Tea Party isn't racist, no indeed... by Niki2

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Now if we had education REFORM, and actually prepared people for a life after school, and had a worthwhile system to draw these kids into, so they actually think they're doing something USEFUL, and parenting and education in general hadn't gone to shit with grown up children too afraid to do for themselves, then we wouldn't have government all happy to step in as surrogate parents, would we? But no, this doesn't happen, because then people would be harder to control."

AMEN

But then again, when youve got people willing to actually clean sh*t up... you've got those who want things to stay the same way.

Look at what happened with Michelle A. Rhee..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009
061803844.html

btw... she fired most of these teachers for PROVEN "physical, and sexual abuse".

Aint the hood grand?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:11 AM

So you're saying the problem is a breakdown in marriage relations.

But I'm saying the problem is that the breakdown in marriage relations is the RESULT of poverty.

Hmn... I'd have to look into the planned parenthood stuff you're saying. You'd know better than I would, but that just seems counter to the laws and bills I see getting passed. There's definitely an interest out there trying to prevent girls (especially poor girls) from actually GETTING all that stuff, and clearly, if illegitimacy is a problem, then what birth-control the girls are being offered isn't working.

There must be a reason. All humans of all races have sex, but poor populations have more children. If you say that they have education and resources, then OBVIOUSLY something is going on if they're still having so many children that it's making them poor. The line is disrupted somewhere, and the most LIKELY place the line is disrupted is with access.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:22 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"So you're saying the problem is a breakdown in marriage relations.

But I'm saying the problem is that the breakdown in marriage relations is the RESULT of poverty.

Hmn... I'd have to look into the planned parenthood stuff you're saying. You'd know better than I would, but that just seems counter to the laws and bills I see getting passed. There's definitely an interest out there trying to prevent girls (especially poor girls) from actually GETTING all that stuff, and clearly, if illegitimacy is a problem, then what birth-control the girls are being offered isn't working.

There must be a reason. All humans of all races have sex, but poor populations have more children. If you say that they have education and resources, then OBVIOUSLY something is going on if they're still having so many children that it's making them poor. The line is disrupted somewhere, and the most LIKELY place the line is disrupted is with access."

No, you misunderstand things, but get some things right. So B+. :)

1. "So you're saying the problem is a breakdown in marriage relations."

- No. Thats just part of the problem. And the whole marriage thing is nothing more than responsibility. Being married, you tie your life to someone else, and agree to BOTH raise the offspring from that. Its responsibility, and the lack therof, thats the problem. Look at the marriage rates among black folks. A common theme is that marriage is a "white" thing.

2. Black girls are raised with the idea that having children is a point of pride. Like having a BMW. Sort of like how hispanic men view themselves as "gifting" a woman with a child.

(Before folks freak, look it up. I know what I'm talking about)

3. "There's definitely an interest out there trying to prevent girls (especially poor girls) from actually GETTING all that stuff, and clearly, if illegitimacy is a problem, then what birth-control the girls are being offered isn't working."

There is an interest in preventing pregnancy. Yes. However, its an effort to keep the population under control. But, as per the above, culture tends to trump it.

WHICH, btw, also explains the high rate of A.I.D.S.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:23 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Wulf,

Now that you have conceded that you are talking about poverty, and not any specific ethnicity, I have to ask you, what exactly do you advocate?

The Liberals that you identify as the negative powers are the same ones bending over backwards to give poor people access to food, jobs, housing, education, and health care.

How will ending this program to provide the essentials of life help the poor people of the world to escape their poverty?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Anthony, I havn't conceded anything. Just that I'm not prepared to blame everything on the struggle of rich vs poor.

"How will ending this program to provide the essentials of life help the poor people of the world to escape their poverty?"

Essentials of life? Like what? Food, shelter and water?

Ok.

THe "poor" are not incabable of obtaining these things. Just unmotivated. Believe me, if you don't have these things... you will work to get them.

Unless.

They are given to you already.

Not to quote the Bible (cus that offends some) but..

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day... but teach him to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.

And hunger is a damn good teacher.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:45 AM

But Wulf, we just agreed that all people who live in poverty tend to have lots of children.

Could it be that it's not so much a "culture of (race)" but rather a culture of POVERTY? White people have lots of kids when they're poor also!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"It can be argued that these things are leveled at ALL considered "undesirable"."

Hello Wulf,

The only thing the groups you speak of have in common is that they are all poor. Even poor white anglo-saxons are affected by everything you have mentioned. If this is not the singular common factor, then what is?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:51 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Coming back after an absence, and was in the process of finding the following when the damned computer crashed. So it took a while.

Back to the original question of whether the Tea Party is racist or not. Here are some things out of their own mouths, to prove my point:

Dale Robertson, a self-proclaimed Tea Party leader: http://gawker.com/5544615/is-the-tea-partys-most-famous-racist-now-a-w
ashington-times-writer

Chip Saltsman: http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/2/0/rnc_candidate_distributes_con
troversial_obama_song/

The national coordinator of the American Tea Party movement Amy Kremer, standing behind David McKalip (the guy behind the racist e-mail photo of Obama as a witch doctor: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/tea_party_leader_to_
mckalip_we_all_have_your_back.php

Remarks at West Virginia Tea Party:

Tea Partiers at March protest: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34790.html

Given the Tea Party is largely made up of Republicans, and advances most of their “talking points”, here are some examples of Republican racism:

Senate Repblican Minority Leader

Ex-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/

Mitch McConnel: http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/01/republican-minority-leader-mi
tch.html
Audra Shay, vice chairman of the Young Republicans: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-06/new-gop-raci
st-headache/

RNC candidate Chip Saltsman: http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/2/0/rnc_candidate_distributes_con
troversial_obama_song/

Tom Tancredo, the one time GOP Congressman, presidential candidate: http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/02/05/tea-party-convention-kicks-o
ff-with-racist-rant/

GOP governor hopeful Carl Paladino: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/04/13/2010-04-13_racism_porn_are_
just_a_guy_thing_says_gov_hopeful.html

Conrad Burns, Montana Senator (R): http://www.gophypocrites.com/2006/08/hyp06034.html

GOP Senator George Allen: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/17/is-sen-george-allen-a-racist/

Florida Republican congressional candidate Tram Hudson: http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/08/tramm_in_troubl.html

Others:
http://raimd.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/raim-crashes-racist-tea-party/
Rush Limbaugh: http://newsone.com/obama/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quo
tes/
Pat Robertson: http://theweek.com/article/index/105102/Pat_Robertsons_ha...
How about the Mormons (hugely Republican in proportion): http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Racial_statements
_by_Church_leaders

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:54 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Wulf,

I hope to resume our dialogue soon. I hope to learn what you think these disadvantaged, disenfranchised people have in common, other than their poverty. Then we can discuss in earnest all the ancillary connections of the Liberal plot against them, and how removing their government support structure will rehabilitate them into prosperity.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:08 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

For example: You may believe in the right to bear arms, and the right to choose an abortion. For some, this is contradictory, because they have been taught, and are enforcing the belief that, if you are for one thing, you must believe all the other things that those in a specific box believe.

I need read no further to throw all Wulf's bullshit aside. This is EXACTLY what he has done to "all libs/progs", and all he EVER does in any of his arguments. Nowhere in any of this bullshit he's spewing does he "prove" that I'm a racist, as he's claimed. In order to do so, he'd have to first show where I approved of, supported, or took part in any of those programs he claims ARE racist.

Wulf likes to propound upon the Reaganistic idea of "the soft bigotry of lowered expectations", but what does he offer? What did Reagan ever offer? Rather than a hand-out or a hand up, what are they offering, other than a handshake and a "Good luck - let us know how it works out!" attitude and platitude? I've proposed and supported - for years, literally - what I call "WorkFare": You'll get your welfare and/or unemployment check, and you'll WORK for it. If nothing else, you'll be picking up garbage on the side of the road, or separating recycling at the recycling facility, and you'll do it for 20 hours a week. This gives you time to go look for something better if this kind of work doesn't suit you, and it gives you enough investment in the actual WORK to feel you've earned something.

What does Wulfie offer in return? "Here's your big cup of shut the fuck up; now get out of my sight!" That's his general attitude towards anyone who's homeless, hungry, jobless, or downtrodden. I'm not saying you give them hand-outs; I'm saying you give them a hand. Your "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crap is useless to someone with no bootstraps and no boots.

As I've noted, I consider the least of my brethren to be people, real, live, living, breathing people, even on their worst day, and even on my worst day. Wulfie considers them "animals", "savages", "monkeys", and "pets". And that's only the things he's COMFORTABLE calling them here in this forum. Who knows what he calls them when he's among his friends.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh don't even get me started on the fiasco that was Baltimores "work-fare" program...

They dragged that poor lady into this, and lemme break that shit down for you, ok ?

Now, mind you, this is from the same bullshit bag of tricks as requiring a "training" class to use a freakin WIC card, and then making sure it's scheduled during a weekday holiday, sixty miles away and fifteen from ANY bus route whatever - that shit had nothing to do with training (the "class" was 10 minutes and an information sheet passed out that they coulda just mailed), and everything to do with trying like hell to make it logistically impossible for them to keep up with the hoops they're forced to jump through, just like how they schedule mandatory appointments within a half hour of each other, thirty miles apart.

Ok, so, they get the notice, and the goddamn classes (and I kid not) were scheduled from 9pm-11pm, rather conveniently stranding them an hour after any bus service shut down, and it was 3 miles from the bus route, I know cause it was across the street from the so-called health care provider, Total Health Care, a gov-subsidized for-profit HMO with a laundry list of violations I won't go into, but good *LUCK* if your kid got sick, cause you hadda catch a bus, hump it 3 miles on top of that with kid in tow, and then wait an average of six hours, *IF* they saw you at all, which they usually didn't, too bad, so sad, only so much to go around... meanwhile sockin it away in a cayman island bank prior to jumping ship before the investigators came around, woo hoo.

So, the poor girl actually manages this, despite them not providing any child care or allowance for such, more or less putting them between "abandoning" their child and starting some shit with DPS over improper supervision, or getting cut off...

So she slogs the three miles, gets there, and the supposed training which is in theory supposed to get her an office job (without regard to that whole required wardrobe thing, don't ya know, and no allowance for that neither), is in fact quick-note classes on software so old no one uses it no more, on computers over a decade out of date, run by people who don't even know how to operate them, trying to teach it from the pathetic and near useless instruction manuals and everyone there, especially them, knew this was just string budget bullshit to look good, an excuse for justification to cut the victims off.

And of course, the girl gets out, and can't make it to the bus stop in time cause there's a street gang burning a couch in the goddamn street, and she's not fool enough to make herself a target, and damn LUCKY she found a working payphone and called me collect, even if I did have to crawl to the car since I was in no shape for that kinda thing....

So no, it's bullshit, a setup, and if she got herself killed by the gang, or got dropped cause she couldn't meet impossible, set-up-trap bullshit requirements put there for the exclusive purpose of driving them off, well, she'd be out of the system and one more "success story", neh ?

Fuck that.

And don't *EVEN* get me started on Planned Parenthood and the religious creepies, and the layer on layer of regs that makes it impossible for them to do anything but stand there lookin pretty...

Wulfie knows this shit, he's just lying through his goddamn teeth to you on purpose cause he figures nobody around here has even been down far enough to know different, and that I won't much care enough to call him on it.

Dead wrong, boy, so if you're gonna shovel this shit, get ready to have it shovelled back.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Oh don't even get me started on the fiasco that was Baltimores "work-fare" program..."

Hello,

I'm sure no one here advocates a work-unfair program such as the one you describe. I was aghast.

I don't think that particular reality reflects the hopes of those who propose such systems.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:15 PM

Quote:
And don't *EVEN* get me started on Planned Parenthood and the religious creepies, and the layer on layer of regs that makes it impossible for them to do anything but stand there lookin pretty...

Ah. Well, I still don't know for sure, but this at least is logically consistent with the observed outcome and also the relevant laws I see passed. Access was the only possible kink in the chain I could see, assuming all things being equal.

Which, in a nod to Wulf, I'll admit IS an assumption on my part. Aside from genetic similarity, I have no good logical reason to support this assumption, only the following pathos argument. If no one ever believes in poor inner city kids, then why would they ever believe in themselves? I have to believe everyone, with exception for medical condition, is equally capable in different ways, or else nothing will ever get better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:01 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm sure no one here advocates a work-unfair program such as the one you describe. I was aghast.

Is that so ?

Then how come the folks advocating it politically, when put in charge of organising it, set it up like that on purpose ?

If you think you're aghast now, then make every effort never to deal with the kind of people that work within systems like this, the sheer *malice* of them is shocking even to me - for example, the work-rehab lady on the phone, cussing at me for missing an appointment (cause I collapsed and lost consciousness) accusing me of shamming and faking, and sniping that a little limp is not a disability... mind you, this was while I was laying in a hospital bed semi-delirious and the doc was five minutes from wheeling me downstairs to saw what remained of that leg off before necrosis and infection killed me.

That wasn't even close to the recorded conversation between my lawyer and social services-patapsco over their blatant and intentional violations of COMAR regulations, the fullisade of profanity and hate that was directed at him in return from someone (the supervisor) who seemed to think their job as "scumbag control", i.e. acting as a roadblock to prevent "Those People" from getting anything but shoft shrift - and no, she wasn't fired for this behavior, she was promoted up to the North Broadway main office.

Quote:
I don't think that particular reality reflects the hopes of those who propose such systems.

And I say that it does, that rot spreads from the top down, the folks in charge of those little stumbling blocks and set-ups are VERY well aware of exactly what they're doing, and they are indeed doing it on purpose.

For a time, and I learned this in my own medical care fight, didja know that Social Security was deliberately stalling terminal patients in the hopes they would die before the case went through to save money - and this was known, and encouraged, by the management ?

THAT one got run the fuck over, by me, cause it happened to be in my way (bein considered, yanno, terminal) and cause it just stuck in my craw so bad the pure rage of tearing it to bits on them was one more way to keep goin when I could barely even move or think.

But anyhow, they know what they're suggesting, the same way those asshats in arizona know exactly what THEY are suggesting, weasel words aside they're lookin for legal justificiation to act upon their pet hatreds, most of em.

And it's beyond even stupid, from their perspective, roadblocking and hoop jumpin em till they fall off, to get them off the rolls is good political points...

And then they either die (rarely) or turn to crime by necessity, and eventually get locked up, and then the state is caring for them anyway, isn't it, what a success story, neh ?

And fuckheads like Wulfie think we should just skip to the chase and lock em up from get-go, they just ain't got the balls to come out and SAY it, cause it sounds too much like their unspoken hero's work camps, doesn't it now ?

Speakin of, it's not like that bullshit is exactly an original idea, neither, that particular game comes out of some of the nastier components of the Truck System, aka The Company Store - so having a long family history of hatin them types, and being damn near killed by their stupid system, on purpose and deliberately....

Well that's made me a little hostile to it, and utterly merciless in excoriating it's every dirty little bit of business to the public eye.

-Frem

And again, don't even get me started on religion, federal money going to 'faith-based' shit where you either join their cult and tithe, or you can just piss off... Grrrrr

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:51 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, does anyone care to argue how, and why, the welfare system works?

According to Frem, it never pays enough, but if you get a job, you don't even get that.

So you are left with either staying on welfare or getting a job.

You can get a job working at some fast-food resturaunt. But with the level of edumacation you recieved at the government funded pris... school, you can barely read.

Also, nowadays, if you can't speak Spanish.. you are really sol.

I mean you could always have more children, which will up the amount you recieve, but while doing that... you are still uneducated, poor, and living in conditions that even the Afghans wouldn't put up with.

Now it may be that its more a poor v. rich thing.

Born poor, you will probably stay poor.

But I have to hope for something better. I have to believe in something better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"And fuckheads like Wulfie think we should just skip to the chase and lock em up from get-go, they just ain't got the balls to come out and SAY it, cause it sounds too much like their unspoken hero's work camps, doesn't it now ?"

Nice.

But about as wrong as can be. Frem, your biases are showing.

Lock people up from the get-go? For what?

Unspoken hero's? Whom?

Oh I get your implications, but spell it out. Call a spade a apade (so to speak).

Hell, in my world (yay! I get to hear from Nix and others how Im so crazy I live in my own world but I digress..)

You keep what you earn (income taxes are set at 10% which is 5% to the local and 5% to the federal, no property tax, set sales tax at 2%), you don't NEED a governemnt handout (jobs are created thru less burden on the small business owner, tho more control on corporations), you can protect yourself and your family (hardly any restriction on gunownership and carry... tho felons, mentally ill, need to be disbarred from it), you can afford a home (no longer propping up the housing market, let free markets bring down prices... sorry for the folks who bought more than they could afford... but tough), families are strengthened through the PROMOTIOn of 2 parents (i.e. No more of this independent woman shit, no more of the men are dogs garbage... but this is more of a cultural and societal struggle).... and yeah, states rights, allowing for the people living in the area, to control what happens in THEIR AREA. WITHOUT interference.

Education should be mandated by the states, and if a school is not performing well.. fire the teachers/principals ect. Scorched earth, until it meets up to the code of the state.

Silly me, for wanting people to be strong, safe, free, and educated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"And fuckheads like Wulfie think we should just skip to the chase and lock em up from get-go, they just ain't got the balls to come out and SAY it, cause it sounds too much like their unspoken hero's work camps, doesn't it now ?"

Nice.

But about as wrong as can be. Frem, your biases are showing.

Lock people up from the get-go? For what?

Unspoken hero's? Whom?

Oh I get your implications, but spell it out. Call a spade a spade (so to speak).

Hell, in my world (yay! I get to hear from Nix and others how Im so crazy I live in my own world but I digress..)

You keep what you earn (income taxes are set at 10% which is 5% to the local and 5% to the federal, no property tax, set sales tax at 2%), you don't NEED a governemnt handout (jobs are created thru less burden on the small business owner, tho more control on corporations), you can protect yourself and your family (hardly any restriction on gunownership and carry... tho felons, mentally ill, need to be disbarred from it), you can afford a home (no longer propping up the housing market, let free markets bring down prices... sorry for the folks who bought more than they could afford... but tough), families are strengthened through the PROMOTIOn of 2 parents (i.e. No more of this independent woman shit, no more of the men are dogs garbage... but this is more of a cultural and societal struggle).... and yeah, states rights, allowing for the people living in the area, to control what happens in THEIR AREA. WITHOUT interference.

Education should be mandated by the states, and if a school is not performing well.. fire the teachers/principals ect. Scorched earth, until it meets up to the code of the state.

Silly me, for wanting people to be strong, safe, free, and educated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So, does anyone care to argue how, and why, the welfare system works?

Yes. For starters, around 60 to 65% of every single "welfare" dollar paid out DOES NOT GO TO INNER-CITY POOR PEOPLE. It goes to farmers and corporations. That's right - the vast majority of "welfare" is going to the factory farms and the factories who need it the very least. Nobody EVER wants to discuss that, though, or even bring it up. Nope, let's just dismiss where the majority of the "welfare" dollars go, and concentrate on dogging black folks instead, 'cause that never seems to get old.

In fact, just one industry - Big Oil - got more than $15 BILLION last year alone in "welfare". How many poor inner-city youths did that money go to help?

Quote:

According to Frem, it never pays enough, but if you get a job, you don't even get that.

So you are left with either staying on welfare or getting a job.

So your "solution" is to scrap the system completely, and toss those who receive welfare in any form onto the streets and into the soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Your answer seems to be "We aren't doing enough, so let's stop doing anything at all."

I realize you can't save everyone. Does that mean you try to help NO ONE?

That also seems to be your belief system when it comes to "edumacation", as you so indelicately put it. If you can't educate everyone, fuck it; don't waste your time trying to educate ANYONE.

For the record, *I* went to public school. Would you say I failed to become educated? (Before you answer, note which of the two of us actually knows how to correctly spell "education" and use it in a sentence.)

Quote:

You can get a job working at some fast-food resturaunt. But with the level of edumacation you recieved at the government funded pris... school, you can barely read.

Again, bullshit. YOU can barely read, it would seem, so you want to project your failures onto the entire education system.

And again, I have to ask: What's your alternative? Here's where you get bogged down, as always. You have no solutions. Your "solution" to education seems to be to scrap the entire system, but you've given no thought (or at least voiced none) as to what comes next. Like Rand Paul, you want to do away with the public education system, but offer no alternatives that would help educate the populace. Or do you simply believe that an uneducated population is better for a country than an educated one? If so, your country is already lost, far beyond redemption, and will be taken over by outside forces within your lifetime, and entirely with your consent and cooperation.

I agree that not everybody who goes to public school will rise to the top of their profession, or go on to become a Nobel Prize winning physicist. But to say that justifies doing away with public education is like saying that since not every Little Leaguer can be MVP, we should just stop playing baseball. Yeah, not everybody gets a trophy, but let's go ahead and play the game anyway, just for kicks.

Quote:

Also, nowadays, if you can't speak Spanish.. you are really sol.

How so? I don't speak Spanish, and I'm in a heavily-Hispanic area, in a physical job. Hell, I thought you were rounding up all the illegals and deporting them, or having them killed (you made veiled references to both at different times). Why would I need to speak Spanish?

Quote:

I mean you could always have more children, which will up the amount you recieve, but while doing that... you are still uneducated, poor, and living in conditions that even the Afghans wouldn't put up with.

The only people I've ever encountered in my life who actually believe this happens are people who have never, ever been on any type of public assistance. They also tend to be among the most narrow-minded, closed-minded, stunningly stupid people I've ever met. Nobody on welfare is having babies hoping to get rich quick. That's yet another one of those asinine Reaganite myths that never, ever occurred, but which stupid white people want to believe because it confirms their very worst fears about minorities: that they are lazy, feckless, only interested in screwing and upping their population so they can bleed the White Man dry. It's a level of ignorance that's astonishing, even by your remarkably low standards.

Quote:

Now it may be that its more a poor v. rich thing.

Born poor, you will probably stay poor.

But I thought you were going to "easily" prove how RACIST "all libs/progs" were, not how CLASSIST we are. Are you saying you proved the wrong thing? Or did you get so wrapped up in your bullshit you forgot what your original point was?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

You keep what you earn (income taxes are set at 10% which is 5% to the local and 5% to the federal, no property tax, set sales tax at 2%), you don't NEED a governemnt handout (jobs are created thru less burden on the small business owner, tho more control on corporations)

With that little going to the federal government through taxation, and it being a given that nearly 100% of that low amount will go immediately to the military (the one area where NO right-winger ever wants to cut back)... How will you enact more regulation and control on corporations? Who will oversee them? Will you leave it to the corporations to oversee themselves? We tried that. It's called "Deepwater Horizon"; you should look it up.

Quote:

...you can protect yourself and your family (hardly any restriction on gunownership and carry... tho felons, mentally ill, need to be disbarred from it)...

Can you find me a justification for that stipulation in your vaunted Second Amendment?

Quote:

...you can afford a home (no longer propping up the housing market, let free markets bring down prices... sorry for the folks who bought more than they could afford... but tough)...

Any idea how you're going to pull that off? Will there still be mortgages and home loans, or are only those with cash in hand allowed to own a home? How does a "free market" bring DOWN housing prices? Seems it was pretty damned free a couple years ago, and prices were skyrocketing beyond any semblance of sanity or reason.

Quote:

...families are strengthened through the PROMOTIOn of 2 parents (i.e. No more of this independent woman shit, no more of the men are dogs garbage... but this is more of a cultural and societal struggle)...

So would women be prohibited from being single, or just from having children if single? In WulfieWorld™, do the women have to cover their faces in public, too? Can they leave the house without a male relative to escort them around town?

Quote:

...and yeah, states rights, allowing for the people living in the area, to control what happens in THEIR AREA. WITHOUT interference.

So D.C. could decide that no private ownership of guns would be allowed, right? If I wanted to, I could build an exclusively gay nudist community? I could start an all-black country club, no whites allowed? I could start an all-Muslim paramilitary militia, and you couldn't fuck with me about it?

Quote:
Education should be mandated by the states, and if a school is not performing well.. fire the teachers/principals ect. Scorched earth, until it meets up to the code of the state.

Ooooohh... There's that "mandate" word. I thought you independent libertarian types weren't much for "mandating" anything. Also, if you fire a school, scorched earth and all that... what do you do with the fired students? Are they just shit outta luck? Do they get sent to another school, so that its classrooms are overcrowded, its staff overburdened, and it fails as well?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Kwick,

At least I'm trying to come up with solutions to these problems, instead of just berating others or following some party line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:47 AM

Can we still have women who are independent, if we drop the men are dogs garbage? I'm pretty happy and willing to make that negotiation.

It might be a dangerous precedence to deny any adult human their independence.

I also note that I'm mentally ill, and wouldn't really want a gun, but feel it's wrong to be denied the right to defend myself. I feel the same way for convicts and felons, no matter what they've done. Seeing how "speaking out against the parties/corporations/government" could someday theoretically become a felony.

If in the 1790s John Adams thought that "slanderous writing" could pose a threat to national security, what's to stop a Secretary of State from declaring it terrorism in the modern day? Eliminate that whole troublesome clause about enemy nations and resident citizens of enemy nations and just make it anyone living here in general?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:52 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again,

THIS is why you should never have gov. regulating social issues...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Now it may be that its more a poor v. rich thing.

Born poor, you will probably stay poor."

Hello Wulf,

I'm glad that you have finally conceded that it is more of a rich vs. poor thing. Because I think that's exactly what it is. I don't think the problem is speciic to any race or group of people. There are all-white poverty-stricken families who have been within the realm of poverty for generations. There are African American families who have been poor since the bonds of slavery were thrown off. The same is true of Hispanics, etc. No race has an exclusive claim on poverty and no race has proven to be outside the clutches of poverty. It does tend to be rather difficult to find your way up out of meager circumstances. Worse, even people in the middle-class are frequently a couple of paychecks away from poverty. One bump in the road can cast them down into the lower income brackets. Poverty is a club that is much easier to join than to leave.

I feel we spend much of our tax money on the wrong sorts of things. I think we could halve our military expenditures and still have a military on par with the best in the world. We will never be the most militarily voluminous power anyway. That prize goes to China. Our strength is exclusively in our quality of fighting force, and I think that a much smaller force that maintains or improves our quality of equipment and training would be ideal. I also would very much like to eliminate foreign deployments as much as possible. I think the era of holding the line against the Reds in Germany needs to come to a close. So do wars of occupation. An enemy's ability to wage conventional warfare can often be eliminated without occupying foreign territory. An enemy who engages in unconventional warfare can not be defeated by occupying foreign territory. Occupying foreign territory thus becomes something of a lose-lose scenario.

But anyway, I want to touch on your '...and yeah, states rights, allowing for the people living in the area, to control what happens in THEIR AREA. WITHOUT interference' stance.

I feel that part of the 'minimum guarantee' necessaery for humans to enjoy their liberty includes the guarantee of the ability to engage in commerce and transportation. This is a place where someone's full gamut of freedoms clash with someone else's singular freedom to refuse them service.

In the 1940's, the U.S. government began a process of rounding up Japanese people, especially along the coastal regions, and putting them into camps. Some Japanese families tried to relocate away from coastal regions into areas where they were less likely to come under government oppression. Unfortunately, they could not get far. No gas station would sell them gasoline. No store would sell them essential goods. Even Japanese-owned businesses lost their ability to operate as suppliers cut them off. This, all under the premise of having the freedom to do business only with people you wish. Systemic racism made it impossible for the Japanese to leave zones of oppression. Then the government rounded them up and put them away for the crime of living in 'sensitive' areas that they were unable to escape.

But try to imagine that the government didn't round up any Japanese people. Try to imagine that there was *only* racism. Only people being refused service. No suppliers willing to supply Japanese businesses. No trucking companies willing to deliver to Japanese stores. No non-Japanese businesses willing to sell to the Japanese citizens. You have an entire population unable to eat, to build, to trade, to move freely, to do anything other than die. And so you begin to see why Liberty for all means limiting certain liberties a bit. That's why Rand Paul's position bothers me. The simple truth is that no society can be completely free. We should approach freedom as nearly as we can, but we should not embrace freedom so completely that we snuff it out in the process.

Some people have called me a 'Left leaning' Libertarian. I am trying to simply be a practical one. This is one reason why states can not be allowed to do just whatever they want within their own borders. Guaranteeing freedom is the duty of the Federal government, and that duty can't end at the state line.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"This is one reason why states can not be allowed to do just whatever they want within their own borders. Guaranteeing freedom is the duty of the Federal government, and that duty can't end at the state line."

I disagree.

It falls along the same argument of ".. if you allow for states to be soverign unto themselves, they will do something crazy like reinstate slavery!"

I call B.S. on that one.

AND, if some states DID reinstitute that horrible practice, then that means the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it.

However, I aslo don't think that by allowing states to be free in how they conduct business among themselves, things will turn to anarchy. But hey, thats just me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:44 AM

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/26/paul-and-the-private-parts

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"AND, if some states DID reinstitute that horrible practice, then that means the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it."

Hello Wulf,

I believe in Freedom, and I believe in Freedom even against the tyranny of the majority. Many times in history the 'people' have 'allowed' horrible things to take place. That's why a government that embraces freedom sometimes places limits on it in order to prevent that kind of tyranny and oppression. That means even if the majority of Hutus want to commit acts of atrocity against the Tutsi's, we still say NO. Not in a country of Freedom. That's what America is all about.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I believe in Freedom, and I believe in Freedom even against the tyranny of the majority. Many times in history the 'people' have 'allowed' horrible things to take place. That's why a government that embraces freedom sometimes places limits on it in order to prevent that kind of tyranny and oppression. That means even if the majority of Hutus want to commit acts of atrocity against the Tutsi's, we still say NO. Not in a country of Freedom."

Its not our place to interfere with the workings of other countries. Nor is it any federals governments place to interfere with the workings of a state.

Its up to the people to make things right.

Yeah, its scary, to trust in the common good of normal, regular people... but THAT is how freedom is.

Any time you bend and pule to the authority of someone else, the FED or whomever, you give up that basic tenant of freedom.

You have the right to be stupid, but you shouldn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:20 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Wulf,

I'm trying to wrap my head around some of the things you are suggesting here.

You do realize that lynching black people was common state-sanctioned practice in some states? That entire states were filled with people happy to murder and abuse folks because of the color of their skin? That there were colored and white-only drinking fountains not so long ago, and that you could be kneecapped or worse for drinking from the wrong one? And so this isn't a hypothetical "Maybe everyone would be nice if we didn't have Equal Rights" conversation. We know exactly what happens when equal rights are not enforcable throughout the country.

For that matter, I'm left to wonder why a state with complete authority to do whatever it wants would even be considered to exist within the same country? What exactly do you see as the binding force that brings all the states together into the United States of America, if not the common agreement on the Constitution, its provisions, and its protections?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:22 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Anthony,

When was the last time that the Federal Government followed the Constitution?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:28 AM

Anthony: Libertarianism and anarchism probably wouldn't have worked out so well for a lot of ethnic minorities last century, unless the resulting communities were to have formed from ethnic enclaves.

Maybe I'm nuts, but it seems to me even if what drove people into the enclaves is abhorrent (often a combination of racism and economic manipulation, creating a slum or a ghetto)... Given the opportunity for success, and to thrive, ethnic enclaves may be one of the most supportive places to be for an individual of a particular ethnicity.

That's not to say I like segregation, I could only really support this if it could be argued the community in question has equal rights/respect, and is self-sufficient and sustainable. This would hopefully mean no one in the community would have to put up with racial tension and oppression.

But that was last century. I'm hopeful more recent generations are more tolerant of differences. It may still work out that most communities would become enclaves, but some communities might be able to pull off a high mixture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

AND, if some states DID reinstitute that horrible practice, then that means the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it.

So you're saying you don't believe in any of the guaranteed freedoms and rights of the U.S. Constitution? What if some states DID decide to do away with private ownership of firearms? I mean, if the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it, and took a vote on it, and decided it. Would you be happy to let them go on their merry way?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Wulf, I feel that the government has been doing an inadequate job of sticking to Constitutional principles. It is a constant struggle to cleave as close as possible to those principles.

But Wulf, you are not speaking of a country any longer. You are speaking of 50 countries, with no unifying theme or force. If a state can literally do anything it likes within its borders, then it isn't adhering to any Federal government or any Constitution outside itself. No universal principles of freedom would exist. No United States of America. Just States in America. And what states they would be!

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"So you're saying you don't believe in any of the guaranteed freedoms and rights of the U.S. Constitution? What if some states DID decide to do away with private ownership of firearms? I mean, if the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it, and took a vote on it, and decided it. Would you be happy to let them go on their merry way?"

How about if, the states were forced to follow the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?

Free to speak, free to own whatever gun you wanted, AND there could be NO slavery.

Strange that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would SOLVE all the problems we have...

Its only when we don't follow these things, or believe that the 200 year old document is "living and breathing, subject to change" that we get into trouble.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Kwick,

At least I'm trying to come up with solutions to these problems, instead of just berating others or following some party line.

But you HAVEN'T come up with a single solution. Not even a PART of a solution. All you've done is berate others ("libs/progs", who you claim you can PROVE are ALL racist) and follow your party line. You claim it's not a party line because you're not part of the party, but you don't even realize you're a dyed-in-the-wool neocon right-wing authoritarian. You hum the tune, and you seem to know the words well enough, and you march in time. How is it you're any different than those you accuse? Because you pay some limp-lipped fealty to notions of "freedom" and "liberty", but only insofar as they mean YOUR freedom to hate and YOUR liberty to do whatever the hell you want, and bash anyone else whose own goals might conflict the slightest bit with yours. If there's any conflict between your "liberty" and theirs, their life is forfeit, according to you. At that point, you'll pull guns and fill them full of holes. Again, your words, not mine.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"So you're saying you don't believe in any of the guaranteed freedoms and rights of the U.S. Constitution? What if some states DID decide to do away with private ownership of firearms? I mean, if the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it, and took a vote on it, and decided it. Would you be happy to let them go on their merry way?"

How about if, the states were forced to follow the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?

Free to speak, free to own whatever gun you wanted, AND there could be NO slavery.

Strange that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would SOLVE all the problems we have...

Its only when we don't follow these things, or believe that the 200 year old document is "living and breathing, subject to change" that we get into trouble.

Do you believe that it ISN'T living and breathing, and subject to change? Answer honestly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:42 AM

Um... Is there ANY good reason to change the bill of rights? I'm trying to think of if there's anything else that should be protected, and admittedly I'm coming up blank. Like the speculated 11th right proposed during the constitutional convention preventing infringement on a citizens rights by entities besides the government, though I agree with it, it technically seems to take away a right, so doesn't fit.

Still, to not include a method to EVER be able to change or amend the constitution of the government/coalition/confederacy/whatever you have at all, for 200 years and more... Seems too inflexible, a sure way to fail to meet changing times and issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"How about if, the states were forced to follow the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?"

Hello,

This is not what you are advocating. You are advocating that the states are forced to follow... Nothing. You are advocating that the states be completely free and unencumbered to do whatever they like. Essentially, secession.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:20 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh there's merit in the tax rollback, and believe me I'd be quite happy to cut it right the hell out of military spending, cause for a fact if you didn't grind up so much of peoples income less folk would need that help, sure...

But the real bitter pill is how the system is self-perpetuating, a constantly string of just barely LESS than enough to get by, with the constant scratch, scrabble and scrape of the hoop jumping making any attempt at nailing down something to get you off problematic at best, and contrary to the bullshit, most folk on that kind of assistance want off, cause of the non stop degrading humiliation thrown on top of the mandatory hoop-jumping.

But the real throat cutter is that how they get strung along with just barely less than enough, just enough to keep hoping, to keep trying, as they sink deeper and deeper, it's pure meanness, that is, humilation conga, like tormenting a starving man with a steak on a string and letting him get just close enough to get dripped on but never actually bite.

Fuck that, if we're gonna help them, HELP them, do it right the first goddamn time and then you ain't gotta play this stupid nasty game, heaven knows there's enough government jobs in our bloated monstrosity that if you set these poor folks up first in line to em on a priority basis, you'd have a damned lot of em jumping at the hook, especially if we actually went at this as something other than a stupid game for political points and made it a comprehensive psychological/drug rehab(medical, not criminal)/economic/educational assist, instead of a couple bucks short of survival, over and over again, with a kick in the chops and a snicker.

But like most things, none of the politicians using this as a wedge issue WANTS to solve the problem, cause that ends the game, you see ?

Fuck em, Game Over, I say we hack enough out of the damn Military and especially them useless backstabbing alphabet assholes budgets, and fix our damn country.

THAT use of my tax dosh, shit, I'd be right there with a set of pom poms cheerleadin the way.

Yes, Libertarianism gives you the right to not feed the starving, but you know what - just cause you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing.

Just sayin.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Yes, Libertarianism gives you the right to not feed the starving, but you know what - just cause you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing."

Hello,

I agree with this. When any political ideal starts adding woe instead of weal, it's okay to step back from the extreme and follow a less pure path. Mixtures can do better than absolutes.

-Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"So you're saying you don't believe in any of the guaranteed freedoms and rights of the U.S. Constitution? What if some states DID decide to do away with private ownership of firearms? I mean, if the PEOPLE of that state ALLOWED it, and took a vote on it, and decided it. Would you be happy to let them go on their merry way?"

How about if, the states were forced to follow the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?

Free to speak, free to own whatever gun you wanted, AND there could be NO slavery.

Strange that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would SOLVE all the problems we have...

Its only when we don't follow these things, or believe that the 200 year old document is "living and breathing, subject to change" that we get into trouble.

Wulfie, my dear stupid child, for all your talk of the Constitution and the perfection of that document, you seem woefully uneducated about its contents or history. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as you refer to them (the "200 year old document"), doesn't outlaw slavery by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it enshrines slavery. And the plain truth of it is, THAT is the issue that Thurgood Marshall had with the document, when he wrote that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as written, comprised a flawed document, not a perfect one.

It took nearly a hundred years, and the bloodiest war in our nation's history, and a rending apart of our nation, and a bloody reunification, and a Constitutional Amendment, to outlaw slavery. You can complain all day long that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but at the end of the day, it was about slavery, and the issues surrounding slavery.

So you see, it IS a living, breathing document. And it always should be. You want to freeze it at some point in the distant past; the problem is, you don't even know your past well enough to peg that time in history.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Yes, Libertarianism gives you the right to not feed the starving, but you know what - just cause you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing."

Hello,

I agree with this. When any political ideal starts adding woe instead of weal, it's okay to step back from the extreme and follow a less pure path. Mixtures can do better than absolutes.

Thanks, both of you. And yes, I believe a person has the right to do nothing when they see another is in need. I just don't believe I'm that person.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:57 PM

Hmm... slavery is in the constitution, in the 3/5ths rule, but I can't think of how it's in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is salvageable. I think maybe something about government shall make no law to discriminate against an individual or a group on the basis of race, creed, or gender might take care of that issue, that's a good add on that can be phrased in the form of protecting a right.

If only I could figure out a way to phrase that anti-trust and corporate political influence one...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm... slavery is in the constitution, in the 3/5ths rule, but I can't think of how it's in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is salvageable. I think maybe something about government shall make no law to discriminate against an individual or a group on the basis of race, creed, or gender might take care of that issue, that's a good add on that can be phrased in the form of protecting a right.

If only I could figure out a way to phrase that anti-trust and corporate political influence one...

That's just it, Byte - It *IS* enshrined in the Constitution as originally written and ratified. That's why it was a flawed document at the outset.

That's not to say it wasn't better than anything around at the time; it's just saying that it needed room to grow, to live, to breathe, in order to be more perfect. There's nothing in the Constitution that's not salvageable. That's the idea behind it being a living, breathing document. If it's not living and breathing, it's dead, and so is our nation.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:32 PM

I don't think the idea of a Republic is salvageable. It inevitably leads to corruption.

So I have some major issues with the Constitution. Not so much with the Bill of Rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 7:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok, I should have also mentioned the Declaration of Independence..

"... all men are created equal..." ect

(cue Kwicks "but you say blacks, hispanics, aliens ar NOT equal@! speal..."

If we had followed the Constitution, Bill of Rights, AND Declaration of Independence from the get-go... no Civil War, no Vietnam, no Iraq and Afghan war (maybe).

We also wouldn't be arguing about gun rights, the Patriot Act, immigration, ESL, ect...

But silly me in realising that we had it right, but people fraked with it and NOW we have to fix the damage thats been done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:44 AM

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in direct conflict with each other. You can't follow both of them equally, UNLESS you include ALL of the Amendments.

You say "we fraked with it" and now the damage has to be undone.

List every single thing you'd undo. Obviously you have a laundry list. Name 'em off. List 'em out.

I'll wait.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:04 AM

I also note that technically the Declaration of Independence does not outline any form of government. You might be able to argue that it perhaps represents what the FF thought a government should NOT do, though in lots of cases they kinda turned around and instituted the same crap. Anyway, the Declaration is very subject to interpretation and is not itself an outline or basis for government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Just so you know...

The Tea Party doesn't align itself with any party in power. Nor any "ism"

Its a testament to the strength of the free man, that we don't follow one particular group. Be it Republican, or Democrat.

Most of the Tea Party folks I've met... hell, they are the kindest and strongest people.

But you know... let people like Kwick and Nix tell you what you should think.

Let them, and their kind, continue to rule your morals, and your beliefs.

Or, choose something better.

And, because I like videos.. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:40 AM