Kramer Loses His Mind

Off Topic
201

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Incredibly ignorant post.

The Taliban was the biggest poppy dealer of all. They controlled the whole market and only plowed under some fields to drive up the prices because there was such a glut.

They continue to fund their ways through opium sales.

Let me know what you think. Here’s something to start you off:

Who benefits from the opium trade?

The spoils of war: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

These articles of course are complete with links to UN sources upon which the statistical evidence is based. Any evidence to back up your argument, or are you just expressing an opinion?

What did you think of the rest of my post?[/quote]

I think it is idiotic and you are full of shit. Take it to the political forum.

202

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Incredibly ignorant post.

Then it fits right in with this thread.[/quote]

Exactly.

203

[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
I just saw 12 Angry Men for the first time last night and the scene when one of the jurors goes off on “them” and how “they’re all the same way, it’s in their blood” struck me as very poignant…Anyone who’s seen the movie know’s the scene I’m talking about.

It’s relevant here because the other jurors in the movie all get up from the table and turn their backs to the racist asshole, and all I could think about is I was happy to see, toward the end of Richards’ insane rant, people were doing the same.

That mentality, that racist point of view, is positively inexcusable and I’m happy people made it a point to show Richards that his attitude is not something to laugh at, that this thought process is a reason why racial tension still unfortunately exists. [/quote]

Good Post. I hope it helps inspire other people to act this way in future reprehensible situations.

Personally, I would ask for a refund. At least the guy would not be laughing all the way to the bank with my money, regardless of his intentions or nature.

204

"I mean, how is it that you can disrespect a man’s ethnicity when you know we’ve influenced nearly every facet of white America, from our music to our style of dress, not to mention your basic imitation of our sense of cool… walk, talk, dress, mannerisms.

We enrich your very existence, all the while contributing to the gross national product through our achievements in corporate America.

It’s these conceits that comfort me when I’m faced with the ignorant, cowardly, bitter and bigoted who have no talent, no guts, people like you who desecrate things they don’t understand when the truth is you should say, “Thank you, man,” and go on about your way."

Sin LaSalle, “Be Cool”

205

[quote]Arthur Jacob wrote:
I think he is just another member of the Hollywood and main stream media elite showing their true nature: Hate. Hate for everyone and everything. All races and both genders make up this group and right now they have the microphone and the attention of the camera. We need a change.
[/quote]

That about sums up the libs, with Hollywood as their spokespeople. The Left hates this country with a passion. Their goal is simply chaos and destruction. Michael Richards was putting up a trial balloon, to foster more hatred and destruction. He is the true poster child of liberalism in this country.

206

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Incredibly ignorant post.

Then it fits right in with this thread.[/quote]

The Prof criticizing Harris? What ever happened to black unity? :wink:

207

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Incredibly ignorant post.

The Taliban was the biggest poppy dealer of all. They controlled the whole market and only plowed under some fields to drive up the prices because there was such a glut.

They continue to fund their ways through opium sales.

Let me know what you think. Here’s something to start you off:

Who benefits from the opium trade?

The spoils of war: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

These articles of course are complete with links to UN sources upon which the statistical evidence is based. Any evidence to back up your argument, or are you just expressing an opinion?

What did you think of the rest of my post?

I think it is idiotic and you are full of shit. Take it to the political forum.[/quote]

my mistake

208

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:

80% of Welfare recipients are WHITE. What’s your next great statement of proof?

http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=152

uh oh
[/quote]

That’s a good find! I should have been clearer. My 80% figure is from the time Welfare programs came into play. The current numbers of 55% funding still going to whites and 45% to all other minorities combined still makes the point. There are more white people benefiting from Welfare programs than all other minorities combined.

209

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Does anybody here think that Archie Bunker was a racist?

Archie Bunker was a stereotype himself, meant to push the limits of what was even socially acceptable on tv at the time. Back then, it was like Married with Children multiplied by 20.

Without opposition to his state of mind, represented by his daughter and her husband’s offense to everything he said…and later the addition of the black neighbors that eventually had their own show (The Jeffersons), the show would no doubt be branded as racist if no one ever said anything against his comments.

He represented what was no doubt a common mentality in many non-minority males in the country at the time…that no one ever talked about openly.

The difference was in the presentation of BOTH sides of that issue on every show. If you are relating this “comedian” to All in the Family, you are severely off. For one, All in the Family hit on many social issues head on and never just offered the “older racist” view of things.

That gave the show a message, one that few people missed even if they didn’t get it at first. Are you saying there was a deeper message here?

I think everyone got that message loud and clear…and it wasn’t deep at all.[/quote]

Well said.

210

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Incredibly ignorant post.

Then it fits right in with this thread.

The Prof criticizing Harris? What ever happened to black unity? :wink:

[/quote]

Your reading comprehension skils are up there with your logic.

And just because you put a :slight_smile: at the end of your drivel doesn’t make it funny, or worthwhile, or anything.

211

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.[/quote]

That’d be a bit hypocritical to drop a show just because you end up not liking one of the actors later on. It doesn’t make the show, it’s characters, or the other actors, any less funny. In fact, since Kramer did it AFTER for all we know he may not have been very racist back then. He got on great with the guy playing Jacky Chiles right?

212

I think you all just need to get along and jam with the Kramer ST600:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kramer-ST600-Guitar-Red-NR_W0QQitemZ170055094779QQihZ007QQcategoryZ621QQcmdZViewItem

213

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
As a whole there has been a huge increase of minorities in colleges.
I would call that taking responsibility.[/quote]There are scholarships solely for african-americans and other minorities. Those are racist scholarships. Many colleges and universities also have policies of racial minimums where a minority will be admitted even if they have lower grades and other qualifications than a majority, simply to fulfill the quota. This does not show anything at all. I think you’re right that there are probably larger amounts, but I don’t know how to isolate those stats from these variables introduced. Furthermore, these saintly academics don’t erase the bad seeds from the picture.

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
You see a dozen minorities who are lazy and classify the whole group as lazy.[/quote]No, he NEVER did that. He simply said the ones shouting out about racism being the reason they’re in the gutter as being lazy. This is obvious because of the contrast between people like that, and the minorities who have been successful and grind it down instead of complaining.

214

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:

80% of Welfare recipients are WHITE. What’s your next great statement of proof?

http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=152

uh oh

That’s a good find! I should have been clearer. My 80% figure is from the time Welfare programs came into play. The current numbers of 55% funding still going to whites and 45% to all other minorities combined still makes the point. There are more white people benefiting from Welfare programs than all other minorities combined.
[/quote]

There are actually more blacks and Hispanics combined on welfare than whites, even though there are far more many whites in America than blacks and Hispanics:

215

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Archie Bunker was a stereotype himself, meant to push the limits of what was even socially acceptable on tv at the time. Back then, it was like Married with Children multiplied by 20.

Without opposition to his state of mind, represented by his daughter and her husband’s offense to everything he said…and later the addition of the black neighbors that eventually had their own show (The Jeffersons), the show would no doubt be branded as racist if no one ever said anything against his comments.

He represented what was no doubt a common mentality in many non-minority males in the country at the time…that no one ever talked about openly.
[/quote]

Wow, so now you are an expert on the mentality of American whites who lived in the 70’s. You must be older than I thought. Since you were alive back then, could you please tell us id George Jefferson was the voice of the American blacks who lived in that time when he was calling whites “honkeys” and the like?

216

[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:

80% of Welfare recipients are WHITE. What’s your next great statement of proof?

uh oh

That’s a good find! I should have been clearer. My 80% figure is from the time Welfare programs came into play. The current numbers of 55% funding still going to whites and 45% to all other minorities combined still makes the point. There are more white people benefiting from Welfare programs than all other minorities combined.

There are actually more blacks and Hispanics combined on welfare than whites, even though there are far more many whites in America than blacks and Hispanics:

[/quote]

Do you remember writing this?

It’s funny that you sought out numbers to make yourself look even more like an ignoramus. From a far left liberalism website no less.

These are a couple interesting articles that you might find interesting, or maybe not.

http://www.lutins.org/afr-amer.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

217

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:

80% of Welfare recipients are WHITE. What’s your next great statement of proof?

uh oh

That’s a good find! I should have been clearer. My 80% figure is from the time Welfare programs came into play. The current numbers of 55% funding still going to whites and 45% to all other minorities combined still makes the point. There are more white people benefiting from Welfare programs than all other minorities combined.

There are actually more blacks and Hispanics combined on welfare than whites, even though there are far more many whites in America than blacks and Hispanics:

Do you remember writing this?

This is all the meanwhile my tax dollars are feeding them in prison and on welfare…

It’s funny that you sought out numbers to make yourself look even more like an ignoramus. From a far left liberalism website no less.

These are a couple interesting articles that you might find interesting, or maybe not.

http://www.lutins.org/afr-amer.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

[/quote]

I figured that it wouldn’t take you long to resort to personal attacks. Anyway, first you claimed that 80% of the people who were on welfare were whites, which was a lie. When confronted with the facts that the average black receives 3 times the welfare benefits that whites do and that the average Hispanics twice as much, then you claimed that 55% of welfare goes to whites, which was also false. Now you call me an “ignoramus.”

218

[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:

80% of Welfare recipients are WHITE. What’s your next great statement of proof?

http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=152

uh oh

That’s a good find! I should have been clearer. My 80% figure is from the time Welfare programs came into play. The current numbers of 55% funding still going to whites and 45% to all other minorities combined still makes the point. There are more white people benefiting from Welfare programs than all other minorities combined.

There are actually more blacks and Hispanics combined on welfare than whites, even though there are far more many whites in America than blacks and Hispanics:

[/quote]

Why are you combining Blacks and Hispanics? Is your argument that there are more non-caucasian on welfare and caucasians and that is supposed to insinuate something about non-caucasians?

If you want to find interesting trends you’ll need a whole lot more statistical information than that.

For example what about eduction level for the various races of the people on welfare? Where do they live (including state, county and city)? Is there an age correlation by race? Were their parents on welfare? Have they been to jail? How many children do they have, by race.

It could be that 80% of all people on welfare were highschool drop-outs. You’d, of course, also need the statistic on the number of highschool drop-outs aren’t on welfare.

If so, then why’d the drop out? Got pregnant, is there a high drop-out rate in the region (bad schools)?

There are lots of possible (and potentially interesting reasons) for why things happen. In this case it would be an exploration of black people and poverty ('cuz you know, rich dudes disdain from the welfare thing… generally speaking, long lines do upset them).

However the danger with incomplete or limited statistic information (and broader interpretations of said limited information) is that you can seemingly justify any notion or opinion that you’d like.

Hence the expression: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

However, it can’t be stated enough that merely having a high number of people of a particular race (or any given group of people) on welfare, doesn’t necessary hold any broader implication for said race or group.

219

[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:

I figured that it wouldn’t take you long to resort to personal attacks. Anyway, first you claimed that 80% of the people who were on welfare were whites, which was a lie. When confronted with the facts that the average black receives 3 times the welfare benefits that whites do and that the average Hispanics twice as much, then you claimed that 55% of welfare goes to whites, which was also false. Now you call me an “ignoramus.”
[/quote]

It wouldn’t take me long to attack you? Personal attack? Seriously? Where have I attacked you or anyone?

First, my 80% figure is not a lie and I clarified it. Read a little more.

Second, the 55% figure was not mine. It was an article provided by another poster. An article that is more current than the one you provided, by six years. What makes you think your article is any more accurate than the other?

Third, your own information shows that the highest percentage of Welfare recipients are white.

Yes, I still call you an ignoramus.

220

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:

It wouldn’t take me long to attack you? Personal attack? Seriously? Where have I attacked you or anyone?

First, my 80% figure is not a lie and I clarified it. Read a little more.

Second, the 55% figure was not mine. It was an article provided by another poster. An article that is more current than the one you provided, by six years. What makes you think your article is any more accurate than the other?

Third, your own information shows that the highest percentage of Welfare recipients are white.

Yes, I still call you an ignoramus.

[/quote]

Somehow I think that “ignoramus” isn’t a compliment. I haven’t called anyone names here.

Could you give me the link again claiming that 55% of thw welfare recipients are “white”? I find it hard to believe that in “six years” the percentage of white welfare recipients went from 39% to 55%. Somehow I think that this would be big news. Somehow I think it is a total lie, unless they are counting Hispanics as “whites”.