Race and Racism

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 24-1-2016 at 8:35 PM, CapTon said:

They might as well be.

If a white man comes from the same neighborhood as a black man, and the white man becomes successful and the black man can't even find a job (hypothetically, no racism involved here), the white man is to blame because, apparently, due to the color of his skin, he basically had a road constructed of gold paved for him. Race does not define opportunity. It is how hard someone is willing to work that defines the opportunities presented. And no, that is not suggesting that blacks don't work hard enough to present themselves with opportunities. I never said that, so don't take it out of context.

Well, if black people work just as hard as white people, and opportunities come to those who work hard, and then only white people get those opportunities, isn't that proof that there is an imbalance between who gets opportunities based on race? What other explanations are there?  

On 24-1-2016 at 8:35 PM, CapTon said:

Oh, and by the way: the people boycotting the Oscars are actually the racist ones. If all white people are nominated for awards, it's a huge problem and is said to be racism. White people don't deserve to be nominated for those awards, apparently. However, if all black people are nominated for awards, the aforementioned people are perfectly fine with that, and will probably make the argument that black are "finally getting what they deserve". That is racism true to the definition.

Perhaps, but your scenario hangs on the idea that black people get all the Oscar nominations, and since that has never actually happened, you can't say that people would be fine with that. 

 

Also, another example of white privilege at its finest. The Oregon national park takeover by a bunch of anti-federal militias. These people take over Federal property, and for weeks the government just lets them, even brings them food and what not, and lets militia members on and off the property. Then when they finally storm the place, they manage to do it with only killing one guy. That sounds like the restrained use of force. But why? There weren't any hostages there, there wasn't really a reason as for why they couldn't come in guns blazing. 

Now who wants to bet that if these guys were Muslims linked to IS or Al Qaeda, the federal government would have never been this patient with them? That they would have used a drone strike or the use of swat/counter terrorist units to storm in and neutralize all of them in less than 24 hours with the full use of force? 

White privilege ladies and gentlemen, the fact that if you are a white terrorist organization, the government will hold back.

[Sabretooth78 808]

On 1/24/2016 at 2:35 PM, CapTon said:

Take the east side of Cleveland, for example. Aside from the fact that there is a high crime rate in many East Cleveland areas, blacks heavily populate those towns/suburbs. This is the reason why blacks are the main culprits of the crimes there. Do whites commit crimes in these areas? Yes. Am I being racist with my statements? No.

Where I live, the population mainly consists of whites; this means that whites commit most of the crimes here. Do blacks commit crimes where I live? Yes. Am I being racist with my statements? No.

"Stats are so f****n' stupid, you know? Not that they're stupid, it's the way people apply 'em. You already have your mind made up, and then you go to ImRight.com, and you start memorizing a bunch of s**t and then you just throw it up at people.

This guy tried to get me to go scuba diving. I go ''I'm not going, I don't want to get eaten by a shark.'

He's like 'well actually 90% of shark attacks actually happen in shallow water.'

It's like no s**t. That's where the people are. It's called the beach. 90% of people are frolicking along the coastline. It's not like there's people swimming to Europe: 'Lets go to Iceland, you p*****s!'"

- Bill Burr

I'll show myself the door...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"There are liars, damned liars and statistics."
                   Mark Twain.

[CapTon 592]

8 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Well, if black people work just as hard as white people, and opportunities come to those who work hard, and then only white people get those opportunities, isn't that proof that there is an imbalance between who gets opportunities based on race? What other explanations are there?  

I just read over what I said. Realized that I stated two contradictory things. My bad.

Frankly, I believe that blacks aren't willing to work hard enough. I didn't say that before because I was afraid of being attacked for being "racist". It's why so many of them live in the crime-ridden suburbs of big cities. Because they refuse to take the opportunities given to them and instead commit a life to crime or poverty.

And some blacks (and whites, don't forget, and all the other minority groups out there) are just unfortunate. They do everything they can to make their lives better, but nothing seems to work out for them, and they're stuck with the other people who refuse to take the opportunities given to them.

You want proof that some blacks don't take advantage of opportunities given to them? Ben Carson. He's your proof. Read up on his life.

And honestly, to be fair, a lot of whites don't capitalize on their opportunities, either. I see it happen all the time. They're stuck with what they have because of either unfortunate events, poor parenting (applied to blacks as well), or just a lack of care.

And then all of these people expect the government to bail them out with checks and free money. "Hey! The government's giving me all this money, so why do I have to make my situation better and go earn money myself? Let the rich people who actually worked hard and paved their own path to success pay for me and my needs/wants!"

Quote

Also, another example of white privilege at its finest. The Oregon national park takeover by a bunch of anti-federal militias. These people take over Federal property, and for weeks the government just lets them, even brings them food and what not, and lets militia members on and off the property. Then when they finally storm the place, they manage to do it with only killing one guy. That sounds like the restrained use of force. But why? There weren't any hostages there, there wasn't really a reason as for why they couldn't come in guns blazing. 

Now who wants to bet that if these guys were Muslims linked to IS or Al Qaeda, the federal government would have never been this patient with them? That they would have used a drone strike or the use of swat/counter terrorist units to storm in and neutralize all of them in less than 24 hours with the full use of force? 

White privilege ladies and gentlemen, the fact that if you are a white terrorist organization, the government will hold back.

You can't compare American citizens to terrorist groups. The terrorist groups you listed are ones that have attacked the U.S. in the past and have made it clear that they want to kill Americans and destroy America. This "white terrorist organization" specifically stated that they had no intentions of harming anyone. Is what they did wrong? Hell yeah it is, and they should be prosecuted for it. But you cannot compare them to those terrorist groups.

And, according to liberals, those terrorist groups aren't Muslim, and people associated with them don't have Muslim ties. Islam is a "peaceful religion". Any homeland terrorist attack was committed by people who cannot be associated with the Muslim faith (even if those terrorist ANNOUNCE that they have ties to the Muslim faith). Because that's liberal ideology right there in a nutshell.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Militia groups in the U.S. are, perhaps, a little more radical than the average Joe, but they don't try to destroy the country.  They are not "terrorists" under that definition.  In fact, they are what the founding fathers envisioned when they felt the people might be oppressed. 

The problem they have is there isn't enough of them to really put any kind of heat on the politicians.  With a general population close to a third of a billion, a little group of thirty or so can't even find the hairs on the tail of the dog, let alone wag it.  It is pitiable.

To have enough people involved in a movement like this it would take one of the big public service outfits like the Masonic Order to have enough people to pull this off, and even they probably don't have enough members.  Most if not all of the founding fathers were Freemasons, but I don't think the general penetration of this order is enough to form a new party or whatever it takes.

The general corruption by the corporate elite of the political scene is so pervasive that only some kind of general collapse can solve it.  I can just envision the Congressional Attack Dog Committee: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Masonic Order?"  Or Knights of Columbus?  Or "the" Elks?  etc. etc.

Race and racial problems are really only a symptom of the current dysfunction of the system.  We are starting to look at the too many entitlements idea that also seems to have grown out of "affirmative action" errors as well.  Americans need to remember where they came from as a country, and why they exist.

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

On 23/01/2016 at 7:49 PM, Jasoncw said:

So you say that racial predjudice exists, but when someone brings attention to it or wants to improve the situation, then they are divisive? Gay people are divisive when they want to be integrated into society with equal rights? Women are divisive when they want the same treatment as the rest of society? Poor people are being divisive when they want to integrate themselves with normal society instead of living on the fringes in poverty? Rich people spend huge amounts of money to further increase their wealth, knowing that it has a negative effect on poor people, and for creating and protecting that status quo, they are unifiers and the poor people are divisive? When a woman wants equal pay or wants to do a job in a traditionally male field, and a man refuses to hire/pay her, he is a unifier, and she is divisive? 

You can't acknowledge that the status quo is bad, and then say that the people trying to change the status quo are divisive evil-doers who are trying to divide and conquer. 

Politics and history in Brazil and the US are very different, so I don't doubt you when you say that there is corruption and bad intentions. But here the vast majority of people supporting those causes have good intentions and have the goal of unity and equality. But it also depends on what your own politics are because you're saying the same thing that right wingers in the US do.

I don't know very much about the current oscars situation, although I have a hard time believing that not a single black person was worthy of being nominated (let alone win) for two years in a row. But hollywood has a long standing problem with diversity that still exists today. For what it's worth it's brought attention to the issue which isn't normally thought about, and the academy changed their membership rules to be a little less of an old boys club. It's 94% white, 2% black, 2% latino, 77% male, with an average age of 64. But only 66% of americans are white (and because of how the government counts people this includes arabs, who are culturally not considered white).

 

You touched a very important point and it probably makes a difference. I do not live in the US or you in Brazil, so this may explain our own points of view. In Brazil blacks have the same rights as whites since the end of slavery in 1888 (considering politically, not socially, because the society naturally was slow to assimilate the change). US slavery ended long before, however we all know that by the time of Martin Luther King racial segregation in the United States existed strongly. The US have experienced it recently, then for sure are different cases. Memories of that time must be common for Americans, so I must not talk to you as if everywhere was the same. I'm sorry about that.
Just to clarify, believe me, in Brazil what is happening is actually a division policy. Our country that a few years ago was seen as an emerging power that in a few decades could become developed, is now declining due to populist policies that our leftist government promotes and, of course, corruption. Investors are getting out of here and going to Mexico and Argentina; our GDP is negative; the government cut millions of investment in education; our largest company, Petrobras, is broken thanks to the corruption of the leftist party in power, among many other things. Meanwhile what the government does to try to drown out: invests millions in sexual booklets for children of 6 years old to "combat prejudice" and gain support from the LGBT community; creates academic and employment quotas for blacks to gain support from blacks; 'donate' about $ 15 a month (no, that's not a joke. $15!) to every child of poor mothers, among numerous other things. Anyone with a minimum of information knows this is indirectly vote buying. Finally and most important, when they do all these populist policies it end up putting people against each other. An example, imagine two porters who work in neighboring buildings and are poor alike. One black and the other white and their children as well, studying in the same public school. Their children do entrance exam to university (50% of the vacancies are for blacks by law now in Brazil), the white gets a better note than the black. If he is the 51st, in 100 vacancies for instance, he will not get into college because he is white, even if the black son of the doorman has gone worse in the entrance exam. How will be the relationship between these two porters? So our government just wants everyone against everyone. While the stupid people fight each other, they continue in power and our country is still broken and scandals are being forgotten.

Perhaps this post is slightly off topic subject, but it was just to clarify why I have criticized some "politically correct" actions. Now according to my context.

Now I have a question. I was searching and blacks are 12,6% of the US population. I know Hollywood is very white, however even if they won't and more blacks was there, they won 20% of the statuettes of the best actor in the Oscar. It exceeds the proportion, doesn't it?

[Meg 368]

7 hours ago, CapTon said:

Frankly, I believe that blacks aren't willing to work hard enough. I didn't say that before because I was afraid of being attacked for being "racist". It's why so many of them live in the crime-ridden suburbs of big cities. Because they refuse to take the opportunities given to them and instead commit a life to crime or poverty.

 

That is a huge generalization.   That may be true about some but it is not true about all.   I suspect you are alluding to the "crabs in a barrel" theory.

To quote Charles Barkley:

“There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have success,” Barkley said. It’s best to knock a successful black person down ’cause they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful. It’s crabs in a barrel. … We’re the only ethnic group that says, ‘hey, if you go to jail, it gives you street cred.’ “…”Unfortunately, as I tell my white friends, we as black people, we’re never going to be successful not because of you white people but because of other black people,” Barkley said. “When you’re black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people. It’s a dirty, dark secret; I’m glad it’s coming out.”

Is society racist?    I believe it is.   Is Charles Barkley correct in saying that black people make life more difficult for each other than white people do?   As a middle aged white woman, I can't say which is more difficult.  

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Mr. Barkley seems to have put his finger on the main problem.  Something in the black psyche makes them look at themselves as downtrodden.  I find this reprehensible, and probably due to the slave mentality which has not dissipated in well over a century.  Blacks don't read the Constitution of the United States?  (can't read??).

In my journey though life, I've encountered many people of colour, but the most proud and bright of the blacks I've ever run into were some Masai from darkest Africa who were working on degrees in Mathematics.  You just can't miss those tall, blue black people.  I think they are amazing, and if you get an opportunity to talk with them or better yet work with them you will have a very interesting experience.  Remember that the primitive Masai are lion hunters, and they actually eat their prey.  Probably the toughest h. sap. on the planet.

[LexusInfernus 908]

16 hours ago, CapTon said:

I just read over what I said. Realized that I stated two contradictory things. My bad.

Frankly, I believe that blacks aren't willing to work hard enough. I didn't say that before because I was afraid of being attacked for being "racist". It's why so many of them live in the crime-ridden suburbs of big cities. Because they refuse to take the opportunities given to them and instead commit a life to crime or poverty.

Why? Why would anyone deliberately choose to live in poverty and crime? That suggestion makes no sense because it assumes that black people somehow prefer crime and poverty over safety and a well paid honest job. What makes you think that black people like that? 

Quote

And then all of these people expect the government to bail them out with checks and free money. "Hey! The government's giving me all this money, so why do I have to make my situation better and go earn money myself? Let the rich people who actually worked hard and paved their own path to success pay for me and my needs/wants!"

Well, if you are down on your luck, short on cash and hungry, wouldn't you like a check that helps you survive the week? And make no mistake, welfare is barely enough to survive, its not enough to actually live anything resembling a decent and comfortable life. On top of that, most people experience it as deeply shameful and humiliating that they have to rely on others to survive. So why the assumption that people love to be unemployed and entirely dependent on others for survival? 

Quote

You can't compare American citizens to terrorist groups. The terrorist groups you listed are ones that have attacked the U.S. in the past and have made it clear that they want to kill Americans and destroy America. This "white terrorist organization" specifically stated that they had no intentions of harming anyone. Is what they did wrong? Hell yeah it is, and they should be prosecuted for it. But you cannot compare them to those terrorist groups.

They seized federal property, so by every definition they have attacked the US itself. Okay, they didn't kill a lot of innocent people in the process, good for them, it doesn't change the fact that they have attacked the Federal Government, and therefor the United States itself. Honestly, America has send drones after people for less, and the police have shot people for less. The only difference between this militia and all those others is that this militia is white and all those other people tend to be not white. Hence, white privilege. If you are a white terrorist, the US government will be far more reasonable in its use of force against you. 

Look, I'm not saying that what the US government did here was wrong. In fact, I like the way they handled this. They didn't make a big deal out of it, they didn't declare a war on militias, they didn't send these people to Guantanamo bay or some other CIA black site, they were patient and willing to wait this out and act in a way that resulted in the minimal loss of life. My issue is, why doesn't the US act in the same controlled manner when it comes to other terrorists? Sure, I get that if those terrorists are in the process of slaughtering innocent civilians the government has the responsibility to end their threat as soon as possible. But seriously, so many 'terrorists' the US has gone after were nothing like that at all. How different the world would have been if the US had responded to 9/11 in the same way it has responded to this Bundy militia. 

Quote

And, according to liberals, those terrorist groups aren't Muslim, and people associated with them don't have Muslim ties. Islam is a "peaceful religion". Any homeland terrorist attack was committed by people who cannot be associated with the Muslim faith (even if those terrorist ANNOUNCE that they have ties to the Muslim faith). Because that's liberal ideology right there in a nutshell.

See how quickly conservatives apply the same logic when it comes to criticisms against Fundamentalist Christians whenever they commit acts of terror. See how quickly they start whining about how there is a war on Christians whenever someone dares to point out some of the crazy nonsense that goes on in Christian Fundamentalist circles. 

Yeah, Liberals say that you shouldn't stereotype 1.6 billion people as dangerous terrorists because of the actions of a tiny minority. 

Quote

Militia groups in the U.S. are, perhaps, a little more radical than the average Joe, but they don't try to destroy the country.  They are not "terrorists" under that definition.  In fact, they are what the founding fathers envisioned when they felt the people might be oppressed. 

The definition of terrorist has nothing to do with whether they want to destroy a country or not. The IRA never wanted to destroy the UK as well, and the RAF never wanted to destroy Germany. All they want is to push their political agenda through by using illegitimate force. And sure, the Bundy militia may claim this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned, but how is that different from religious terrorists claiming that what they are doing is what their holy book envisioned? Its just window dressing, a way to appear nicer than they really are and to give their methods some kind of legitimacy. 

In the end its debatable whether the founding fathers wanted militias to take on the Federal government, even more so if it was over something as trivial as grazing fees. Though it doesn't help that there are politicians such as Ted Cruz who at least use rhetoric that seems to support these types of militias when he is talking about 'second amendment remedies' (although once those militias actually act on that rhetoric, Cruz was quick to backpedal on it). 

[Meg 368]

3 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Blacks don't read the Constitution of the United States?  (can't read??).

 

Yes, black people can read.  But the original form of the Constitution said they counted as 3/5ths of a person so it might be less than inspiring to them. 

 

^ Mr. Barkley seems to have put his finger on the main problem.  Something in the black psyche makes them look at themselves as downtrodden.  I find this reprehensible, and probably due to the slave mentality which has not dissipated in well over a century. 

 

I don't know if it is the main problem but I believe it is a problem.    And I wouldn't use the word "psyche".  I think it's more an issue of culture.   Of course, there is no one "black culture".   Some people, both white and black, seem to believe there is and try to shove all black people into that category but "black culture" is varied and complicated.

Personally, I believe one way some black people harm themselves and each other is use of the N-word.   To many people, including myself, that is trash talk.  It shows a lack of respect.  A co-worker once asked me "How am I supposed to respect them when they don't respect themselves?"

At the risk of sounding like a cranky old person:   What ever happened to manners?   Simply treating each other with respect would avoid a lot of problems.

 

 

 

 

  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

8 minutes ago, Meg said:

 

<snip>

At the risk of sounding like a cranky old person:   What ever happened to manners?   Simply treating each other with respect would avoid a lot of problems.

 

Actually, Meg, you are sounding like a Canadian.  Come up for a holiday.  You'll feel right at home.  Near, foreign, friendly and above all, polite.

[CapTon 592]

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Why? Why would anyone deliberately choose to live in poverty and crime? That suggestion makes no sense because it assumes that black people somehow prefer crime and poverty over safety and a well paid honest job. What makes you think that black people like that?

It's like you didn't even read on to see what I said after my initial statement. Here, let me bold it for you so that you don't miss it this time:

And some blacks (and whites, don't forget, and all the other minority groups out there) are just unfortunate. They do everything they can to make their lives better, but nothing seems to work out for them, and they're stuck with the other people who refuse to take the opportunities given to them.

You want proof that some blacks don't take advantage of opportunities given to them? Ben Carson. He's your proof. Read up on his life.

And honestly, to be fair, a lot of whites don't capitalize on their opportunities, either. I see it happen all the time. They're stuck with what they have because of either unfortunate events, poor parenting (applied to blacks as well), or just a lack of care.

And yes, some people (black AND white) choose to live in poverty and crime by not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them. Each and every one of them is gifted with the opportunity to receive an education at a public school (as bad as some of the districts may be) and choose any career path they want, no matter how bad their situations are at home or where they live (again, take a look at Ben Carson).

Quote

Well, if you are down on your luck, short on cash and hungry, wouldn't you like a check that helps you survive the week? And make no mistake, welfare is barely enough to survive, its not enough to actually live anything resembling a decent and comfortable life. On top of that, most people experience it as deeply shameful and humiliating that they have to rely on others to survive. So why the assumption that people love to be unemployed and entirely dependent on others for survival? 

To be honest? Yeah, I would love a check in that situation. But what I hate about these welfare and government checks is that the middle class and rich get taxed to pay for them. That isn't fair. If the feds can come up with some way to give out these checks without forcing the middle class and the rich to pay for them and not blowing money they don't have, by all means, they should do it.

And yes, the actual DECENT people are ashamed to be on welfare. The criminals and the careless people could (not to be redundant) not care less. They're more than happy to receive checks they don't deserve and then use them to finance their own nefarious plans.

Quote

They seized federal property, so by every definition they have attacked the US itself. Okay, they didn't kill a lot of innocent people in the process, good for them, it doesn't change the fact that they have attacked the Federal Government, and therefor the United States itself. Honestly, America has send drones after people for less, and the police have shot people for less. The only difference between this militia and all those others is that this militia is white and all those other people tend to be not white. Hence, white privilege. If you are a white terrorist, the US government will be far more reasonable in its use of force against you. 

Look, I'm not saying that what the US government did here was wrong. In fact, I like the way they handled this. They didn't make a big deal out of it, they didn't declare a war on militias, they didn't send these people to Guantanamo bay or some other CIA black site, they were patient and willing to wait this out and act in a way that resulted in the minimal loss of life. My issue is, why doesn't the US act in the same controlled manner when it comes to other terrorists? Sure, I get that if those terrorists are in the process of slaughtering innocent civilians the government has the responsibility to end their threat as soon as possible. But seriously, so many 'terrorists' the US has gone after were nothing like that at all. How different the world would have been if the US had responded to 9/11 in the same way it has responded to this Bundy militia. 

You keep saying this is white privilege. Are you kidding? Obama, his Cabinet, and all of his idiotic federal friends despise whites. In fact, if Congress was dominated by Dems, he would probably do whatever it took to take rights away from whites and give more to blacks (and then address the nation and lie about it).

The U.S. only send drones after terrorists who want to KILL people. This militia does not/did not want to kill anyone. They wanted to send a message. Did they choose a poor way of going about it? Yeah. And again, they should be prosecuted for it.

The U.S. hasn't done nearly enough to deal with the terrorists you're referring to. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, right? The U.S. should be putting troops on the ground and eliminating from the regions they inhabit to protect our allies. These groups pose too much of a threat to not get rid of it. What the hell are we waiting for? Another 9/11? And are we even going to react if/when that happens with Obama or Clinton or Sanders in office with anything different from drone strikes?

Quote

See how quickly conservatives apply the same logic when it comes to criticisms against Fundamentalist Christians whenever they commit acts of terror. See how quickly they start whining about how there is a war on Christians whenever someone dares to point out some of the crazy nonsense that goes on in Christian Fundamentalist circles. 

Yeah, Liberals say that you shouldn't stereotype 1.6 billion people as dangerous terrorists because of the actions of a tiny minority. 

We apply the same logic because terrorist attacks in the name of Islam occur so much more often that ones in the name of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. And what crazy nonsense in Christian Fundamentalist circles? Please clarify.

It's no longer a tiny minority. 100 years ago? Sure. Now? No.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Uh, about complaining about taxes:  Tax is the price of government.  If you don't like what the government does with your taxes, the vote for someone who will change it, it is your only chance.  Galumphing about with guns will only get you what the Jabberwock got.  Just remember that vorpal blades cut both ways.

[LexusInfernus 908]

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

It's like you didn't even read on to see what I said after my initial statement. Here, let me bold it for you so that you don't miss it this time:

And some blacks (and whites, don't forget, and all the other minority groups out there) are just unfortunate. They do everything they can to make their lives better, but nothing seems to work out for them, and they're stuck with the other people who refuse to take the opportunities given to them.

You want proof that some blacks don't take advantage of opportunities given to them? Ben Carson. He's your proof. Read up on his life.

And honestly, to be fair, a lot of whites don't capitalize on their opportunities, either. I see it happen all the time. They're stuck with what they have because of either unfortunate events, poor parenting (applied to blacks as well), or just a lack of care.

And yes, some people (black AND white) choose to live in poverty and crime by not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them. Each and every one of them is gifted with the opportunity to receive an education at a public school (as bad as some of the districts may be) and choose any career path they want, no matter how bad their situations are at home or where they live (again, take a look at Ben Carson).

Ben Carson, as uplifting his story is, is also a relatively rare occurrence. The guy went to Yale. Not a lot of people manage that, no matter their background. That alone puts him in an elite group of people. His story isn't about what happens when you work hard, do your damnest to get somewhere in life and then reap the rewards from it at some point, his story is one about luck, about how he was randomly picked from scores of equally capable and qualified, hard working people who didn't get in. 

And I've never heard of anyone who got accepted to Yale and then declined it because coasting through life on a government welfare check sounded better. If people don't go to Yale after being accepted it is only because they either got in Harvard or Princeton and liked one of those better, or because they couldn't possibly afford an Ivy League education. Neither of which would qualify as 'not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them'. 

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

To be honest? Yeah, I would love a check in that situation. But what I hate about these welfare and government checks is that the middle class and rich get taxed to pay for them. That isn't fair. If the feds can come up with some way to give out these checks without forcing the middle class and the rich to pay for them and not blowing money they don't have, by all means, they should do it.

Why isn't that fair? What about taxing the middle and upper class isn't fair? If they can't be taxed, the government isn't allowed to take out loans, then who is left to pay for the government? The lower class? Well that isn't exactly fiscally responsible, basing your income by taking it from people who don't have an income to spare. And for what? So the government can take that money and give it back to them in the form of welfare? Well that is one way to ensure that the lower class NEVER gets anywhere. 

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

And yes, the actual DECENT people are ashamed to be on welfare. The criminals and the careless people could (not to be redundant) not care less. They're more than happy to receive checks they don't deserve and then use them to finance their own nefarious plans.

How much do you think someone on social security gets? Generally it is just enough so you don't starve. How exactly is that amount of money gonna help you finance anything? 

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

You keep saying this is white privilege. Are you kidding? Obama, his Cabinet, and all of his idiotic federal friends despise whites. In fact, if Congress was dominated by Dems, he would probably do whatever it took to take rights away from whites and give more to blacks (and then address the nation and lie about it).

When he had a democratic majority in Congress he did no such thing. Just like he didn't go after anyones guns, didn't start illegal wars, didn't use Jade Helm to occupy Texas, etc. Conservatives have blamed all kinds of nonsense on Obama, claimed he would do all kinds of things, and he never did. 

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

The U.S. hasn't done nearly enough to deal with the terrorists you're referring to. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, right? The U.S. should be putting troops on the ground and eliminating from the regions they inhabit to protect our allies. These groups pose too much of a threat to not get rid of it. What the hell are we waiting for? Another 9/11? And are we even going to react if/when that happens with Obama or Clinton or Sanders in office with anything different from drone strikes?

That assumes that troops on the ground would be able to effectively deal with these terrorists. All the evidence points towards that not being the case. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Chechnya, it didn't work in Afghanistan and it didn't work in Iraq. 

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

We apply the same logic because terrorist attacks in the name of Islam occur so much more often that ones in the name of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. And what crazy nonsense in Christian Fundamentalist circles? Please clarify.

Oh you know, murdering abortion doctors, trying to deny women autonomy over their bodies, trying to deny fundamental civil rights to gay people, brainwashing children to become warriors for Christ whatever that means, etc. 

And all those terrorists attacks you are referring to tend to happen in the Middle East. It should be no surprise that Muslims are behind those attacks, given that most people in the Middle East are Muslims. That said, if you go looking for terrorist attacks done by Christians or other religious people, you can find plenty of them if you know where to look. 

15 hours ago, CapTon said:

It's no longer a tiny minority. 100 years ago? Sure. Now? No.

Yes it is. The amount of people that are actually dangerous numbers in the thousands, not millions. And nearly all of them are acting dangerous in active conflict zones and staying there. The number that actually represents a threat on US or Western soil is tiny and insignificant. That isn't to say they can't be dangerous, but it is ridiculous to use them to stereotype Muslims in general. 

[CapTon 592]

On 1/30/2016 at 8:24 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Ben Carson, as uplifting his story is, is also a relatively rare occurrence. The guy went to Yale. Not a lot of people manage that, no matter their background. That alone puts him in an elite group of people. His story isn't about what happens when you work hard, do your damnest to get somewhere in life and then reap the rewards from it at some point, his story is one about luck, about how he was randomly picked from scores of equally capable and qualified, hard working people who didn't get in. 

And I've never heard of anyone who got accepted to Yale and then declined it because coasting through life on a government welfare check sounded better. If people don't go to Yale after being accepted it is only because they either got in Harvard or Princeton and liked one of those better, or because they couldn't possibly afford an Ivy League education. Neither of which would qualify as 'not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them'. 

Right. So everything Ben Carson achieved is purely luck. Yep. Okay. Ask anyone else, and they might think a bit differently.

That's not what I was saying. I've been referring to (this whole time) the people who are in poor positions. I've never mentioned people who have achieved greatness by attending one of those schools. When I stated that people are 'not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them', I was talking about people in bad positions. You know that. You were just looking for something, anything to call me out on and oppose.

Quote

Why isn't that fair? What about taxing the middle and upper class isn't fair? If they can't be taxed, the government isn't allowed to take out loans, then who is left to pay for the government? The lower class? Well that isn't exactly fiscally responsible, basing your income by taking it from people who don't have an income to spare. And for what? So the government can take that money and give it back to them in the form of welfare? Well that is one way to ensure that the lower class NEVER gets anywhere. 

I'm not saying they're not allowed to be taxed at all. I'm saying that they don't deserve to be taxed to pay for someone else's needs. What makes America so great is that there is equal opportunity. Those who don't take advantage of that don't deserve to get bailed out by the middle class and the rich because those people TOOK advantage of equal opportunity and soared to the point where they're able to sustain themselves. The people in the lower class that WANT to get somewhere WILL get somewhere.

Quote

How much do you think someone on social security gets? Generally it is just enough so you don't starve. How exactly is that amount of money gonna help you finance anything? 

Social security on its own isn't a lot, but a lot of people who don't actually need social security somehow get it. It's why people who claim they desperately need the welfare checks have iPhones, cars, and homes. And it's also how criminals can finance their operations.

Quote

When he had a democratic majority in Congress he did no such thing. Just like he didn't go after anyones guns, didn't start illegal wars, didn't use Jade Helm to occupy Texas, etc. Conservatives have blamed all kinds of nonsense on Obama, claimed he would do all kinds of things, and he never did. 

Obama has actually never HAD a real Democratic majority in Congress. The Republicans took over Congress in 2007, and he's never had both the Senate AND the House on his side. And Obama has initiated more extensive background checks when buying guns (which is a start to taking people's guns), failed to start ANY wars that he has needed to (ahem... ISIS? And no, drone strikes don't count. Troops on the ground would count.), and, to be completely honest, I've heard nothing about Jade Helm drills anywhere. Conservatives have (and rightfully so) blamed Obama for many things that he has either done or has intentions of doing.

Quote

That assumes that troops on the ground would be able to effectively deal with these terrorists. All the evidence points towards that not being the case. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Chechnya, it didn't work in Afghanistan and it didn't work in Iraq. 

In case you didn't notice, we won (technically speaking) in Afghanistan. We contained Al Qaeda and prevented them from launching more attacks on U.S. soil. Vietnam is very similar to what's going on now: the President refuses to do what is absolutely necessary and instead wants to take things slowly, which doesn't actually do anything. I've never heard of either one of the Chechen wars until now, so I can't argue with you on that. And as for Iraq; I don't really know how to feel about that whole war, to be honest.

Quote

Oh you know, murdering abortion doctors, trying to deny women autonomy over their bodies, trying to deny fundamental civil rights to gay people, brainwashing children to become warriors for Christ whatever that means, etc. 

And all those terrorists attacks you are referring to tend to happen in the Middle East. It should be no surprise that Muslims are behind those attacks, given that most people in the Middle East are Muslims. That said, if you go looking for terrorist attacks done by Christians or other religious people, you can find plenty of them if you know where to look. 

Only one attack has occurred on Planned Parenthood or any other abortion facility that actually killed anyone, and none of those fatalities included any abortion 'doctors'. Being a Christian myself, I know for a fact that our religion (or anyone who practices our religion) does not try to deny women autonomy. If anything, Muslims deny women autonomy to their bodies (they're not even allowed to show their faces in some places!). As for gay rights; you can only refer to one occurrence, and frankly, I don't believe that gays should be denied their rights. While it is against my religion, I do believe that because it is now law, there's nothing we can do about it and we can't enforce our religion in that regard. And brainwashing children to become warriors for Christ? What? Where'd you pull that out of? Some left-wing, propaganda-based website, like the Huffington Post? Christians believe in TEACHING others about Christianity. We do not brainwash anyone, nor will we ever. However, take a look at ISIS. They're Muslims. And they're brainwashing children. Will your argument be that because they're Muslims, it's okay? Because it seems like that's what a lot of Dems preach nowadays.

And have you not been paying attention to any terrorist attacks occurring over here? San Bernadino was a terrorist attack by Muslims. That Philly police officer that is currently in the hospital was shot by a Muslim. The Boston bombings were done by Muslims. And there are so many more that were either foiled or were irrelevant compared to the major attacks that have taken place recently. And a lot of the population in the Middle East consists of Christians (however, that population is going down because Dems and the President refuse to acknowledge the persecution of Christians over there). And please, tell me where to look for Christian terrorist attacks. And please don't reference the Oregon standoff or that Planned Parenthood shooting because those seem like the only two that were committed by Christians that I'm aware of. And two does not equal plenty.

Quote

Yes it is. The amount of people that are actually dangerous numbers in the thousands, not millions. And nearly all of them are acting dangerous in active conflict zones and staying there. The number that actually represents a threat on US or Western soil is tiny and insignificant. That isn't to say they can't be dangerous, but it is ridiculous to use them to stereotype Muslims in general. 

So no terrorist groups in the Middle East pose any sort of threat to the U.S. at all? I suppose we should just invite their leaders over to the White House for dinner and a good laugh. And yes, the number IS in the millions. These Muslims don't have to be a part of terrorist organizations in order to be considered dangerous or actual terrorists. Also, there is no stereotyping of Muslims. It's simply pointing out that their religion promotes violence in the name of Allah. Hence ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. Can you name some Christian terrorist groups that actually pose a threat to anyone? No, you can't, because Christianity doesn't promote violence. It promotes the teaching of the Gospel (which doesn't promote any violence). And, in conclusion; the majority of these terrorists may be acting in active conflict zones, but their influence is spreading rapidly over here, and that's why we've been seeing the increase in Muslim terrorist attacks over here.

[LexusInfernus 908]

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

Right. So everything Ben Carson achieved is purely luck. Yep. Okay. Ask anyone else, and they might think a bit differently.

No, not everything, just a significant part. He was lucky that he got a certain opportunity and sure he grabbed it. Its just that for everyone who is lucky enough to get such an opportunity, a lot of other people don't get that opportunity and therefor cannot take it. And it doesn't matter what other people think about this. Western society has cultivated the delusion of individualism and the idea that we are in control over our own lives. Science has clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. Whether people choose to believe that truth or not doesn't make it any less of the truth. Although I must add that not accepting this truth does hinder our efforts to improve society, simply because we refuse to acknowledge problems because they go against the personal believes of people. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

That's not what I was saying. I've been referring to (this whole time) the people who are in poor positions. I've never mentioned people who have achieved greatness by attending one of those schools. When I stated that people are 'not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them', I was talking about people in bad positions. You know that. You were just looking for something, anything to call me out on and oppose.

Isn't the problem that if you are in a bad position, you don't get those opportunities in the first place? How can you grab opportunities that literally do not exist for you or that you are in no position to reach out for? And you did mention someone who achieved greatness by going to one of those schools, because you repeatedly told me to look at Ben Carson as someone who did it right. Ben Carson attended Yale. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

I'm not saying they're not allowed to be taxed at all. I'm saying that they don't deserve to be taxed to pay for someone else's needs. What makes America so great is that there is equal opportunity. Those who don't take advantage of that don't deserve to get bailed out by the middle class and the rich because those people TOOK advantage of equal opportunity and soared to the point where they're able to sustain themselves. The people in the lower class that WANT to get somewhere WILL get somewhere.

So you are saying that someone who was born into a broken family to a mother who can't really afford them has the exact same opportunity as someone who had extremely wealthy parents. That these people get the exact same quality of education, get the exact same quality of food, the exact same quality of health care, etc. That idea is patently false and honestly what I just said describes the Soviet Union better than the United States. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

Social security on its own isn't a lot, but a lot of people who don't actually need social security somehow get it. It's why people who claim they desperately need the welfare checks have iPhones, cars, and homes. And it's also how criminals can finance their operations.

What you are saying is that people who need welfare don't fit your view on how a poor person should look like. Well, as you know the US recently went through a bit of an economic downturn, you know with the banks falling over, and a lot of people lost their job. Before they lost their job, they obviously didn't need welfare and didn't receive welfare, and because they had a job, they could afford cars, iphones and homes. Then when they lost their job, they went through their savings, some had more than others, but a good number of them couldn't find a job quick enough before they ran out of savings. So they need welfare. What you are saying is that they should have sold their home and car and phone, but why? What would that have done? Well, if they sold their house they would have become homeless. Is that good? Is that something you can expect of people who lost their job, that they should also give up their roof and live in homeless shelters before the government should pay them for food? And cars? Well that would have actually worsened their situation as people need cars if they want a new job. After all, they need some way to get to their job interviews. And if you paid for your car and own it, why would you sell it just so you then have to start spending money on public transport? Thats a financially dumb idea. And what about those Iphones? Well, again, if you bought it and paid for it, why get rid of it? And you kinda need phones to you know, look for a new job? Again, it might be financially smarter to keep those things. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

Obama has actually never HAD a real Democratic majority in Congress. The Republicans took over Congress in 2007, and he's never had both the Senate AND the House on his side. And Obama has initiated more extensive background checks when buying guns (which is a start to taking people's guns), failed to start ANY wars that he has needed to (ahem... ISIS? And no, drone strikes don't count. Troops on the ground would count.), and, to be completely honest, I've heard nothing about Jade Helm drills anywhere. Conservatives have (and rightfully so) blamed Obama for many things that he has either done or has intentions of doing.

He started with the more extensive background checks only a month ago. Before that, he tried to convince congress that maybe tighter laws were necessary, but congress never did anything about it and Obama never followed up. And in case you haven't noticed, but Obama started an extensive air campaign against IS together with a whole bunch of allies. If that isn't a war, I don't know what it is. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

In case you didn't notice, we won (technically speaking) in Afghanistan. We contained Al Qaeda and prevented them from launching more attacks on U.S. soil. Vietnam is very similar to what's going on now: the President refuses to do what is absolutely necessary and instead wants to take things slowly, which doesn't actually do anything. I've never heard of either one of the Chechen wars until now, so I can't argue with you on that. And as for Iraq; I don't really know how to feel about that whole war, to be honest.

You contained Al Qaeda? Excuse me? Since that little disaster Al Qaeda now has branches throughout the entire Middle East and North Africa, a good number of those branches didn't exist before the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. So no, the US completely failed in their objective to stop or contain Al Qaeda. And no attacks on US soil huh? Guess we're only counting Boston and that time someone tried to set off a bomb on Times Square when we want to argue for more war? Well, Chechnya is in Russia, so I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it, but lets just say that the Russians have done exactly what people like Ted Cruz are arguing we should do. It got them Beslan and the Black Widows. Look them up. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

Only one attack has occurred on Planned Parenthood or any other abortion facility that actually killed anyone, and none of those fatalities included any abortion 'doctors'. Being a Christian myself, I know for a fact that our religion (or anyone who practices our religion) does not try to deny women autonomy. If anything, Muslims deny women autonomy to their bodies (they're not even allowed to show their faces in some places!). As for gay rights; you can only refer to one occurrence, and frankly, I don't believe that gays should be denied their rights. While it is against my religion, I do believe that because it is now law, there's nothing we can do about it and we can't enforce our religion in that regard. And brainwashing children to become warriors for Christ? What? Where'd you pull that out of? Some left-wing, propaganda-based website, like the Huffington Post? Christians believe in TEACHING others about Christianity. We do not brainwash anyone, nor will we ever. However, take a look at ISIS. They're Muslims. And they're brainwashing children. Will your argument be that because they're Muslims, it's okay? Because it seems like that's what a lot of Dems preach nowadays.

Actually Christian terrorism against Planned Parenthood has a pretty long history. I suggest you look up the name George Tiller. And any Christian group that tries to deny women access to reproductive healthcare, be it abortion or things like the pill, is trying to deny them bodily autonomy. You are correct when you say that Muslims don't exactly have a great track record on this either in certain countries. Undeniably true, but that doesn't change anything. As for the brainwashing, look up the movie 'Jesus Camp' and no its not some left wing we hate religion type of movie. 

And of course its not okay when Muslims do it, its not okay if IS does it. The thing is, if they do it, and its wrong, then its also wrong if we do it. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

And have you not been paying attention to any terrorist attacks occurring over here? San Bernadino was a terrorist attack by Muslims. That Philly police officer that is currently in the hospital was shot by a Muslim. The Boston bombings were done by Muslims. And there are so many more that were either foiled or were irrelevant compared to the major attacks that have taken place recently. And a lot of the population in the Middle East consists of Christians (however, that population is going down because Dems and the President refuse to acknowledge the persecution of Christians over there). And please, tell me where to look for Christian terrorist attacks. And please don't reference the Oregon standoff or that Planned Parenthood shooting because those seem like the only two that were committed by Christians that I'm aware of. And two does not equal plenty.

I thought you just said that since Afghanistan there had been no more attacks on US soil, and because of that the war in Afghanistan was won? 

And sure, I suggest you look up the Christian militias butchering Muslims in the Central African Republic. Or the constant antagonism between Christians and Muslims in Sudan. Or the back and for of terrorist attacks between the two groups in Nigeria. Or closer to home, the Protestants vs the Catholics in Northern Ireland and the IRA. 

Christians have just as much blood on their hands as Muslims, and in both cases its important to recognize that the people that do these types of things are minorities within the larger group of peaceful people. Its of no use to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, just as its of no use to blame all Christians for the actions of a few. 

15 minutes ago, CapTon said:

So no terrorist groups in the Middle East pose any sort of threat to the U.S. at all? I suppose we should just invite their leaders over to the White House for dinner and a good laugh. And yes, the number IS in the millions. These Muslims don't have to be a part of terrorist organizations in order to be considered dangerous or actual terrorists. Also, there is no stereotyping of Muslims. It's simply pointing out that their religion promotes violence in the name of Allah. Hence ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. Can you name some Christian terrorist groups that actually pose a threat to anyone? No, you can't, because Christianity doesn't promote violence. It promotes the teaching of the Gospel (which doesn't promote any violence). And, in conclusion; the majority of these terrorists may be acting in active conflict zones, but their influence is spreading rapidly over here, and that's why we've been seeing the increase in Muslim terrorist attacks over here.

Boko Haram, IS and Al Qaeda don't exist because Islam promotes violence or any of that nonsense, just like the IRA doesn't exist because Christianity promotes violence. Their existence has nothing to do with the religions they pretend to defend/promote. If anything, their understanding of their own religions is minimal. They exist because of other grievances that are not dealt with by the authorities. In the case of IS, the grievance is the complete lack of progress in and personal future perspectives for thousands of young men. No jobs, no chance for a better future results in these people taking to violent and extremist groups that promise them everything they currently lack: wealth, power and a purpose. Sure, that wealth is stolen, that power comes from the barrel of a gun and their purpose is a nihilistic vision on their religion, but what do they care, its still better than what they had before. 

Why you see increased terrorist activity in the US and Europe is because ever since 9/11 politicians on the right have been pursuing a policy and narrative that actively marginalizes Muslims and promotes an us vs them idea. We are literally pushing people to become terrorists. The real security threats in our countries are not IS and Al Qaeda that operate in the Middle East, but our own right wing politicians. Sadly saying things like the stuff in put in bold is a perfect example of what I mean, it creates and us (Christians, good people who hate violence) vs them (Muslims, bad people who follow a bad religion that loves violence) narrative. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

By their fruits ye shall know them. 

If the right wing (let's be honest and call them Republicans) are fomenting racial disorder, especially candidates like The Donald, isn't it time for some authority to step in (The Supreme Court) to reign in the abuse of the First Amendment?  I seem to remember that years ago Justice Holmes said that freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

At the same time the social democrats (the other party) are leaning more than a little too far left for most Americans in the street.  The result is yet another division in the body politic, when it is supposed to be the United States of America.

In this election year (Iowa caucuses are today) let's see what the people think of all this.  Let's see where the honest Iowa farmers take you.

[Sabretooth78 808]

16 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

In this election year (Iowa caucuses are today) let's see what the people think of all this.  Let's see where the honest Iowa farmers take you.

More politics, I'm afraid.  Meaningless as the caucus is becoming, they're all going to just vote for whoever says they're going to roll back the ethanol mandate the least.  Good old corporate welfare.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

7 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

More politics, I'm afraid.  Meaningless as the caucus is becoming, they're all going to just vote for whoever says they're going to roll back the ethanol mandate the least.  Good old corporate welfare.

I hope you won't have to take that back after the results are in tomorrow.  It is just a little too cynical for me.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Meh, sometimes I like to shoot low and end up pleasantly surprised.  This is one of those topics.

I had heard that a while back, that that just might be the greatest issue at play there.  What I read mentioned who was least against the mandate but I don't remember who that was.  Anyway I heard Cruz won so maybe there's a little shred of sensibility after all.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And the gray, with long ears and eats grass has a virtual tie.  Not bad for a guy who has come from behind the "front runner" in about seven months.  Can you feel the Bern?

Has Mr. Sanders said anything about the racial troubles?

[inspire224 13]

Everything is called racist these days. 12% of the pop is black. About the same % is nominated in the Oscars. Fair according to the populating! 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

To make America great again, all that is needed is to kick the corporations out of the Congressional lobbies.  Someone needs to remind the members of Congress who their constituents are, and the best way to do this is to replace them.  It is an election year, so why not fire the lot? 

It is not always best to stick with the devil you know.  Sometimes a leap of faith is needed.

[And yes I know you can only get at a third of the Senate.]