The strong have an obligation to help the weak and defenseless and to fight for the welfare of all.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
valiance. wrote:
how do you know they are voting for some group interest? who are these black people who SHOULD be voting republican according to you but are too racially conscious to? do black people agree with republicans on many issues? I don’t think so… if they did, they’d be voting for Republicans. Just as black people switched from voting R to voting D when the parties changed; they’ll change back if Republicans offer them something. Voting patterns can change, people respond to incentives.
I think it is more like racialist guided blind loyalty actually.
Many black voters are against gay marriage and abortion just to name a few.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081107/NEWS15/81107126
and
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/05/same.sex.marriage/index.html
Note the similarity there?
[/quote]
Yes but blacks are overwhelmingly for liberal big govt economic policies. Their social and economic incentives don’t always match up, and they choose to go with their economic beliefs.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
As for instances of black racialism, what does this look like:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060411204951/http:/www.tucc.org/about.htm
That is president elect Obama’s church’s platform for a “black value system.” WTF is a “black value system” if we are all supposedly the same race of people in the 21st century where were judge people solely on the content of their character.
Speaking of racialist black preachers, listen to this guy constantly using plural possessives in this speech:
Or all of the black president celebrations…
[/quote]
I don’t think being proud that the president is of your race necessarily equates to having voted for him exclusively because of his race. I don’t think racialist thinking in general proves anything more than what the polling numbers have already shown: there is some small percentage of votes ~10% or less who voted for or against Obama because of his race.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
valiance. wrote:
really? the party of strom thurmond and jesse helms isnt racist? jesus christ… the southern democrats you’re so fond of pointing to are almost to a man now members of the Republican party.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/16/obama-bucks/
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/westmoreland-calls-obama-uppity-2008-09-04.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=208
then there’s that woman calling Obama an Arab at a rally and McCain defending him by saying he’s a decent man (as if Arabs cant be decent men?)
McCain supporters shouting kill him and treason and terrorist at rallies
how about consistently emphasizing use of Obama’s middle name to try and make false associations with Saddam Hussein?
I mean if you haven’t noticed Republicans being racist you haven’t been paying attention at all…
Actually it’s more like the mainstream media plays down when Democrats say racist things.
Here is Cris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut praising former KKK Democratic Senator Robert Byrd:
When senator after senator – including Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader – praised Mr. Byrd as a national treasure, Mr. Dodd said, ‘‘I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.’’
He added: ‘‘He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.’’
Here is former KKK member Byrd casually throwing around the n-word only 7 years ago:
“My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/
Speaking of racist Democrats, how about Senator Hollings from South Carolina:
“Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”
And here are a few from the recent lot of Democrats, including our Democratic elect vice president:
* “You cannot go into a Dunkin’ Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
* "My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state."
* "I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy."
* "There's less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with."
Joe Biden.
Hillary Clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/
Today we begin with Hillary?s anti-Semitic slurs. In 1974 Hillary called Paul Fray, the campaign manager of then boyfriend Bill Clinton, a “f—ing Jew bastard.” This incident took place during a heated campaign meeting at Bill Clinton?s campaign headquarters on the night Bill lost his bid for Congress.
Here is the Jewish person in question passing a lie detector test about the instance:
http://the.virginianfederalist.com/2007/12/hillary-clinton-facts.html
Here is James Murtha reflecting on his Democratic racist supporters:
http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2008/10/murtha-calls-dem-base-racist.html
[/quote]
Yes, Democrats can be racist too. But I knew that already. Anecdotes prove nothing, but you seemed to want to see some evidence that Republcians were racist, so I provided some. If you want to be convinced that Republicans are definitively more racist than Democrats I’m not sure what would convince you. I’m convinced simply by the amount of pandering each party does and the groups to which they pander. But I understand how you might not be convinced by anecdotes, just as I remain unconvinced.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
valiance. wrote:
whats wrong with being against racialism? I just explained its faults in my view. you seem to be against it too, am I wrong?
and it kills me when white people complain about racism/racialism in America, as if ya’ll weren’t responsible for the whole goddamn thing in the first place. you’re seriously complaining about black racialism?
Who is “Y’all”? And how am I personally responsible for starting racialism here?
[/quote]
Ya’ll is white people.
You (personally) are not at all responsible for starting racialism here.
But it’s funny to me when white people complain about race in America when the whole situation is largely their doing. You ignore one of the major causes of black racialism which is historical and current white racism. Black people think of themselves as a monolithic group because they are treated that way by society at large. Of course we all have a responsibility for our own patterns of thinking, but again those are subject to modification by outgroup influences like your treatment by mainstream culture.
And you never explained if you were against or for racialism?
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
valiance. wrote:
white people have been saying that blacks complain about racism too much for decades. guess what? its never been true. by and large, black people complain about racism because it exists. in the 1960s whites thought that everything was fine and dandy and that everything was equal… guess what? it wasnt…
I know. But nowadays it it more like “I didn’t get served at Denny’s fast enough because I was black”, “I can’t get a cab”, “The police bother me”, or “I didn’t get a promotion at my job” as opposed to “The local KKK is stopping me from voting” or “Someone made me sit in the back of the bus” etc.
[/quote]
Isn’t that still racism? Being bothered by police (even being shot dead by them) or not being promoted at your job are huge life events. You can’t just brush that aside. And racism persists in many areas of US life:
black people pay more for mortgages, are offered worse interest rates on everything from car loans to mortgages, are paid less wages for doing the same job, are offered jobs less frequently for the same credentials, are imprisoned more often and longer for the same crimes etc etc ad infinitum…
http://justicepolicy.org/images/upload/07-02_REP_MDMandatoryMinimums_DP-MD.pdf
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/rental-bias-study-argues-oversight
http://www.chicagogsb.edu/pdf/bertrand.pdf
http://www.lri.lsc.gov/pdf/03/030105_racepref.pdf
OVERT racism is largely dead, and good riddance; but COVERT racism continues to be a huge issue. And this is racism directed by individuals, not state sanctioned or legal racism. Most of society would balk at what these people do, and rightly so, but it still happens. It’s systemic, institutionalized, but at the same time officially-unsanctioned racism.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
valiance. wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
Actually the numbers there look very close to me.
[/quote]
theres about a 10% difference between white republicans and white democrats, which isnt gigantic. I’ll cede the issue of republican vs. democrat racism until I can get you some numbers or conclusive evidence one way or the other.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
5 yrs 167 days,
longer than obama was a US senator,
I love a good non sequitur in the afternoon.
Completely comparable
He gave more years in torture and agony loving and defending this country than Obama has spent doing anything for this country, even if did only hide behind the present button.
Hey, those people did not imprison him because they hated your freedom, but because he actually dropped things on them from the sky.
Now that would be criminal in and of itself but these things went boom when they hit the ground, can you imagine that they were actually designed to kill people?
If that is what “loving and defending” America looks like I think the world need a lot less of it.
I suppose you were against stopping Nazi Germany in WWII or maybe you would enjoy speaking Japanese? Just because you don’t like war doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and no soldier or Marine wants to kill anyone else, but it is their duty.
Oh, I guess it makes it ok then.
I remember hearing this quote once, “If a man has the ability to stop evil he has the responsibility to stop it.”
Yes in many cases it is not only okay, but very necessary in my opinion.
[/quote]
So I guess when Bin Laden stood up for all those who were burned, maimed and killed by American bombs and kicked Big Satan in the nuts with gusto, it was regrettable but necessary?
The people at Guantanamo who really had ties to al Quaeda, those precious few, where heroes serving their country?
I swear that Americans are the only people that can kill a whole wedding party once a week ans still insist that they are the good guys.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
pookie wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
You might want to look up the definition of non sequtur
I’ll do that if you look up the spelling.
If president elect Obama became a Senator in 2004 that would be less than 5 years ago making the above statement true. A non sequitur is a statement that contains an illogical conclusion. How is that illogical?
It’s the comparison between being held prisoner in a POW camp vs. being a US senator that’s nonsensical.
There are 2.3 million prisoners in the US. Do you think that those who are serving particularly long sentences would make great presidential candidates?
I could also say that McCain was in POW camp much longer than it takes me to cook an omelet. It’s 100% true, but I’m not sure what conclusion it supports.
There is a difference between being a POW and one of the 2.3 million prisoners. McCain was fighting for his country and the 2.3 million at some point broke the law. To compare the two is just ridiculous.[/quote]
He killed people for money and a lot of prisoners are non violent drug offenders?
I see the difference.
Do you?
edited.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
5 yrs 167 days,
longer than obama was a US senator,
I love a good non sequitur in the afternoon.
Completely comparable
He gave more years in torture and agony loving and defending this country than Obama has spent doing anything for this country, even if did only hide behind the present button.
Hey, those people did not imprison him because they hated your freedom, but because he actually dropped things on them from the sky.
Now that would be criminal in and of itself but these things went boom when they hit the ground, can you imagine that they were actually designed to kill people?
If that is what “loving and defending” America looks like I think the world need a lot less of it.
I suppose you were against stopping Nazi Germany in WWII or maybe you would enjoy speaking Japanese? Just because you don’t like war doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and no soldier or Marine wants to kill anyone else, but it is their duty.
Oh, I guess it makes it ok then.
I remember hearing this quote once, “If a man has the ability to stop evil he has the responsibility to stop it.”
Yes in many cases it is not only okay, but very necessary in my opinion.
So I guess when Bin Laden stood up for all those who were burned, maimed and killed by American bombs and kicked Big Satan in the nuts with gusto, it was regrettable but necessary?
The people at Guantanamo who really had ties to al Quaeda, those precious few, where heroes serving their country?
I swear that Americans are the only people that can kill a whole wedding party once a week ans still insist that they are the good guys.
[/quote]
You just compared fighting against the likes of Hitler and Saddam with Bin Laden killing innocent civilians in a non combat situation. I’m assuming your not American, but I would be willing to bet at some point in your countries history you went to war with another country and you might have even killed some of the enemy…was that wrong? I can tell you are one of the many naive people that thinks we should all just hold hands and sing songs, but in reality on this planet where we live people don’t just “get along” and violence happens. Sometimes men are just evil and you can’t just sit back and not help those in need. You can not possibly say 9/11 was anything but a cowardly act against unarmed men and women.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
pookie wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
You might want to look up the definition of non sequtur
I’ll do that if you look up the spelling.
If president elect Obama became a Senator in 2004 that would be less than 5 years ago making the above statement true. A non sequitur is a statement that contains an illogical conclusion. How is that illogical?
It’s the comparison between being held prisoner in a POW camp vs. being a US senator that’s nonsensical.
There are 2.3 million prisoners in the US. Do you think that those who are serving particularly long sentences would make great presidential candidates?
I could also say that McCain was in POW camp much longer than it takes me to cook an omelet. It’s 100% true, but I’m not sure what conclusion it supports.
There is a difference between being a POW and one of the 2.3 million prisoners. McCain was fighting for his country and the 2.3 million at some point broke the law. To compare the two is just ridiculous.
He killed people for money and a lot of prisoners are non violent drug offenders?
I see the difference.
Do you?
edited.
[/quote]
I want to make sure I am reading this right. Your saying McCain killed people for money is that correct? If that is the case your making it seem like every man and women that serves this country and has had to kill the enemy is a contract killer or government assassin is that it? So I guess George Washington was a contract killer and every one that fought in WWII they were contract killers. Last time I checked joining the military and serving your country is an honorable selfless act that requires you to actually sacrifice in your life. Now the people sitting in our prisons could have done other things with their lives, but they instead choose to sell drugs, murder, rape, and God knows what else. How can you compare the two? I do see a BIG difference.
If that is not what you meant then I take back every word.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
5 yrs 167 days,
longer than obama was a US senator,
I love a good non sequitur in the afternoon.
Completely comparable
He gave more years in torture and agony loving and defending this country than Obama has spent doing anything for this country, even if did only hide behind the present button.
Hey, those people did not imprison him because they hated your freedom, but because he actually dropped things on them from the sky.
Now that would be criminal in and of itself but these things went boom when they hit the ground, can you imagine that they were actually designed to kill people?
If that is what “loving and defending” America looks like I think the world need a lot less of it.
I suppose you were against stopping Nazi Germany in WWII or maybe you would enjoy speaking Japanese? Just because you don’t like war doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and no soldier or Marine wants to kill anyone else, but it is their duty.
Oh, I guess it makes it ok then.
I remember hearing this quote once, “If a man has the ability to stop evil he has the responsibility to stop it.”
Yes in many cases it is not only okay, but very necessary in my opinion.
So I guess when Bin Laden stood up for all those who were burned, maimed and killed by American bombs and kicked Big Satan in the nuts with gusto, it was regrettable but necessary?
The people at Guantanamo who really had ties to al Quaeda, those precious few, where heroes serving their country?
I swear that Americans are the only people that can kill a whole wedding party once a week ans still insist that they are the good guys.
[/quote]
Unlike people who target children and civilians? Who gas their own people? Who practice real torture? Who’s dictator’s son rapes a new young girl daily and has his habit supported by the government that will bring him children from schools? Who capture and publicly behead as many “infidels” as possible?
You’re right. GOD DAMN AMERICA!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
5 yrs 167 days,
longer than obama was a US senator,
I love a good non sequitur in the afternoon.
Completely comparable
He gave more years in torture and agony loving and defending this country than Obama has spent doing anything for this country, even if did only hide behind the present button.
Hey, those people did not imprison him because they hated your freedom, but because he actually dropped things on them from the sky.
Now that would be criminal in and of itself but these things went boom when they hit the ground, can you imagine that they were actually designed to kill people?
If that is what “loving and defending” America looks like I think the world need a lot less of it.
I suppose you were against stopping Nazi Germany in WWII or maybe you would enjoy speaking Japanese? Just because you don’t like war doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and no soldier or Marine wants to kill anyone else, but it is their duty.
Oh, I guess it makes it ok then.
I remember hearing this quote once, “If a man has the ability to stop evil he has the responsibility to stop it.”
Yes in many cases it is not only okay, but very necessary in my opinion.
So I guess when Bin Laden stood up for all those who were burned, maimed and killed by American bombs and kicked Big Satan in the nuts with gusto, it was regrettable but necessary?
The people at Guantanamo who really had ties to al Quaeda, those precious few, where heroes serving their country?
I swear that Americans are the only people that can kill a whole wedding party once a week ans still insist that they are the good guys.
Unlike people who target children and civilians? Who gas their own people? Who practice real torture? Who’s dictator’s son rapes a new young girl daily and has his habit supported by the government that will bring him children from schools? Who capture and publicly behead as many “infidels” as possible?
You’re right. GOD DAMN AMERICA![/quote]
THANK YOU!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
5 yrs 167 days,
longer than obama was a US senator,
I love a good non sequitur in the afternoon.
Completely comparable
He gave more years in torture and agony loving and defending this country than Obama has spent doing anything for this country, even if did only hide behind the present button.
Hey, those people did not imprison him because they hated your freedom, but because he actually dropped things on them from the sky.
Now that would be criminal in and of itself but these things went boom when they hit the ground, can you imagine that they were actually designed to kill people?
If that is what “loving and defending” America looks like I think the world need a lot less of it.
I suppose you were against stopping Nazi Germany in WWII or maybe you would enjoy speaking Japanese? Just because you don’t like war doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and no soldier or Marine wants to kill anyone else, but it is their duty.
Oh, I guess it makes it ok then.
I remember hearing this quote once, “If a man has the ability to stop evil he has the responsibility to stop it.”
Yes in many cases it is not only okay, but very necessary in my opinion.
So I guess when Bin Laden stood up for all those who were burned, maimed and killed by American bombs and kicked Big Satan in the nuts with gusto, it was regrettable but necessary?
The people at Guantanamo who really had ties to al Quaeda, those precious few, where heroes serving their country?
I swear that Americans are the only people that can kill a whole wedding party once a week ans still insist that they are the good guys.
You just compared fighting against the likes of Hitler and Saddam with Bin Laden killing innocent civilians in a non combat situation. I’m assuming your not American, but I would be willing to bet at some point in your countries history you went to war with another country and you might have even killed some of the enemy…was that wrong? I can tell you are one of the many naive people that thinks we should all just hold hands and sing songs, but in reality on this planet where we live people don’t just “get along” and violence happens. Sometimes men are just evil and you can’t just sit back and not help those in need. You can not possibly say 9/11 was anything but a cowardly act against unarmed men and women. [/quote]
Yes, the last time the mighty Austrian army went to war we fought against the evil monster Stalin.
I guess it makes the collateral damage ok then.
Oh wait, that can´t be true because you had to stop us because that was evil.
Anyway, what has that to do with Vietnam?
He was drafted and killed people for money in a war that started because of a fabricated incident.
He´s a fucking hero.
I get it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
pookie wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
You might want to look up the definition of non sequtur
I’ll do that if you look up the spelling.
If president elect Obama became a Senator in 2004 that would be less than 5 years ago making the above statement true. A non sequitur is a statement that contains an illogical conclusion. How is that illogical?
It’s the comparison between being held prisoner in a POW camp vs. being a US senator that’s nonsensical.
There are 2.3 million prisoners in the US. Do you think that those who are serving particularly long sentences would make great presidential candidates?
I could also say that McCain was in POW camp much longer than it takes me to cook an omelet. It’s 100% true, but I’m not sure what conclusion it supports.
There is a difference between being a POW and one of the 2.3 million prisoners. McCain was fighting for his country and the 2.3 million at some point broke the law. To compare the two is just ridiculous.
He killed people for money and a lot of prisoners are non violent drug offenders?
I see the difference.
Do you?
edited.
I want to make sure I am reading this right. Your saying McCain killed people for money is that correct? If that is the case your making it seem like every man and women that serves this country and has had to kill the enemy is a contract killer or government assassin is that it? So I guess George Washington was a contract killer and every one that fought in WWII they were contract killers. Last time I checked joining the military and serving your country is an honorable selfless act that requires you to actually sacrifice in your life. Now the people sitting in our prisons could have done other things with their lives, but they instead choose to sell drugs, murder, rape, and God knows what else. How can you compare the two? I do see a BIG difference.
If that is not what you meant then I take back every word.
[/quote]
That is exactly what I meant.
That some people are stupid enough to actually volunteer nakes them stupid contract killers.
I would not drag Washington into it, he though to free his own country from occupation.
He was an insurgent you know?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
5 yrs 167 days,
longer than obama was a US senator,
I love a good non sequitur in the afternoon.
Completely comparable
He gave more years in torture and agony loving and defending this country than Obama has spent doing anything for this country, even if did only hide behind the present button.
Hey, those people did not imprison him because they hated your freedom, but because he actually dropped things on them from the sky.
Now that would be criminal in and of itself but these things went boom when they hit the ground, can you imagine that they were actually designed to kill people?
If that is what “loving and defending” America looks like I think the world need a lot less of it.
I suppose you were against stopping Nazi Germany in WWII or maybe you would enjoy speaking Japanese? Just because you don’t like war doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and no soldier or Marine wants to kill anyone else, but it is their duty.
Oh, I guess it makes it ok then.
I remember hearing this quote once, “If a man has the ability to stop evil he has the responsibility to stop it.”
Yes in many cases it is not only okay, but very necessary in my opinion.
So I guess when Bin Laden stood up for all those who were burned, maimed and killed by American bombs and kicked Big Satan in the nuts with gusto, it was regrettable but necessary?
The people at Guantanamo who really had ties to al Quaeda, those precious few, where heroes serving their country?
I swear that Americans are the only people that can kill a whole wedding party once a week ans still insist that they are the good guys.
Unlike people who target children and civilians? Who gas their own people? Who practice real torture? Who’s dictator’s son rapes a new young girl daily and has his habit supported by the government that will bring him children from schools? Who capture and publicly behead as many “infidels” as possible?
You’re right. GOD DAMN AMERICA![/quote]
And the remedy were sanctions that killed 500000 children alone and a war that killed at least another several hundred thousand and finished off the last that were depending on something as simple as insulin.
But I guess it is all good BECAUSE YOU FUCKING MEANT WELL?
REALLY?
Hey, they all meant well.
Do you get this?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Torquemada they all pursued the “higher good” and were willing to wade through blood to get there.
They just “did what was necessary”, what “every else was to weak to do but what was necessary”, “history would be their judge”.
[quote]orion wrote:
And the remedy were sanctions that killed 500000 children alone and a war that killed at least another several hundred thousand and finished off the last that were depending on something as simple as insulin.
But I guess it is all good BECAUSE YOU FUCKING MEANT WELL?
REALLY?
Hey, they all meant well.
Do you get this?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Torquemada they all pursued the “higher good” and were willing to wade through blood to get there.
They just “did what was necessary”, what “every else was to weak to do but what was necessary”, “history would be their judge”.
[/quote]
That’s interesting. I don’t think I have ever read those numbers before, but I’m glad you educated me today. I would like to know where you got those numbers. Oh and Hitler, Stalin, etc… I thought they were all about world domination or creating a master race. I didn’t know that killing 5,709,329 and estimated 50,000 of them your country men
Can be considered “meaning well”
There is a difference between meaning well and doing what ever you want no matter who gets hurt. Those poor innocent babies that can’t get their insulin because of the war couldn’t get it before when Saddam was running things. They have a far better shot of just living past their teens now. I guess the mass killings in Iraq just 15-20 years ago were okay because Saddam "meant well?. Hey fine by me America can just sit back and watch the world kill itself Fuck 'em, but don’t come crying when the shit hits the fan. Look through out history America is either hated because they “stick their nose where it doesn’t belong” (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea) or they are hated because “They took to long to join the fight” (WWI & WWII
)
I guess your one of those people that thinks the soldier are the ones that start the wars. It’s their policies and beliefs that are fought over. In America a soldier does his duty and does what he is ordered to do end of story. There is no choice. Of course if you had any patriotism in your body I wouldn’t have to explain it to you. Stay in Austria for God sakes please we don’t need anymore pussys that would rather sit in a chair and complain about oppression, but wont get there fat lazy asses up to fight against it.
To say people who enlist (volunteer) are stupid contract killers is just ignorant…You’re a douche bag.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
pookie wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
You might want to look up the definition of non sequtur
I’ll do that if you look up the spelling.
If president elect Obama became a Senator in 2004 that would be less than 5 years ago making the above statement true. A non sequitur is a statement that contains an illogical conclusion. How is that illogical?
It’s the comparison between being held prisoner in a POW camp vs. being a US senator that’s nonsensical.
There are 2.3 million prisoners in the US. Do you think that those who are serving particularly long sentences would make great presidential candidates?
I could also say that McCain was in POW camp much longer than it takes me to cook an omelet. It’s 100% true, but I’m not sure what conclusion it supports.
There is a difference between being a POW and one of the 2.3 million prisoners. McCain was fighting for his country and the 2.3 million at some point broke the law. To compare the two is just ridiculous.
He killed people for money and a lot of prisoners are non violent drug offenders?
I see the difference.
Do you?
edited.
I want to make sure I am reading this right. Your saying McCain killed people for money is that correct? If that is the case your making it seem like every man and women that serves this country and has had to kill the enemy is a contract killer or government assassin is that it? So I guess George Washington was a contract killer and every one that fought in WWII they were contract killers. Last time I checked joining the military and serving your country is an honorable selfless act that requires you to actually sacrifice in your life. Now the people sitting in our prisons could have done other things with their lives, but they instead choose to sell drugs, murder, rape, and God knows what else. How can you compare the two? I do see a BIG difference.
If that is not what you meant then I take back every word.
That is exactly what I meant.
That some people are stupid enough to actually volunteer nakes them stupid contract killers.
I would not drag Washington into it, he though to free his own country from occupation.
He was an insurgent you know?
[/quote]
He didn’t have his men strap bombs to their chest and blow up kids or kill civilians like 9/11 you know?
What I find really funny is more blood has been shed in Europe around Italy, German, France, and Turkey then in any other place in the world through out history, but in American’s 230+ years we are the ones who do all the evil. I’m just curious where were the crusades? Where were the world wars? Where did the Roman’s rule? Where was the Holocaust?
Man America is looking pretty good right now.
What I find really funny is more blood has been shed in Europe around Italy, German, France, and Turkey then in any other place in the world through out history, but in American’s 230+ years we are the ones who do all the evil. I’m just curious where were the crusades? Where were the world wars? Where did the Roman’s rule? Where was the Holocaust?
Man America is looking pretty good right now.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
And the remedy were sanctions that killed 500000 children alone and a war that killed at least another several hundred thousand and finished off the last that were depending on something as simple as insulin.
But I guess it is all good BECAUSE YOU FUCKING MEANT WELL?
REALLY?
Hey, they all meant well.
Do you get this?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Torquemada they all pursued the “higher good” and were willing to wade through blood to get there.
They just “did what was necessary”, what “every else was to weak to do but what was necessary”, “history would be their judge”.
That’s interesting. I don’t think I have ever read those numbers before, but I’m glad you educated me today. I would like to know where you got those numbers. Oh and Hitler, Stalin, etc… I thought they were all about world domination or creating a master race. I didn’t know that killing 5,709,329 and estimated 50,000 of them your country men
Can be considered “meaning well”
There is a difference between meaning well and doing what ever you want no matter who gets hurt. Those poor innocent babies that can’t get their insulin because of the war couldn’t get it before when Saddam was running things. They have a far better shot of just living past their teens now. I guess the mass killings in Iraq just 15-20 years ago were okay because Saddam "meant well?. Hey fine by me America can just sit back and watch the world kill itself Fuck 'em, but don’t come crying when the shit hits the fan. Look through out history America is either hated because they “stick their nose where it doesn’t belong” (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea) or they are hated because “They took to long to join the fight” (WWI & WWII
)[/quote]
The numbers part is easy when it comes to the 500k children.
Google youtube and Albright and watch her.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
Interesting, but why couldn’t Saddam take care of his own people? I guess as usual it’s our fault. I keep forgetting America is this horrible place and no one ever wants to come here.
Didn’t Saddam kill as many of the kurds if not more? It was for a good cause thou…oil one of the favoirte arguments against Bush and the war in Iraq.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
Yes but blacks are overwhelmingly for liberal big govt economic policies. Their social and economic incentives don’t always match up, and they choose to go with their economic beliefs.[/quote]
After 40 years of voting Democratic, especially in presidential elections, I think it’s more become part of their racial consciousness. Besides, what other ethnic group bloc votes or votes solely on economic issues, especially when economic interests usually vary along classes within any ethnic group?
Are you old enough to remember for example when people like Spike Lee were calling black conservatives like Clarence Thomas racially denigrating names like “uncle Tom”?
[quote]valiance. wrote:
I don’t think being proud that the president is of your race necessarily equates to having voted for him exclusively because of his race. I don’t think racialist thinking in general proves anything more than what the polling numbers have already shown: there is some small percentage of votes ~10% or less who voted for or against Obama because of his race. [/quote]
More like 5% actually which is a joke really.
The fact that he was black AND Democratic was a huge plus for black Americans. I don’t remember any blacks honking their horns in cities across America when say Bill Clinton was re-elected.
and it kills me when white people complain about racism/racialism in America, as if ya’ll weren’t responsible for the whole goddamn thing in the first place. you’re seriously complaining about black racialism?
[quote]valiance. wrote:
But it’s funny to me when white people complain about race in America when the whole situation is largely their doing. You ignore one of the major causes of black racialism which is historical and current white racism. Black people think of themselves as a monolithic group because they are treated that way by society at large. Of course we all have a responsibility for our own patterns of thinking, but again those are subject to modification by outgroup influences like your treatment by mainstream culture. [/quote]
And you never explained if you were against or for racialism? [/quote]
Black racialism is a concern to me because it seems to be acting as arm to the Democratic party. It is also a concern to me, because as a general rule I have found that many racialists are also racists.
Many black people are racists. Many white people are unaware of this fact because they live in suburbs or rural areas in America. If you live in the city like I used to, hearing words like honky, cracker, devil, white boy,etc. thrown at you is not that uncommon. Neither is more vicious verbal or physical harassment or assault uncommon. Especially if you have to take public transportation through largely non-white areas. Speaking of this,I wonder about you and what your background is?
[quote]valiance. wrote:
Isn’t that still racism? Being bothered by police (even being shot dead by them) or not being promoted at your job are huge life events. You can’t just brush that aside. And racism persists in many areas of US life:
black people pay more for mortgages, are offered worse interest rates on everything from car loans to mortgages, are paid less wages for doing the same job, are offered jobs less frequently for the same credentials, are imprisoned more often and longer for the same crimes etc etc ad infinitum…
http://justicepolicy.org/images/upload/07-02_REP_MDMandatoryMinimums_DP-MD.pdf
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/rental-bias-study-argues-oversight
http://www.chicagogsb.edu/pdf/bertrand.pdf
http://www.lri.lsc.gov/pdf/03/030105_racepref.pdf
OVERT racism is largely dead, and good riddance; but COVERT racism continues to be a huge issue. And this is racism directed by individuals, not state sanctioned or legal racism. Most of society would balk at what these people do, and rightly so, but it still happens. It’s systemic, institutionalized, but at the same time officially-unsanctioned racism.
[/quote]
Why do you attribute biological racism to all of those problems?
I used to hear in places like NYC and Philadelphia, for example, black people complaining about not being able to get a taxi cab and crying racism because of it.
Well, for one, besides maybe a few Russians, most of the Taxi drivers in both of those cities are even white to begin with.
They have a dangerous job. If they pick up the wrong person or group of people, they could get robbed of their days hard work or even killed. This is why only usually foreigners are desperate enough to even take the job in the first place.
So if a taxi driver passes by a bunch of young black men who embrace the hip hop culture that glorifies violent crime, drug dealing and the like, what the fuck do they expect? Is it that they are passing a well spoken black guy in a suit, or some thug in his designer jeans hanging down over his exposed underwear wearing a gold chain?
The police have an even more dangerous job; one wrong decision and they again can get maimed or killed in a second. If they are looking for more blacks than whites in a city, it is because more blacks than whites or say Asians are the ones committing the majority of the crimes there. And often violent crimes too. So again, they are dealing with potentially very dangerous people. Police forces in cities too are also fairly integrated. The juries that try people in New York City are also fairly well integrated and in some areas, exclusively minority dominated.
Are the sentencing disparities because of economics? I.e. poor black kids are stuck with a public defender, as opposed to an OJ Simpson with his dream team? Or is it because repeat offenders get longer sentences? Or is it, as you suggest, a few closet racists here waiting like cheetahs in the dark to spring on prey…
The common thread here is the existence of a violent black uunder class in American society. Any honest and open discussion of race in America can’t happen without it. And I am not sure if this is the right place to have it either…
Also what does it mean to “talk black”? Does Obama “talk black”? How about Condi Rice? Or are they “talking white”? How about the white kids around here that use ebonics? Are they talking white or black? Again this is culture.
As for non-mainstream names, well if you are black or white and give your kid a strange sounding name, yes it might hurt them in the workforce. So does using any kind of slang in, say an interview.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
Interesting, but why couldn’t Saddam take care of his own people? I guess as usual it’s our fault. I keep forgetting America is this horrible place and no one ever wants to come here.
Didn’t Saddam kill as many of the kurds if not more? It was for a good cause thou…oil one of the favoirte arguments against Bush and the war in Iraq. [/quote]
So it is ok because Saddam killed more.
Just saying, thank God for people like Saddam or Hitler or else we´d be responsible for our own actions.