zython,
I’m quite unclear as to what you are specifically thinking about in your abolished government one week conservative survival theory. Of the people around me, if you were to divide them by political belief and catalogue thier skillsets and ability to function in an environment without government I’d put my money on the center right doing better than the center left.
Pruning the government back to a size and form similar to 100 years ago is by no means the same as abolishing it.
Your question of hating America is quite farfetched and shows a decided lack of critical thought.
Perhaps you can expand on your governmentless scenario and explain why rural America would last only a week. I am assuming you think that urban America would do better under those circumstances.
Your example of conservatives, the Constitution, a hard ass sherriff, and a military led government might make a good soundbite to your uneducated fellow travelers. As an example of rational thinking or deductive reasoning it is hardly a credit your own understanding of history and the world around you.
I’m quite unclear as to what you are specifically thinking about in your abolished government one week conservative survival theory.
No government means no cops, no fire department, no reason for hospitals to treat people who can’t afford to pay in the E.R. room, price fixings, child labor, slave labor…need I go on? Probably, but screw that.
Of the people around me, if you were to divide them by political belief and catalogue thier skillsets and ability to function in an environment without government I’d put my money on the center right doing better than the center left.
Translation: “I don’t get out much.”
Pruning the government back to a size and form similar to 100 years ago is by no means the same as abolishing it.
So you want Standard Oil running the country again?
Your question of hating America is quite farfetched and shows a decided lack of critical thought.
Interesting, that’s not what you said in 2002.
Perhaps you can expand on your governmentless scenario and explain why rural America would last only a week. I am assuming you think that urban America would do better under those circumstances.
Translation: “Urban Americans aren’t ‘real’ Americans.”
a hard ass sherriff
Please, “hard ass” doesn’t BEGIN to describe Sheriff Joe. Try starting with “murderous”.
As an example of rational thinking or deductive reasoning it is hardly a credit your own understanding of history and the world around you
Hey, I’m not the one who’s afraid of teh negroz takin’ mah jerb.
“You must be mighty short since everything goes over your head.”
Two points…
1.) Stick with LOL. You can’t handle wit that is longer than three letters.
2.) It is nice to see you are not just bigoted against black people, but everyone who isn’t American. But as Zython pointed out, you don’t think African-Americans are real Americans.
In short, you are so fucking racist, nothing you say matters.
“Perhaps you can expand on your governmentless scenario and explain why rural America would last only a week”
How’s this for a start…
Without Government Welfare, every corn farmer in Iowa goes bankrupt, IMMEDIATELY. No corn. No cattle. Rural American is fucked.
Then again…
No Corn. NO FOOD.
The entire country is fucked.
Of course, when you think of Welfare, you don’t think of Rural farmers on subsidies, you think of Blacks living in inner cities.
You think this way, because you are fucking racist.
You couldn’t be more racist, unless you put on a hood and started burning crosses on the White House lawn.
Zython,
Rural vs Urban has the same connotation as red vs blue. It may have escaped you but look on those funny colored maps of the country that show conservative and liberal stongholds. Big cities tend towards the color blue and rural areas red.
In your end of the world anarchy scenario methinks rural America will look like a picnic compared to a big city. I hardly think it worthwhile to argue the finer points of a scifi story, if you think city life is a better school for survival it must be true. After all it’s your script, why shouldn’t it be true? You’re writing the story, have it turn out the way that makes you feel best about yourself.
CS,
I didn’t realize that you have studied the minutia of American agricultural policy too. You get around.
With any luck the farmers will already have planted the corn and can feed the cattle. After they go broke we can have a bunch of bbq’s after they liquidate the herds.
If things get really bad we’ll walk north across the border and loot and pillage Canada till things get better. There are lots more of us than you and there are probably more guns in private hands in the US than in your entire military arsenal. If things get a little hairy we’ll have Sarah Palin attack from the north. Basically you’re helpless, facing lots more people who have you outgunned. So you’re right, the whole country will be fucked, it’s just that the country will be Canada.
All of this makes just about as much sense as your postings, the big difference is I firmly have my tongue in my cheek and you are a raving lunatic.
But fear not, you live is a semisocialistic country and I hear you have a great medical system that is cheap or free or something wonderful. Undoubtedly they have excellent mental health facilities and you can get some great values in counciling to get you past your pathological feelings towards American conservatism and me personally. If that doesn’t work go ahead and post your address and I’ll come up and burn a cross in your front yard so you can justify your feelings of persecution. No need to thank me, just doing my part.
“With any luck the farmers will already have planted the corn and can feed the cattle.”
Clearly you are fucking stupid. The second they can’t get government subsidies, the value of the farm drops to nearly zero.
Assets plummet below the debt. They go bankrupt.
No farm. No income. They can’t even eat their corn that they are growing, because the corn they grow isn’t food, it’s an industrial product.
And without the government to help pay the way, the corn can’t get to the cattle, so the cattle starves. Hell, without the government, the beef can’t get to market. So you starve.
“After they go broke we can have a bunch of bbq’s after they liquidate the herds.”
And that would be the last time you would eat beef.
The American food industry, and it is an industry, is 100% dependent on the government.
“All of this makes just about as much sense as your postings, the big difference is I firmly have my tongue in my cheek and you are a raving lunatic.”
No, the big difference is that I’m smart, and you are a fucking retard.
The simple fact remains… It costs more to grow corn, than farmers can sell it for. And without corn, most of what Americans eat ceases to exist. Corn is used to feed nearly all cattle, it is used to sweeten nearly all processed food, which is nearly all foods Americans eat.
You hate the government, because you think the government spends too much money helping liberals and black people. However, if you look at Federal Spending per Tax Dollar, you find out that 8 of the biggest ‘Welfare Queen’ states are red states. As are 15 of the top 20.
“But fear not, you live is a semisocialistic country and I hear you have a great medical system that is cheap or free or something wonderful.”
Not only does Canada have a better health care system as judged by nearly every objective measure, it also costs less.
It’s amazing that the United States is the only industrialized nation to not have socialized heath care, despite the fact that it costs less and performs better.
And people like you are actually proud of that.
Simply amazing.
In your end of the world anarchy scenario methinks rural America will look like a picnic compared to a big city. I hardly think it worthwhile to argue the finer points of a scifi story, if you think city life is a better school for survival it must be true. After all it’s your script, why shouldn’t it be true? You’re writing the story, have it turn out the way that makes you feel best about yourself.
You want a story about rural America? Go watch Deliverance.
Yes Cs,
You are clearly smart. It must be difficult for Canadian farmers to compete in a global marketplace with American farmers who are 100% subsidized by the government.
I understand Canada has a liberal immigration policy. Maybe we can solve our healthcare problems by sending our sick people to Canada. That would certainly make it less expensive for us. Since the healthcare is better in Canada it would be better for the sick people too. Sounds like a win win situation.
What is the key to being a foriegner and being able to live in Canada and get real good inexpensive health care? Do you have to claim you are being persecuted? Does it help if we speak another language? Can we sneak across the border and then apply for assistance? Would we actually have to get jobs or can we just get free money to live on while we are being treated inexpensively at the hospital with really really good health care?
I understand you have something called a Human Rights Council. It is supposed to be a good source of spending money if we can find someone to complain about that was saying mean things about us and hurt our feelings.
Zython,
Which part do you indentify with more, the kid with the birth defects and the banjo or when Ned Beatty makes a new friend?
What’s amusing to observe is how AO hijacks every thread to whine about Affirmative Action. As a fellow 50-something white guy, he may have had similar experiences to mine. Maybe not.
I grew up in Jacksonville, FL. Born in 1954. Not one member of the FL legislature was black. Not one Jax city councilman or county commissioner, either. There were no blacks in city or county jobs except garbagemen and groundskeepers. Blacks weren’t working in stores or restaurants except in menial positions. Blacks weren’t managers in ANY company that wasn’t black-owned, and there were damn few of them, mostly funeral parlors.
When we moved to Daytona Beach in 1967, population 80,000, 20% black, ( three years after “the party of Lincoln passed the Civil Rights Act”, haha), there were NO black firefighters or police officers. It was only in the mid-1970s, when AA came along, that we got our first black firemen. But AO would have us believe that the reason was a lack of qualified applicants! To be a fucking FIREMAN in 1972!
AO, if you’re so discriminated against, I guess you’ll just have to work EXTRA HARD so that your qualifications can’t be ignored, huh? Kinda like blacks used to have to do back in the day, right?
Oh, wait, before AA, many blacks couldn’t get ahead whether they were equally qualified or not, no matter how hard they tried. No black cops. No black firefighters. No black administrators. No black managers. No black professors, except in HBCs. Don’t even get me started on where blacks could and couldn’t buy a house. IF they could get a mortgage.
Now, as I said, if you’re not an old codger from the South, you may have a different take on history. I see AA as necessary, even though theoretically I’m supposed to be on the losing end of the deal. Can’t think of one single time it’s ever hurt me personally, though.
Brucie,
I bring up AA because it is the Achilles Heel of Liberal thinking. Legalized racial discrimination, you might think it is a necessary evil to violate the Constitution, and that the end justifies the means. But if one part can be disregarded so can another. You liberals love to go on and on about how Constitutional rights are being trampled by evil Republicans and yet you champion a blatant violation.
If we disregard one provision why not violate another? What is the point in even having a Constitution, why bother about the rule of law at all when instead who ever is in power at the moment can do what ever they want?
My experiences were completely different from yours, I grew up as far away from Florida as you can get. If you guys treated the blacks around there unfairly that’s your cross to bear, don’t ruin my Constitution because of your guilty conscience. If you apply the Constitution to a situation you can fix it, if you erode the Constititon you are at the mercy of whoever is in political power at the moment.
The Constitution, of course, being a very rigid, clear document with no room for interpretation and with no room for consideration of the past. In AO’s world, if an injustice isn’t dealt with immediately it must be ignored.
Catch the crook today, because tomorrow will be too late.
“Congress shall have the power to enforce, through appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
That phrase is in both the 14th and 15th Amendments, AO. And Congress has chosen to enact affirmative action legislation. You claim that it violates “your” Constitution, but I’m unaware of the Supreme Court declaring that affirmative action, in every instance, is unConstitutional. Am I mistaken?
I’m pretty sure that the SCOTUS has ruled that some affirmative action provisions go too far, and that others are OK. Am I misinformed? Or are you (once again) talking out of your ass about “blatant violation” of the Constitution?
And the “Brucie” thing is cute. Do you imagine that to be some kind of electronic sneer that makes me feel small?
I guess there was no call for any remedial effort to remedy institutional racism in – where, Valdez Fucking Alaska?- in the 1970s and 1980s, but there was in the rest of the country. Where the hell in America did you grow up where racism wasn’t a problem?
Brucie,
Just because the Surpeme Court bends to political whims from time to time does not make affirmative action constitutional. The 14th Amendment is specific in granting us equal protection under the law. Creating legislation that codifies treating one person differently than another because of thier ethnic or racial persuasion can in no way way be construed as equal protection.
This is a direct paste from an online copy of the Constitution.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If you understand and value the concept of the rule of law, AA should disturb you. If the rule of law bothers you and you favor mob rule and the tyranny of the majority then I can see it’s no problem. There is no difference in kind between a law that favors one person because of his race and one that disfavors another because of his race. If one is wrong so is the other.
You can’t remediate past discrimination by formalizing in law new discrimination. All you can do is move on. Equal protection under the law is what makes it illegal to discriminate against blacks because of thier race. If you erode the Constitution to where it does not matter than that protection is gone.
We would all agree that blacks deserve equal protection under the law would we not? But there is a flip side to that, everyone else is worthy of equal protection too. Not someday when policy makers have decided that life outcomes have come into an acceptable balance but right now.
You can’t lower qualifications for blacks or hold them to a different standard or set some things aside for just them and not deny other Americans equal protection.
You may feel guilty because you came from a place that routinely violated the 14th Amendment. Don’t expect me to give up my rights or anything else for that matter, so you can feel better about yourself because of the sins of your father. I didn’t do it, it’s not my fault, I don’t feel a bit guilty. Don’t wreck my country because you feel bad about yourself or what your daddy did.
Just because the Surpeme Court bends to political whims from time to time does not make affirmative action constitutional.
In the real world this is called “the Supreme Court”. The 3rd branch of gov’t interprets the constitution as it sees it. This inherently involves ideology – whether its the liberal Warren court or the conservative Rehnquist-Roberts court. Most of us learned that in high school or middle school.
Amused 0: Just because the Surpeme Court bends to political whims from time to time does not make affirmative action constitutional.
Amusie -
So are you now saying that the Supreme Court does not have final say on what is and is not constitutional. You do?
And I ask you again, AO, as I have in many another thread:
Exactly when did you and your ilk suddenly become outraged over discrimination? Was it just fine when only whites had good civil service jobs, only whites got into state-supported universities, only whites could buy a house in a suburb? Why did it suddenly become a matter of huge national import only when it was “reverse discrimination?” Up until then, wasn’t “State’s Rights” your battle cry?
Seems to me conservatives only started wailing about unConstitutionality when THEIR toes were stepped on. Up until then, whites-omly country clubs, white-only schools, and good-ol’-boy job networking was jim fucking dandy.
Just because the Surpeme Court bends to political whims from time to time does not make affirmative action constitutional.
Oh dear. Is AO off on his “I can overrule the Supreme Court” rant again? AO, the Supremes get to decide what is or isn’t Constitutional. Since you were such an outstanding student in high school civics, you might recall this.
I’m not outraged about discrimination, I’m disturbed at the erosion and destruction of the rule of law and our Constitution. I’m amused by the hypocrisy of liberals who fail to understand what that means. That means you Sean, Oliver, and Bruce.
The alternative is the tyranny of the majority. I ask you collectively and not as a rhetorical question Do you understand what that means?
Oliver your posting is most disturbing. You clearly don’t know what the rule of law means. Your basic middle school civics classes have not taught you what makes this country unique in the history of the world. More’s the pity.
“In the real world this is called “the Supreme Court”. The 3rd branch of gov’t interprets the constitution as it sees it.”
You clearly don’t understand the ramifications of your statement. We don’t change the meaning of the Constitution by interpretation to fit a changing ideology, not legally anyhow. We amend it through the process proscribed within the Constitution which is deliberatly designed to be difficult to provide a buffer between the Supreme law of the land and the momentary whims of a temporary majority.
Do you really want the foundation of black civil liberties to depend on the changing idealogy of the Supreme Court? I would think that you would choose to be protected by the rule of law rather than the whims of a temperary majority.
We mostly shout past each other here, I understand that and I am guilty of the guilty pleasure of deliberately tweaking liberal pretensions and hypocrisy.
There is far to little serious discussion here, perhaps because this is Oliver’s sounding board. Intelligent discussion is not the objective or he wouldn’t preface his posting the way that he does. Gotcha propaganda is his dayjob.
Bruce this may be hard for you to understand but your points all support rather than diminish the case for the importance of the 14th amendment and the equal protection of the law that it provides for all Americans. Eroding the 14th amendment on a temporary basis does not safeguard black civil liberties it places them at risk.
You failed to address a single point I made after the quote from the Constitution. Not a single point, instead you bluster about, all sound and fury but you won’t address the issue at all with a reasoned reply.
There is far to little serious discussion here, perhaps because this is Oliver’s sounding board.
And yet you return, day after day, to LOL at us. Blogs are free, man. Start your own if this one doesn’t suit you.
We don’t change the meaning of the Constitution by interpretation to fit a changing ideology, not legally anyhow.
And yet it happens. On one day, restrictions on abortion are constitutional and on the next day they’re not. What happens in between? The Supreme Court interprets the meaning of the Constitution because they must–the framers neglected to provide direct guidance on abortion restrictions. Likewise with laws regarding voting rights, firearms, property rights, prayer in schools, and a whole long list of other matters.
The world is not as it was in 1789. We can either interpret the meaning of the Constitution as best we can or scrap it and start over. An insistance on observing the letter of the Constitution only just isn’t an option.
Amused 0: I’m not outraged about discrimination…
Yeah. We kinda figured that out LONG ago.
Amused 0: Do you really want the foundation of black civil liberties to depend on the changing idealogy of the Supreme Court?
Do you really want civil liberties to be based on the ideology of the court that decided Dred Scott?
Quaker,
A reasoned reply, refreshing. The Constitution does not address all issues nor is it designed to. It provides a framework that defines some of our rights and restricts the powers of the government.
Abortion is not a constitutional issue. The reasoning behind the ruling is made up of whole cloth. Voting rights in general are covered by the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 24th, and the 26th. Beyond the limitations and qualifications in those amendments it is a matter for the states to administer.
Firearms are covered by the 2nd amendment and only one unaquainted with The Federalist Papers and other writings of our founders would think the preamble to the 2nd amendment leaves room to diminish the right of the people to bear arms.
Etc. Etc. Etc. If you want to change the Constition you amend it, not redefine the words with which it was written.
People like you wish to “interpret” the Constitution to achieve ends that you can not achieve by ballot or legislation. That kind of thinking is a cancer upon the body politic. You would trade away our birthright for a short term solution to a momentary problem. You do so not out of malice but ignorance. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Quakerism takes a certain kind of courage to stand by your beliefs and convictions in the face of popular opposition. At times in our history the Quakers beliefs acted as a beacon of conscience for our national charactor. But that being said, Quakers have never been willing to pay the price for our freedom and liberty that must be paid from time to time. They have rode for free at the expense of others. Not out of cowardice perhaps but just as useless in times of conflict. A Quakers opinions on matters of national defense or military matters is by the nature of thier beliefs to be for the most part disregarded.
Quakers have never been willing to pay the price for our freedom and liberty that must be paid from time to time. They have rode for free at the expense of others.
You keep introducing your religious bigotry as if it had relevance. It does not.
Abortion is not a constitutional issue.
It certainly is. There are volumes of case law on the subject and the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the issue many times. The rights of individuals or married couples to be free of state interference in private decisions is inherently a Constitutional matter.
“Because I say so” is not germane. The Supreme Court accepted the case, heard arguments, and rendered a judgment. That makes it a Constitutional issue.
only one unaquainted with The Federalist Papers and other writings of our founders would think the preamble to the 2nd amendment leaves room to diminish the right of the people to bear arms.
Any arms? In all places? I can tote a rocket launcher into a shopping mall? The state has no compelling interest to keep me from lugging a flamethrower into a kindergarten?
You’d like the Constitution to be absolute. It simply isn’t.
AMused 0: A Quakers opinions on matters of national defense or military matters is by the nature of thier beliefs to be for the most part disregarded.
Translation: Since your beliefs differ from mine, yours are to be disregarded.
Translation 2: Those who don’t think the only suitable policy is “Attack! Attack!” should be disregarded.
“You are clearly smart. It must be difficult for Canadian farmers to compete in a global marketplace with American farmers who are 100% subsidized by the government.”
Two points…
1.) I never said 100%, but then again, you are not adverse to lying, are you?
2.) The Canadian government also subsidizes our agriculture industry.
“I understand Canada has a liberal immigration policy.”
No, AO, you understand nothing. That is why you are a Republican.
“I bring up AA because it is the Achilles Heel of Liberal thinking.”
No, AO, you bring up AA because you are racist. You hate black people and think they are inferior. The racism they face every day is justified in your mind, so anything that fights against it must be wrong.
This is a fact that is clear from your writings here.
OK, I know I’m going to get my head handed to me for this but…
CSS: The American food industry, and it is an industry, is 100% dependent on the government.
Amused 0: It must be difficult for Canadian farmers to compete in a global marketplace with American farmers who are 100% subsidized by the government.
CSS: 1.) I never said 100%…
I can see where a distinction between “the food industry” and “farmers” when talking about the food they raise would be difficult to see.
“Abortion is not a constitutional issue. The reasoning behind the ruling is made up of whole cloth.”
Actually, the right to privacy is ingrained in the constitution. Or do you think it is okay to compile lists of people who own guns, what guns they own, when they bought them, when they buy ammo? This way the government could check this list for anomalies and use this as ‘probable cause’ to search anyone they see fit.
A better question is, why am I talking to you like you can understand me. You are clearly stupid. It is as clear that you are stupid as it is clear that you are racist. Then again, those traits go hand-in-hand.
CS,
Perhaps I made a mistake confusing 100% dependant with 100% subsidized.
So Canada doesn’t have a liberal immigration policy?
How much does someone have to pull your leg before you get a clue. You really think the Idea of Americans crossing the border and pillaging Canada after first getting pysched up at a series of bbqs feasting on the remnents of America’s beef herds is a serious proposition? You are quite gullible.
Quaker,
You haven’t studied up much on the Constitution, thats for sure.
” the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the issue many times.” How many times was that Quaker? Many times Quaker? cites?
Pointing out Quaker pacifism isn’t an example of bigotry. Serious Quakers won’t fight in the military, some will do medical work etc. as CO’s.
Discussing military affairs with a pacifist makes as much sense as discussing bbq recipees with a vegatarian.
Amused 0: Discussing military affairs with a pacifist makes as much sense as discussing bbq recipees with a vegatarian.
Actually, it makes far more sense. A vegetarian won’t partake of the BBQ and isn’t affected by your choice to do so. Pacifists, like everyone else in a society, are affected by decisions on whether that society should go to war. The vegetarian has no basis for having an opinion on which spices make the best rub to bring out the flavors of pork. But anyone can have an informed opinion on whether we should go to war or not.
What you’re saying is that anyone who doesn’t already agree with your foregone conclusions should not be consulted in actions that will directly affect them.
Amused 0: ” the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the issue many times.” How many times was that Quaker? Many times Quaker? cites?
Well, Roe v Wade comes to mind. As does the 2007 decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003 (Gonzales v. Carhart).
Decisions involving abortion include,
Doe v Bolton
Bigelow v Virginia
Connecticut v. Menillo
Singleton v. Wulff
Planned Parenthood Association of Central Missouri v. Danforth
Beal v. Doe
Maher v. Roe
Poelker v. Doe
Colautti v. Franklin
In just the past few years in addition to Gonzales there have been
Scheidler v. NOW, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood and Schiedler v. NOW II.
So, Amusie, just what was your point?
Here is AO’s real point:
“I am an ignorant racist half-educated rube with a large vocabulary, some of which I can spell correctly. Despite all evidence to the contrary, if I keep insisting long enough and loud enough that I’m an expert on the Constitution, some of the people here (who I don’t like and who don’t like me) will believe it to be true. And my bigotry isn’t confined to matters of race; I also despise prople whose religion is not my own. Oh, and Canadians, too. But I will insist publicly that I am not a bigot at all.”
“Perhaps I made a mistake confusing 100% dependant with 100% subsidized.”
And that’s a huge difference. Without subsidies, there is no corn crop. Without corn, there is no food industry.
Seriously. Most of the food you eat is dependent on corn. Either as starch, sweetener, or food. Watch a movie called King of Corn for more info. It is quite fascinating.
“So Canada doesn’t have a liberal immigration policy?”
Compared to what?
“How much does someone have to pull your leg before you get a clue.”
Two points…
1.) I’m trying to ignore your lame attempts at humor and stick to your actual point.
2.) This is hard because you seem to only have lame attempts at humor left.
Speaking of an actual point…
The fact remains, rural areas are more dependent on the Government than Urban areas. Look up federal spending per tax dollar and you will see is is the rural states that take and the urban states that give.
Rural areas wouldn’t have electricity, phone lines, etc. if it wasn’t for the government.
“Oh, and Canadians, too.”
I never understood bigotry against Canada. We are far too small and far too polite a nation for any otherwise sane individual to hate.
And if it wasn’t for Canada, your socially inept high schoolers would have no pretend girlfriends.
Pointing out Quaker pacifism isn’t an example of bigotry.
I see. You were just “pointing out” something when you wrote:
Quakers have never been willing to pay the price for our freedom and liberty that must be paid from time to time. They have rode for free at the expense of others.
Keep it up for a while, AO. You may yet bait me into improving your education.