Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The They Said A Thing thread (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  8  9  10   
Author Topic: The They Said A Thing thread
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
about, you know, them

quote:
A group of conservative lawyers and academics filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that the legalization of same sex marriage would result in 900,000 abortions over the next 30 years.

Leading the group is Gene Scharr, an attorney and former clerk of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who unsuccessfully argued Utah’s case against same-sex marriage. Scharr’s argument was summarized in The Daily Signal.

“A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women,” Scharr argues. “And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates.”

His argument has been met with a “causation vs. correlation” rebuttal, which he freely admitted in an explaination, according to Washington Post. Scharr said it’s “still too new” to do a rigorous causation analysis.

Scharr claims declining marriage rates in Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont are proof of the “harmful” effects. He does not note marriage rates are declining in Texas and Utah, as well as the rest of the country.

Multiple studies have found that allowing same sex couples to wed has no affect on heterosexual marriage rates.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
U.S. House Representative Bill Flores of Texas argued this week that violence in Baltimore could be linked to the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Perkins suggested that the government was just creating more problems for itself as courts throughout the nation continued to rule that LGBT people should have equal marriage rights.

“A lot of these problems are created by the breakdown of the family, which the redefinition of would only accelerate,” Perkins opined.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to sit down with those guys to see if they really believe these things and would actually attempt to rationalize it or if it's just some weird political strategy or something.

That second one is special. I can't imagine a person reading that and thinking, "Hmm. That makes sense."

Posts: 1983 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald Rumsfeld in 2003:

quote:
Well, I think the way to think about that is that if you go from a repressive regime that has — it’s a police state, where people are murdered and imprisoned by the tens of thousands — and then you go to something other than that — a liberated Iraq — that you go through a transition period. And in every country, in my adult lifetime, that’s had the wonderful opportunity to do that, to move from a repressed dictatorial regime to something that’s freer, we’ve seen in that transition period there is untidiness, and there’s no question but that that’s not anyone’s choice.

. . . And, while no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime.


Posts: 9908 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boom.
Posts: 810 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noted liberal Donald Rumsfeld [attach slam dunk.gif]
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As the first black female mayor of Parma, Mo., took office last week, five of the town's six police officers resigned, Missouri television station KFVS reported.

The new mayor, Tyrus Byrd (pictured above on the right), was sworn in on Tuesday evening. Former Mayor Randall Ramsey told KFVS that in addition to the five police officers, the city's attorney, clerk and water treatment plant supervisor resigned due to "safety concerns."

Byrd was not aware why the five police officers resigned, according to KFVS. When she took office, Byrd said she could not find the resignation letters and that the city computers had been cleared. She told KFVS that she needs more information before addressing the resignations publicly.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) declared himself to be a fan of controversial social scientist Charles Murray’s books at a forum Thursday in Washington.

Bush lauded Murray’s books on two separate occasions during an interview with National Review editor Rich Lowry, at a forum sponsored by the conservative magazine.

Lowry asked Bush, “… is there any policy or anything public officials can do to help turn back what has been a rising tide of family breakdown crossing decades now?”

“Absolutely, there is,” Bush, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said. “It’s not exactly the core. My views on this were shaped a lot on this by Charles Murray’s book, except I was reading the book and I was waiting for the last chapter with the really cool solutions — didn’t quite get there.”

Later in the interview, Lowry asked Bush what he likes to read. Again, he cited Murray.

“I like Charles Murray books to be honest with you, which means I’m a total nerd I guess,” Bush said.

Charles Murray is a darling of the right-wing because of his book “The Bell Curve” which declares that black people are not as smart as white people because of their inferior genes. No, seriously, that’s exactly what the book is about. Here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about Murray:

"According to Murray, disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged because, on average, they cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior. Murray advocates the total elimination of the welfare state, affirmative action and the Department of Education, arguing that public policy cannot overcome the innate deficiencies that cause unequal social and educational outcomes."

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
Donald Rumsfeld in 2003:

quote:
Well, I think the way to think about that is that if you go from a repressive regime that has — it’s a police state, where people are murdered and imprisoned by the tens of thousands — and then you go to something other than that — a liberated Iraq — that you go through a transition period. And in every country, in my adult lifetime, that’s had the wonderful opportunity to do that, to move from a repressed dictatorial regime to something that’s freer, we’ve seen in that transition period there is untidiness, and there’s no question but that that’s not anyone’s choice.

. . . And, while no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime.


This is fantastic.
Posts: 21764 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Farrar took to the microphone after a debate about how best to retool the state’s social safety net turned to abortion, with a freshman Tea Party lawmaker attempting to insert an abortion ban into a bill concerning the bureaucratic operations of the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) put forward an amendment that would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, even if a fetus “has a severe and irreversible abnormality,” effectively forcing families with wanted, but unsustainable pregnancies to carry to term at the behest of the state and against the advice of their doctors or their own wishes.

Schaefer said, during debate over his amendment, that suffering is “part of the human condition, since sin entered the world.”

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
“I like Charles Murray books to be honest with you, which means I’m a total nerd I guess,” Bush said.
ok
Haha eugenicist nerrrrrrd.

[ May 05, 2015, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]

Posts: 9908 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
Donald Rumsfeld in 2003:

quote:
Well, I think the way to think about that is that if you go from a repressive regime that has — it’s a police state, where people are murdered and imprisoned by the tens of thousands — and then you go to something other than that — a liberated Iraq — that you go through a transition period. And in every country, in my adult lifetime, that’s had the wonderful opportunity to do that, to move from a repressed dictatorial regime to something that’s freer, we’ve seen in that transition period there is untidiness, and there’s no question but that that’s not anyone’s choice.

. . . And, while no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime.


Rumsfeld regularly threw decency out the window to explain the expediencies and setbacks of his work? Color me not surprised.
Posts: 642 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
King didn't.

quote:
Urban riots.

Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

King's challenge to the nation's social scientists
Posts: 10748 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The text of "The Sodomite Suppression Act," posted by the office of the state attorney general, provides some flavor of McLaughlin's voice.

"The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha," it begins.

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method," the proposal continues.

The other initiative McLaughlin has attempted, which failed, was a proposal to make the Bible a required text in public schools.

"Even if you don't believe its teachings, you'll agree that it includes rich usage of the English language," he told the LA Times in a 2004 interview.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a message posted to Facebook on 31 March, Ms Bachman suggested that the US president is intentionally hurting the US people in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

“With his Iran deal, Barack Obama is for the 300 million souls of the United States what Andreas Lubitz was for the 150 souls on the German Wings flight - a deranged pilot flying his entire nation into the rocks,” Ms Bachmann wrote. “After the fact, among the smoldering remains of American cities, the shocked survivors will ask, why did he do it?”

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
King didn't.

quote:
Urban riots.

Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

King's challenge to the nation's social scientists
I can't possibly agree with that quoted section without the part that comes after it,

quote:
The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.
Riots and looting are derivative crimes, but they are still crimes. We shouldn't excuse white on black racism or violence, and we shouldn't excuse looting or rioting directed at innocent bystanders.

Sorry to derail a thread I'm actually enjoying quite a bit.

Posts: 642 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could move this over to the thread about Baltimore. But I am not sure you posted what you mean to post. What comes after it? You reposted what I had already quoted and what you quoted doesn't seem to agree with what you wrote.
Posts: 10748 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots: I'm not sure what sort of reading comprehension failure went on, but you are correct. I did repost the second half of what you had already posted.

But I think King agrees with me. Expect everybody to keep common law.

Posts: 642 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Especially not in context.
Posts: 10748 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a very precise interpretation, yes.
Posts: 16745 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

But I think King agrees with me. Expect everybody to keep common law.

I also don't think that's what King is saying - especially since he was a proponent of civil disobedience which is predicated on breaking the law - particularly laws considered unjust or harmful.
Posts: 937 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wow. I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Especially not in context.

That's because it's not what he is saying. Hell, the entire second portion of it is all about, "If we're going to talk about breaking the law, let's talk about all of the law breaking that's gone on."
Posts: 16745 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

But I think King agrees with me. Expect everybody to keep common law.

I also don't think that's what King is saying - especially since he was a proponent of civil disobedience which is predicated on breaking the law - particularly laws considered unjust or harmful.
I think BlackBlade was probably referring to laws about violence, but I think you make a good point, Risuena. King had little respect for laws when they were unjust, and was quite willing to break them.

Fast forward fifty years, and I would be surprised if it weren't so predictable how many people have this narrative in their head-fostered by mainstream education and media-that King engaged in law-abiding protests and such. Nonviolence is not the same as unlawful.

Posts: 16745 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

But I think King agrees with me. Expect everybody to keep common law.

I also don't think that's what King is saying - especially since he was a proponent of civil disobedience which is predicated on breaking the law - particularly laws considered unjust or harmful.
I used "common law" for a reason. Our Declaration of Independence notes that among our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Underneath all our written laws, we have certain rights.

Jim Crow laws or laws requiring a man to stand down while a police officer brutalizes/murders him violate these rights and common law as I understand it. I think we all recognize the right of individuals to preserve their lives from aggressors. I think we all agree that an individual's property honestly acquired ought to be protected.

I think we all agree that if written law imposes an undue burden on an individual's intrinsic rights, that the greater law must be respected over the lesser one. Hence people may break an unjust law and cheerfully do so.

Laws protecting individual citizen's businesses and possessions are not by nature unjust laws. So looting and rioting against innocent citizens quite simply cannot be an acceptable response to a tyrannical and oppressive law enforcement.

That the greater sin lies with law enforcement and racism at an institutional level is beyond debate IMHO. But we all agree on that. Why is it so hard for people to condemn violence and looting? Is it because in our desire to sympathize with an oppressed class we are willing to paradoxically respond to them in a non-colorblind manner?

I find it enormously insulting to African Americans that we act like because they have been oppressed by the system to the extent that they have, that they have lost the human faculty for reason and accountability. We have turned them into rabid animals exacting vengeance indiscriminately. The only explanation I can see is a misapplication of white guilt. I refuse to believe that the people who choose to keep the law and shout no less emphatically for the end of racial inequality are wasting their time, because looting gets people's attention. Excusing rioting against innocent people doesn't do racial equality justice, it just adds more of what has already corrupted our judicial system; inconsistency.

Posts: 642 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are some assumptions there that I don't think necessarily hold true, BB. First is that a reluctance to criticize rioters too much is a sign of 'misapplied white guilt'. While for some I don't doubt that it is, it's entirely possible to believe that *any* group, whether racial, political, national, or religious, if you stick 'em in a pressure cooker long enough and throw in some really flagrant provocations, they're gonna explode. It's nothing special about black people when I think that-I believe any group will do that.

There is also the assumption that 'rioters are rabid animals taking vengeance indiscriminately', which is to put it plainly nonsense. Riots are too complicated and poorly understood a concept to sum up in that sort of way. Rabid animals don't loot, for one thing. They don't respect the protection offered by members of their community for some businesses, instead of just rampaging through those protections.

Another assumption that seems to (correct me if I'm wrong) be behind your words is a pretty old-fashioned interpretation of group psychology in riots. You're acknowledging the actual root causes of these things, but once the riot starts you're often speaking as though it's criminality, plain and simple.

I'm only a layman, but I suspect it is very, very difficult to resist being swept up in a riot if, for example, you're participating in a protest that turns ugly. Say, after some drunk bar goers help incite you, or your protest is ignored for a full week, or the cops-who you are already very unhappy with-show up to 'monitor' your protest, etc. or even if you're just sick of being poor and marginalized, and most of the people around you are too, and then someone throws a rock.

Posts: 16745 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, I think 'inconsistency' is an accurate but also very sterile description of our criminals justice system. It's not 'inconsistency' when the poor and minorities, much less poor minorities, are killed and mistreated at nearly universally higher rates by the government.
Posts: 16745 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're using Common Law differently than I would, but I see where you're coming from.

There is definitely a difference between understanding why people turn to violent protest and condoning it. I am by no means a Civil Rights expert, but I think there is an argument to be made that MLK and non-violent protest were as successful as they were in the 60s because they were a foil for more violent factions within the Civil Rights movement like Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

Posts: 937 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BlackBlade: You seem to use "common law" to mean something almost entirely opposite it's normal definition. (laws derived from judicial precedence) The Jim Crow laws and, by extension, the general tendency of de facto bigoted judicial rulings and practices, largely *were* common law rather than imposed by statute or legislation, and MLK was absolutely correct to stand against it. I'm having a difficult time understanding your point here.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
You're using Common Law differently than I would, but I see where you're coming from.

There is definitely a difference between understanding why people turn to violent protest and condoning it. I am by no means a Civil Rights expert, but I think there is an argument to be made that MLK and non-violent protest were as successful as they were in the 60s because they were a foil for more violent factions within the Civil Rights movement like Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

As for this, part of it was the contrast, I agree. But perhaps a bigger part was that the establishment was *really* not happy with the protests where they happened. None of that 'free speech zone' horseshit, for example.
Posts: 16745 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what was the absolute worst looking free speech zone we have ever seen? I recall there were some "guys, really, seriously" ones from like the G8 talks some time ago or something
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
There are some assumptions there that I don't think necessarily hold true, BB. First is that a reluctance to criticize rioters too much is a sign of 'misapplied white guilt'. While for some I don't doubt that it is, it's entirely possible to believe that *any* group, whether racial, political, national, or religious, if you stick 'em in a pressure cooker long enough and throw in some really flagrant provocations, they're gonna explode. It's nothing special about black people when I think that-I believe any group will do that.

There is also the assumption that 'rioters are rabid animals taking vengeance indiscriminately', which is to put it plainly nonsense. Riots are too complicated and poorly understood a concept to sum up in that sort of way. Rabid animals don't loot, for one thing. They don't respect the protection offered by members of their community for some businesses, instead of just rampaging through those protections.

Another assumption that seems to (correct me if I'm wrong) be behind your words is a pretty old-fashioned interpretation of group psychology in riots. You're acknowledging the actual root causes of these things, but once the riot starts you're often speaking as though it's criminality, plain and simple.

I'm only a layman, but I suspect it is very, very difficult to resist being swept up in a riot if, for example, you're participating in a protest that turns ugly. Say, after some drunk bar goers help incite you, or your protest is ignored for a full week, or the cops-who you are already very unhappy with-show up to 'monitor' your protest, etc. or even if you're just sick of being poor and marginalized, and most of the people around you are too, and then someone throws a rock.

I think your pressure cooker analogy does a disservice to the members of the marginalized group who while under that same pressure refuse to indiscriminately riot and steal. I get that you are trying to be understanding, and I think that's an exceptional quality.

But in our efforts to be understanding, we're ignoring that innocent people are being victimized, full stop. We're not talking about the police officers being beaten because no other justice is available. We're talking about innocent people having their livelihoods destroyed.

I think a riot is criminality plain and simple. I thought the Boston Tea Party was criminal, it has simply been whitewashed (no pun intended) to suit the narrative of America needing to be free. The British sailors had their livelihoods tied up in that cargo being offloaded and sold. Because it was destroyed they went away injured financially. I think they would have been justified in beating the crap out of the Sons of Liberty who boarded their vessel.

As for resisting being caught up in a riot. So what? It's very hard to resist suggestion when you're intoxicated, our laws understand that but still impose harsh penalties for things you do while under the influence of alcohol. Understanding that your inhibitions are compromised does nothing to reduce your responsibility for any harm you cause to another while intoxicated.

Posts: 642 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
I think there is an argument to be made that MLK and non-violent protest were as successful as they were in the 60s because they were a foil for more violent factions within the Civil Rights movement like Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

The old 'good cop bad cop' routine
Posts: 1983 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
You're using Common Law differently than I would, but I see where you're coming from.

There is definitely a difference between understanding why people turn to violent protest and condoning it. I am by no means a Civil Rights expert, but I think there is an argument to be made that MLK and non-violent protest were as successful as they were in the 60s because they were a foil for more violent factions within the Civil Rights movement like Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

I'm probably the closest thing Hatrack has to a civil rights expert, and I'll say that's exactly what happened.

King was pointed about it too. He'd tell white leaders to their faces that he was asking nicely, buy Malcolm X was telling people to lock and Load. Scared the hell out of people.

It's also important to remember that as much as King as sterilized into a hippie flower child, he was a radical, especially in the late 60s leading up to his death. And for all Malcolm X is portrayed as an insurrectionist, his biggest "crime" was preaching armed self defense. King said to turn the other cheek, X said to slap him back. Sounds pretty reasonable, but from a black man the idea of fighting back was very controversial. Check out the Ossian Sweet case in Detroit.

Posts: 21764 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Check out the Ossian Sweet case in Detroit.

Heck, check out the Marvin Guy case that's ongoing right now. Marvin defended himself against police officers who broke into his house unannounced and is now on trial for murder. (of which hopefully he will be acquitted)
Posts: 1839 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


An Auburn woman claiming to be an ambassador for God and his son, Jesus Christ, is suing all homosexuals.

Sylvia Driskell, 66, asked an Omaha federal judge to decide whether homosexuality is a sin.

Citing Bible verses, Driskell contends “that homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet(?)”

Driskell wrote in a seven-page petition to the court that God has said homosexuality is an abomination. She challenged the court to not call God a liar.

“I never thought that I would see a day in which our great nation or our own great state of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some people(’s) lewd behavior.”

Driskell could not be reached by phone. She is representing herself in the lawsuit.

Article
Posts: 10163 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it work out for her.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it work out for her.

*laugh*
Posts: 642 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tea party darling Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Tuesday demanded that the U.S. military alter a planned training exercise that some conspiracy theorists believe is cover for a possible takeover of the Lone Star state.

Gohmert said in a statement that he understands Texans' concerns that the exercise, dubbed "Jade Helm 15," may be a precursor for martial law. He directed his criticism specifically at what has been reported to be a map of the training exercise, which labels Texas, among other states, as "hostile" territory ...

"Once I observed the map depicting ‘hostile,’ ‘permissive,’ and ‘uncertain’ states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution," Gohmert said in the statement.

"Such labeling by a government that is normally not allowed to use military force against its own citizens is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as 'hostile,' as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them," he later added.

The congressman urged the military to alter the tone of the training exercise and draw up a new map so as to dispel any notion that the federal government is "intentionally practicing war" against particular states.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Crap, he's onto us.
Posts: 1983 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Last Thursday, fourth graders from Hampton Falls, New Hampshire visited their state legislature to observe a bit of democracy in action. The children had previously proposed House Bill 373, establishing the Red Tail Hawk as the New Hampshire State Raptor, as part of a civics lesson in how bills become laws. Their measure had already sailed out of the Environmental and Agriculture Committee. Now the young students gathered in the House galley to watch their bill pass its next hurdle.

But the nine and ten-year-olds were in for a brutal lesson in realpolitik. At the start of the day, legislators turned and applauded to children for coming to the statehouse. When lawmakers began to consider the bill, however, Republican Rep. Warren Groen—who has devoted his career to combating abortion and marriage equality—took the floor to denounce the Red Tail Hawk. "It grasps [its prey] with its talons then uses its razor sharp beak to basically tear it apart limb by limb," he explained as the children watched. "And I guess the shame about making this a state bird is it would serve as a much better mascot for Planned Parenthood."

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dallas Rep. Pete Sessions claimed on the House floor today that Obamacare coverage costs federal taxpayers $5 million for each newly covered American.
He was off by a lot — nearly $5 million, in fact.

“If you just do simple multiplication, 12 million into $108 billion, we’re talking literally every single recipient would be costing this government more than $5 million per person for their insurance,” said Sessions, chairman of the House Rules Committee.

The actual math is this: $108 billion divided by 12 million equals $9,000.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Tea party darling Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Tuesday demanded that the U.S. military alter a planned training exercise that some conspiracy theorists believe is cover for a possible takeover of the Lone Star state.

Gohmert said in a statement that he understands Texans' concerns that the exercise, dubbed "Jade Helm 15," may be a precursor for martial law. He directed his criticism specifically at what has been reported to be a map of the training exercise, which labels Texas, among other states, as "hostile" territory ...

"Once I observed the map depicting ‘hostile,’ ‘permissive,’ and ‘uncertain’ states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution," Gohmert said in the statement.

"Such labeling by a government that is normally not allowed to use military force against its own citizens is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as 'hostile,' as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them," he later added.

The congressman urged the military to alter the tone of the training exercise and draw up a new map so as to dispel any notion that the federal government is "intentionally practicing war" against particular states.

ok
Thanks to Tom Cotton, we know that Iran already controls Tehran, and now it looks like the US is about to annex Texas. Scary stuff.
Posts: 9908 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh right hang on

quote:


Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Sunday cited Iran’s control of their own capital, Tehran, as a reason that the country had to be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In a interview on CBS, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer pointed out that Cotton’s letter to Iran, which was also signed by 46 other Republican senators, may have undermined President Barack Obama’s ability to get a nuclear deal with Iran.

“Let’s say the deal falls through, then what?” Schieffer wondered.

Cotton replied by quoting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The alternative to a bad deal is a better deal,” the freshman senator insisted. “The Iranians frequently bluff to walk away from the table. If they bluff this week, call their bluff. Congress stands ready to impose much more severe sanctions.”

“Moreover, we have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance,” he continued. “They already control Tehran and, increasingly, they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad. And now, Sana’a as well.”

“They do all that without a nuclear weapon. What they would do with a nuclear weapon.”

Cotton told Schieffer that he had “no regrets at all” about sending the letter to Iran.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yesterday on Newsmax TV, Ben Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.

“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”

He also added that members of the judiciary should have term limits in order to “adjust with the times.”

Carson, who announced his campaign for president on Monday, has previously floated the idea of impeaching judges who back marriage equality.

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good lord. This thread is going to kill me.
Posts: 21764 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lindsey Graham wants you to know that he is sick and tired of Arabs using the word "the."

"Everything that starts with 'Al' in the Middle East is bad news," said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina at an AIPAC dinner in Boston on Monday. "Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula," said the senator, who may be running for president.

As Haaretz writes, "the problem — linguistically — with Graham's comment is that 'Al' is the definite article in Arabic (i.e. equivalent to English's 'the'), and usually appears before most Arabic proper nouns, especially place and personal names."

So, for example, "the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (Al-Mamlakah al-Arabiyah as-Sa'ūdiyah) or "the United Arab Emirates" (al-Imārāt al-‘Arabīyah al-Muttaḥhidah) or "the United States of America" (al-Wilāyāt al-Muttaḥidah al-Amrīkīyah) are all, in Arabic, phrases starting with "al." This is also the derivation of the English word algebra (from al-jabr, the reunion of broken parts).

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting.

If that's the explanation it actually sounds reasonable to omit the "Al" in front of these organizations when talking about them in English just like we often omit "the." For some sentences it does seem really redundant, e.g. "Al/The Jazeera America Replaces CEO" could be rendered more simply as "Jazeera America Replaces CEO"

Posts: 7557 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AL BOULDER IS CONFLICTED ABOUT FIGHTING A YOUNG, BLIND GIRL

quote:
If that's the explanation it actually sounds reasonable to omit the "Al" in front of these organizations when talking about them in English just like we often omit "the."
unless you want to keep the Al attached to make it sound more arab-ey and thus distrustfully other

the same way as certain perfectly reputable people of a certain perfectly reputable persuasion have the perfectly innocent habit of making sure to emphasize that the president's full name is barack hussein obama

anyway

quote:
California pastor Jim Garlow, who is active in conservative politics and was among the key leaders of the campaign to pass Proposition 8, appeared on Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” program yesterday to discuss his church’s upcoming Future Conference, which will include appearances by Perkins, Newt Gingrich, Mat Staver.

Garlow said that Staver, the Liberty Counsel attorney who has called formass civil disobedience and a revolution to stop gay marriage, will be “speaking on a topic that most of us didn’t want to hear about, and that’s when biblical obedience translates into civil disobedience and we become an underground resistance movement.”


He later told Perkins, who is the president of the Family Research Council, that people who use the refrain “that ship has sailed” in reference to gay marriage don’t realize that “that ship will sink” since “reason is on our side.”

ok
Posts: 14941 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For some sentences it does seem really redundant, e.g. "Al/The Jazeera America Replaces CEO"
Except that the sentence "The Cleveland Plain Dealer replaced its CEO" still keeps the "the." You wouldn't write the sentence "New York Times is a newspaper."
Posts: 37120 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2