This is topic Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055092

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Potential qualifiers/disqualifiers:
- language
- government financial assistance
- education (at least a GED?)
- historical/constitutional knowledge (one time test similar to citizenship exam)
- employment
- property ownership
- etc
 

---

Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
The only qualifications for the right to vote should be age, citizenship, and caring enough to do it.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
IIRC, most states in the US do in fact restrict people in prison, on probation, and on parole from voting.

This restriction is not necessarily universal, for example Canada does allow the majority of this group to vote (except, and this is hazy, those convicted of treason).
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Citizenship requirements (unless natural born) are stricter, American history, English, etc.
I'll give you 100-1 if you're on welfare you'll vote one way. Is this a conflict of interest when one party promises to take money from another and give it to you for your vote?
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Cause those sorts of restrictions have worked so well in the past. In my readings and studies, barriers to voting rights have always been stumbling blocks in society, not points of advancement. When people either feel like they have no voice, or when they actually have no voice, upheaval blooms.

I'm not even sure age should be a requirement for the right to vote. I'm all for allowing people younger than 18 the right to vote, though I think that anyone younger than 18 would have to jump through special hoops in order to gain the ability, I think it is their right to be able to.
 

---

Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Malanthrop,
What an interesting concept! You're right, those who have just crossed the border from anywhere, or those who are already getting government subsistence are almost assuredly going to vote a certain way. Is their vote less valuable because of their life situation? Should the value of their vote be discredited because of the choices they made that caused them to gain subsistence, or enter the country and desire for their friends and family to also enter?

A big part of me suggests the implementation of qualifiers/disqualifiers could level the voting field, but would all voices then be heard? Do we need all voices to be heard?

I Suggest:
Language
Education (at least a GED)
Employment (pays taxes)

I think implementing those qualifiers/disqualifiers would start to even out the voter field, yet still allow voices from all walks of life, and encourage those to work and at least get a basic education.

Lyrhawn,
Allowing a free-for-all when it comes to voting would cheapen its value in my opinion. Like buying a new car, if I bought it myself, or if my parents bought it for me makes a big difference. If I had to finish high school, and have a job and speak English in order to vote, then my vote would mean more to me, and the system as a whole.
 

---

Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
I agree with Lyrhawn.

Beleaguered-

While I certainly understand your point that your vote would mean more to you if you had to earn it, there are still other things to keep in mind. If you're a citizen in this country, there are going to be laws made that affect you. I think that because of this, you deserve to have your voice heard. I think that additional voter requirements is a form of redlining that toes a very dangerous road. If you were forced to have a job, how would retirees and the unemployed voice their concerns? What if there were institutional changes that needed to take root in order for them to find a job?

I can understand that your vote is cheapened by the free-for-all nature. I, on the other hand, value my vote more when I consider that my voice is added to a great mass of competing ideas. But then again, I could be crazy that way.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm not concerned with how someone votes but that they at least have a basic knowledge of our system of government and our founding principles. I worry that our country has lost sight of constitutionality and our founding principles. I'm becoming concerned about the class warfare that is going on. I see a turning point where more than 50% pay no taxes. When the majority pays no income tax or infact gets a "rebate" they are one sided voters for life. They've been bought.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Even elementary school children understand the unfareness of a student promising ice cream for your vote. We're not talking about ice cream but thousands of dollars, free health care, free college, etc etc. Is it appropriate for a politician to promise so much for your vote? Is it a miscarriage of democracy?
 

---

Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Vadon-

I hadn't thought about the retirees. I was focussing on a person's interest in the system as a tax payer. Perhaps as long as they are recognized in the system as a tax payer, that would suffice. I agree with Malanthrop, that we need more educated voters. I also believe someone's completion of at least their GED would ensure a basic level of education that could prove useful to the voter system.
 

---

Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Malanthrop,

a miscarriage of democracy? Perhaps it is. I know what you just described, with the ice cream, and then health care and college, that's the way it's been for as long as I can remember (not too long I suppose). So, you're suggesting we have been conditioned so long to submit and expect? When I form my political opinions and stances, I do so based on how a party can improve the current situations where I feel they have gone wrong. The military, for example has been using bribery tactics such as what you are suggesting with the politicians. I know the military offers free college, free health care and much more. But the military also asks its participants for a great sacrifice in exchange. What will we need to sacrifice or exchange in order to qualify for the government's promised proposals?
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
beleaguered -

Education and employment eh? Maybe you could just openly declare your intentions to initiate class warfare and at least get it out there freely. Don't get me wrong, I think education is vital when it comes to voting, but I think disenfranchising a huge section of the population that hasn't graduated high school (in ever increasing numbers in the previous decade) and is out of work is a great way to rob millions of a vote who desperately need a voice in government the most.

Ours has always been a nation with high ideals and goals that we rarely meet in practice, and some of our worst offenses have come when the wealthy gain power at the expense of the downtrodden.

The law of the land has always been innocent until proven guilty, the ideal of our laws have always been that you need an excuse to make something illegal rather than a reason to legalize it. Gaining the right to vote has been a 230 year struggle for a LOT of different people. Women, blacks, immigrants, catholics, Indians, citizens of the country from places like DC and the territories, have all started from a position of not being able to vote and have had to fight to get that right. They came from a place where you had to have land to have a vote, and we even tried that for a time here too, but we came here specifically to get away from that idea. And we formed a new country with the ideal that the only thing you need to have in order to vote here is the virtue of being here as a citizen. Citizenship is the only real marker necessary for the right to vote (with relatively few exceptions).

Backsliding tends to happen in inches and avalanches. This would be an avalanche.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Even elementary school children understand the unfareness of a student promising ice cream for your vote. We're not talking about ice cream but thousands of dollars, free health care, free college, etc etc. Is it appropriate for a politician to promise so much for your vote? Is it a miscarriage of democracy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Is it appropriate for a politician to promise so much for your vote? Is it a miscarriage of democracy?

---

quote:

---

But what is your answer for those under-educated who take their vote so lightly and pluck from the surface what might make them temporarily happy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...citizens of the country from places like DC and the territories, have all started from a position of not being able to vote and have had to fight to get that right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'll give you 100-1 if you're on welfare you'll vote one way. Is this a conflict of interest when one party promises to take money from another and give it to you for your vote?

---

• Posted by Lyrhawn:
  I'd flip your question around on you though: What is your answer to the unbridled greed that leads the highly educated in positions of wealth and power to use their vote to secure more wealth for themselves to the long term detriment of society? You're identifying a problem that transcends education (but is still comprised of education).

quote:

---

Member
Member # 11992

posted March 21, 2009 04:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can the unemployed afford health care? How can someone making minimum wage afford even affordable healthcare?
"Affordable" translated.....If you can afford it, you'll pay, if you can't the government will....from each according to his need, to each according to his ability.

---

quote:

---

To each according to his contribution is considered by Marxists and other socialists as a characteristic of society after a socialist revolution and before the transition to communism. According to Marxists such as Lenin it essentially means that people are rewarded for the value of their labour that has been contributed to society while according to certain socialists it may also mean rewarding an individual for the corresponding amount of labour-time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I've read his plan. It's full of complaints about the current system and promised outcomes, "it'll reduce your premium by $2500". A lot of "In my plan you will...." No details and lots of assumptions but we can Hope for Change.

---

quote:

---

those who are already getting government subsistence are almost assuredly going to vote a certain way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beleaguered:
Malanthrop,
What an interesting concept! You're right...

---

 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:
Oshki -- I'd wager that nearly everyone on this board knows who said that quote and what the intention was. People have been comparing Obama's plan to communism for some time.

---

quote:

---

Where would we have to be in order to implement them without having disastrous consequences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

I'll give you 100-1 if you're on welfare you'll vote one way. Is this a conflict of interest when one party promises to take money from another and give it to you for your vote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Starting from scratch is one. We had some similar requirements early in US history."

yeah. They were pretty bad requirements. Why should you have to own property in order to vote? People who rent are still citizens. Why should women not be able to vote? etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The idea made more sense back then. People who owned land were by and large the educated segment of society, that's what they were going for.

---

quote:

---

Why should we restrict voting to people with a certain level of education? Again, people without high school diplomas are still citizens.

---

quote:

---

Because a high school diploma does not by default imbue somebody with enough knowledge of political affairs to be able to effectively participate in them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Women, blacks, immigrants, catholics, Indians, citizens of the country from places like DC and the territories, have all started from a position of not being able to vote and have had to fight to get that right....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElJay:

quote:

---

Because a high school diploma does not by default imbue somebody with enough knowledge of political affairs to be able to effectively participate in them.

---

Tough. As long as the laws affect all citizens, all citizens need to be able to vote on them. That was kinda the whole point of the country, remember? No taxation without representation? And before someone says anything about all those awful people who don't pay taxes, I hope you live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon.

---

quote:

---

There are some single parents who work two jobs trying to support their kids, and may honestly not have time to devote to things like this.

---

Simple answer is to grandfather in anyone who is already ages 16 or older. That gives those who are 16 two years to build their volunteer hours before turning 18, and even larger head starts for anyone younger.

I've actually always liked the idea of requiring people to actually give something of themselves to their country/community before being allowed to participate in the decision making of that country/community.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I'd be OK with that as long as the people that are relieved of representation are also relieved of the burden of taxation
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 

quote:

---

Tough. As long as the laws affect all citizens, all citizens need to be able to vote on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:


yeah. They were pretty bad requirements. Why should you have to own property in order to vote? People who rent are still citizens. Why should women not be able to vote? etc.

---

quote:

---

permit those under 18 to not pay taxes (which essentially is the case anyways after you factor in services and tax credits)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Unless you plan to find a way to have minors not pay sales tax, gas tax, etc, etc. Income tax is not the only form of tax in this country, after all.

---

quote:

---

So, all people who purchase things in this country are taxed - would that mean they all deserve representation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
So, Mucus, what do you think about illegal aliens that are working in the country and paying taxes (sales, property, etc)? Or those on green cards that are in the country legally for extended periods of time and paying taxes?

---

quote:

---

How about citizens that are living overseas and pay no taxes at all inside the US - do they not deserve a vote because they are not taxed?

---

quote:

---

I'm not concerned with how someone votes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Potential qualifiers/disqualifiers:
- language

---

I agree. For starters, must prove the ability to properly use apostrophes and spell.

That will disqualify YOU.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Mucus... interesting your stance on illegal immigrants and voting. How would this be tracked?

How might one be able to tell who are actual illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, and who are merely transient visitors to the US?

Also, what about those who live in border towns in Canada and Mexico who regularly cross the border to shop/visit friends/etc. and pay US taxes? Should these also be allowed to vote?

Again, doesn't sit well with me.

I am okay with the concept of "those who are of legal adult status who have not broken the social contract" being allowed to vote. That would be legal citizens, 18 or older, who are not in prison. (Though I am open to negotiation on what age "adult status" is granted)

I am also interested in the concept of service to the community, simply because I feel voting should be held in higher esteem than it currently is. If something is free, it is taken more for granted. If something requires effort, it is more valued.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:

"Its not fair. A bunch of people voted and voted not the way we wanted them to. They voted for things that they liked, things that helped them and not us. That is not fair. Instead of trying to work hard and get them to vote for us, or educate them about how our plans are the best, why don't we just stop letting them vote."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
How might one be able to tell who are actual illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, and who are merely transient visitors to the US?

---

quote:

---

Also, what about those who live in border towns in Canada and Mexico who regularly cross the border to shop/visit friends/etc. and pay US taxes?

---

quote:

---

I am also interested in the concept of service to the community, simply because I feel voting should be held in higher esteem than it currently is.

---

quote:

---

When I started this post it wasn't my intention to put forth the items as suggesttions, that is why I listed them as "qualifiers/disqualifiers"...

---

quote:

---

My own mother, a previous pro-life marcher told me she would've voted for Hillary. This only on the basis of sex.

---

quote:

---

I see which side of the aisle cultivates and uses racism, sexism, sexual orientation, income level and on and on.

---

quote:

---

Swap the "Jew" with "rich" and we'd be in 1930's Germany or "communist" with "executive" and we'd be in the 1950's McCarthy era.

---

quote:

---

According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.

---

quote:

---

Disregarding one's core belief system for the trivial: gender, race, sexual orientation is saddening to me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
There is also the matter of scale, in that there are approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, and approximately 200,000 in Canada.

---

quote:

---

If someone wants to vote, they should go through the process of becoming a citizen. If they don't want to be a citizen, they shouldn't have a say in the governance of the country/community.

---

quote:

---

In a larger view, "who" gets to vote is the least of our problems. Our governmental system as far deeper problems.

---

quote:

---

Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.

---

quote:

---

New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society.

---

quote:

---

He didn't like my answer, "We shop at Wal-Mart".

---

quote:

---

My coldblooded perspective is that we should eliminate the born here and automatically a citizen policy. I spent a great deal of time in the military around the world, being born in other countries does not automatically make you a citizen. Other nations enforce immigration policy.

---

quote:

---

There are many hard working illegals, true. Eleven percent of California's prisons are illegals. They aren't necessarilly lining up at the welfare office but they get free lunch and breakfast at our public schools and use emergency rooms as primary care providers.

---

quote:

---

Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, California, DC whatever. Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common?

---

It took me about five and a half seconds to find this: http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

There's a statistic by state for you, malanthrop. Are you willing to eschew this line of argument now?

I'm beginning to think you're simply not worth talking to about this political issue. Your arguments might as well come from Rush Limbaugh's rants, and you're not answering some direct statements made in argument against your points.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I wasn't discussing intelligence, however your statistic was generated from your obscure website. Here's a link to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, US government data for your edification. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t01.htm
Heres one from the Right Wing bastion...NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11601692
Maybe Detroit will break the 25% graduation rate this year and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan.

I'm discussing unemployment, graduation rates and crime.

I'm sure Massachusetes, Vermont, etc are quite smart. The most extreme examples of classes are found with liberals. You have your very educated, elitist northeastern democrats and you have your inner-city 25% graduation rate, living in crime and poverty democrats. This kind of disparity isn't as prevalent with conservatives. Make fun of the dumb redneck if you like, he has a job and works hard. There are liberal elites and liberal victims. The problem is, they haven't realized who is really victimizing them.

Fugu...I didn't correlate those areas in the sense of the high black population, rather the Democratic control of the govt.

You seem to hold European standards in such high esteem in other areas, socialized health care, capital punishment, etc. Lets be consistent. Since four Democratically controlled states have surpassed the 10% unemployment rate we should embrace European policies. Why not, 10% unemploment is fairly standard for France but at least they have socialized healthcare and a 35 hour work week.

[ March 22, 2009, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe Detroit will break the 25% graduation rate this year and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
European standards

---

quote:

---

Of course California has been a profit center, it has a high population of tax payers.

---

quote:

---

The problem is, high state taxes are driving out the high earning tax payers.

---

quote:

---

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/us_world/NATLCalifornias-Exodus.html

"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates."

---

quote:

---

In the end, the redneck areas will win.

---

But at the end of the day, they'll still be Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, and still won't be decent places to live.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
malanthrop: but why didn't you? If your arguments were at all persuasive about immigration, they would be at least as persuasive about black people.

Of course, they aren't persuasive in the first place. They are racist claptrap. I'm not going to bother going through all of them, but if you would like any particular one of your arguments torn to shreds, please quote it from an earlier post and I will do so.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"We have the sense that just by virtue of being a citizen, you should get to vote."

Why shouldn't we have that sense?
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
The most extreme examples of classes are found with liberals. You have your very educated, elitist northeastern democrats and you have your inner-city 25% graduation rate, living in crime and poverty democrats. This kind of disparity isn't as prevalent with conservatives. Make fun of the dumb redneck if you like, he has a job and works hard. There are liberal elites and liberal victims. The problem is, they haven't realized who is really victimizing them.

---

Are you for real? This entire arguments is based on the worst type of stereotyping. You're using generalizations and exaggerations I'll even grant you that there are cultural differences between urban and rural poor (I've had personal experience with both types) but in both cases you find examples of laziness and stupidness and in both cases you find examples of hardworking folks trying to make the best of a bad situation.

If you'd like to have a discussion about who tends to be a democrat and who tends to be a republican, we could do that. There are plenty of statistics available out there on current and historical trends. But when you bring that kind of thing into a conversation about who should have the right to vote, it just adds weight to the idea that you want to disenfranchise people who disagree with you.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The point of this was to make people think about why they vote and to explore shallowness of the American voter. I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman. I didn't specify if the items listed were either qualifiers or disqualifiers. I just knew this would lead a lot of different directions.

Fugu, you brought up black people. I'm not suprised really, liberals categorize everone into tidy little demographic groups. I see a man where you'll see a black man. But resort to your typical liberal tactic? If you disagree with a liberal you are a racist, sexist homophobe. Liberals can't see past the orientation, sex or race to the person. If you disagree with a persons opinion or viewpoint the liberal percieves your dissagreement to be with the only thing they are aware of, the skin, sex, etc. I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right? I believe that our immigration laws should be enforced...I suppose I hate Mexican people. I am pro life....this makes me a sexist, correct? True, most conservatives are afraid of your accusations and they have proven an effective way to snuff out logical debate. I'm suprised you'd stoop to that so easilly. You don't like me suggesting where liberals have power the economies suffer, crime is higher and education is poorer, prove me wrong. I'm multiratial but I suppose having a diverse background is negated by my conservative ideals. I must be a sellout. Not really because if you looked at me you'd only see a white guy.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You want considerably more than immigration laws being enforced -- you've suggested people born here should not automatically be citizens (which would require the Constitution be amended, btw). That's a quite drastic change. I'll assume you overlooked that instead of lying about what you wanted intentionally.

I guess you don't feel any of your arguments about immigration can stand up to scrutiny. My offer remains open.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Feel free to go through the whole two pages and comment. Suggesting a constitutional change is discriminatory? I suppose you believe the constitutional ammendment in California was discriminatory? I made a comparison to European national laws since you hold them in such high regard in other areas, capital punishment and socialized medicine. Be consistent. You pick and choose the examples you like, pick and choose the laws you like or the parts of the constitution you prefer.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Of course I pick and choose laws I like. I tend to base how I've picked and chosen on things like outcomes and moral beliefs. For instance, if you actually look at Europe's immigration situation, you'd see it is even worse than ours in many places, largely due to populations of immigrants being preserved as second class members of society due to inability to achieve citizenship.

And you've picked and chosen parts of the Constitution you don't like -- assuming you like any of it, that is. You don't like the part that makes those born here citizens. Do you even read what you wrote a second earlier when you write?

I've already told you, I don't feel like going through two pages and countering all of them; that would be a waste of my time. How about you pick one argument you've already posted about immigration and quote it. I don't want you to say that whatever I tackle was just a minor argument. Pick something you think is a really good argument.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
I like Fugu, so he wins
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Lets take a look at our immigration situation then. I believe history will view sanctuary cities as one of the most racist policies in this nations history. It is justified with arguments about them doing jobs Americans are unwilling to do. We ignore our own laws so that we can import peasants to do work that is beneath us. We've replaced African slaves with South American Natives. Worst of all, our society actively ignores the laws of our nation to facilitate this. What if our government chose to ignore other laws, like desegrigation or voting rights for blacks and women? Talk about greed, govt greed. Fake social security numbers, numbers that do not have matching names or numbers being used simultaneously in numerous locations are picked up by the IRS. They ignore this because the revenue is coming in. Fail to pay your taxes and they'll come after you with penalties but they wont tell you your number is being used by ten illegal immigrants or go after the ones using it. Dems blocked E-verify, why?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199861,00.html
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I said pick one argument, and it should really be something you've said earlier (unless you're admitting those arguments were worthless?)
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Lets focus on manipulation then:

Our short term outrage is used to manipulate us into agreeing with things. The mob is being manipulated. The 90% tax proposal on bonus money for example, it doesn't only apply to AIG, it applies to recipients of bailout money. The tentacles and strings are permeating society. Conveniently, the $250k limit is there, recieved bailout money and get a bonus you'll pay 90%. They discuss the sum of bonus money but many people received regular bonuses but we have a new tax that will never go away. We all recieved bailout money in one form or another, the state, the corporations or small businesses. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"...Pelosi, Geitner.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It's like he put all the conservative talking points in a blender.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html

The crazy right wing NY Times.

Back track here....
-Bailout passes
-Obama admin tells Dodd to insert ammendment allowing bonuses
-Dodd denies it
-24 hours later Dodd admits it (his name on it) and drops the dime on "the administrations request"
-Outrage from public
-Outrage from Obama
-Calls to get the money back from AIG
-Now proposing taxes and limits on ALL executives (not just AIG)
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/fannie_mae.htm
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Read and we'll discuss how this government creation failed and took the rest with it. Ironic it was created during the great depression but hey zero down, and no more red lining.
Remember it went down first and held 40% of American mortgages.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
It's like he put all the conservative talking points in a blender.

---

1. Look through your previous posts.
2. Pick an argument about immigration
3. The argument must be a single argument, not a bunch of arguments together
4. Use your mouse to select the argument
5. Copy and paste the argument into a new post, using "quote" tags
6. I will then dismantle the argument

 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's the one where you suggested we incarcerate black people

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_ice_video/2009/03/19/194083.html

"the raids must end"...
"kicking in doors and taking mothers and fathers is unamerican"
"you are patriotic"

Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.

Immigration policy should be restrictive. New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society. When my son had his two year checkup, the doctor asked if he had been in nursing homes or exposed to illegal immigrants. Questions to screen for exposure to TB, etc. He didn't like my answer, "We shop at Wal-Mart". Doctors are aware of the health risks involved with unscreaned immigration. Diseases we had licked that are prevalent in South America are resurging here. Meningitis, Drug Resistant TB, even Chagis Disease. A disease spread by insects not found in most of America. Ignore the law, ignore the health consequences, ignore the expense for incarceration, welfare, education and medical care. How has it become unamerican and racist to support the enforcement of current law?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
And now you've picked an argument not about immigration.

1. Look through your previous posts.
2. Pick an argument about immigration
3. The argument must be a single argument, not a bunch of arguments together
4. Use your mouse to select the argument
5. Copy and paste the argument into a new post, using "quote" tags
6. I will then dismantle the argument

---

Be nice if you could put it back together better, smarter, faster...etc.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

---

quote:

---

I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman.

---

quote:

---

I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

---

quote:

---

What do we do about the self serving, dishonest, heirs/heiresses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB]

quote:

---

I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman.

---

Do you love her enough to try and understand why she would do this, as opposed to insisting she's a dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep?

---

quote:

---

I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?

---

quote:

---

Unless you're assuming that there are no dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep, why would his love for his mother make her less likely to be one?

---

quote:

---

Nothing. They're not a problem, really. The problem is the mob-swaying McCarthyistic Democratic party tricking all of us into thinking they are.

---

quote:

---

Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common? The lowest unemployment rates go to Wyoming and North Dakota....what do they have in common?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?

---

For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

---

Absolutely not. I take an unwavering "no invertebrates" stance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

---

Absolutely not. I take an unwavering "no invertebrates" stance.

---

That strikes me as rather difficult to enforce. Especially on any border with waterways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Unless you're assuming that there are no dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep, why would his love for his mother make her less likely to be one?

---

In and of itself, it wouldn't of course. That same love should make him try and understand, though, as opposed to scorning and holding in contempt.

---

quote:

---

Do you think that the two really are incompatible, that if you really understand where they're coming from, it is impossible to hold it in scorn and contempt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Practicality be damned, think how many problems we would have avoided if we'd never let those killer African bees across the border.

---

quote:

---

No. I'm talking specifically about this case, about malanthrop and his mother and the situation as he has described it.

---

quote:

---

A little old lady that I know, who I had never ever heard speak a cross word about anyone said of Obama: "Not even the antichrist could have such a great following by speaking so much without saying anything."

---

quote:

---

We are a long ways from realizing that dream, I suspect, because people without character profit by the division.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshki:
At the news of the Obama victory, Colin Powell cried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?

---

For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.

---

quote:

---

I am certainly not at the top of the heap. I live pay check to pay check in a 1100 square foot house with a family of four.

---

Ask me how I knew this would be your reply.

That you don't know what the "heap" is in this case is part of the problem, IMO.

(Did a wealthy person really give you a job? You didn't earn it?)
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?

---

For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.

---

I am certainly not at the top of the heap. I live pay check to pay check in a 1100 square foot house with a family of four. But being light skinned, you would assume so? Or maybe only a white, rich person could have conservative ideals. The difference is, I know I've earned what I have and I do not look to other groups for blame where I am lacking nor do I jealously covet the wealth of another man. A wealthy person gives me a job in a wonderful country where an African American can be the President of the United States. It's a great nation where the American Dream is alive and well. Achievement is there for all who work for it. The victim mind set is a means of control. Maybe the whites and blacks should band together against the greedy evil Muslim Americans and Asian Americans, they have a higher average income than whites and blacks. They must be secretly keeping us all down:)

---

quote:

---

Nope, I wouldn't. I sit next to many fine blacks, hispanics, women and filipino's in my office every day. They are paid as much or more than I and they have earned every penny of it. They are qualified "people". My father is a member of the Ojibwe nation and I can't even speculate what race my wife might be (she was adopted). I see a beautiful person.

---

quote:

---

"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important.

---

quote:

---

So what’s the problem with colorblindness? A lot of people will offer “I’m colorblind” as a symbol of good faith; they’re trying to express that they aren’t actively thinking racist things, and that they don’t see the race of others as a problem. And, as far as that goes, it’s a sweet thought. Really. But it functions for PoC in much the same way as “you’re just one of the guys” and “I don’t think of you as a girl” functions for women. It’s a nice thought, but it misses the point entirely.

I don’t want [my race] to not be a problem for you; I don’t want race to be problematic.

The distinction may seem subtle, but it really isn’t. When a person says “I don’t see color” as a way of saying “your race is not a problem for me,” it casts the problem as race. Race is not the problem, racism is.

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting Whites are the top of society?

---

quote:

---

I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.

---

quote:

---

Now you're stereotyping whites as having "the necessary qualities" of success. Can I infer minorities are lacking the necessary qualities you failed to list? Some might find that a very offensive suggestion. Would you care to list the qualities you speak of so we could explore them. I certainly believe intelligence is equal accross racial lines and I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure people might feel discriminated against for tatoos, gold teeth, etc.

---

quote:

---

Employment is equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important.

---

I don't see how it's insulting.

---

quote:

---

I am a person

---

quote:

---

If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales and ignore the BS of the Oscars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I agree that inner-city schools suck but it's the Dems who block school choice programs.

---

quote:

---

If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales...

---

quote:

---

Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist.

---

Can you please stop propagating unfair and insulting stereotypes against liberals? These sorts of bigoted ad hominem attacks are irrational and weaken any argument you might be trying to make.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I do have a bias there...I'll try. When you say liberal what do you mean? What about a fiscally conservative lesbian pro lifers? McCain and Leiberman are multipolitical and therefore not accepted by either party. They must really hate the opposing parties since they don't see party and actually consider positions over lables. But maybe they really hate the other party and are just in denial of their bias and overcompensating. Secretly Leiberman is way far to the left and McCain way far to the right but they happen to meet in the middle. Pretty well aproximates Orincoro's race argument?

[ March 24, 2009, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So, does your attitude towards Lieberman -- a fiscally liberal hawk -- mean that you've reconsidered your stance on Colin Powell?

-------

BTW, I asked earlier and you didn't answer: did you read the provided link?
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I like Colin Powell. Had he run, I would've voted for him. Fiscal Conservatism is most important to me. I have my doubts about his motivation for endorsing Obama. If he came out and said, "It's about time we had a black president" I would respect him for it. His interview wasn't very convincing either, fairly shallow points about good communicator and uniter, etc. If there every was a R that could reach accross the aisle, it was McCain. As I said earlier, at least my mom had the courage to admit why she would've voted for Hillary.

[ March 24, 2009, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I always snicker when I hear republicans talk about being fiscally conservative when Reagan, Bush I and Bush Ii consistently ran the highest budget deficits the US has ever seen. Under Clinton, we actually had a budget surplus by the time he left office,

Bush II had a budget surplus when he entered office and a robust economy for most of his tenure in office and yet ran up enormous debts. A fiscal conservative would have raised taxes to pay for the war on terror up front rather than hiding the costs and passing them on to future generations.


Yes, Obama is proposing a huge budget deficit right now, but he has a huge mess to clean up which is not of his own making. Most economic models suggest that it is actually desirable over the long run to have budget deficits during times of deep recessions, like the one we are in now, and run budget surpluses when the economy is robust. I'll bet you that if Obama serves 2 terms, the budget will be balanced by the time he leaves office.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm not a Republican.
I am not happy with the Republican party either. Justifying one wrong with another is not a valid argument. Clinton was good with the government, I wish he could run for a third term. This administration's spending goes way beyond addressing the economic problems we're facing. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass programs that have little to do with the economy and have been rejected by the public in cooler headed times. If they cared about turning the economy around, they would suspend income taxes and capital gains taxes for six months to a year. It would cost less than the bailouts and the public investment would turn it around quickly. They want a govt solutions to government created problems. They are pushing capitalism has failed message. The bailout started with the sell of TARP but they didn't buy the Trouble Assets as promised to the American people. They've sprayed money around with plenty of strings attached and now are returning to TARP. Another 1 trillion to buy troubled assets. Had they done what they promised the public in the first place, this would be turned around already. But "never let a crisis go to waste"

[ March 24, 2009, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
malanthrop: I don't think anybody here even self described liberals believe that now that a Democrat is in office everything will be just peachy. I mean this to a degree has me worried as I barely have any idea what "troubled" means. I hope that if such a power is deemed necessary it will comes after serious consideration and that a some sort of time or economic limit will be placed on it so that it expires.

But the argument that "big change" is not necessary and that cool heads must prevail rings fairly hollow after some of the shady dealings of the past 8 years. If we suspended income and capital gains taxes I think the negative repercussions would be positively astounding. Most economists openly say that in a recession the government should run deficits, while allowing for surpluses in times of plenty. We've been tossing our money down the toilet for years now with war, I would be almost giddy with excitement if I knew a few billion dollars had instead been diverted to our public schools, or to scientific research. President Obama seems intent on fixing education, health care, alternate energy research and the economy, while trying to scale things back in Iraq so that Afghanistan can hopefully be salvaged. I don't expect him to get it all done, but none of those things strike me as 1984ish. Instead, that strikes me as very domestic based investing. I sincerely hope we stop "nation building" and get our own house in order.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The goverment has more to blame than the banks. They kept lowering and lowering the prime rate to rediculous levels. Fannie and Freddie, govt creations, were directed by the govt to package up these risky loans. I remember congress pushing the banks to lend to everyone under threat of SEC action. Throwing around terms like redlining and convincing the American people that home ownership is a right for everyone with zero money down. Gone the days of lending to people who saved their money for the purpose of buying a home. FHA raised the percentage of income allowed for mortgages. It sounded good, got a lot of poor people into homes who previously wouldn't qualify. Good intentions gone bad. Greedy flippers were caught as well, no sympathy for them from me. When they talk abouth "the banks" they are talking about THEIR bank. Banks created by the government that held 40% of all US loans, the riskiest loans to boot. It was the collapse of the govt that created this mess and now the govt offers the solution. It was govt interference, best intentions and all that caused this mess. Sure bankers got big bonuses. Focus on the million this executive got while they dump Trillions down the drain. I've traded five pennies for a dime before. Google Fannie/Freddie bonuses. Barney Franks boyfriend was there when the Bush admin warned him in 2003 about the problems. Elmer Fudd up there denied any problems and now screams for names.
Where's the money?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2083881/posts

Dodd #1 Obama #2
Conveniently the man who is responsible for oversight of these institutions and the president of the United States.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

This administration's spending goes way beyond addressing the economic problems we're facing. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass programs that have little to do with the economy and have been rejected by the public in cooler headed times.

---

quote:

---

I suppose you believe Christians are homophobes for believing it is immoral behavior.

---

quote:

---

Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist.

---

quote:

---

When Eric Holder mentioned, "Americans are cowards about race" he was talking about you. You're pathetic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Are you having us on? Is this a prank?

---

quote:

---

That's certainly been my assumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noemon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Are you having us on? Is this a prank?

---

That's certainly been my assumption.

---

It's sort of a subway mosaic, ancient and crumbling, overlaid with a fresh uberpainting of graffiti. Or a veiny brash new-world bleu grafted onto the rootstock of a pungent, perhaps unduly artisanal cheese--Pont l'Eveque?

Catchy!

Thumbs up!
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm pointing out your self denial. You can't separate the stereotype from group. I will tell you I am opposed to affirmative action. On this basis you will automatically brand me a racist and refuse a logical argument about the matter. I also believe homosexual behavior is immoral and for that you brand me a homophobe, bitgot. I also believe that alcoholism is bad. I have a gay neighbor, we get along just fine. He's a nice enough guy and one of my favorite neighbors. His yard is great, he doesn't throw loud parties and he really cares about his home. There are straight-white people living in my neighborhood I would gladly trade for gays like him. (but secretly in my head I'm repeating queer over and over,..... right? ) I don't care what he does in his house but if he had a gay pride parade in front of my house I might be bothered. One of my neighbors drinks from the moment he wakes up until he passes out, every day. I think this is wrong but I really like him. The Jamaican guy on the corner is always going on and on about N##gers, he must hate black people. My neighborhood is extremely diverse and I love it. Surround me with black homosexuals who care about their homes and go to work everyday and I've found a home for life. I live in florida and I can't stand the trailer trash, child abducting whit pedophile meth heads living in Polk county. I must be prejudice agains whites that live in Polk county. The world is little more complicated than your coalition of groups. If someone is opposed to what you stereotypically classify as a position common to a specific group, you automatical assume them to be opposed to or prejuduced against that group. Remember, there are minorities who would completely agree with me and they aren't sell outs for doing so.

[ March 24, 2009, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
You need to learn how to use paragraphs. I think you're racist against paragraphs. Think of the paragraphs!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Let me ask you again: did you read the provided link?
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

I will tell you I am opposed to affirmative action.

---

quote:

---

You didn't ask but I'm being accused of racism and homophobia for having a position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
I'm pretty sure that blacks actually get *more* skin cancer than whites. I think the darker pigment only really protects against sunburns.

---

quote:

---

My children don't need to see another person's underwear.

---

quote:

---

This statement might offend some black people and be interpreted as racist but from my perspective it's not.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure it wont be in my lifetime but some day we will be blended into a homogonous race and we'll be able to get past the surface and discuss the issues.

---

quote:

---

believing that homosexuality is immoral is tantamount to homophobia

---

quote:

---

A person who looks at someone, and believes that their lifestyle is immoral. Are they not afraid of that, so not "phobic?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xavier:
I don't know Orincoro, I think with advances in transportation and internet technology, race will disappear eventually.

The world is getting smaller and smaller at a seemingly exponential rate. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years you could go on a date with someone in a different continent (perhaps even spend the night with them), and be back in time for work the next day.

With the internet growing and growing, I'd be surprised if a common language emerges (or if English becomes the default), so I don't think that will remain a barrier for long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Our perceptions are limited by our lifespans. A "very long time" in comparison to what? The planet ia at leat 4 billion years old. The oldest evidence of humans is about 25 thousand years and sixty years ago it was exremely rare to mix races in this country. A couple generations from the beginning of acceptance of mixed races in America. In two hundred years or ten generations we will definitely be a lot closer to homogonus.

---

quote:

---

I believe it is a good thing. At least mixed race people aren't viewed as oddities anymore. IMO they are very attractictive and level headed individuals in regards to racial relations. It is possible when "pure" this or "pure" that becomes increasingly rare, their supremasist attitude will only grow. Obama will no longer be the first black president, rather the first half black president. Accusations of progress only for accepting a tolerable level of color in the man. Racism may get more extreme as pure races dwindle. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

A couple generations from the beginning of acceptance of mixed races in America. In two hundred years or ten generations we will definitely be a lot closer to homogonus.

---

quote:

---

Racism may get more extreme as pure races dwindle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
The oldest evidence of humans is about 25 thousand years

---

quote:

---

I did not intend to make a judgment call or stereotype all people of mix race backgrounds.

---

quote:

---

Everyone needs to watch out so not to leave a slight hint of offense to an oversenstive person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
... I think travel will get easier, but so will staying at home. We may come to value more and more our known and knowable spaces. We may, in the future, choose to travel less and less. It's a bit hard to predict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Everyone needs to watch out so not to leave a slight hint of offense to an oversenstive person.

---

That's one self-serving explanation.

---

quote:

---

Anyone can pick and choose a particular sentence from a statement and twist it to make a point. Here's what I said:

---

quote:

---

At some point the original offender expects either forgiveness or the acknowledgement of irreconcileable differences and divorce. Divorce may work with marriage but not with society.

---

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they aren't level-headed individuals, not at all, I'm just saying it's hard to put an entire "group" of people into a role like that.

---

quote:

---

let me ask you: what offenses have blacks committed against whites in this country?

---

quote:

---

Posted by Malanthrop:
Political correctness not only protects the offended from being insulted, it is a barrier to overcoming the problems that exist in our society.

---

quote:

---

The "funny thing" is I am not the offender. I've never owned a slave, forced a Jew into a gas chamber or hacked a Hutu to death with a mechete. On top of that, I have no inherited guilt since none of my ancestors committed any of those offenses either. To be completely accurate, the vast majority of the people you hold accountable for the offenses have nothing to do with past or current offenses.

---

quote:

---

My sister-in-law is from Brazil, and though she has a very dark skin, she is seen as nothing but Brazilian. She tells us in Brazil there is no distiction made between those with different color skin, everyone is either Brazilian or not.

---

And Brazil isn't known at all for having serious body image issues...

Tell me what the Brazilians and the Argentinians think of each other. And lets not get into the treatment of isolated cultures all over the Brazilian countryside.

The naivete of your second hand "in this place it's like this" references makes me feel a little bad for stomping all over you. You obviously just have no idea what you're talking about.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No distinction made between those with different skin colors in Brazil? Definitely not. I was in Rio a few months back for a conference, and I witnessed several times derogatory remarks being made about groups of people based on the color of their skin.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
But fuguuuuuu..... he heard about it from his sister in lawwwww.....


You're mean!
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

No distinction made between those with different skin colors in Brazil? Definitely not. I was in Rio a few months back for a conference, and I witnessed several times derogatory remarks being made about groups of people based on the color of their skin.

---

quote:

---

There is no distincition made between those with different skin colers in Mexico eather. But, I've lived there a couple of times, once for an extended period, and I have yet to see a Mexican woman employ a maid with a lighter skin tone that the employer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

The "funny thing" is I am not the offender. I've never owned a slave, forced a Jew into a gas chamber or hacked a Hutu to death with a mechete. On top of that, I have no inherited guilt since none of my ancestors committed any of those offenses either. To be completely accurate, the vast majority of the people you hold accountable for the offenses have nothing to do with past or current offenses.

---

It isn't solely a question of whether you or your ancestors committed the offenses. It is also a question of whether you benefitted from those offenses. Even though you are not guilty of the crimes, if you have benefitted from those crimes, isn't it rational to assume you owe those who are still suffering from the crime something?

If you look very hard at the history of country, you will find dozens of examples of the ways white people have benefitted from and continue to enjoy the benfits of slavery and laws that discriminated against black people.

For example, during the 1940 - 60s, blacks were generally prohibited from receiving FHA and VA loans, even thought they paid the same taxes as white. So in effect, anyone who got an FHA and VA loan during that era, benefitted from racial discrimination. Did your parents or grandparents get that kind of loan?

---

quote:

---

Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased...

---

quote:

---

Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased

---

quote:

---

Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.

---

quote:

---

Rakeesh: Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but not noticing racism in one's daily affairs for months or years at a time is certainly significant when there are countries where it can be easily observed on a near constant basis.

---

quote:

---

They aren't slaves anymore, they do qualify for FHA and VA loans today. I'm quite sure my wife would leave me if I blamed my deficiencies on her past mistakes. If I continually reminded her of past trespasses and used it as a lever and excuse for current actions. Just my hack answer.

---

quote:

---

Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased, high arrest rates are due to a racist legal system.

---

quote:

---

Current problems can be attributed to two things: high dropout rates, high illegitimacy rates. The odds of failure are even accross racial lines when you don't have a stable father figure.

---

quote:

---

Here's the real tricky question for you to either ignore or sidestep: why are these things disproportionate problems among minorities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
At some point, you have stop blaming other people for your own actions. As hard as it is to be poor in a family, abandoning your children to a worse poverty without you isn't excusable.

---

quote:

---

Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc. This goes beyond accent, this is willful neglect in the education of a child. There's a big difference between ignorant speech and accent. One of the most racist lies ever perpetrated on minorites is convincing them ignorance is culture.

---

quote:

---

Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."

---

quote:

---

How about English as a Second Language

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Speech class
English class
How about English as a Second Language
A person's ability to communicate is key to success in this country.

---

quote:

---

You said "no where in America is perfect spoken English taught"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc. This goes beyond accent, this is willful neglect in the education of a child. There's a big difference between ignorant speech and accent. One of the most racist lies ever perpetrated on minorites is convincing them ignorance is culture.

---

Are you honestly suggesting this? That teachers in the united states pretty much don't correct grammar for black kids, because they are black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Isn't ebonics accepted as proper?

---

quote:

---

I'm sure some do. Probably black teachers are more likely to do so.

---

quote:

---

Isn't ebonics accepted as proper?
I'm sure some do. Probably black teachers are more likely to do so. The PC fear of offense probably holds back a lot of white teachers. My daughters class is 3 to 1 black, and I've volunteered in that class. If the teacher consistently corrected the students in this manner, they probably wouldn't have time to cover the other subjects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
You're correct, my original assertion was too broad. Using your logic I couldn't say "teachers are not pedophiles" because SOME are. You've used this tactic repeatedly and undercuts any communication and is a cop out for any attempt at an itillectual argument. Suprised you didn't respond by calling me a racist, or telling me you're not even going to waste your time talking about the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
mm. also.

quote:

---

Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.

---

There's plenty of hypothetical circumstances where failure in high school is more a matter of outside influences rather than the assured worth (or worthlessness) of the students who failed high school.

There's plenty of anecdotal circumstances where I've seen people end up having to drop out of high school due to capricious circumstances. Getting hit by drunk drivers halfway through senior year followed by a transfer, mental breakdown due to badly prescribed drugs that conflicted with misdiagnosed bipolar, inheriting a brother as a dependent when parents are killed, etc.

Am I to have no sympathy for any of them?

---

quote:

---

Everyone speaks differently in different situations. I swear around the guys but never at home.

---

quote:

---

By Fugu:
No distinction made between those with different skin colors in Brazil? Definitely not. I was in Rio a few months back for a conference, and I witnessed several times derogatory remarks being made about groups of people based on the color of their skin.

---

quote:

---

But fuguuuuuu..... he heard about it from his sister in lawwwww.....


You're mean!

---

quote:

---

I don't believe you, because I haven't heard in detail and repeatedly how multiracial your family is. You're doing it wrong. Race-name-drop, man!

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if there was less race based anger or what have you than here. Brazil in particular among South American countries has been dealing with issues of race integration for a couple centuries longer than we have in America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
mm. also.

quote:

---

Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.

---

There's plenty of hypothetical circumstances where failure in high school is more a matter of outside influences rather than the assured worth (or worthlessness) of the students who failed high school.

There's plenty of anecdotal circumstances where I've seen people end up having to drop out of high school due to capricious circumstances. Getting hit by drunk drivers halfway through senior year followed by a transfer, mental breakdown due to badly prescribed drugs that conflicted with misdiagnosed bipolar, inheriting a brother as a dependent when parents are killed, etc.

Am I to have no sympathy for any of them?

---

Here's an example. Your responses....hypothetical to undercut the argument. True, SOME people have been hit by cars and have dropped out and they deserve sympathy.

see your pattern

---

quote:

---

with very few exceptions this conversation is one vs the rest.

---

quote:

---

Has there been any improvement since the implementation of these programs.

---

quote:

---

1800's? - No, since the civil rights act was introduced by a republican in 1960 but blocked by dems until 1964. After that, Dems became the proponents of massive social welfare programs. Must have had a change of heart and changed from the segregators to the saviors.

---

Talk about ignoring context to support a point.
 

---

Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Fugu,
Blamed white people with blue eyes huh? . . . That sure seems like a racist remark to me. In fact I can't even argue with that, since I don't live in Brazil, and my sister is brown skinned with brown eyes.
I appreciate your opinion they are more progressed than we seem to be. I'm not fighting to say we should move to Brazil because they know how to treat people of different races fairly, I was suggesting they deal more fairly than we do here, and the suggestion they have had more practice than we have makes sense to me.

Tom,
how come you are doing the name blame thing here. I don't see any more racism in Mal than I see in all his accusers. How productive is it to call him or anyone in this forum a racist? I think all the relevence to this conversation is lost in hostility. The conversation is reduced to mindless name calling and bickering. What's the point?

Oh, and no, I'm not Mal, I'm just another conservative POV in the room. I don't know him any better than I know you, in fact I know you better than I know him- thanks to your contribution to my absurd memories post.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I think race relations have improved but there are those who gain and maintain polital power by keeping the anger alive. The solutions offered have established a strong voting base but have failed to sufficiently improve the lives of many blacks in America.

The biggest form of racial tension left is an almost irrational fear of offending a minority individual. I am conflicted in this, I'm sick of the accusations of racism. A lot of whites feel like they've been flogged enough for the sins of other white people. When I see a video or a story comes out about an episode of discrimination I am angry because one idiot just tore open a wound. One person set back everyone and reignited the fire. While the individual act is dispicable, it's still the act of one person. What sucks is there will always be those individuals and if they are held up for the nation as an example of white society, this thing will never heal.
 

---

Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
That's a real bullying tactic, to rule by fear. Nations have been using that tactic for centuries upon centuries. Hitler is the most prominent example, then there's Stalin. Just about every dictator uses fear to gain and retain power- look at Saddam! Iraq is a mess because of his fear tactics, and quite possibly the taliban was created because of it.

That last remark is speculation, since I really don't know why the Taliban was created, except to be used as another power who reins out of fear.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I believe the Taliban came together against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Remember Rambo 3 (I think 3) they were the good guys. Funny how the world works. But some infidels are more infidel than others, then on to the moderate muslims once they run out of infidels.
 

---

Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
I haven't seen that one, will have to check it out. Thanks for the reference.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:

quote:

---

Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."

---

My favorite response in class to students who wanted to "axe me something" was to ask "is violence really necessary?"

I was also prone to responding to "what's on the test?" with "ink".... and responding to "how long is the test?" with "11 inches... what's more, it's 8 and a half inches wide!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Condoleeza Rice. One person, genius, proves women and minorities have opportunity and can succeed.

---

quote:

---

Condoleezza Rice (whose given name is derived from the Italian musical expression, Con dolcezza, which means "with sweetness")[3] was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the neighborhood of Titusville. She traces her roots to pre-revolutionary African Americans in the American South. She is the only child of Presbyterian minister Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., and wife, Angelena Ray. Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by his father. Angelena was a science, music, and oratory teacher at Ullman.[4]

Rice started learning French, music, figure skating and ballet at age three.[5] At age 15, she began classes with the goal of becoming a concert pianist. Her plans changed when she realized that she did not play well enough to support herself through music alone.[6] While Rice is not a professional pianist, she still practices often and plays with a chamber music group. Rice made use of her pianist training to accompany cellist Yo-Yo Ma for Brahms's Violin Sonata in D Minor at Constitution Hall in April 2002 for the National Medal of Arts Awards.[7]

---

quote:

---

In 1967, the family moved to Denver, Colorado. She attended St. Mary's Academy, a private all-girls Catholic high school in Cherry Hills Village, Colorado. After studying piano at the Aspen Music Festival and School, Rice enrolled at the University of Denver, where her father both served as an assistant dean and taught a class called "The Black Experience in America." Dean John Rice opposed institutional racism, government oppression, and the Vietnam War.

---

quote:

---

It is my hope that Obama can be the ultimate example for a people and change the victim mindset. I totally disagree with his politics but I liked the pride and sense of hope he brought to black people. What type of hope is it? Hope that he will provide for them or a sense of hope that anyone can succeed. I'm glad to see a different type of black leader. The Sharptons and Jacksons only reinforced the victim mentality every chance they got. True leaders are examples for a people.

---

quote:

---

Do you think you're better than me?

---

quote:

---

You can find an example in any group to dispel the conversation. It would be impossible to discuss anything that includes more than one individual if any difference between the individuals could be used to nullify a statement. I could say, "The Jones family is nice" but you might respond, "that's not true their daughter is spoiled"

---

quote:

---

According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups"

Your misuse/abuse of the term racism is astounding. Has my philosophy indicated anything supporting the above definition?

---

quote:

---

The biggest form of racial tension left is an almost irrational fear of offending a minority individual.

---

quote:

---

The republican party was founded for this purpose. Southern democrats were pro-slavery. Southern Dems were against desegregation. Abraham Lincold was assassinated three days after giving a speech calling for voting rights for blacks. How long did it take after that? The racist democrats didn't want to lose control, as soon as blacks were free to vote and desegregated, they found another means of control

---

quote:

---

The most obvious example of bias comes in the case of reading comprehension tests, which have been proven pretty definitively to test first and foremost a person's familiarity with the subject being discussed in the text, and only secondarily their ability to comprehend the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
In America, one's race is determined by one's ancestry. You belong to the same race as your parents, or the mixture of their two different races. In Brazil, it's determined only by your phenotpye. You're considered black if and only if you look black. It doesn't matter whether your parents were black or not; after all, it's assumed that most Brazilians have African ancestry anyway.

---

quote:

---

by beleaguered:
you think you're better than me?

---

quote:

---

Orinoco:
Clearly I do.

---

quote:

---

How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
Definition of hispanic based on US OMB: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. So, it would be inappropriate for someone to use hispanic as a racial identifier.

---

quote:

---

revectored

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.

---

I'm having trouble parsing your words here. First, that is an inaccurate quotation: "God damn America, it's in the bible, for treating her citizens as less than human..." Having read and listened to the whole speech, I have the context to tell you that it was a hate filled pile of rubbish that played on the fears and resentments of the people listening to it. Are you against having the correct context for a point? Because the main problem with everything you've said, is that your arguments are weak- they are always poorly contextualized, ignoring the broader point; or alternatively they are excessively broad, and they ignore the obvious exceptions.

I'm not going to sit and tell you how to argue, but I will tell you that if the above paragraph is any indication of your mental organization, then I don't think you're capable of understanding anyone else here very well.

---

quote:

---

Now you're quoting the Bible

---

quote:

---

Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation?

---

quote:

---

Class warfare plays better on the national level. Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, great speeches about white oppression and inequality of wealth distribution.

---

quote:

---

I don't deny Obama distanced himself from that church when it became politically expedient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation?

---

Um....To the best of my knowledge, it has never been the "murder capital" of the nation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
kmbboots, they'd certainly be hard to understand from the perspective of someone whose view on race relations is, "There aren't any real problems anymore, and if there are, people should just get over them."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:
This kind of thing is easy to check.

Go Baltimore!

---

quote:

---

You delude yourselves. You're fun to talk to though.

---

Sadly, you're getting a bit less fun. It's like you're trying to channel the Freepers' Greatest Hits, often all in one post. So far you haven't accused the Clintons of having somebody murdered as part of a cocaine deal; I can only assume that you're saving that one for when someone actually mentions the Clintons.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

KMboots, thanks for bringing up the AIDS issue. Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.

---

quote:

---

Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
-Rush Limbaugh

---

quote:

---

Thanks for the numerous examples of other Democrat cities that have elevated the minorities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I was back in Detroit not too long ago to visit family, and I have to admit that it's horrifying to see what's happened to the city. It's a gutted shell, with the middle class struggling to get by in the suburbs and the wealthy literally barricaded in crumbling mansions. It's Thunderdome.

---

You might be interested by this. It's a TIME article on Detroit's decline and possible road to renewal. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, the magazine is still sitting on my desk.

And yeah, it is depressing. I don't go into the city much anymore, only for concerts or games or what not. But it seems like in the last year or two, Detroit has become a disease whose effects are spreading into what had been immunized suburbs. I live in a nice suburb and until recently never imagined we'd be in any sort of trouble. The decline of the Metro area has been sharp and shocking.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
No one challenged any of my points?

Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.

I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group. There's a black pastor at my church and plenty of black members. They come to be freed from sin rather than the white man's thumb. It is fair to point out Wright's church is the largest black church in the nation and Obama's spiritual home for half his life.

Now that you bring up the Clintons, maybe you should click on the link with Wright's speech and listen to what he had to say about them. I didn't hear anything but thousands of cheers from the white hating crowd.

You can't deny the hypocracy. If the largest white church in the nation railed on minorities to applaus and cheers, your judgement would be different.

Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

What's going on with Kwame Kilpatric these days? Good to see democracy in action
 

---

Posted by randomguy1694 (Member # 12009) on :
 
Something I've seen mentioned a lot here is education. What if you're from a country w/o good education? Does that mean that your vote doesn't count. The whole point of a republic is that the people decide who's in charge. If you weren't educated, are you not a person. I think that the only requirement should be that you are a citizen.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally by malanthrop:
Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

What's going on with Kwame Kilpatric these days? Good to see democracy in action

---

quote:

---

Come to Tamba Bay, you'll get a job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Defense of this nation is the primary purpose of the federal government. No problem with that.

---

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.

---

You're such a twerp. I didn't say that he was the leader of the GOP, I said that he was a) a man the leader of the GOP apologizes true - that's a fact - and b) that some say Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, something which is also true.

quote:

---

Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.


I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group.

---

quote:

---

Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Apples and oranges much? You're talking about the taxes of cities like LA and NYC but we're talking about Detroit versus the south. Detroit is not a prohibitively expensive city to live in. It's not an expensive city to live in at all. There are ritzier suburbs, like any city has, that are more expensive, but I'd be surprised if a majority of auto workers lived in Grosse Pointe and Birmingham.

Furthermore, you know what makes up the differences between the US labor costs and the Japanese labor? Legacy costs. It's health care benefits mostly, and when the new agreements go into effect in the next two years, Ford's per hour labor will be on par with Toyota's and Honda's for their American labor.

And all without a single change to state or local tax codes, but through new labor agreements.

What else ya got?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
malanthrop,

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.

---

You're such a twerp. I didn't say that he was the leader of the GOP, I said that he was a) a man the leader of the GOP apologizes true - that's a fact - and b) that some say Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, something which is also true.

quote:

---

Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.


I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group.

---

In addition to being a twerp, you're also a liar.

quote:

---

Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

---

This might have a sliver of a chance of being persuasive if I wasn't quite sure that, even during the Reagan and Bush years, you either were or would have been complaining that the wealthy were paying more than their fair share.

So you're already a twerp (for sidestepping a direct question while appearing to respond to it but not doing that at all), and a liar (for saying one then and then claiming not long after that that you didn't say it, it seems likely you've got the memory of a hummingbird (or did you think 'the wealthy' weren't paying more than their fair share under Bush, Bush Sr., or Reagan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbie:
Michael Steele is the chairman of the GOP. That's not the same as being leader.

---

quote:

---

From malanthrop:
Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Huh? I'm speachless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

---

And if I asked you why white flight happened, I suspect your answer would be "because of Detroit's oppressive taxes!"

And that's where your argument falls apart. This is normally where I'd launch into a multi-paragraph ad hoc essay (a posting style which I'm sure Hatrack has come to know and love ) on why you're wrong and the real social ills that caused it, what it consisted of, and the effects it had on the metropolitan area.

But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
He is receptive in spirit. The issue is one of comprehension and self-estimation.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I would agree that blue states bring in more money for the federal government due to their higher populations, more people to pay federal taxes. The blue states also have higher representation due to population. If all states had equal electoral votes, the reds would win every election. I'm quite sure NYC alone has an incredibly high contribution to the fed tax rolls simply due to Wall Street. Your per capita angle is supported by the top 2% paying 90% of the taxes and the extremely wealthy needing to conduct business in major cities. If Bill Gates left Seattle, the per capita GDP contribution to the IRS would be a measurable decline for that city. Montana has a small population yet is vast. Federal dollars for the highways (a national interest) alone would be high per capita.

I was talking about states as stand alone entities. Which states have the highest defecits, red or blue. Which states have the highest unemployment, red or blue. Which states have the highest crime, red or blue. California is the sixth largest economy in the world but has a 42 billion dollar budget defecit, rampant crime and pitiful educational performance.

I appreciate your logic and respectful tone.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."

I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.

Of course racial strife, auto unions and taxes contributed. My main point is if the jobs are ever going to return, they need to entice them back with a business freindly atmoshpere. That's low taxes. Do you know how Seattle got Boeing? Offered them NO taxes. Lots of jobs, good for the economy and people.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

California is the sixth largest economy in the world but has a 42 billion dollar budget defecit, rampant crime and pitiful educational performance.

---

quote:

---

If all states had equal electoral votes, the reds would win every election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."

I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.

---

Okay, dude, this is getting old. If you're going to deride other people's 'culture of victimhood,' your first responsibility is to pull yourself off the cross and quit playing the People Used Nasty Words To Describe Me On The Internet card with tiresome frequency.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Samprimary:

You got me on that one. Forgot about the states that are smaller than counties where I come from. Just used to seeing mostly red.

I take it you're counting DC and came up with 51 states. (at least it wasn't 57 )

And Bush stole the 2000 election 30 to 21
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."

I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.

---

Okay, dude, this is getting old. If you're going to deride other people's 'culture of victimhood,' your first responsibility is to pull yourself off the cross and quit playing the People Used Nasty Words To Describe Me On The Internet card with tiresome frequency.

---

quote:

---

I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
I find it strange that you would conclude that I have 'great difficulty articulating' points, where I actually find it remarkably easy.

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that just about everyone reading this thread would agree that I'm more articulate and do a much, much, much better job of making my posts and points make sense than you do.

If you'd like to start making jabs about emotionalism and articulation, you probably want to have your own house in order, first.

quote:

---

I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments

---

You are being provided with a hefty quantity of legitimate arguments.

That you are not comprehending or otherwise taking them into consideration does not make them non-legitimate arguments; you're essentially making an inverse "pearls before swine" accusation.

---

quote:

---

Please point out what I lied about and what question I sidestepped

---

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, forgot the tax response.

---

quote:

---

This conservative will keep his mouth shut next time...

---

quote:

---

Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

---

quote:

---

"Vast right wing conspiracy"....Hillary Clinton

---

quote:

---

conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot .
• the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

---

quote:

---

Great, so long as I preface a statement with "some say" I can skirt responsibility for what I've said. SOME SAY Jeremiah Wright is the de facto leader of the country.

I obviously need to be more specific with you. Jeremiah Wright does not speek for all black people but his views can be attributed to a member of his flock for 20 years, yes. I rebutted this by stating there is a black pastor at my church and blacks come to my church to be saved from sin not the thumb of whitey.

---

quote:

---

It's a stupid statement, and you didn't ask a question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Huh? I'm speachless.

---

Promise?

---

Ah Rivka, I think this is you at your most vicious, that I've seen anyway.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
That's not vicious.

Sadly, that was me feeding the troll, even though I know better.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
How many liberals had even heard of the Reverend Wright before he became an issue in this last election? How many radio stations broadcast his Sermons to a national audience? How many people, liberal or conservative had any idea what he was saying in Jan. 2008.

By contrast, how many Americans are there who had no idea who Rush Limbaugh was before Jan. 2008? How many conservatives had heard of him before this last election cycle? How many radio stations broadcast his show? How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?

---

quote:

---

If someone has this idea of conservatives being stupid and listening to Rush en masse and giggling delightedly, then they are wrong, and their mistake is caused by their prejudice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?

---

Millions and millions and millions. The vast, vast majority. Piles and heaps and almost all, I'd bet. Considering the country is pretty close to 50/50, 95% of whom have never listened to him, almost all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
more than 10% of conservatives would first assume that he regularly has an audience of over 15 million

---

quote:

---

As of 2006, Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States.

---

quote:

---

I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh and know only one person who does...

---

quote:

---

I've heard over five minutes of the musical stylings of the Jonas Brothers in my life (although none of Rush Limbaugh).

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how you have managed to avoid hearing him unless you neither own a radio nor associate with people who own radio.

---

If I remember correctly, Katie was raving about hearing "Hey Ya" for the first time about 3-4 years after it had been done to death on just about every radio station (probably the most played song that year). So I don't think Katie's radio listening habits are typical .
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Trinity USS has about 8000 members. Big for a UCC church, but not 13.5 million.

Here's another take on Trinity:

http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

---

quote:

---

I don't know how many times I've heard Obama defend his budget with "Who are you to criticize, you spent....."

---

quote:

---

I don't, either. How many do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. I prefer libertarian without the kooks. Now the choice in our two party system: Dems of 40 years ago or European Socialists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Ahh, that was good. Not a whiff of an actual response to direct statements anyone has made, but instead a bunch of rambling generalizations almost completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Which is it, malanthrop? Do you assign Wright's values to his entire church (as you said you did), or not? If so, defend against this 'question' since I level the attack on the same grounds you did: Why do conservative Republicans think feminism was just a means for ugly women to get ahead in life?

If you're not willing to defend that statement as indicting all conservative Republicans, then you need to `fess up that you were full of crap about Wright and the opinions of members of his church.

Which, by the way, is hysterical. I could just as well speak with authority to the opinions of bulimic Plutonian vegans as you could to the members of that church, I expect.

--

quote:

---

I don't, either. How many do you think?

---

An even better question is, "Can you cite even one time President Obama defended his budget that way?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Trinity USS has about 8000 members. Big for a UCC church, but not 13.5 million.

Here's another take on Trinity:

http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

---

Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.

---

quote:

---

Still waiting for a logical, rational defense of your positions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

Kmboots....don't blame the Catholic church for pedophiles then since according to your logic, the Vatican has nothing to do with the Arch Diosese of Spokane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Third, that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.

---

quote:

---

Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.

---

quote:

---

Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.

---

quote:

---

No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?

---

quote:

---

I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, if I attended a clan rally, I doubt you would give me the same benefit of the doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Malanthrop,

quote:

---

I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.

---

Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.

---

When I read this, I literally experienced a moment of intense full body giggles.

This was from the post just before that one:

quote:

---

Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.

---

:giggle: [qb]

----- You are truly dense...I didn't accuse her of being a hypocrit. I pointed out citing a UCC website to give an alternative opinion of Wright's church is not at all alternative. If I linked Clear Channel networks stance on Rush Limbaugh you would call me out on it, justifiably.

So, do you get the rambling offhanded self-satisfied postulations from Dennis Miller, and the incoherent fantasy constructions from Michael Savage? I mean, really, Savage most reminds me of a conservative talk show host as played on the fake radio in a movie by an unsubtle director about American middle class ennui. You can just tune him in and get these serialized repetitive mantras and nicknames for every idea and public personality imaginable. It's as if Savage is written in order to mirror some unseen situation- meant to be a metaphor for some destructive force in the protagonist's personality, or the world.

---------Wow...Thanks for your opinion, now go listen to NPR and Air America where they talk about how tone Michelle's arms are and how articulate Obama is.

Actually, come to think, Rush is even *more* like that. He always strikes me as a very poorly directed voice actor doing satire of conservative talking points.

--------I didn't denfend Rush but I sure can tell he bugs the hell out of you. In fact I stated his arrogance is off putting for me. I don't care what you think about an entertainer, that's a matter of taste.

quote:

---

No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?

---

Now you've really forgotten what you were arguing for. We were talking about what Wright *said.* I wager you know nothing about the core theology of the UCC- and that theology is not spelled out in a speech which you did not even read.

--------I know quite a bit about Black Liberation Theology, hell I tool a class on. Here, read about it yourself. The core tenents are racist and marxist.
Wright's church is cited as the prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

So the question again, as it has been posed to you many times, is whether Obama should be held responsible for *Wright's* beliefs. You have not shown in any degree that Wright's statements, of which you actually remain ignorant (making this discussion increasingly taxing on everyone else because they have to spell it out for your lazy ass), are likely to be representative of his church. You have argued that Obama is responsible for the beliefs of his church. I grant that as mostly fair (to a point). I am willing to extend that to the prevailing outlook of his own particular congregation, during the time in which he attended the church. You have not gone an inch to show me what that outlook was, whether Wright's statements were representative of that outlook in general, whether the outlook was in a state of change, or in fact, anything whatsoever about any related matters.

----------I have in fact said repeatedly, I DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA BELIEVED THE RACIST CRAP HE SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO. He went to that church for political purposes. The senior pastor is a white hating racist, you attend that church you are supporting that sentiment despite what may or may not be in your heart. What Obama is responsible for is being a political hack who would use the racist sentiments of that church to advance his political career. What is even more damning of him is he would discard his life long spiritual leader and God father to his children when it became politically necessary. I can't really assign any belief system to that man, I see nothing but a political opportunist.


The onus is on you. YOU- to substantiate any claim about Obama's beliefs. It is not sufficient to whine and moan about how the media (the "drive-by" media) doesn't do this for you. The media owes you and your ideas nothing of the kind. It is very easy to research the founding principles and prevailing attitudes of Obama's church, which is why, and I can guarantee this with absolute certainty, many journalists did that research, and found nothing surprising to report. These journalists then did their jobs, and reported on the nature of Obama's church- a nature which surprised no one. It is not their job to find *something* negative to report. Their job is to report what they have found.

-------- If the items reported "suprised no one" and they found "nothing negative" he wouldn't have left that church. The media did point out how the leader of the church he attended was a white hating racist, typical to Black Liberation Theology. I cannot believe that you are even attempting to argue the head pastor of a church for 36 years is not "representative" the views of that church. That is a completely rediculous argument. You continue to use your tired tactic of pointing to one possible exception as disproving the rule. Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.


[qb] Your job is to spout nonsense. Go ahead.

---

quote:

---

Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Malanthrop,

quote:

---

I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.

---

Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?

---

In fact, Trinity has six or seven associate pastors. Rev. Wright is the emeritus pastor and plans for him to step down from leading the congregation were in the works even before the campaign last year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.

---

You can start by answering my question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg. I'm beginning to believe you people just do this to affirm your own beliefs rather than interact with a different opinion.

If you have a direct question, ask it. Your avoidance tactics are getting really old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg.

---

*amused*

Among the people talking to you are several liberals, a couple conservatives of various flavors, and some people who are less easily tagged.

The one thing we have in common is that we think you're a slippery, lying weasel.

(That, BlackBlade, is closer to vicious. )
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

No, I don't believe a vast-right wing conspiracy went after the Clintons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

---

Alright, here's a new tactic: Produce for me the tax rates of the cities and states you're talking about. And more specifically to Detroit, pinpoint the end locations of the diaspora of people leaving.

I'm generally fairly willing to take a lot of things on faith when discussing subjects here, but your refutation of every one of my points has been some variation of "high tax rates."

Okay, if high taxes are the source problem and low taxes the all powerful solution, show me all the data to prove it. I think it's true that high taxes can drive business away and low taxes can lure them in, that's why Chicago stole Boeing Corporate HQ from Seattle, and that's why Deleware is a corporate mecca. But I think you're vastly overstating their importance in relation to other issues, with specific respect to the problems that have been mentioned in the last two pages of this thread.

So, go ahead. I'm willing and receptive to you dropping some knowledge on me.

---

http://www.mibazaar.com/fastestgrowingstates.html

Fastest growing first to last. (Bottom ten is larger due to ties of equal suckiness) Check for yourself.

Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Georgia, South Carolina to...................Maryland, West Virginia, New York, New Jersey, New Hamshire, Connecticut, Pensilvania, Vermont, Maine, Ohio, Rhode Island, and last place MICHIGAN (percent growth -.5).

Go Utah, sorry Michigan.

Here's the tax burdons. The list is mostly flipped on its head.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita

For good measure, Forbes list of fastest growing Metro Economies.......pretty much falls right in line.

Go Alabama, Geogia, Utah and Texas.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/30/economy-cities-alabama-biz-cx_bw_0130econcities.html

Can't forget unemployment rates:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

Sorry Michigan's last again, but there's hope California's not far behind. Move to The Dakotas, Wyoming, or Utah, gtg.

I can't find much on Detroit taxes except there are 500 million in unpaid taxes owed there. That can't be good. It's beyond the breaking point, they could bring investment back through corporate incentives though. There are plenty of unemployed willing workers.

What blows my mind is Michigan is beautiful and Utah looks like a wasteland. Plus it's difficult to get beer over 3.2% in Utah. As with anything in life, there are many contributing factors that are undeniable. Racial tensions in a given area can't be changed overnight but the government could incentivize the city to industry. With as much talk we've heard about New Orleans, I think Detroit has been ignored. I'm against much of the bailout, but if any city deserves bailout money, it's Detroit. Clean it up and sell it to industry.
(not literally sold)

I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I did like Roger and Me. What I saw in that movie was greed on everyone's part. Union workers unwilling to give concessions to a struggling industry. Industry only concerned with the bottom line. Government only concerned with tax revenues. Attempting to change Flint into a tourist trap. Tourism wouldn't employ all those people but it was hoped would bring outside dollars in. Maybe it's a catch 22, how does a government lower taxes with so much public need? Raising taxes to meet the needs seem to be a short term solution for a state.

Are states rights getting in the way? I suppose if all states had equal laws and industry and taxes were federalized, there would be no reason to go to Utah or Alabama.

[ April 01, 2009, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
Hahaha, I still love the disconnect in ideas that your posts bring. Utah looking like a wasteland (I agree) and the alcohol laws have little to do with the taxes. Utah is just a desert with lots of dust and the buildings reflect it. You also get a lot of smog. The alcohol laws are a reflection of how the local state government legislates morality. (I grant the reason they give is that it will help decrease public drunkeness and help curb drunk drivers, but I find it deliciously ironic that the reddest state in the nation doesn't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. )

But more to the point, there are other factors that are taken into account in population growth than just taxes. You're mixing causation and correlation here. This can be seen through your own links. Wyoming is #8 on population growth, right? Yet they're #2 on highest taxes. North Carolina is # 3 on fastest growing, yet #29 or about half way down the list for tax burden.

What's more, the difference in taxes between folks from NC and MI is about $350. That's not an overly large number. Or at least not one that I'd typically take into account.

A better approach* to see why those states top the list of population growth would be to look at the average number of persons per household/a fertility rate. Here's a link that does just that.

You can't measure people leaving states by which states have population growth. It's like comparing apples with oranges. You have to find statistics talking about inter-state emigration/immigration. It eliminates babies from being taken into account.

*I qualify this as a better approach because new people being born into the state is a direct increase to the population and is a causal reason.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vadon:
Hahaha, I still love the disconnect in ideas that your posts bring. Utah looking like a wasteland (I agree) and the alcohol laws have little to do with the taxes. Utah is just a desert with lots of dust and the buildings reflect it. You also get a lot of smog. The alcohol laws are a reflection of how the local state government legislates morality. (I grant the reason they give is that it will help decrease public drunkeness and help curb drunk drivers, but I find it deliciously ironic that the reddest state in the nation doesn't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. )

But more to the point, there are other factors that are taken into account in population growth than just taxes. You're mixing causation and correlation here. This can be seen through your own links. Wyoming is #8 on population growth, right? Yet they're #2 on highest taxes. North Carolina is # 3 on fastest growing, yet #29 or about half way down the list for tax burden.

What's more, the difference in taxes between folks from NC and MI is about $350. That's not an overly large number. Or at least not one that I'd typically take into account.

A better approach* to see why those states top the list of population growth would be to look at the average number of persons per household/a fertility rate. Here's a link that does just that.

You can't measure people leaving states by which states have population growth. It's like comparing apples with oranges. You have to find statistics talking about inter-state emigration/immigration. It eliminates babies from being taken into account.

*I qualify this as a better approach because new people being born into the state is a direct increase to the population and is a causal reason.

---

quote:

---

Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.

---

I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.

---

Oh I'd say illegal immigration is significant as well.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it.

---

Uhuh. And how is employment in the fastest growing populations in Africa? Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.

---

I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.

---

Oh I'd say illegal immigration is significant as well.

---

I totally agree illegal immigration has an impact as well but do you think illegal employees count in unemployment statistics? Unemployment rates are calculated based upon unemployment compensation applications. If I'm not mistaken, that's rather difficult to get for an illegal alien.


Wow, it must be REALLY great there if the unemployment remains so low and illegal immigrants are flocking there for jobs.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=utah+population+growth&aq=f&oq=
Facts
Utah's population tends to be younger (27.1), lives longer (77.7), has higher fertility rates (2.68) and more persons per household (3.13 persons).

Utah's population growth of 29.6% more than doubled that of the nation (13.2%).

Of All The Fifty States, Utah Has...
The highest rate of job growth - (4.5%)

Highest literacy rate

4th highest percent of high school graduates

11th highest percent of college graduates

7th lowest violent crime rates

3rd longest life expectancy
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's your exact assertion:

"Standards go up, populations stop growing."

Michigan must be awesome, I'm moving there. Babies are being sucked back into the womb.

We're comparing Utah to Michigan and you bring up Africa??

[ April 01, 2009, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 


I'll address your point about the "longterm effect" of hight tax rates and low tax rates.

I've brought this up as well. Strong economies can afford high tax rates.....to a point.

People will move to a place that is economically to their advantage.

If you want to talk about "long term" then my perfect case in point is this.....California.

Once a great destination for retirees. They just added and additional 1% to their sales tax. Will people want to remain? Maybe one percent this year is nothing but when added to last years gas tax and the prior years property tax increases, eventually there is a breaking point. They'll milk it until they can't get anymore blood out of that turnip because the turnip has move to Utah.

You speak of long term, tax what you should, not what you can. Your residents are doing well, don't squeeze them.

A new one came out today. Congress is proposing a tax for each song that is played on the radio...no BS. I'm not a whiner about taxes but they need to end somewhere. With the govt, there is no end. They sit up there and think about what types of taxes they haven't thought of yet. Speaking of, the 45% death tax was to expire in 2010, your great leaders eliminated that today. You can't even die without paying your fair share.

[ April 01, 2009, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/republicans-have-lost-credibility-says-obama/54685/on

"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," Obama said responding to a question during his maiden press conference as the US President.

"Now, this budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. Because of the massive deficit we inherited and the enormous costs of this financial crisis"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-President-on-the-Budget/

"When asked to respond to Republican criticism of his administration's spiralling spending, Mr Obama suggested that his critics had short memories because he inherited a deficit of more than $1 trillion from George W. Bush."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5972097.ece

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
They both suck.
2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat
2000 Democrat = European Socialist
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat
2000 Democrat = European Socialist

---

I asked you this the last time you made this assertion: have you looked at what the tax rates were, say, between 1945 and 1979?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So you're arguing for Mormon theocracy in the rest of the country? Or are you saying that the primary reason for those stats is the tax rate?
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe you need to read it again. The oldest trick in the book. My 5 year old pulls it on my 9 year old.

---

quote:

---

I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I did like Roger and Me. What I saw in that movie was greed on everyone's part. Union workers unwilling to give concessions to a struggling industry. Industry only concerned with the bottom line. Government only concerned with tax revenues. Attempting to change Flint into a tourist trap. Tourism wouldn't employ all those people but it was hoped would bring outside dollars in. Maybe it's a catch 22, how does a government lower taxes with so much public need? Raising taxes to meet the needs seem to be a short term solution for a state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

---

Government health care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

---

Government health care.

---

That's a prediction, not an example.

---

quote:

---

Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?

---

quote:

---

Qinshan Phase III Unit 1 and 2 located in Zhejiang China are powered by two CANDU 6 reactors, designed by AECL, are owned and operated by the Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Company Limited. The first two CANDU units in China were delivered four months ahead of schedule and under budget. The project holds the record for the shortest construction schedule ever accomplished for a nuclear power plant in China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

---

Government health care.

---

That's a prediction, not an example.

---

Wrong! The US isn't the only country in the world. All those countries which have some form of either Government health care or Government health insurance, have health care costs that are a fraction of what we pay for our private system in the US. It's not just one example, its many.

quote:

---

Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?

---

Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County which concluded in 2001 concluded under budget and ahead of schedule. I'm sure if I put more than 2 seconds into it, I'd come could come up with some more examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

---

Government health care.

---

That's a prediction, not an example.

I'm asking for cost of services not cost to you. Section 8 housing might be free for the resident but the amount PAID is more than the going rate. I'm in that predicament, I don't want sec 8 in my house but it's guaranteed rent that is higher than prevailing rent. The gov pays more than the free market.

One example, please....

---

quote:

---

I'm not asking what YOU pay but what they cost. Section 8 housing is free for the resident but pays more than prevailing rent where I live. One example please.

---

quote:

---

you will find that the cost of health care is double or more in our private system than in any government system.

---

quote:

---

By the way, I'm a government contractor. I guarantee the government overpays for short term contracts.

---

quote:

---

Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?

---

quote:

---

Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County

---

quote:

---

That's not a service, that's a project

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well malanthrop, you were lying about the Obama budget stuff too it seems. You couldn't find a real example of something that happened so very often.

But I have to admit this latest stunt of yours is even better: "find me this thing." *several people give you that thing* "No no, that doesn't count, find me THIS thing!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Please, one example of a service that is successful and meets budget.

---

quote:

---

Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.

---

quote:

---

I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
Perhaps you have missed the existing government health care programs in other countries? Or is your thesis only that the US government is necessarily incapable of providing a decent service, and other countries are not hindered that way?

I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.

---

quote:

---

I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.

---

Why not use the health insurance given to Federal employees. That is also a current US government healthcare program.

---

quote:

---

I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.

---

No, you didn't. Instead you linked to some quotes that only slightly resembled what you said they would. That's a very different thing, and it's your usual method of avoiding an argument you won't win around here. The only question more puzzling than why you'd waste your time in such obvious BS is why so many of us waste our time responding to you. I guess the answer is the same-we just can't help ourselves:)

---

quote:

---

Health insurance provided to federal employees is sitll just insurance. Insurance the federal employee can choose to accept or deny and the worker must pay for. Socialized medical care is insurance for all for nothing. If you want to pay what a federal employee payw per month for his/her healthcare coverage, absolutely I agree. It's not free. Gov't employees have great insurance but it still requires a premium.

---

quote:

---

Project: reconstuction ends.
Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.

---

quote:

---

Prove to me I'm wrong:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Project: reconstuction ends.
Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.

---

Uh-huh. Re-read your challenge. You asked for a PROJECT. When you got a project, you said "No, not a project, a SERVICE." Don't lay your communication problems on other people.

---

quote:

---

Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.

---

"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html

If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.

---

quote:

---

Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful

---

quote:

---

If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.

---

There is no one here claiming that free health care is possible. It is not possible. However, there are many systems through which better care is provided to more people, for less money. There is a simple reason: a well run single payer system can provide more of its resources to recipients than private insurance does in practice. This is simple- privatized health care naturally seeks methods of paying the least possible, while gaining the most in profit for the companies involved. At a certain point, this process works against competition, and we get diminishing outcomes. This is why in the US we pay more per capita than any other country for healthcare, and we have inferior outcomes and satisfaction.

We are already paying twice as much in total health care costs per capita than any other country does. Why do you think that is? What we get in medical advances is a great outcome of that system, but this has not worked to increase overall outcomes, when compared with countries that are still spending less. Obviously, BY DEFINITION, we are doing something wrong- we are not doing all that we can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.

---

"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html

If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.

---

quote:

---

Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.

---

quote:

---

There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Please read the link.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_post.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm happy to give more to suplement truly needy people but I have no sypmpathy for the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Please read the link.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_post.html

---

Okay, I read all three links. The first is apparently a link t a blog hosted by something with the initials fff. The second seems to have something to do with the Cato Institute (I've heard of that!). The third has "reformed" in the url, for what that's worth.

Now, should I click on the links and check out the actual sites?

---

 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
If you don't trust my links, just google "postal monopoly" and pick your own sites to read about it.
 

---

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
You mean like the one I just posted about a half-hour ago, where I quoted the actual regulation granting the post office its monopoly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbie:
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/608.htm

5.0 Private Express Statutes
5.1 Private Express Statutes
5.1.1 Legal Foundation
By the laws known as the Private Express Statutes, Congress has generally conferred on the USPS the exclusive right to carry letters for others over post routes. USPS regulations under the Private Express Statutes are in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 310 and 320, as amended by final rules published in the Federal Register...

5.1.2 Definition of a Letter for Private Express
For the Private Express Statutes, a letter is a message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on a tangible object. A message consists of any information or intelligence that can be recorded on tangible objects including, but not limited to, paper in sheet or card form, recording disks, and magnetic tapes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
If you don't trust my links, just google "postal monopoly" and pick your own sites to read about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbie:
You mean like the one I just posted about a half-hour ago, where I quoted the actual regulation granting the post office its monopoly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbie:
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/608.htm

5.0 Private Express Statutes
5.1 Private Express Statutes
5.1.1 Legal Foundation
By the laws known as the Private Express Statutes, Congress has generally conferred on the USPS the exclusive right to carry letters for others over post routes. USPS regulations under the Private Express Statutes are in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 310 and 320, as amended by final rules published in the Federal Register...

5.1.2 Definition of a Letter for Private Express
For the Private Express Statutes, a letter is a message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on a tangible object. A message consists of any information or intelligence that can be recorded on tangible objects including, but not limited to, paper in sheet or card form, recording disks, and magnetic tapes...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.

---

That's not technically correct. The monopoly is over "non-urgent" mail. FedEx could, if it wanted, deliver "urgent" letters in any form factor it desires, but it makes economic sense for them to standardize on a form factor.

---

quote:

---

When I was in the Navy I oredered a replacement doorknob for my shop, it cost $120 in 1999

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.

---

That's not technically correct. The monopoly is over "non-urgent" mail. FedEx could, if it wanted, deliver "urgent" letters in any form factor it desires, but it makes economic sense for them to standardize on a form factor.

---

MattP is correct. As I noted earlier, the USPS monopoly is not on letters, its on non-urgent letters and based on enforcement, an urgent letter is anything you are willing to pay to have delivered in 2 days or less. USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Dude, he's not interested. Why are you still interested? He shifted his focus away from that as soon as he realized he had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Well, health care is my pet issue. If there's any debate I'm prepared to bury someone in, this is it.

---

Yeah! Health care is my coffin! I mean, it's your coffin!

<_<
>_>


( )
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If we had universal health care in this country, it could be everyone's coffin.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

---

No, it's an example.

If you're just calling it a 'prediction,' then your reading comprehension is so poor as to unintentionally shift the goalposts in response to your own failed challenges.

I'll say it again.


Government.


Health.


Care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

---

???

There are plenty of private mailbox places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Here are the examples of govt health care that are in existence (anything else is a prediction):
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

---

???

There are plenty of private mailbox places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Mal, that last diatribe tops them all as the stupidest thing you've managed to say so far.

---

quote:

---

I don't care about systems outside the United States. They don't apply here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

Thanks for admitting you find our founding principles to be stupid.

---

quote:

---

"founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

Thanks for admitting you find our founding principles to be stupid.

---

Thanks for proving me right. The "founding principles" are not a bludgeon for you to wield like your personal mace.

I find you to be stupid, for the record, not the so called "founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.

---

quote:

---

Keep your kings, queens, czars, dictators and prime ministers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I don't care about systems outside the United States. They don't apply here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beleaguered:
Orincoro,

quote:

---

"founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.

---

Thanks for the new word- blithe. I hadn't ever used that in my vocabulary, but after I looked it up, I noticed how appropriately it can be used in many situations of my life. I will put it to good use right away!

---