quote:Wow The Robert Pear of the New York Times. What a well respected non paritisan and quickly sinking rag of butt wipe.
Wow, so you dislike partisan news outlets? Hmmm. Something sounds fishy about that...what could it be?
And just as an example of a way you could get your conservative rants a little ship-shaper, you shouldn't suggest welfare folks sleep 12 hours. It's actually pretty hard to sleep so much, isn't it? I mean, eventually you're just not tired anymore.
No, remember, what welfare folks do isn't sleep all day. They drive their phat rides, all thugged out, to the welfare office, cash their checks, buy cigs, booze, and cellphones, then watch TV and don't go to church all the time.
Duh.
My favorite news outlets would be considered partisan by you. One difference though, mine are number one in America in a free market. Your crap fails. Good thing Pelosi is pushing for a news paper bail out.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Fascism in America won’t come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street. It won’t come like a storm—but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place. All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns—plenty of bread and circuses. But “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons. To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among the elite, and a degree of debate will be permitted; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized—usually by “the people” themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.
The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of “national security,” and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of “enemies” selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new “security structures” targeted at the populace. In time, this will be seen as “normal,” as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone. It will all seem normal."
--Chris Floyd, November 10, 2001 Moscow Times (English edition)
This is the part that reminds me most of you:
"Dissidents will be marginalized—usually by “the people” themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly."
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop, remind me to introduce you to the 1800's, and most specifically, the 1870's through the 1890's.
It'll make the present look like a picnic by comparison. The good old days weren't, really. The good old days are now.
Also, all that guy is doing is rewriting the birth of the Roman Empire and fall of the Republic for a modern era and stamping America's name on it. Personally I don't think the Democrats you're eying to blame are anywhere near as clever as Augustus Caesar was, and I don't think Republicans are that subtle.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Racist southern Dems lost the segregation battle and found a new means of control. State dependent, public school educated sheep - loyal voter.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
You want to see what unbridled hell the government can unleash upon the citizenry, look at the fights between labor and the government in the 1870s, 80s, and 90s. Take a look at that same period if you want a look at how helpless the people can feel against the moneyed interests when the government doesn't even pretend to be on the people's side, but open espouses a system of government that is out to protect those of class and wealth at the expense of the lower classes.
Also, you're going to have to restate your last statement there into something more understandable. Racist southern Dems stopped voting Democratic in the 60's. They're racist southern Republicans now, if anything. So how does that logically follow?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we have a police force now. That's just about all I want from the government. I don't want a government that is complicit in victimizing lower classes or taking from the rich to give to the poor. We have workers rights now, safety regulations, etc. The government should protect everyone's individual freedom, rich or poor. The government should not elevate either one at the expense of the other.
The parties must've swapped names and Lincoln was a Democrat at heart. Without R's we'd be years behind in race relations. Which party continues to play the race game to this day, rather well I might add? They've managed to rewrite history. Minorities first rose to political office as Republicans. The civil rights act was put forth in 1960 by a Republican and blocked by dems until 1964.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hmm, I wonder why Strom Thurmond switched over to the republican party.
I wonder why the Exhaulted Cyclops of the KKK, two time Dem Majority Leader and longest serving politician to this day, Robert Byrd never left.
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd
Here's a few more:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -Senator Joe Biden
Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."
-- Roger Clinton, the President's brother on audiotape
"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." -- Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)
"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"
-- Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers
Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax
Black on Black
"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture." -- Harry Belafonte
"Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take pictures with black children than feed them." -- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager for the 2000 election
(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee
"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."
-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage
Comments From The Past
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
-- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate", in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.
"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities."
-- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate", in a letter written in 1946, after he quit the KKK.
"These laws [segregation] are still constitutional and I promise you that until they are removed from the ordinance books of Birmingham and the statute books of Alabama, they will be enforced in Birmingham to the utmost of my ability and by all lawful means."
-- Democrat Bull Connor (1957), Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, Alabama
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
(On New York) "K*ketown." -- Harry Truman in a personal letter
"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."
-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess
"There’s some people who’ve gone over the state and said, ‘Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation.’ Now let me ask you this: how in the name of common sense can you be too strong about it? You’re either for it or you’re against it. There’s not any middle ground as I know of." -- Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace (1959)
On Jews
"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.
"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002
"Now that nation called Israel, never has had any peace in forty years and she will never have any peace because there can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under his holy and righteous name." -- Louis Farrakhan who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002, 1984
'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.
"Jews — that's J-E-W-S." -- Democratic state representative Bill McKinney on why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, we have a police force now. That's just about all I want from the government. I don't want a government that is complicit in victimizing lower classes or taking from the rich to give to the poor. We have workers rights now, safety regulations, etc. The government should protect everyone's individual freedom, rich or poor. The government should not elevate either one at the expense of the other.
Funny, it was the police doing all the terrorizing back then. And it was liberals that pushed through every single one of those reforms. Workers rights were considered a detriment to business and an overreach of Federal power. In the late 1860's, I can't remember the exact date, Illinois passed an 8 hour day law and local business refused to comply. The Governor at the time refused to enforce the law, and the whole thing fell apart. It's funny to see how the ideas of government interference in our lives have changed. The protections you're talking about were considered anathema to conservatives back in the late 20th century, to be an extreme overreach of federal power and authority, and that on the contrary, laws and protections should be in place to protect business from the masses.
quote:The parties must've swapped names and Lincoln was a Democrat at heart. Without R's we'd be years behind in race relations. Which party continues to play the race game to this day, rather well I might add? They've managed to rewrite history. Minorities first rose to political office as Republicans. The civil rights act was put forth in 1960 by a Republican and blocked by dems until 1964.
It's called the Great Intellectual Train Robbery, at least, the switch you're talking about. It'd be better to think in terms of liberal and conservative instead of Republican and Democrat. Lincoln was a liberal.
And the minorities that rose to political office in the south after the Civil War(the only place they rose to high office) did so in appallingly disproportionate numbers to the whites who gained office at the time, often carpetbaggers from the north. When Reconstruction fell apart somewhere in Grant's two terms, the Republicans abandoned the south and allowed Jim Crow laws to restrict access to ballots.
And if you want to talk about who plays the race card, which party was spending most of the last presidential election using the Muslim boogeyman to scare voters?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, we have a police force now. That's just about all I want from the government. I don't want a government that is complicit in victimizing lower classes or taking from the rich to give to the poor. We have workers rights now, safety regulations, etc. The government should protect everyone's individual freedom, rich or poor. The government should not elevate either one at the expense of the other.
Well, there are a couple of things you should know Malanthrop. By definition, liberals can't be fascists, only those on the extreme right can be fascists, which inherently means you cannot be the dissident you speak of here. And I think more important, Chris Floyd wrote that article in response to what he saw as an escalating Bush response to 9/11 and the descent of American republic values into fascism that would be heralded by Bush himself (Bush was not nor was he ever a fascist--that should be stated).
The problem I have with the argument you present Malanthrop is that it leads to nihilism and anarchy. You claim that all you want from a government is a police force (and I will include the army, the fbi, and other government programs meant to keep us safe), but I guarantee that you like driving on clean roads and when you call 911 you damn sure want their to be someone on the other end. If a natural disaster ever struck your state, I guarantee you would want funds to help, and FEMA to help save your friends and family, and if you ever were unemployed and could not find a job, government help might actually be a humanitarian necessity you find helps you get back on your feet.
The solution to bad government is not the annihilation of government, it is better government. What I think you mean is that you want as little government as possible. In fact, so do I, and thus, I think our real disagreement is not about government itself but about degree. Which makes me think that our problems are problems not because we can't solve them or because those problems require nihilism, but because our anger and emotion get in the way of real solutions. It's kinda like what happens when people call each other fascists and socialists, when posters demonize other posters, and when others allow the debate to get bogged down in hatred and mistrust.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, we have a police force now. That's just about all I want from the government. I don't want a government that is complicit in victimizing lower classes or taking from the rich to give to the poor. We have workers rights now, safety regulations, etc. The government should protect everyone's individual freedom, rich or poor. The government should not elevate either one at the expense of the other.
Well, there are a couple of things you should know Malanthrop. By definition, liberals can't be fascists, only those on the extreme right can be fascists, which inherently means you cannot be the dissident you speak of here. And I think more important, Chris Floyd wrote that article in response to what he saw as an escalating Bush response to 9/11 and the descent of American republic values into fascism that would be heralded by Bush himself (Bush was not nor was he ever a fascist--that should be stated).
The problem I have with the argument you present Malanthrop is that it leads to nihilism and anarchy. You claim that all you want from a government is a police force (and I will include the army, the fbi, and other government programs meant to keep us safe), but I guarantee that you like driving on clean roads and when you call 911 you damn sure want their to be someone on the other end. If a natural disaster ever struck your state, I guarantee you would want funds to help, and FEMA to help save your friends and family, and if you ever were unemployed and could not find a job, government help might actually be a humanitarian necessity you find helps you get back on your feet.
The solution to bad government is not the annihilation of government, it is better government. What I think you mean is that you want as little government as possible. In fact, so do I, and thus, I think our real disagreement is not about government itself but about degree. Which makes me think that our problems are problems not because we can't solve them or because those problems require nihilism, but because our anger and emotion get in the way of real solutions. It's kinda like what happens when people call each other fascists and socialists, when posters demonize other posters, and when others allow the debate to get bogged down in hatred and mistrust.
I absolutely believe there are services the government should provide, including SS and Medicair. But those programs stand as testament that they are not capable of managing a bigger program. If it were my child, I'd suggest she retake her senior year before moving on to college. I am not a nihilist and I never intended to come accross that way. There is a growing swell in this country that are not anarchists but are getting fed up. It never ends. Government only continues to grow, expand and tax more and more and more. I'm not greedy but I think working over a week per month to pay your taxes is just about enough. Raising taxes on people when there is inflation and an economic downturn is crazy. Is it about the survival of the people or the survival of the government?
I'm not quite clear how fascism is conservative or liberal, it is fascism. Perhaps the national pride aspect makes it inherently conservative? Conservatives certainly don't fit into the government control aspect. What we are turning into is a beurocratic tyranny. I violated an ordinance by replacing my hot water heater without a permit or city inspection and lead laws have banned juvenille motorcycles.
I believe those who claim to be so tolerant are often the most intolerant. The big tent of liberalism is not very big at all. For all the pretense of tolerence and open mindedness, they are often violently intolerent of anyone who takes a different moral or logical stand on an issue. Race cards and cries of sexism or homophobia marginalize the beliefs of another. I've been piled upon in such a manner quite a bit here.
The government is the nations largest employer, lender and land owner. I believe there is something wrong with this. What is the sustainable ratio of govenment to governed. The government does not produce anything. Everything it has comes from the productive private sector. The single largest employer in our country is an economic drain. It's true the government spends money directly or indirectly but it cannot create wealth, only transfer it from one to another; from one business to another or person to person.
The term "socialism" doesn't seem to be disparaging anymore. Many Americans openly embrace and admit it now. If we go down that road where sides are chosen between blatantly socialist and blatantly capitalist, we will have serious problems. The capitalists have the guns though We are going to see the crazies come out of the woodwork - McVeighs and Unabombers. They are the canaries in the coal mine.
quote: This is the part that reminds me most of you:
"Dissidents will be marginalized—usually by “the people” themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly."
Funny, this really reminds me of you malanthrop. Hmm.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal, you keep talking about the violence of the Socialists, then going on and on about your guns and how home grown terrorists are your spokesmen.
You complain that the Government won't let you replace a hot water heater, but the Government runs the fire station that may be needed if you blow your house up by installing the water heater wrong--in particular a Gas water heater. Further, you should be protected from the stupidity of your neighbors. If they install their water heater wrong and it blows up, it will be part of your house that will go with it.
Finally, you say that the Government does not produce anything. This is your best argument that I have seen. Its new to me, and took some thought, but I must disagree.
The Government produces services, from the Postal to the Police, from Defense to Education. These are real concrete services as much as a valet parks cars or a trucker delivers your products.
Now if you say that only producers of items are really worthy businesses then most small businesses will disagree.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: By the way, just doing my part to save the tax payers money. Contractors cost less than GS government employees. No govt retirement or benefits.
This is not true. It only sounds good.
quote: I'm not quite clear how fascism is conservative or liberal, it is fascism. Perhaps the national pride aspect makes it inherently conservative? Conservatives certainly don't fit into the government control aspect.
You need to make the leap of applying that thinking to the left as well. The extreme left and the extreme right are indistinguishable in their aims, and approaches. Jingoism and national solipsism are hallmarks of any extreme nationalist movement. These movements never help anyone, and they hurt lots of people. Today you are contributing to one, but perhaps you are unaware of the consequences that carries.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My favorite news outlets would be considered partisan by you. One difference though, mine are number one in America in a free market. Your crap fails. Good thing Pelosi is pushing for a news paper bail out.
You don't even know what my favorite news outlets are, malanthrop. But don't let that stop you from spouting off.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the Daily Show is far from failing- that being my favorite "news" program. Only difference is it is populated with people who have the balls to form an opinion, and therefore work twice as hard to make sure they've done their research so they don't look like jackasses. CNN and Fox, MSNBC, all fail at that time and again- if you're not personally responsible for what you say, you'll eventually be persuaded to say anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the NYTs is definitely having a hard time these days that is hardly indicative of its' ability to research the news. NYTs is a newspaper, fox news is a television program. Apples to Oranges.
As for succeeding, Fox News began in 1996, the New York Times was established in 1851. The NYTs is a fantastic resource for researching the past, and I think it would be a shame if it did not survive in some form. For two years I read the New York Times and the Washington Post everyday and I think my grasp on current events was strongly augmented by the investment.
I think the NYTs especially was a bit unfair in the final days of the George W. Bush presidency but even Mr. Card has admitted that he enjoys Fox News because he readily recognizes the bias it is presenting him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother-in-law, after 21 years working for the same company, was laid off. He makes some money (while job-hunting) by doing odd jobs and handiman stuff for his neighbors. My sister has 3 part-time jobs - none that have insurance. She also has lupis. The two of my three nieces that are old enough to work have part-time jobs in addition to going to school.
Their COBRA insurance payment would have been $1100 a month. Thanks to the government, they get some help with that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Race cards and cries of sexism or homophobia marginalize the beliefs of another."
Mal, what is a race card? Because you've used what I would call a race card here. In my estimation, a race card is playing off of one's own heritage in order to invoke authority in an argument, or else to blame the wrongs committed against a person on the alleged biases of the wrong-doer. The "race card" is looked down upon because it is the mention of race invoked without proper cause, and as a fallback against personal responsibility- what it is not is every single mention of the disadvantages conferred on people because of their race.
Incidentally, if you believe that homosexuals should be marginalized by society, and that women should be denied equal rights, or if you imply or advocate a position which would result in marginalization and sexist public policies, then you and your beliefs deserve to be marginalized. It is always possible that the beliefs you are presenting are based on very poor impulses and a lack of understanding and knowledge of history and society- in fact in your case it is far more than possible.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I absolutely believe there are services the government should provide, including SS and Medicair. But those programs stand as testament that they are not capable of managing a bigger program. If it were my child, I'd suggest she retake her senior year before moving on to college. I am not a nihilist and I never intended to come accross that way. There is a growing swell in this country that are not anarchists but are getting fed up. It never ends. Government only continues to grow, expand and tax more and more and more. I'm not greedy but I think working over a week per month to pay your taxes is just about enough. Raising taxes on people when there is inflation and an economic downturn is crazy. Is it about the survival of the people or the survival of the government?
Actually, I think those programs, SS and Medicare, stand as testaments to what government does and what government can do. I don't think there is any doubt that those programs cry out for reform nor is there any doubt that those programs reveal deficiencies within the government, but I also believe that those programs help alot of people and it is our own moral obligation to help the truly needy. I understand your anger about taxes and bigger government, I really do, and yet, the big picture tells me that your position is incorrect. Our economy is like a pyramid, with the richest at the top and the poorest on the bottom, and when this economy is in a downturn, especially one this bad, the people who feel it the most are the people on the bottom of the pyramid, those crushed by the rich whose fall is cushioned by the poor. Sure we could allow big companies to fail without bailouts, we could allow the nearly 9% of the population that is unemployed to go without benefits for an extended period of time, and sure we could allow entire industries to go under at a time when Detroit is literally dieing and the rest of the country is in distress, but then we would do so not at the expense of the people who caused the mess but at the expense of the people at the bottom, the people who would be crushed when the top and middle of pyramid falls.
I think cheap populism is easy. I think doing what's right not just for you but for everyone is hard, and in this country, we must do what is hard, not what is easy to gripe about on Fox News.
quote:I'm not quite clear how fascism is conservative or liberal, it is fascism. Perhaps the national pride aspect makes it inherently conservative? Conservatives certainly don't fit into the government control aspect. What we are turning into is a beurocratic tyranny. I violated an ordinance by replacing my hot water heater without a permit or city inspection and lead laws have banned juvenille motorcycles.
Think of the types of government as a spectrum that flows from left to right. On the far left lies Communism, then socialism, then liberalism, then centrist policies, and on the right you have conservatism, theocracy, fascism, and complete authoritarianism. Thus, extreme left wing government is Communism or socialism and an extreme right wing government would be called fascist or authoritarian.
quote:I believe those who claim to be so tolerant are often the most intolerant. The big tent of liberalism is not very big at all. For all the pretense of tolerence and open mindedness, they are often violently intolerent of anyone who takes a different moral or logical stand on an issue. Race cards and cries of sexism or homophobia marginalize the beliefs of another. I've been piled upon in such a manner quite a bit here.
Actually, this I would agree with. Of course, you aren't exactly the most tolerant or logical either, which is the problem I was speaking of earlier. By no means though do conservatives have a monopoly on intolerance or prejudice, liberals maintain their own fair share. It is something that both sides must get past for progress to be made.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: By the way, just doing my part to save the tax payers money. Contractors cost less than GS government employees. No govt retirement or benefits.
This is not true. It only sounds good.
quote: I'm not quite clear how fascism is conservative or liberal, it is fascism. Perhaps the national pride aspect makes it inherently conservative? Conservatives certainly don't fit into the government control aspect.
You need to make the leap of applying that thinking to the left as well. The extreme left and the extreme right are indistinguishable in their aims, and approaches. Jingoism and national solipsism are hallmarks of any extreme nationalist movement. These movements never help anyone, and they hurt lots of people. Today you are contributing to one, but perhaps you are unaware of the consequences that carries.
I already have taken that leap. There are plenty of socialists on the right as well. I'm no defender of the Republican party. To me they are the simply the better of two bad choices. Both parties are taking us down the same road, one is just doing it faster.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Race Card is a card that people like malanthrop play on another person to say that they are playing the race card. So basically when they say you are playing the race card, it's them playing the you are playing the race card card.
It's very meta. One might even call it a c(an)ard.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Orincoro: It is always possible that the beliefs you are presenting are based on very poor impulses and a lack of understanding and knowledge of history and society- in fact in your case it is far more than possible.
True. As they say though, it goes both ways...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: "Race cards and cries of sexism or homophobia marginalize the beliefs of another."
Mal, what is a race card? Because you've used what I would call a race card here. In my estimation, a race card is playing off of one's own heritage in order to invoke authority in an argument, or else to blame the wrongs committed against a person on the alleged biases of the wrong-doer. The "race card" is looked down upon because it is the mention of race invoked without proper cause, and as a fallback against personal responsibility- what it is not is every single mention of the disadvantages conferred on people because of their race.
Incidentally, if you believe that homosexuals should be marginalized by society, and that women should be denied equal rights, or if you imply or advocate a position which would result in marginalization and sexist public policies, then you and your beliefs deserve to be marginalized. It is always possible that the beliefs you are presenting are based on very poor impulses and a lack of understanding and knowledge of history and society- in fact in your case it is far more than possible.
Affirmative action is discrimination. (Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit). - this is a fact and I believe it should be abolished in our society. Some opponents would tag me as racist for having this position. Eliminating affirmative action is not oppression.
I have a moral belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is logically unatural. The survival of the specied depends upon heterosexual relationships. At the very best it is simply, do whatever feels good. You could love an animal and bestiality occurs as well. - I do not interfere with or oppress homosexuals but my moral beliefs will not change.
Pointing out that there are conservative minorities is not playing the race card. Going one step further and pointing out how the left targets conservative minorities as uncle toms, sell outs or illigitimite, is not playing the race card either. It highlights the racist treatment of the left against minorities who dare to deviate from the way they are expected to think and vote. Conservative minorities do not fit the stereotypes the left would like to impose upon them.
Understanding history is important. There were horrible things done by all people. We have equality of opportunity now. Maybe you could explain to me the "disadvantages" a person has due to their race.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My brother-in-law, after 21 years working for the same company, was laid off. He makes some money (while job-hunting) by doing odd jobs and handiman stuff for his neighbors. My sister has 3 part-time jobs - none that have insurance. She also has lupis. The two of my three nieces that are old enough to work have part-time jobs in addition to going to school.
Their COBRA insurance payment would have been $1100 a month. Thanks to the government, they get some help with that.
"Defining COBRA COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. It was devised by the American government, which defines COBRA as an health insurance that would remain in effect should you be terminated or off-laid from your job. This health insurance would remain in effect for a period of 18 months after the job is terminated."
Thanks for the example of government policy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Mal, you keep talking about the violence of the Socialists, then going on and on about your guns and how home grown terrorists are your spokesmen.
You complain that the Government won't let you replace a hot water heater, but the Government runs the fire station that may be needed if you blow your house up by installing the water heater wrong--in particular a Gas water heater. Further, you should be protected from the stupidity of your neighbors. If they install their water heater wrong and it blows up, it will be part of your house that will go with it.
Finally, you say that the Government does not produce anything. This is your best argument that I have seen. Its new to me, and took some thought, but I must disagree.
The Government produces services, from the Postal to the Police, from Defense to Education. These are real concrete services as much as a valet parks cars or a trucker delivers your products.
Now if you say that only producers of items are really worthy businesses then most small businesses will disagree.
I didn't say that terrorists are my spokesmen. I suggested that the crazies are more sensititve to government encroachment. Think of the right wing nut jobs during the Clinton years. Domestic terrorists, the militia movement, etc. This was in direct response to things like Waco, Ruby Ridge, Assault Weapons ban, etc. It would have to go further for regular conservatives to pick up arms. What aggrivates the hell out of a conservative will be highlighted by a nut job shooting the police.
I agree that the government provides needed services. They do it with private sector funds in a manner that is less efficient than the private sector. Even the government has figured this out. They hire contractors like me to do a job that was once done by a government employee. My company can provide that service cheaper than the govt beurocracy. Military bases are turning over military housing to private companies. They will remain military housing but the private comapanies can run them in a much more cost effective manner. Spending on education is rediculous. It is approacing $11,000 per student in government money. Private institutions could do a better job for less. The needed services the government provides still remain a drain due to their inefficiency.
I'm not suggesting these services no longer be provided "by the government" but maybe they should directly employ fewer to do these services. (other than military, police and fire) Private companies are in the business of making a profit by doing a good job as efficiently as possible. Governmnent institutions are interested in self preservation and making sure they spend every cent allocated to them so their budget isn't reduced and they aregue for more. I've seen computers thrown in the trash, tools dumped over the side of a ship, tv's piled in dumpsters because it was the end of the quarter and there was still money to spend. Not all military examples, at all levels this is how the government operates. They complain about union pensions, govt pensions and benefits are the best you can get. 10 years and you're vested. Sit in Congress five days, there's a golden parachute for them.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have a moral belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is logically unatural. The survival of the specied depends upon heterosexual relationships. At the very best it is simply, do whatever feels good. You could love an animal and bestiality occurs as well.
make less sense, I dare you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My brother-in-law, after 21 years working for the same company, was laid off. He makes some money (while job-hunting) by doing odd jobs and handiman stuff for his neighbors. My sister has 3 part-time jobs - none that have insurance. She also has lupis. The two of my three nieces that are old enough to work have part-time jobs in addition to going to school.
Their COBRA insurance payment would have been $1100 a month. Thanks to the government, they get some help with that.
"Defining COBRA COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. It was devised by the American government, which defines COBRA as an health insurance that would remain in effect should you be terminated or off-laid from your job. This health insurance would remain in effect for a period of 18 months after the job is terminated."
Thanks for the example of government policy.
The government does not actually administer any health insurance under COBRA. They just require that the private insurance you were using when employed continues covering you when unemployed. I think that they also limit how much the private insurance can charge.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:From malanthrop: Spending on education is rediculous. It is approacing $11,000 per student in government money. Private institutions could do a better job for less.
This is the clearest point I've seen you make yet. I don't know where you pulled that figure from, but I don't automatically disbelieve it. I think that largely varies on a state to state and then even a county by county level.
I'm not convinced that private business could do a better job. To lure the kind of employees necessary to get the quality bump that someone like you (and me) would expect from private business taking over, they'd have to offer teachers a lot more money than public schools are prepared to pay. And there would still have to be a public/private partnership where the curriculum is concerned. Parents won't stand for having their tax dollars sunk into a private enterprise in which they have no say in how the curriculum is managed. So at the very least it wouldn't be 100% private.
I think the system is heavily in need of reform, I certainly agree with you there. I'm not convinced that private schools for all are the answer, but I know that the status quo is stuck in the mud and needs a huge makeover, and I think it'll have to include an end to teacher tenure, or at least a major revision to how it works, and big pay increases for teachers to lure real talent. I think it should also include an element of distance learning for rural districts, if we're really talking about maximizing efficiency.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
As a government contractor, I get a higher salary than the regular government employee yet I am a cost saver for the government in the form of benefits, ie retirement, medical etc. As a contractor, if I fail to perfom, my company will replace me. I don't have a govt union or tenure. Most people seek government jobs for the one of a kind retirement packages and benefits.
Money spent doesn't necessarilly mean higher quality. Some of the best schools in the country are small, underfunded schools in the heartland.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You conveniently fail to mention that the government pays out contracts to security and other companies overseas that are worth more than the government would spend if it used its own people. You're fudging the numbers and talking about efficiency and turn-around because you are aware of that. You are being paid more for the same job, and you just want to justify it by saying that somehow your work is worth more, and therefore it is "saving" some money somewhere down the line. Your company is swallowing up the difference in profit- it isn't saving the tax-payers any money, and it sometimes costs us more. That isn't even getting into the meaty issue of corruption when it comes to lucrative private contracts with the government, where the work that contractors do is out of sight, not covered by international treaties, and where the government is willing to pay more for the anonymity of the private sector. Don't fool yourself- you're part of the money machine this war has tried to be for those people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't know how it works in all states, but at least in MA, tenure is basically dead.
Public schools and private schools perform, on average, about the same, if you account for things like socioeconomic status. Private schools have a larger standard deviation, though. So moving to a private system of education would just stratify outcomes according to economic background a lot more than currently occurs.
In general, trends in public schooling are very strong. The knowledge of a low scoring public high school student ends up being greater than an average scoring public school student from twelve years prior, in just about any category.
Are changes needed in the system? Yeah. But, in general, the panic over public schools is severely misplaced.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone else noticed that this thread has quietly become a place for Mal to repost right-wing blog material without further comment?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Public schools and private schools perform, on average, about the same, if you account for things like socioeconomic status. Private schools have a larger standard deviation, though. So moving to a private system of education would just stratify outcomes according to economic background a lot more than currently occurs.
I think you must be miscommunicating the result, because what you've said has the opposite meaning. If they have the same estimated performance on desired metrics after controlling for socioeconomic status and the like, but a larger standard deviation, that means socioeconomic status is less determinant of outcome in private schools than in public schools, since the correlations are fuzzier. That is, there is more overlap of people in one socioeconomic status with people in another.
Now, that's assuming certain things about the study for it to be sufficiently well constructed to draw such a conclusion. But I don't think there's any variation in the study where the outcome you relate would have the interpretation you put on it.
Orincoro: yeah, there isn't much point in talking to someone who is incapable of arguing honestly. Sadly, many people who were arguing with him had started going down to his level in response, so this is definitely an improvement.
malanthrop: I do want to mention how laughable your argument against homosexuality is. First, let us assume that your morality really does propagate from what is necessary to continue the species. Then, are you aware of the several species where a non-progenitor close relative watches the young, and that by having a higher ratio of individuals caring for the young to the young, the species is better preserved? If your morality proceeds as you say it does, and the evidence were to suggest a similar mechanism was at work with human homosexuality, you'd have to consider it morally righteous. And, of course, there's that homosexuality is genetic, and in a way that guarantees it remain an exclusive practice only in a small portion of the population. There's absolutely no danger to human procreation from it, just like there's no danger from people who choose not to have kids. Do you view those people more negatively than you view homosexual people? After all, many of the latter want kids, and some of them can reproduce directly (or are you against lesbians using sperm banks despite it being good for the survival of the species?) Of course, there's not much point to me bringing these up. I know that isn't your real argument against homosexuality, just one you like to trot out because it sounds more reasoned.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
On average, students do as well in public schools as in private schools. But the average for private schools is skewed by the fact that at the top end there are a few excellent private schools, which are accessible only to the wealthy, and at the bottom end some really awful schools.
This isn't "a" study, its pretty much everything that I've seen on private vs public, which has been studied for decades now.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can lead a horse to water......only to find out that it is an ass. (Hope that was politicially correct.) The Republican party is the public fringe of a growing movement of people that mistakenly believe that the Constitution is still "Golden" but Roe vs Wade did away with equal rights under the law and granted eminent domain over procreation to half the population. The Supreme Court is silent (go figure)The silent majority is waking up. All that is needed now is a Christian Hispanic Rush Limbaugh. (laugh)
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then you're miscommunicating that situation. For instance, what you've described just implied that, controlling for socioeconomic status, at the high end private schools will be more likely to produce better results (due to the few excellent private schools). That's directly counter to "Public schools and private schools perform, on average, about the same, if you account for things like socioeconomic status".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Out of interest, mal, how do you reckon that men and women had "equal rights under the law" re: procreation prior to Roe v. Wade?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Out of interest, mal, how do you reckon that men and women had "equal rights under the law" re: procreation prior to Roe v. Wade?
I think that was a different post but I'll answer your question. Prior to legalized abortion both parents were held equally accountable for their actions. The resultant pregnancy was an equal burden and responsibility for both. Legalized abortion has muddied the waters. Even pro-life supporters prefer a mother drop off the child at a fire department without consequence over abortion. Fathers must suffer the consequence of his actions no matter what. Prior to Rov v Wade, both parents could agree on adoption or share the parental burdon. Now, mom can abort, adopt or keep. She has numerous get out of jail free cards while the father has none. If he wants her to abort, he can hope she makes that choice for him. If he wants her to keep it, he can hope she chooses to keep it. If he wants to keep it himself, he can hope she chooses to give birth and give it to him. If he doesn't want it and doesn't want the responsibility and she chooses to give birth, he is still held accountable. Keeping it in his pants is his only choice. Prior to legalized abortion, they had equality of choice, both parents were held responsible for their actions. In a way, I'm pro choice.
posted
Didn't you already start a whole thread where you asserted that and it was shot down? DO you think that we have forgotten?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Republican party is the public fringe of a growing movement of people that mistakenly believe that the Constitution is still "Golden" but Roe vs Wade did away with equal rights under the law and granted eminent domain over procreation to half the population.
Wait a minute, what? In what way precisely did the Constitution do away with equal rights under the law?
--------
quote:Prior to legalized abortion both parents were held equally accountable for their actions. The resultant pregnancy was an equal burden and responsibility for both.
This is incorrect. The resulting parenthood is, or should be, an equal burden and responsibility for both mother and father. The pregnancy itself, though? Are you suggesting it's equally burdensome to both mother and father? That's absurd. Furthermore, for better or worse in general the parenthood itself is often more burdensome to the mother than the father as well.
It's refreshing to get to take this stance on this issue, even though my overall opinion hasn't changed:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This no different than arguing if men and women are equal. It is not PC to say that one or the other are physically or mentally superior while certain differences are undeniable.
The pregnancy itself is of course more burdonsome for the mother. And you are correct, typically, "parenthood" is more burdonsome for the mother, if she decides to give birth, adopt or keep the child. "Parenthood" is her sole choice. Even in traditional families "parenthood" may be more difficult for the mother. The "responsibility" is equivalent though. The father is at work all day while the mother is busy parenting or they both work and share the parenting responsibility. My wife works occasionally as a teacher but 9 times out of ten she is a stay at home mom. She is the primary "parent" to our children yet the roof over their head, the cloths on their backs and the food they eat comes from the father. Fathers are often denegrated for their time away from the family or work several days per week to support children they cannot even see. Fathers work to provide yet are not considered primary "parents" to the children. Even in non traditional relationships, the father will pay financial support for the children not under his roof, unless the mother chooses abortion or adoption.
I don't believe the father and mother have the same obligation yet their obligations are equivalent, dependent upon the choices of the mother.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: This no different than arguing if men and women are equal. It is not PC to say that one or the other are physically or mentally superior.
It's not PC because value judgments are not necessary- men and women are physically and mentally different. I didn't realize you wanted to add misogyny to your list of personal attributes now.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This no different than arguing if men and women are equal. It is not PC to say that one or the other are physically or mentally superior.
It's quite different. You said some things that were, plainly on their face, incorrect. Not just semantically incorrect, or politically incorrect, but factually incorrect.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suggesting that mothers are more of a parent than fathers is incorrect. While mothers may me the direct "parent" the fathers role in supprort of the family is equivalent. In my personal life I am keenly aware of this. I'll work all day and as soon as I come home, my wife who has spent all day with my children expects "family time". The 8 - 10 hours per day providing for that family are not considered as "family time" and by your assertion "parenting" time. Being a parent goes beyond the person changing the diaper, someone has to work to buy the diaper. The time spent to pay for a diaper is longer than the time spent changing a diaper.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: This no different than arguing if men and women are equal. It is not PC to say that one or the other are physically or mentally superior.
It's not PC because value judgments are not necessary- men and women are physically and mentally different. I didn't realize you wanted to add misogyny to your list of personal attributes now.
Orincoro, take a break. You don't have to be ornery everyday of your life you know.
Having said that I believe I agree with your preceding statement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suggesting that mothers are more of a parent than fathers is incorrect.
If that is what you had said initially, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, malanathrop.
quote:The resultant pregnancy was an equal burden and responsibility for both.
That's what you said, and what I objected to. You ought to remember, seeing as how it was only, what, an hour and a half ago?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We are going to see the crazies come out of the woodwork - McVeighs and Unabombers. They are the canaries in the coal mine.
