This is topic Sarah Palin: Definitions of Conservative vs. Liberal -- from her book, "Going Rogue" in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
(Excerpts from pages 384-386 of her book, Going Rogue: An American Life, Harper Collins, 2009)
quote:I…don’t like the narrow stereotypes of either “conservative” or the “liberal” label, but until we change the lingo, call me a Commonsense Conservative….
At its most basic level, conservatism is a respect for history and tradition, including traditional moral principles. I do not believe I am more moral, certainly no better, than anyone else, and conservatives who act “holier than thou” turn my stomach. So do some elite liberals. But I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, and chief among those is that man is fallen. This world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.
I am a conservative because I deal with the world as it is—complicated and beautiful, tragic and hopeful. I am a conservative because I believe in the rights and the responsibilities and the inherent dignity of the individual.
In his book, A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell explains the underlying assumptions or “visions” that shape our opinions and the way we approach social and political issues. He identifies two separate visions: the unconstrained, and the constrained.
People who adhere to the unconstrained vision (the label applied to them is “liberal” or “left-wing”) believe that human nature is changeable (therefore perfectible) and that society’s problems can all be solved if only the poor, ignorant, disorganized public is told what to do and rational plans are enacted. And who better to make those plans than an elite bureaucracy pulling the strings and organizing society according to their master blueprint? No one can doubt that our current leaders in Washington subscribe to this unconstrained vision.
Conservatives believe in the “constrained” political vision because we know that human nature is flawed and that there are limitations to what can be done in Washington to “fix” society’s problems.
Commonsense Conservatives deal with human nature as it is---with its unavoidable weaknesses and its potential for goodness. We see the world as it is—imperfect but filled with beauty. We hope for the best. We believe people can change for the better, but we do not ignore history’s lessons and waste time chasing utopian pipe dreams.
We don’t trust utopian promises from politicians. The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us—to protect our inalienable rights. The role of government in a civil society is to protect the individual and to establish a social contract so that we can live together in peace.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...Conservatives believe in the “constrained” political vision because we know that human nature is flawed..."
Actually, I've read that the rate of confidence scams is highest in Utah, a very conservative state. Apparently Conservatives with that awareness of the flawed-ness of human nature put blinders on when the other human they're looking at claims to be of the same faith.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am posting in this high quality thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Summary. "I'm a realist. People are in a fallen state so there is no point in trying to improve society:" What a cop out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, the excerpt is pretty dumb, given Palin's general attitude and behavior as a political candidate. It works on an implication that to define 'liberal' you need to qualify them as a sub-group of american political thought that, literally, doesn't recognize that human nature is flawed.
Basically the entire quotation is Palin going "I don't like narrow stereotypes of the conservative or liberal labels. By the way, conservatives are sensible and liberals chase utopian pipe dreams."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The utopian pipe dream of conservatives is that
1. If they can just convert everyone to their religion, the world will be better. Oooh, let's convert everybody now!!!!111!!!
2. You can actually convert an entire country or world to 1 religion. Sorry, you can't. There are too many King of Men, Tom Davidsons, stevens, etc. Who would never convert.
If we're going to talk about being unrealistic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
By the way, Ron, stop being such a Palin floozy that you feel it necessary to create multiple threads just reprinting sections of her book.
Yes, we get it. You are very obsessed with Palin. Yes, you want to cram her image down all our throats and you chafe when people here largely think she's a terrible candidate for most any political office. I don't think turning into a palin book quotation regurgitation feed will help that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
ai-ya. Conservatism rather frustrates me because I feel like some of the so-called traditions of the past have lead to some of the current problems in the country. Also, some conservatives say they are pro-freedom, but who gets all up in people's bedroom with things like sodomy laws and trying to legislate their version of morality? At least the liberals will give you a safety net of some sort. Also, human nature IS changeable. I think I am a liberal because I also believe that things are complicated, but at the same time, you have issues like crime to consider. Crime has complicated factors, which is why punishment just isn't enough in a lot of cases.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, I really don't see how you can possibly consider yourself a well-informed follower of politics if you think
quote:The utopian pipe dream of conservatives is that
1. If they can just convert everyone to their religion, the world will be better. Oooh, let's convert everybody now!!!!111!!!
Just because many conservatives are about that hardly means it's the 'conservative utopia'. And of course it's amusing how you've apparently bought into the idea that conservatives are the religious ones, too.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I don't usually get into political threads but this one intrigued me so I'll bite.
I would classify myself as mostly liberal and on a lot of social issues quite a bit to the left of the democratic party. No one has ever accused me of being a liberal. Yet I absolutely believe that man is flawed and will never be perfected. I also believe in personal responsibility and that the government should not be solely responsible for making us better people. None of this in my book makes me a conservative. Why can't man be flawed and still marry another man? Why can't imperfect humans and government regulate pollution?
The argument is full of false dichotomies. Palin would be quite unhappy to find herself in the same political boat as me but based on her definition of conservatives I probably would fit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
<--- Marxist
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Steven, I really don't see how you can possibly consider yourself a well-informed follower of politics if you think
quote:The utopian pipe dream of conservatives is that
1. If they can just convert everyone to their religion, the world will be better. Oooh, let's convert everybody now!!!!111!!!
Just because many conservatives are about that hardly means it's the 'conservative utopia'. And of course it's amusing how you've apparently bought into the idea that conservatives are the religious ones, too.
I most certainly did not 'buy in'. Palin is very religious, and the GOP shamelessly panders to the religious right whenever it suits them. Most conservatives simply ARE more religious than the average liberal. Certainly I realize that it's not a 100% correlation.
I am deeply amused that Blayne is an unashamed Marxist. Sometimes I really appreciate having Canadians on here, simply as a counterpoint to the relentless Ron Lamberts and other arch-conservatives.
It reminds me of an interview on Fresh Air (with Terry Gross, my secret girlfriend) with Seth Rogen, where he talks about growing up on a kibbutz in Israel and also living in Canada, and how it was kind of shocking for him to move to the US. He basically said that it shocked him that Americans basically think "communist" is such a terrible thing to be or to call someone. For him, with his kibbutz and Canadian background, communism did not have at all a negative implication.
That was eye-opening for me, to think that someone who speaks my language so well, and who entertains me so much (he really cracks me up), has such a fundamentally different background. I doubt that he and I are all that far apart on social or economic issues, but we definitely started from different points, as far as political upbringing. It's fascinating to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I most certainly did not 'buy in'. Palin is very religious, and the GOP shamelessly panders to the religious right whenever it suits them. Most conservatives simply ARE more religious than the average liberal. Certainly I realize that it's not a 100% correlation.
You buy into that notion to the extent that when you're talking politics, conservatives are the religious ones. It shows through in your posts, like this one, here. Maybe it's not what you believe when you pause after being called on it, but it certainly reads like it's what you believe in your gut.
Also, of course, conservative does not equal GOP. I wonder if you'll say you realize that, of course, despite having said something quite different?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I most certainly did not 'buy in'.
With your first post, you certainly did make a crude, lumping-in assessment of conservatives.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Also, of course, conservative does not equal GOP. I wonder if you'll say you realize that, of course, despite having said something quite different?
Well, now we're getting into the question of real conservatives, who actually want the ideals of conservatism carried out, versus politicians, who are sometimes simply pandering, and will say whatever it takes to get elected and stay in power. I realize that there are a number of conservatives that are NOT GOP-friendly, but the majority of self-identified conservatives are probably voting for GOP candidates, even if they're holding their noses while doing so. I mean, what else do you do, if you're a conservative? Refuse to vote (or vote for Ron Paul, or some other such)? I really doubt that there are many conservatives that are so fed up with Republicans that they just don't vote, or choose to vote for a hopeless 3rd-party candidate. The Ross Perot debacle cured them of that. Now I realize that there are probably some who are so fed up with the political process/system that they don't vote at all, but not many, I'd say.
Local elections might have some viable 3rd-party candidates these days, but most Presidential elections and US Congressional elections are really different than before Ross Perot. The conservatives vote as a BLOC now, my friend. They, in many cases, hated Slick Willie, and were deeply angered that they had to have CLINTON instead of either Bush I or Perot. For them, it was like having 3 prizes on a game show, a new car, an old car, or a severe STD, and getting the damn STD. LOL
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I most certainly did not 'buy in'.
With your first post, you certainly did make a crude, lumping-in assessment of conservatives.
Well forgive ME for sterotyping. LOL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, you're basically participating in the same sort of wide-brush 'definitions' that the Palin book engaged upon.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Have not posted in a while, but had to weigh in. I could write a book myself about my opinions on this , but I will just pose a question. Do you really want someone in Washington running your life? think about that.
[ December 06, 2009, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: kanelock1 ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh hohoho who are you now Mr. Alt?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Steven, you talk about "conservatives" trying to "convert everyone". Is not converting someone an attempt to change their beliefs to fit your own? I personally could not care less what people do with their private lives, but if a person does not feel the same way about a subject, be it abortion or gay marriage, who is anyone to try to force (convert) them to accept it? What is the difference?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kane, first off, welcome to Hatrack (this of course works under the assumption that you aren't an alt, which I tend to assume automatically given by childlike naivete).
You're okay with people doing what they want in their private lives, unless it's gay marriage or abortion?
Sort of setting your rules on shifty ground there aren't you? What you seem to mean is, you have no problem with what people do in their private lives so long as it conforms to your definition of morality.
Lots of state level restrictions have been placed on what people can and can't do in their private lives based on that theory. They are in essence running a lot of people's lives to a degree. More so than the average person who doesn't deal with those particular issues.
How can "conservative" claim to cherish personal freedoms when they seek to bar people from doing things they dislike? And if that's perfectly acceptable, then why can't liberals do it too?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Thanks. I guess I did not make myself clear. the point I was trying to make was that it seems as though if a liberal is trying to get people to change beliefs, they are called "progressive thinkers", But if a conservative does it, they are "bigots", "fanatics" or "religious nuts". How does one differ from the other? Aren't they both trying to "convert someone"? I could have used other examples, but those were the first things that came to mind, as they have long been debated. As for my beliefs, I would say I am more of an independent with more conservative leanings. I tend to feel that the less government in my life the better, as I can screw it up enough on my own without their help Republican or democrat. Sink or swim, it is up to me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because Liberals actually not only do not care what you do but actually backup that principle by not criminalizing those acts, liberal beliefs do not require that everyone adopts their views or sings their tune only that the state ALLOWS all individuals the freedom to pursue acts that according to Stuart Mill would not infringe on the liberty of others.
If I am a drunkard it doesn't matter to society that I am a drunkard for as long as no one is harmed by my drunkeness or inconvenienced or effected in anyway.
According to Mill and the basic concepts of liberty in which Liberals mostly aspire to we/they believe that everyone has the right to liberty and that liberty allows them unlimited freedom over their private lives for as long as it doesn't objectively harm another persons liberty.
Under this litmus test abortion, lewd kinku acts of fornication, gay marriage, and recreational drug usage is perfectly within the scope of individual liberty for as long as these acts do not harm another persons liberty.
This is the very basis of Liberalism, following from this is the concept that ALL INDIVIDUALS have the same right to pursue any career or endeavor as any other individual and are deserving of a fair and equal opportunity to allow this, in a sense this means that artificial barriers that prevent a fair competition in society need to be by the government or social contract evened out so all individuals being equal can pursue prosperity.
Practically speaking this means that society is only inherently equal when all individuals have equal access to healthcare, basic and higher education and to apply for jobs as anyone else can and let the best man win.
The reason for things like welfare, and the safety net is because society and the above system as currently implemented in many societies is imperfect and requires additional cautionary steps to better equalize everyones right to opportunity and a fair chance at success.
James Stewart Mill On Liberty read it sometime.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
To go back to the OP for a moment, I would just like to say how impressed I am with Mrs. Palin's ghostwriter. That's coherant and well thought out, sentence wise. The dependant clauses come in the right places, and the sentance continues on after them.
That could not have been an easy task given the way Palin speaks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Palin's comments weren't as grating as I was anticipating. I don't believe the human race will ever be totally perfected by humans, but I do not believe that that means we should not be doing our best to accomplish that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Thanks. I guess I did not make myself clear. the point I was trying to make was that it seems as though if a liberal is trying to get people to change beliefs, they are called "progressive thinkers", But if a conservative does it, they are "bigots", "fanatics" or "religious nuts".
That's a simple function of what they want to change. Progressives want to give people education, health care, etc, and want them to believe in it. Conservatives (some) want to take away these things, plus reproductive rights, gay rights, and freedom of religion, and they want people to believe in all of that.
So one set of ideals is progressive (good) and the other is regressive (bad). That's my opinion, but that's why things are being put that way: a lot of people believe it.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Blayne, I tend to agree with you on the idea that so long as you are not harming anyone you should be able to live your life as you see fit. my problem is when ANYONE, be it liberal or conservative, tries to force their beliefs on another. To tell someone that "this is what I believe and you have to accept it", no matter what that belief is, is wrong no matter which side of the fence you live on. Orinoco, you sight the example that a lot of people believe it. Remember, a lot of people believed that the earth was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the universe. Not to belittle you opinion, as this is all about beliefs, but just because a lot of people believe something ,does not mean all have to. That is what makes this country great.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What leftist Democrats (some call them "Progressives") say they want to do--and what they really want to do and actually do, are vastly different. They are, after all, at heart utopian in their outlook. So naturally they think that by getting everyone to let them have total control to run society according to their master blueprint, they will be creating utopia. Then, of course, they must characterize conservatives or anyone else who opposes them as wanting to deny people individual freedom and all the good things of life.
At some point, let us hope, the majority will develop the wisdom to see through this pretense, and this utopian foolishness, and take a look at the actual facts of history. It is conservatives who have always sought to maximize the freedom of the individual, and it is their social, economic, national security and defense ideas, that have always worked the best.
When concerns are raised about specific examples like same-sex marriage, we need to recognize that it is imposing a non-traditional view of marriage on everyone that is an intrusion on the rights of individuals. There is no need for people who desire to live an alternative lifestyle to call their unions the same things Christians and Jews and Moslems and Buddhists and Hindus (etc.) call "marriage." What right has a small minority to impose their views on the religious population? This is tyranny of a minority on a majority, and it is utterly nuts, and certainly is an intrusion on individual liberty and freedom of religion. Using this to characterize conservatives as seeking to restrict the freedom of the individual and bring everyone under a religious tyranny is utterly disingenuous and hypocritical.
By reducing taxes so people can keep more of their own money that they earned, you give them more individual freedom. By establishing fair ground rules for everyone, but otherwise keeping government out of business and the way people choose to live their lives--which is what conservatives, not liberals, do--again you increase individual liberty and best facilitate the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:They are, after all, at heart utopian in their outlook. So naturally they think that by getting everyone to let them have total control to run society according to their master blueprint, they will be creating utopia.
Ron, where do you get this idea that utopian = dictatorial? Thomas More's Utopia had very few laws and no lawyers.
This statement is telling:
quote: What leftist Democrats (some call them "Progressives") say they want to do--and what they really want to do and actually do, are vastly different.
That is, YOUR definition of what they want to do and what they actually want to do are different, because you refuse to listen to what they actually want to do.
quote:At some point, let us hope, the majority will develop the wisdom to see through this pretense, and this utopian foolishness, and take a look at the actual facts of history. It is conservatives who have always sought to maximize the freedom of the individual, and it is their social, economic, national security and defense ideas, that have always worked the best.
This is false by definition. Conservatism clings to the past, and resists change. Progressivism seeks out change, and has been responsible for every advance in civil rights. Those are the actual facts of history.
quote:When concerns are raised about specific examples like same-sex marriage, we need to recognize that it is imposing a non-traditional view of marriage on everyone that is an intrusion on the rights of individuals.
Have you ever managed to explain HOW same sex marriage intrudes on anyone else's rights? It's much easier to explain how freedom for slaves intruded on the rights of slave owners, because they actually lost something when the slaves were freed. But same-sex marriage intrudes on no one's rights, because allowing it takes nothing away from anyone else.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, how does same sex marriage intrude on people's rights? I feel like not allowing gay couples to benefit from marriage interferes with their rights as individuals. It's denying them their piece of the pie for some outmoded view of homosexuality that has nothing to do with the reality of people being gay. Churches probably won't be forced to marry gay couples. Heck, they don't even have to call it marriage. They can call it someone else, but I feel that conservatives tend to interfere with rights that are totally personal at times. Like tormenting gay people. Why do that? There's nothing at all wrong with people being gay. It's their personal right. Or the hyper-conservative religious person who wants to deny a person birth control when they might not even be having sex. It's their personal, private right to take birth control if they want to. It's their business if they want to have premarital sex. But these folks want to squeeze into people's bedrooms and tell them what to do because they don't agree with it. It's not really right.
Also, when it comes to cutting taxes are they really talking about cutting taxes for EVERYONE and not just for a select few?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What leftist Democrats (some call them "Progressives") say they want to do--and what they really want to do and actually do, are vastly different. They are, after all, at heart utopian in their outlook. So naturally they think that by getting everyone to let them have total control to run society according to their master blueprint, they will be creating utopia.
Wow, this is so out of touch that I don't think I know a single Democrat who fits this description.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The irony is that socially conservative Republicans want at least as much, if not more, control over society than any leftist Democrat. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that they want a different sort of control.
Far-left Democrats want lots of control over the money of its populace, far-right Republicans want lots of control over the private behavior of its populace.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"This is false by definition. Conservatism clings to the past, and resists change. Progressivism seeks out change, and has been responsible for every advance in civil rights. Those are the actual facts of history."
I suppose Abe Lincoln was a "progressive". The facts of history are, the Republican party fought to lift up the minority, end slavery and give civil rights to the minority. Once these rights were established, your tender hearted "progressives" went about establishing a welfare state in the name of compassion. Dependence is just another means of control. Conservatives want every individual to achieve based upon their own merits. Progressives would rather give a man a fish than teach him to fish. Education, not race or any other "progressive" pigeon hole is the ultimate dividing factor in success. Why then is it conservatives are for and progressives are against, education vouchers? Obama et all strike down vouchers, they would prefer the 10k a year of tax money go to failing public schools while they send their own kids to private schools. "Progressives" foster dependence and conservatives foster individual success. One promotes an environment where you can lift yourself up, the other offers you a meager subsistence in exchange for your dependence vote and victim mindset.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I suppose Abe Lincoln was a "progressive". The facts of history are, the Republican party fought to lift up the minority, end slavery and give civil rights to the minority.
Was President Lincoln against slavery? Well, I certainly think so. Among other things, the South didn't fear his Presidency for nothing, after all. Did he lead the North in the Civil War to end slavery and uplift the minorities in this country? Most definitely not. That was never his primary goal. Once it became politically and strategically feasible to move that up on his priorities, he did so.
But to say that Republicans fought to end slavery as though that was why they were fighting is a lie, and a foolish, inept lie to boot. You ought to be embarrassed to tell it.
The rest of your post is your usual subjective far-right conservative claptrap. It's insubstantial and hazy, and there's nothing that can be pointed to directly and demonstrated to be completely false.
Claiming Lincoln as someone who fought to end slavery with that as his goal, though, is. He was fighting to preserve the Union, not end slavery. Ending slavery was, fortunately for all involved, incidental to his primary goal.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The civil war was to preserve the union but would there have been a civil war if there were no slaves?
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats."
--Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906 Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . 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 in the union."
--Robert C. Byrd, 1946 Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
--Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
--Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948 U.S. Senator, 1949-61 Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61 President, 1963-69
"I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people. Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race."
--Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Orinoco, you sight the example that a lot of people believe it. Remember, a lot of people believed that the earth was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the universe. Not to belittle you opinion, as this is all about beliefs, but just because a lot of people believe something ,does not mean all have to. That is what makes this country great.
: laugh : I'm giving a reason why a word is used in a certain way. That has little to do with the issue. You're talking about why "conservative" is used in a certain way. I supplied the answer that a lot of people believe that "conserative" = a lot of crappy things. You replied that "a lot of people believe stupid things." There's no answer to that. The word is used that way because conservatives believe in a lot of things that a lot of other people believe are stupid. You can obfuscate all you want, I don't really care. A truism isn't going to help anything- yes, a lot of people have believed things that are wrong. A lot of people have believed things that are *right* too. The explanation for a definition of a word doesn't truck with the accuracy of that usage. I simply state: a lot of people take as synonymous: "backward" and "conservative," and they do so because they believe that backward thinking and conservative thinking are the same. Who cares if you don't agree?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Know what I don't see there? I don't see a quote by Lincoln about how he was fighting to 'end slavery and uplift minorities'.
Know why I don't see one? Because he wasn't. So, are you going to man up and admit you were full of crap, or are you going to use the flaws of Democrats and my own hostility right now as an excuse to cop out?
I'll be holding my breath waiting to find out.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
One of the greatest, if not the first "Progressive":
"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation....until at last there had sprung into existence a grea Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." Woodrow Wilson
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll be holding my breath waiting to find out.
He's not worth turning blue for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Malanthrop, I don't know why you think being so dishonest in these discussions does you any credit. In fact your conversational cowardice and dishonest serve as embarrassments to your politics.
ETA: As it turns out, only a little blue, Rivka.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I love that Mal a few weeks ago abused an Edmunk Burke quote, was confronted with rather longer and rather specific Burke quotes that rather strongly condemned the use of quotation in constructing a cogent argument, and then *totally* ignored that occurrence until he'd assumed we'd all forgotten about it.
Mal, quoting a large number of dead people from bygone days is only useful in giving us interesting information about what people *used to think*. If those people were alive today, perhaps we could talk to them. Until such time as they are alive, perhaps the living are slightly more relevant to current issues? Do I quote IBM employees in 1954 on the subject of computers when I argue in favor of Apple over PCs? No, because that was the past, and those people and their views are not particularly current, or particularly relevant. Pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican is right up there with pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian. It doesn't have anything to do with modern politics.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ETA: As it turns out, only a little blue, Rivka.
Yeah, but we risk losing you and keeping him. I am against that trade. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Know what I don't see there? I don't see a quote by Lincoln about how he was fighting to 'end slavery and uplift minorities'.
Know why I don't see one? Because he wasn't. So, are you going to man up and admit you were full of crap, or are you going to use the flaws of Democrats and my own hostility right now as an excuse to cop out?
I'll be holding my breath waiting to find out.
"Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party. It first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig, to the presidency and presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction."
Weird, formed by anti-slavery expansionists opposed to the Democrats. First came to power under Abe Lincoln. There are many reasons for war. Saving the union was not the "reason" it was the objective. Are you suggesting if this anti-slavery party hadn't come to power and/or slavery did not exists, there still would have been a civil war? Some suggest it was a war about "states' rights", what exactly was the right the Southern Democrats were fighting to keep.....SLAVES.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Democrats were against civil rights during most of the 20th century, this is true. Until the late 60s, early 70s, when Republican politicians found they could win elections again by appealing to Southern Democrats who were disappointed with the direction the Democratic Party seemed to be heading. There was a large movement when many Southern whites, partly in response to civil rights issues and partly because a new and wealthy suburban class built up there after the war, moved to the Republican Party as it was seen to best support their interests. Many liberal Republicans went the the direction in that decade or moved to various independent parties.
Neither Democrats or Republicans are what they were 50 years ago, and trying to score points against the current parties using old quotes ignores those changes.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Until the late 60's and early 70's when they actually got civil rights. They had lost the battle to keep them oppressed and segregated. Government housing is a sanctioned form of segregation. If you can't force them to live apart, offer them out of the kindness of your heart, a place to live apart.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Also, quoting Johnson, who was responsible for the most progressive civil rights legislation to when he was president.
And, quoting Pitchfork Ben Tillman, who jumped the Democratic party to win the governorship of South Carolina as a Populist, and then went back when that party died is ironic too. Read more of Tillman. He would have been a Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly Republican today. Dude was a foaming at the mouth racist, and his being a Democrat has nothing to do with the fact that he was a hardcore conservative.
If we're going to do this, do it right. It's about ideology, not party affiliation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I only need to look at the results of the ideology. Look to the outcomes of these good intentions. How are the blacks who live in Colorado or Utah fairing when compared to those living in Michigan, California or DC? Liberal policies do not lift them up but their utopian ideals sure sound good. If you want to see the outcome of progressive socialist kindess, go to Detroit, DC, New Orleans, etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
I mean, you say some silly stuff sometimes. But that post launches you into heights of ridiculousness that would make an Olympic pole vaulter glare at you with envy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I only need to look at the results of the ideology.
Yes, because you are lazy, and an idiot, and you are looking for something that connects your racist stereotypes of blacks with your hatred of liberals and intellectuals.
I supposed in your little mind the policies of Republicans have *nothing* to do with any black person in America, ever. Not to mention that you aren't actually meant to *believe* that someone's circumstances should be predictive of their ability to succeed in life... not whilst you're blaming that person's circumstances on liberals, anyway.
You're such a goddamn joke.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
malanthrop: You were mistaken when you compared the Republican party of the 1800's with the one of today. They are radically different machines. What Chris said is essentially correct, and it is also why the Democratic party imploded after LBJ's administration. The Democratic party included so many different constituencies it was virtually impossible to unify any base. It is from Nixon's winning campaign in 1968 that you can begin to see the Republican party courting the Southern social conservatives, specifically the evangelical vote.
Like Lyrhawn said, it's about ideology, not party affiliation.
To say either party cares about individual freedom to me is a pointless endeavor. To a liberal, ensuring that people have comprehensive health care is reflective of people's "right" to medical care when sick. Same sex marriage is built on the rights of equal protection under the constitution.
Conversely, tax cuts for the wealthy are nodding at the "right" for the hard working and successful to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Limiting the role of government in our lives is an effort to ensure that individuals have the right to live their lives without having to report to somebody else.
Everybody believes they are championing rights. To try and take that word is completely pointless, as both sides, regardless of what they are championing, bandy about the words "freedom," "rights," and "liberty" as if saying them X number of times suddenly bestows legitimacy and correctness.
If you want to draw a useful distinction between left and right ideologies look at why they support something, rather than simply what they support.
----
As a side note, LBJ is always remembered as the Vietnam president, and that legacy often smothers his equally deserved reputation as the civil rights president.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Here here, Blackblade. I couldn't agree more with that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I watched an episode of Glenn Beck this weekend. His audience was full of African American conservatives...funny thing, they all sounded just like me, were educated and successful. I'd like to find a study of the 5% of African Americans that vote R compared to the 95% that vote D. I would suspect they performance gap between them would be significant.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I watched an episode of Glenn Beck this weekend. His audience was full of African American conservatives...funny thing, they all sounded just like me, were educated and successful.
:snort: Then they didn't sound much like you, I'm afraid. But I'm sure they were "articulate."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, dude, I'm educated (not so successful YET, working on it) and black and I am not a conservative Republican.
I don't think I know where to start when it comes to arguing with you so instead I will eat some dinner.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I watched an episode of Glenn Beck this weekend. His audience was full of African American conservatives...funny thing, they all sounded just like me, were educated and successful. I'd like to find a study of the 5% of African Americans that vote R compared to the 95% that vote D. I would suspect they performance gap between them would be significant.
quote: Weird, formed by anti-slavery expansionists opposed to the Democrats. First came to power under Abe Lincoln. There are many reasons for war. Saving the union was not the "reason" it was the objective. Are you suggesting if this anti-slavery party hadn't come to power and/or slavery did not exists, there still would have been a civil war? Some suggest it was a war about "states' rights", what exactly was the right the Southern Democrats were fighting to keep.....SLAVES.
You're lying again. The reason President Lincoln was fighting the war was to preserve the Union. He said so in plain language, as emphatically as possible: if I could do it freeing all slaves, or no slaves, or only some slaves, I would. You don't get to claim Abraham Lincoln as a Republican who was fighting to end slavery and uplift minorities.
You just don't, malanthrop. I gave a direct quote from Lincoln illustrating why you don't, and you still persist in behaving as though you haven't been soundly refuted.
Why are you sticking around here? You don't appear to get any gratification from irritating people, rather you persist in continuing discussions you've plainly lost and behaving as though decisive points against your arguments were never made at all. You're not here to actually discuss politics, because in the overwhelming majority of discussions I've observed you in, you aren't actually discussing at all. You're not here to change anyone's mind, because even you must see you're not doing that.
Isn't there some conservative website you'd be more happy on? And it's not even as though by sticking around here, you're not giving those damnable leftists the satisfaction of defeating you-the vastly overwhelming majority of folks around here consider you a laughingstock where they don't think you're just an ordinary troll.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As for myself I actually want malanthrop here. I may not agree with everything or most of what he says, but he represents a viewpoint that I think is better if present.
----
Orincoro: Thanks, liked your music btw. Probably should post in that thread.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Sadly, I now believe the burden of proof has shifted. While an excellent chief executive in Alaska, there is reason to believe that Palin lacks the intellectual skills needed to be an effective President. Most important, she does not seem to recognize this and shows no sign of getting them.
I have not given up on Palin and find much in her to admire, but she would not get my primary vote based on this book and what I know about her to date. I hope I am wrong and am open to changing my mind.
She has more promise than any Republican candidate I can name and I still have hopes for Sarah Palin, but hope needs substance or it becomes a disillusioned faith.
The liveblog is detailed, goes chapter by chapter, and spells out exactly why he supported (and still supports) Palin, and exactly where he likes the book and where he does not.
Posted by BackwardBlackbird (Member # 12224) on :
Finally! A practical application for AP US History (well, not exactly practical...) Just to clear up any confusion, although I know malanthrop's been told this: Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union, although he personally did not like slavery, he only began to use it as a rallying cry in 1863 after Gettysburg to help turn the war around.
I think it's interesting how much our political parties have changed positions on civil rights. In the nineteenth century it was the Republicans were pushing for civil rights, now it's the Democrats. I think that their economic perspectives have been much more consistent. But really, it doesn't make sense to compare the modern political parties with those of the 1800s. There's been so much change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As for myself I actually want malanthrop here. I may not agree with everything or most of what he says, but he represents a viewpoint that I think is better if present.
If his viewpoint was presented honestly, or even half honestly, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, BB. Unfortunately it's not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:As for myself I actually want malanthrop here. I may not agree with everything or most of what he says, but he represents a viewpoint that I think is better if present.
If his viewpoint was presented honestly, or even half honestly, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, BB. Unfortunately it's not.
I think mal honestly believes what he says he believes. The fact he is choosy about which arguments he responds to, and dodges the others to me does not mean he is dishonest, merely that he can't be troubled to as extensively respond to what others have exhaustively presented.
I myself have been faced with a wall of evidence against what I believed. There are times where I'll spend the hours necessary to look into it, and I benefit both from having better arguments for future engagements, and for changing my mind from time to time. There have also been times where I realized I might be wrong, but that I also did not have the time to determine that either way. I don't always post that I have those doubts, or that I am not willing to investigate the matter further at that time, often I just stop posting.
Even if Mal does not acknowledge any changes in his beliefs in any of the many threads he posts in, to me that does not mean that nobody is convincing him of anything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think mal honestly believes what he says he believes. The fact he is choosy about which arguments he responds to, and dodges the others to me does not mean he is dishonest, merely that he can't be troubled to as extensively respond to what others have exhaustively presented.
I think he believes what he says, too, but there comes a time eventually when even believing what you're saying doesn't preclude dishonesty.
For example, if I say, "2+2=5" repeatedly, and lots of folks refute my statement in detail to the point where you could send a guy to the electric chair on a similar degree of reasonable doubt, but I still persist in saying, "2+2=5", I'm being dishonest. I'm lying to myself first, but that doesn't change things.
He's not just 'choosy' about which arguments he responds to. It's a pattern. He cherry-picks arguments and parts of arguments to respond to so consistently that the pattern emerges of someone just refusing to hear something that contradicts his worldview. That refusal is where the dishonesty comes in. Furthermore, mal's refusals to discuss don't come after hours and hours of research-they come after, in this thread, literally minutes. The count-on-one-hand kind of minutes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The difference between you and him is that when presented with things that damage his argument, he simply ignores them. No dismissal, no nothing. They just don't exist as points. I don't know how many times he has just flat out ignored responses in one thread, and then gone into another and spewed all the same crap. Even if you continue to believe all the things you believed before, you don't go on as if you're totally unaware that people are responding to you with specific things you aren't talking about. Half the time he claims to have addressed things he clearly never has, or he just says "your delusional!" and moves on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackbird,
quote:I think that their economic perspectives have been much more consistent.
I'd disagree, but I'm not really sure it's of much value. Economic theory for the first hundred and twenty or so years of America's history was what your position was on the tariff issue. Don't get me wrong, it was a huge issue; whole books have been written about tariff policy in the 19th century (I've read one and a half of them, and it's very dry). But it's NOTHING like the debates that the parties have over economics today. The scale is so wildly different that they're really incomparable.
But, if you want to take a swing at it, I still think they've shifted tracks considerably. When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, was in power, he refused to help ANYONE int he states. After a drought wiped out a generation of farmers in Texas sometime in the early 1890s, he vetoed a spending bill to provide $20,000 to help them buy seed. Now sure, you can't help EVERYONE, but damn, that's cold.
On the flip side, even within tariff policies there were huge differences. Southern Democrats howled about tariffs on certain manufactured goods in the 1820s, because they wanted cheap imports, and it ended up starting a mini trade war that killed cotton exports for a time. But if you had suggested to them a drop in tobacco or cotton tariffs, they would have been just as pissed. Economic policy in early America was very much a local issue unwedded to political ideology.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Palin, though notoriously ill-travelled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii. She and a friend who went with her lasted only one semester. “Hawaii was a little too perfect,” Palin writes. “Perpetual sunshine isn’t necessarily conducive to serious academics for eighteen-year-old Alaska girls.” Perhaps not. But Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, gave a different account to Conroy and Walshe. According to him, the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders made her uncomfortable: “They were a minority type thing and it wasn’t glamorous, so she came home.” In any case, Palin reports that she much preferred her last stop, the University of Idaho, “because it was much like Alaska yet still ‘Outside.’ ”
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Imagine if she ever had to go to Canada. I mean China.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Juxtapose, a second hand account along with "the reason" doesn't seem very strong to me. I'd more easily buy the "it wasn't glamorous" line, than the "minority type thing," but I haven't read the book, so really the quote is coming to us third or fourth hand from the reviewer.
Now I *have* always been fascinated by Palin's lack of a consistent college career. At one point she had refused to release her transcripts and such- is that still the case? As I remember, her academic qualifications were rather pathetic on paper.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Dude, I'm trying to spread rumors here.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
laugh : I'm giving a reason why a word is used in a certain way. That has little to do with the issue. You're talking about why "conservative" is used in a certain way. I supplied the answer that a lot of people believe that "conserative" = a lot of crappy things. You replied that "a lot of people believe stupid things." There's no answer to that. The word is used that way because conservatives believe in a lot of things that a lot of other people believe are stupid. You can obfuscate all you want, I don't really care. A truism isn't going to help anything- yes, a lot of people have believed things that are wrong. A lot of people have believed things that are *right* too. The explanation for a definition of a word doesn't truck with the accuracy of that usage. I simply state: a lot of people take as synonymous: "backward" and "conservative," and they do so because they believe that backward thinking and conservative thinking are the same. Who cares if you don't agree? Yes, because you are lazy, and an idiot, and you are looking for something that connects your racist stereotypes of blacks with your hatred of liberals and intellectuals. Orinoco, you are proving my point with your responses. I find it interesting that you insist upon belittling the opinions of others while stating how intolerant conservatives are. If you truly believe that calling others lazy and an idiot are the actions of a "progressive thinker", then I am more than happy to be an "ignorant conservative".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Blackbird,
quote:I think that their economic perspectives have been much more consistent.
I'd disagree, but I'm not really sure it's of much value.
I disagree, too.
For another example of how Republican and Democratic economic policies have shifted, look at "Fighting Bob LaFollette". An anti-war, pro-union, anti-big-business, darn near communist, Republican.
Malanthrop, the fact that this shift in party ideology is all news to you shows that you might want to do some history homework.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that was illustrated quite well when he likened the Republican party of the nineteenth century to that of the twenty-first, but hey, whatcha gonna do?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meh, it's tough being a minority. I can't really blame one from running away from that kind of situation, not everyone can take that sort of thing.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Thanks for posting this; this was an interesting read.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Okay, putting aside the dubiousness of the claim for the moment, I suspect that whites were at least a plurality on and around campus.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Meh, it's tough being a minority. I can't really blame one from running away from that kind of situation, not everyone can take that sort of thing.
Meh, I've known a lot of white people who've lived in Hawaii and none of them have had significant racial problems. Being a member of a privileged minority just isn't that tough.
Not everyone can take that sort of thing, but then again not everyone is cut out to be President of a racial diverse country either.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Juxtapose: I'm assuming the claim meant that she was uncomfortable *being* a minority. If it is the case that she was so provincial that she couldn't even take the mere presence of Asians being around *as* a minority, then thats just dumb.
(Well, dumb on an absolute scale, she's done enough dumb stuff that it would still have some competition on a relative Palin dumbness scale.)
The Rabbit: Meh, I know there are significant populations of white people that find it difficult to adapt when they're suddenly in the minority. Hell, I know some Chinese people that grew up in a white-majority area that have understandable issues working in an asian-majority area.
Being immersed in a whole new culture, language, values, etc. can be rough. (It is probably easier if you've had to hide being a minority Muslim all your life like the President though )
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: If you truly believe that calling others lazy and an idiot are the actions of a "progressive thinker", then I am more than happy to be an "ignorant conservative".
Sure, you were going to take offense if anyone disagreed with you, so I could give a crap. This is typical of you, under any of your various alts.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Orinoco, first off I have no idea what you mean by ALT. Second, I am not offended by your ignorance. I find it refreshing to know that once again I was able to get another compassionate, caring, tolerant liberal to admit that they "don't give a crap" about someone that has a different opinion. I know not all of you feel the same way ( that would be stereotyping), but it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling to expose the true feelings of people who claim tolerance, but refuse to accept differing points of view. Respond or not, it doesn't matter to me, as I refuse to continue this discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Rabbit: Meh, I know there are significant populations of white people that find it difficult to adapt when they're suddenly in the minority. Hell, I know some Chinese people that grew up in a white-majority area that have understandable issues working in an asian-majority area.
I'm sure that's true. So what? The issue isn't whether or not Sarah Palin's reactions was outside the range of normal human behavior.
The issue is whether or not Sarah Palin's reaction should cause us concern about her ability to lead the country.
So while her reaction may not be outside the norm, it also isn't on the side of the norm I'd call healthy or the kind of response I would like to see in a person leading a large diverse country.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:So while her reaction may not be outside the norm, it also isn't on the side of the norm I'd call healthy or the kind of response I would like to see in a person leading a large diverse country.
That's essentially how I feel on the subject as well.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Juxtapose: I'm assuming the claim meant that she was uncomfortable *being* a minority. If it is the case that she was so provincial that she couldn't even take the mere presence of Asians being around *as* a minority, then thats just dumb.
It's sort of difficult to say. The claim isn't made very clearly, and the ethnic picture of a college campus in Hawaii in the early 1980s would be sufficiently complex to defy an easy label. (ETA: that is, an easy label for a white Alaskan female)
Whatever the case, I wouldn't doubt that she felt like a minority.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The Rabbit: Meh, I know there are significant populations of white people that find it difficult to adapt when they're suddenly in the minority. Hell, I know some Chinese people that grew up in a white-majority area that have understandable issues working in an asian-majority area.
I'm sure that's true. So what? The issue isn't whether or not Sarah Palin's reactions was outside the range of normal human behavior.
The issue is whether or not Sarah Palin's reaction should cause us concern about her ability to lead the country.
So while her reaction may not be outside the norm, it also isn't on the side of the norm I'd call healthy or the kind of response I would like to see in a person leading a large diverse country.
Have you read the linked article from the New Yorker? You are making essentially the same case as Tanenhaus, and this is after he's read the book, and confirmed much of this with the evidence of her own words (leastwise, the words she claims as her own and has put her name to).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The issue is whether or not Sarah Palin's reaction should cause us concern about her ability to lead the country.
That may be your issue and you can post away on that all you want. But it's not my issue
I was posting on whether Sarah Palin's reaction was outside of the norm of normal human behaviour.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some people may dispute about how much President Abraham Lincoln really cared about the issue of slavery. But one fact cannot be denied. He is the President who issued the "Emancipation Proclamation," which resulted in all the slaves being freed once the North won the Civil War.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He also wore hats occasionally.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some people may dispute about how much President Abraham Lincoln really cared about the issue of slavery. But one fact cannot be denied. He is the President who issued the "Emancipation Proclamation," which resulted in all the slaves being freed once the North won the Civil War.
Emphasis mine.
The Emancipation Proclamation did no such thing. Well-educated high schoolers know better.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some people may dispute about how much President Abraham Lincoln really cared about the issue of slavery. But one fact cannot be denied. He is the President who issued the "Emancipation Proclamation," which resulted in all the slaves being freed once the North won the Civil War.
Whatever President Lincoln's motives for issuing the Emmancipation Proclamation, it still remains that the Republican Party has changed since then.
Bob LaFollette campaigned on government ownership of utilities and railroads, also a Republican and more recent a Republican than Lincoln.
President Reagan was a union leader once upon a time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Come now, this is nitpicking. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in the rebelling states, true. But you can't tell me that it didn't lead to the freedom of the few remaining slaves in the loyal states! I invite you to re-read mal's post; his words were "resulted in [the slaves] being freed" (my emphasis), not "freed the slaves". Eyes on the ball, gentlemen; you are objecting to the least important parts of mal's posts, and avoiding the substantive points he makes. A pattern of discussion, I might add, which is unfortunately rather common around here when comfort zones are challenged.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Getting back to the first question, what is the difference between Liberal and Conservative thought processes, I've recently began researching a simple difference.
As simple differences, they are over general and don't take into account cultural forces.
Conservatives are Binary.
Liberals are Spectral.
What I mean by that is Conservatives see the world more on a on/off switch--Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Them and Us.
Liberals are more spectral, seeing a whole range of solutions states, not just the extremes. You can be for us or against us, or somewhere in the middle. No person is wholly good or wholly evil, but sit on the spectrum between those poles, and can be shifted from one to the other.
Binary thought is easier. Its easy to write off illegal immigrants as one great big threat to be removed. Its easy to write them off as poor manipulated peons forced to work torturous hours by our system--so their is Binary thinking on the liberal end as well. Most liberals, however, see them as individuals, ranging from the good hard working people who can improve our society to the murderous gangsters running drugs and other people.
Binary or Spectrum. Which are you?
Well, I am spectrum enough to believe that no one is either all Binary or Spectrum, but everyone has a bit of both, depending on the topic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I suppose Abe Lincoln was a "progressive". The facts of history are, the Republican party fought to lift up the minority, end slavery and give civil rights to the minority.
KoM, this is the statement of malanthrop's I was objecting to. Eyes on the ball indeed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I suppose Abe Lincoln was a "progressive". The facts of history are, the Republican party fought to lift up the minority, end slavery and give civil rights to the minority.
KoM, this is the statement of malanthrop's I was objecting to. Eyes on the ball indeed.
Its a bit of an overstatement, but still not technically untrue. The Republican party did not fight the civil war to end slavery (at least not primarily) but they definitely did fight in a broader sense to end slavery and to amend the constitution to extend rights to the freed slaves.
But the larger point still stands. The republican party isn't the same party Lincoln lead 150 years ago. The democratic party isn't the same party Jefferson founded 2000 years ago.
In much more recent history, the republicans adopted the "southern strategy" they officially and openly chose to oppose rights for minorities in order to win the support of white southerners. After that move, its pretty hard to argue that republicans have maintained some sort of continuous stance on civil right since their pre civil war foundation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And besides, if the Republicans maintained their politics of 150 years ago, they wouldn't win any elections today. Neither party is the same thing as it was then. Tracing the evolution of the parties shows that they have evolved- nothing shows that more clearly than the paradoxical popularity of the Republican party in the South, where the Republicans were at one time representatives of the hated northern aggressors. So things change.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess we're at that point again, where — and keep in mind I'm not just seeing this here — the Republican party is defended on the basis of the virtues the party held versus the Democratic Party ... back in a time that nobody is still alive from. Do people actually believe that this makes a compelling argument for voting for them as they are today? I guess they do.
You might as well make the argument that Detroit is a great city to live in, based on a picture of how it was back when your parents were kids.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, it makes sense that the GOP has to go back so far to find something to be proud of. Recent history of the party doesn't offer many encouraging trends.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
... The reason why I find this weird, super weird, is because they're relying on this argument even though you don't have to go back a hundred and fifty years. You definitely don't have to go back further than 1994. The conservatives being an utter trainwreck of crazy is a such a fairly contemporary thing, and the cause can be traced back to a handful of individuals that, you know, aren't in moldering pre-industrial graveyards. They are either recently dead or still puttering around.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think mal is specifically trying to find something that
a) Republicans did and b) is stereotypically a Democratic thing.
Hence the Lincoln bit. Mal likely does not think that Iraq was a vast mistake, and he almost certainly thinks Reagan's economic policies were a great idea, and incidentally he also bankrupted the Soviet Union. But these are more Republican-type accomplishments; he wants to say "See, we're not only better than you at Republicanism, we're better Democrats to boot, hypocrites that you are".
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Liberals are more spectral, seeing a whole range of solutions states, not just the extremes.
I was really hoping you were about to explain how we can move through walls and stuff. But perhaps I've said too much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... The reason why I find this weird, super weird, is because they're relying on this argument even though you don't have to go back a hundred and fifty years. You definitely don't have to go back further than 1994. The conservatives being an utter trainwreck of crazy is a such a fairly contemporary thing, and the cause can be traced back to a handful of individuals that, you know, aren't in moldering pre-industrial graveyards. They are either recently dead or still puttering around.
I guess crazy is as crazy does, eh? Unfortunately we're just seeing a lot of irrational stuff from these people at the moment. It's a whole new ballgame.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Kudos Darth Mauve. I tend to agree with you. I believe people should be, and generally are, more or less open minded about things. In my opinion, if you come across people that cannot, or will not realize that people have different points of view, that seems a bit wrong to me. I never try to force my beliefs on others, as i would not like others to force theirs on me. I may not agree with someones opinions, but I will always respect your right to have them, as I would ask the same of others.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem is, right now at this point in time, there is one party that is very much more about not respecting the beliefs and customs of others, and one that is...well, really also pretty damn bad about that, just not as bad.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
The problem is, right now at this point in time, there is one party that is very much more about not respecting the beliefs and customs of others, and one that is...well, really also pretty damn bad about that, just not as bad.
Which is basically the point that I was trying to make at the start. It is getting harder to tell the differences between the POLITICAL PARTIES in my opinion. The basic philosophies of conservatives and liberals have not changed, it is the parties that seem to be abandoning them
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: It is getting harder to tell the differences between the POLITICAL PARTIES in my opinion.
No way. That's been getting easier for the past decade, easily.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
i tend to find liberal ideals unrealistic because they dont factor in the selfishness and rebelliousness prevalent in human society and rely too heavily upon conformity and altruistic generosity. there will always be conflicts when dealing with rights. its impossible to please everyone. should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
its a question of the role and limitations of government. where is the healthy balance of anarchy and totalitarianism? is economic policy paramount to social policy? clearly the two overlap so one could argue that they are of equal importance. but the issues within each policy are evidently of differing importance according to each individual
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
Neither democrats nor republicans will subscribe to the notion that government can eradicate conflicts entirely. both democrats and republicans will subscribe to the notion that the goal of government is heavily invested in the goal of mitigating conflicts dealing with rights. If you find liberal ideals unrealistic, you should hopefully be able to frame them using a useful dichotomy, especially when your definition of their ideological weaknesses could just as arguably be presumed on the part of conservatives (albiet just as messily). Take the over-reliance on 'conformity' and 'altruistic generosity!' Without even altering the wording, you can hurl that broad presumption at conservatives as easily as you can hurl it at liberals.
Hell, I could try that right now just for fun.
Here we go:
quote:Over-reliance on conformity: conservatives imposing their social and religious values, attempting to enshrine them in law, relying on the advocacy of discrimination to bring people to the polls, using gay marriage as a wedge issue, and generally trying to enforce their morals on Americans.
Over-reliance on altruistic generosity: conservative free-market theory answers all the tricky questions about sick elderly, orphans, poor people, and people suffering from financially unbearable strain that is not the product of their choices in life with a bulwark "individual charity will handle it!" — despite this never really playing out in truth, even in countries that vacated the financial obligations of their richest citizens.
See how easy that was? You would do well to refine your tendencies before jumping to the matter of why you tend to find liberal ideology 'unrealistic.'
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i tend to find liberal ideals unrealistic because they dont factor in the selfishness and rebelliousness prevalent in human society and rely too heavily upon conformity and altruistic generosity.
Well, I for one think that approaching a task from the vantage point of deep cynicism about its likelihood of success would pretty much always cause a person *not* to attempt to achieve the goals they are aware are most desirable.
For instance, few people in the US would *not* like to have free health care for everyone all the time, should such a thing be possible with no adverse consequences. Now, the liberal, or at least *I* as a liberal, believe that A) such an achievement is humanly possible, and B) will support work towards such a goal granted that I do not view the risks as being unworthy of the reward. I do not view it as an economic or political position, although my knowledge of and views on economics and politics justify, to me, the notion that such a thing is doable, and desirable.
In the case of health care, where does the conservative come down on the issue? You may correct me or state your own personal view on it, but as I see it, most conservatives are more accepting of the idea that such a world will not come to exist, because for reasons of human nature, socialized medical systems will not sustain themselves because they would lack several elements of motivation that currently are seen as driving forces in medicine- particularly in research and development.
Politically, Democrats and Republicans (note, capitalized and not synonymous with liberals and conservatives, end note) support or don't support these systems for more than philosophical reasons. It is obvious that Democratic constituencies more heavily support social medicine because they are more likely to benefit from social medicine, or more accurately are more likely to immediately benefit from it. Republican constituencies are, on the whole, also mostly on the side of potential benefit from social medicine, however Republican leadership and the social icons of Republicanism specifically are not, due to obvious tax implications. While the Democratic leadership would *also* suffer higher taxes as a result of social medicine (for instance, my parents, who are both well paid, and are in community leadership positions in the Democratic party), for the above state philosophical reasons, Democrats are more willing on the whole to accept the added burden, considering it a financial risk, rather than a straight loss. It is obvious to them that social medicine would confer benefits which have been widely studied and reported upon in other countries with superior medical systems (in average outcome), and which are socialized.
Now, on this point, I have to be very clear in where my bias comes from. I have studied and read books and articles, listened to interviews, looked at statistics, watched reports, and spoken to experts personally about this subject. I believe quite firmly, and not purely from faith, but from what I believe to be sound reasoning, that the fear of socialized medicine experienced in the States is almost purely a result of the intentional reality distortion of corporate machinery. I don't believe corporations are evil. I don't believe business is evil. However, it is not difficult to observe that in such a business as medicine, involving a topic very important and close to the heart of literally every person alive, a great deal of capital rests in people's hearts and minds. Corporations, consciously or not, intentionally or not, concertedly or not, will act to protect themselves as any responsible business will do. However, I believe what the private medical system in the United States is protecting itself against is progress, and I think they way it is being done is the only way it can be done- the only equal and opposite force to the prospect of the safety and freedom of a social medical system. By appealing to people's innate suspicions, fears, and ultimately selfishness, the medical business, through their proxies in the Republican party (really, the two entities working to preserve each other), are culling a tide of regressive hate mongering. And the results we see everywhere- in classrooms on the subjects of science and religion, on the dais when politicians like Sarah Palin, and like Barack Obama, insist upon their place in the American consciousness and lifeblood in order to calm our suspicions about their breed of people; and on television, where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between those things which are said out of knowledge, wisdom, and experience, and those which are said for political or financial gain.
But this cynicism, capax. This deep and abiding mistrust of our fellow man. I don't get that. It maddens me ever the more that these same people who are hooked by these attitudes of blase pragmatism are ostensibly America's most pious, most humanist and caring of people. How, I always ask myself, does a person so vehemently oppose social and medical reform, and then spend their money on for-profit charities? Where is the cynicism in that act? Sure, the charity is still "for profit," which means ideally it will expand itself and serve its function in the most capitalist of styles- put you're still giving up your own money out of the goodness of your heart. How, ultimately, is it that profit simply "works," and government simply "does not work?" And on top of it all, and I'm sorry if I sound arrogant or dismissive or peremptory, but there is a mountain of evidence showing that this is simply *wrong*. That this idea is simply *in error*. That in fact, government is *better* at doing these certain things (not everything!) because it is *government* and it is democratic, answering to the people it has been erected by and for.
Though much of the film "Sicko" was for me rather simplistic and vague and wishy washy, in the way that Michael Moore tends to be, he nevertheless interviews interesting people. And it was one of his elderly British subjects who stated simply that the origins of social medicine in Britain lay in democracy itself. That people, following WW2, and its great social upheaval and destruction of so much of Britain's people and culture and past, realized that if the government could spend money on war, and achieve victory at any cost, then nothing stood in the way of achieving what amounts to a smaller and far more incremental goal- that of providing every person with health care, regardless of personal station or circumstances. Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
quote: there will always be conflicts when dealing with rights. its impossible to please everyone. should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
A question for the ages, but not a question that is particularly helpful to either a liberal or a conservative. The job of government is governance. In a democracy like ours, we construct a system of government which is itself run under the charter of a document which is vested with the power of the public voice. Should common citizens become dissatisfied with their government, they may elect new government, they may run for office, and ultimately they are free to form conventions and alter the constitution itself, without the involvement of the actual government at all. I don't particularly understand this most recent obsession with the philosophy of governance, because the practices of the American government have not changed much recently. I tend to think, actually, that the constant mooning over philosophical differences is a rather unsubtle form of whining and prevarication. "We aren't losing the game, because we're playing by different rules." Or better "you're cheating." In the face of real and mounting losses in public support, the Republican party, and by extension some conservative movements, though not all, are adopting a terribly cynical and ultimately defeatist philosophy- the idea that they are not in government not because their ideas aren't good enough, but because their ideas are *too good* for government. Sarah Palin resigning from her post recently in order to launch a book campaign springs to mind as a rather poignant example of this phenomenon, and it is not the only one.
[ December 08, 2009, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QUOTE]I don't particularly understand this most recent obsession with the philosophy of governance, because the practices of the American government have not changed much recently.
Health-care is 16% of the US economy. All that following bank takeovers, auto industry takeovers and impending energy industry takeovers and regulations involving anything that produces CO2 (ie everything). I can't even use the bathroom without being reminded the flush capacity is regulated.
I'm perhaps a little more simplistic in my logic. It isn't about "universal" or "choice", rather government control.
We have a universal education system that is failing when better private schools are often cheaper. The Progressives do as their Labor Union masters require. Fewer tax dollars in the form of vouchers could send the student to a successful school of their "choice". They prefer the failing, free, universal, socialized, public option of illiterate graduates. Conservatives look for free market solutions.
We hear repeatedly from progressives they only want "competition"....then why do the block conservative attempts to open up insurance markets across state lines? As with the teachers unions, labor unions would like the government to foot the bill for health care, (and they'll get card-check too).
I wish I could afford the $7k a year to send my daughter to the stellar Christian school down the road and it makes me sick that her marginally successful school gets $10.5k a year in tax dollars for her attendance.
Is it really about "choice", "cost" and "quality"? Give me one example of a government program that was as promised in terms of cost and quality.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I didn't use any of those three words, and I am not going to play your "give me one example I can dismiss" game. I could as easily counter with the same question: how does privatized health care deliver in as promised in terms of cost and quality? It's the most expensive system in the world, and is ranked below the top 30 by the WHO. But I'm really not interested, Mal, because you don't actually care about those things- I don't know what you do actually care about. Clearly not your community, which is paying for your daughter's education at a rate you could not personally afford. So with the 10K christmas ham under your arm, you're crying because you haven't got a loaf of bread to go with it. And I'm sure you resent paying your taxes, because why indeed should a community pay for the education of all of its children when you yourself, on your own, could be paying for your own child's education- surely she'd be at an advantage then that could perpetuate itself through many generations. And one day, not long from now, there could be an oligarchy of a small few, who can afford all the things they desire, and the rest of us can all be workers who support it through a terribly inefficient division of labor, that supports an economic system devoid of growth.
Tell me it wouldn't end that way Mal, because you're the one who is constantly, and hilariously declaring yourself a member of the economically enlightened, despite your having a weaker grasp on actual economics than any liberal on this board. Explain to me how a total laissez-faire society doesn't eventually turn into an oligarchy based on the exploitation of cheap labor by a stagnant nobility. Tell me why your imagined paradise wouldn't be Peru, circa 1900, or the American South in the 19th century. Do tell.
What gets my goat about all this Mal is that you are an absolute warrior for the middle class you hate so much. You resent everything that's been given to you, because you believe you would be exactly who you are without it- and you forget everything that's come before, in the form of all these terrible government programs, to make sure you had a chance to be who you wanted to be. You didn't realize that by taking that deal, you were signing up to be a part of society, and work toward maintaining a system that made you one of its productive members. It must hurt so much, to be given something, and to then be expected to share it with others. You're like a kid on Halloween who cries at the prospect of being forced to share his prized haul with his little sister. Really, that's the way you sound. So are you still a child, or will you choose to put away childish things?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The issue is whether or not Sarah Palin's reaction should cause us concern about her ability to lead the country.
That may be your issue and you can post away on that all you want. But it's not my issue
I was posting on whether Sarah Palin's reaction was outside of the norm of normal human behaviour.
Thank you for this quality contribution.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The WHO ranking system isn't about quality of care. I know you're the "expert" on the issue but I like the above article by an MD PHD.
It's not a gift from my community...I pay much more than that in taxes. I went to a private school....want to know how? I worked as a janitor there on the weekends and during breaks.
You can say that my grasp of economics is weak since I am not a Keynesian like the majority on this board. You should really get off this blog, get a job and figure out how the real world works. Let me take a stab....you're a professional student perhaps? Are you majoring in social justice? No, African American sudies? No, political science? Wait, environmental studies? Must be something like that...you see....I majored in accounting. After Micro and Macro Economics and Financial and Managerial Accounting I became very bored and switched to mathematics. If you understood economics, you'd be a conservative.
Unlike you, I believe in the potential of mankind and individual responsibility. You are a racist who feels bad for the poor minority because deep down, although you'll never say it, you think he's disadvantaged by his birth. You have no idea where I come from or what I have achieved. NOTHING was handed to me. Have you ever felt true hunger? The kind of hunger that is so strong you'll eat raw hamburger because cooking it would be too long? I began supporting myself when I was 16 years old and put myself through college working full time. I knew what I wanted and worked my ass off for it. You may view me a greedy, spoiled white boy who had everything handed to him by society and family but that only illustrates your bias.
You think I'm greedy? I give more to charity than I pay in taxes. I am a cold hearted SOB....screw the lazy, help the helpless. Charities help the truly needy. I don't want my money going to the ticks on the ass of humanity who line up for their "Obama money".
Equal opportunity, then you're on your own. Sleep in the bed you made.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, look, it's another mind-reader, telling us all what we really think deep down. He's not a racist despite ringing almost every racist alarm bell there is, everyone else is a racist because they think he's the racist, deep down.
Also, haven't you claimed in the past to make upwards of $100K/yr, malanthrop? By virtue of your like four jobs or something? Which would of course put you in a very high tax bracket, and giving more to charity than you pay in taxes as you claim would in fact leave you with quite a meager salary to support a family on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You can say that my grasp of economics is weak since I am not a Keynesian like the majority on this board.
I said you have a poor grasp of economics because you didn't even correctly understand the definition of GDP and how it was calculated. Those are matters of fact that are independent of whether or not you are a Keynsian or not. If you can't get the facts straight, it does not lend credence to your opinions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Thank you for this quality contribution.
Thank you for your quality appreciation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I said you have a poor grasp of economics because you didn't even correctly understand the definition of GDP and how it was calculated.
Also, just for the record, this sort of error casts a good bit of doubt on the claim that you're actually an accountant, malanthrop.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, haven't you claimed in the past to make upwards of $100K/yr, malanthrop? By virtue of your like four jobs or something? Which would of course put you in a very high tax bracket, and giving more to charity than you pay in taxes as you claim would in fact leave you with quite a meager salary to support a family on.
That's simple, he's lying.
And no, Mal I am not a student at present, nor did I ever study "social justice," nor do I believe for a second that you paid for private school by working as a janitor on the weekends, nor that you ate raw hamburger, nor that you have four jobs, nor that you give 25k a year in charity, nor that you learned anything about economics while studying accounting, nor that you actually feel superior to anyone here. As I said, you're a little boy crying out for help- and knowing that you suffered such a terrible abandonment at such a young age (assuming this is true) it makes a lot of sense why you're a selfish SOB. It really does. You still are one though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
I would just like to ask a few questions. Is there anyone that truly believes that giving people handouts is going to motivate them to be active contributors to society? I am speaking in general terms. I am not saying that some people don't need help, but I have had personal experience with people who choose not to work because they either are receiving more money from the government than from working, or just plain old don't want to work. I grew up dirt poor, and my family had to use welfare just to live. But instead of living off the government the rest of my life, I chose to lift myself up to a higher level. Is there really anyone that can say that there are not people out there that take advantage of the system? I don't think so. Does that mean that some people don't need help? No. But we need to think about when that help becomes more harmful than helpful. If you have a child in school, do you help them with their homework by showing them how to get the answers, or do you just do it for them, thereby showing them that they don't have to learn because someone will do it for them? In that example which sounds more appealing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In that example which sounds more appealing?
In your example, which scenario leaves my child starving to death on a cold streetcorner? Because that's what those "handouts" are meant to avoid.
Yes, we need to think about when help becomes more harmful than helpful. Sure. Do you think people don't do that already? Do you really think that this is news to people who help other people as part of their full-time job? I mean, do you really think a social worker is going to slap the side of her head and go, "Man! I didn't think of that! I should be making things harder for some of these people!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Very well put Orincoro.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i tend to find liberal ideals unrealistic because they dont factor in the selfishness and rebelliousness prevalent in human society and rely too heavily upon conformity and altruistic generosity.
I'm confused how you can think this. When a Senator was confronted with a crying women on desparate need for health care for her brain-injured husband, it was no hippie liberal who told her that her neighbors should be the solution, not the government. It was conservative Tom Coburn. It's liberals who argue that relying on the ordinary generosity of citizens is not enough, and that's why we need government to act in this way sometimes.
quote:there will always be conflicts when dealing with rights. its impossible to please everyone. should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
If you are anything other than a straight, white, Protestant male, things are unquestionably better for you now than they were 40 years ago (and lots of straight, white, Protestant males are happy about that too). Conservatives opposed all that change. Liberals wanted that change to happen. It's not about eradicating anything. It's about making society fairer tomorrow than it is today. Conservatives, by their nature, don't want to change traditional unfairnesses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Those generalities are...well, not very helpful at all, really. You'll find hardly any liberals, Democrats, or even liberal Democrats who want to subsidize laziness.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If you are anything other than a straight, white, Protestant male, things are unquestionably better for you now than they were 40 years ago (and lots of straight, white, Protestant males are happy about that too). Conservatives opposed all that change. Liberals wanted that change to happen.
This is not unquestionably true. Many people, from many different subgroups within America, believe things are worse today than in the past. Reasons they might offer for this range from economics to moral values to education to individual liberties lost, etc.
Also one could argue that many of the positive changes that have happened in the last 40 years were brought on by conservatives. Most fiscal conservatives would probably assert that the economic boom and advances in technology in the past four decades are due to free market economics.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Tom , I am not saying that we should make things harder on people that need help. My point is that we need to make it harder for people to abuse the system, because the abusers are making it harder to help the people that truly need it. And speaking from personal experience, I remember a time when my mother was working 2 jobs while trying to raise 4 children and watching people dressed to the nines walking out of the welfare office with hundreds of dollars in money and food stamps while they were cutting my mother off for making $10 to much money the month before. You want to talk about starving, try looking in your cupboard and seeing nothing but cornmeal. Or looking in your fridge and seeing nothing but ketchup. In my opinion, it is less about "helping", and more about helping people to help themselves. Or , to quote , "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime". Lets start teaching more people to fish.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
kanelock1:
You seem to have shifted your objection to welfare from it discouraging people from working hard to it being abused.
In the former, do you have data suggesting that there is a significant number of people who are content to remain on welfare when they have a genuine chance for advancement? Given the current job market where there are tonnes of people who would love to work but cannot do so, this is a particularly hard sell.
Welfare fraud has been a scare tactic for ages ("welfare queens" and all that). It would be naive to think that it does not happen at all, however the weight attached to this argument has always been disproportionate to the actual prevalence of welfare fraud.
How would you propose "teaching more people to fish"?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
More generalities. There's no substance there. Nothing you've said can be argued against, even when you're actually saying something substantive, kanelock.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
BB, it's like we're tuning into a whole new wavelength in this relationship. Groovy.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB]
quote:If you are anything other than a straight, white, Protestant male, things are unquestionably better for you now than they were 40 years ago (and lots of straight, white, Protestant males are happy about that too). Conservatives opposed all that change. Liberals wanted that change to happen.
This is not unquestionably true. Many people, from many different subgroups within America, believe things are worse today than in the past.
Well, yeah, there's that black teabagger who thought that the Confederacy was great for black people. He can believe what he wants, but I think there's a pretty strong argument that he's factually wrong, that his life is much better under now than it would have been in a modern Confederacy that honored owning human beings as chattel.
Do you really want to argue, for instance, that Ann Coulter would have a better life 100 years ago, where she not only would be completely unable to have any public voice in politics/entertainment, she would not have been able to vote?
I'd love to see you make that argument.
quote:Reasons they might offer for this range from economics
Okay, you really want to make the argument that blacks are worse off economically now that they were in the 1960's?
quote:to moral values
Again, they can argue this, and believe this, but the general consensus is that we treat each other more morally now than we used to, because we are fairer. Perhaps you don't appreciate how virulent and overt prejudice used to be towards all kinds of groups in the past.
quote:...to individual liberties lost, etc.
The 'right' to own another human being like furniture, or the legal 'right' to rape your wife are not generally considered "lost liberties" in decent company. Lawrence v Texas was all about individual liberties, where were all the conservatives praising that ruling?
quote:Also one could argue that many of the positive changes that have happened in the last 40 years were brought on by conservatives. Most fiscal conservatives would probably assert that the economic boom and advances in technology in the past four decades are due to free market economics.
The free market is not the opposite of liberalism. The unbridled free market that conservatives love so much ends up like Enron and Lehman Brothers: making a few cheaters wildly wealthy, and ruining everyone else. Liberals want a market with at least some controls. No selling snake oil. No letting monopolies ruin the market. No dumping of pollution into everyone's water supply without cleaning it up.
Do you object to any of those liberal restrictions?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
mystic, I do not have any hard data, as how many people would tell someone in a poll that they don't want to work.? That is why I made sure to state that it was from personal experience. Do you have data suggesting that there is not? Isn't the entire advancement of humanity to make life easier? In the eyes of some, how much easier can life be than going to the mailbox every month for that check?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
People, please dial it down. Personal attacks are not ok. Not out of the blue, not as a "proportional response," no matter how well-deserved you may think they are. Bad logic is bad logic, but it's not against the rules. Unsubstantiated and un-agreed-upon premises remain so, but they are not against the rules. Ignoring someone's argument is poor communication, but it's not against the rules.
You're free to be upset. You're free to voice your frustration. You're free to ignore people who make ridiculous claims (whether as opinion or as fact). What you aren't free to do is make personal attacks.
Please stop it (here and in other threads).
--PJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Very well put Orincoro.
Agreed. Well said.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: mystic, I do not have any hard data, as how many people would tell someone in a poll that they don't want to work.? That is why I made sure to state that it was from personal experience. Do you have data suggesting that there is not? Isn't the entire advancement of humanity to make life easier? In the eyes of some, how much easier can life be than going to the mailbox every month for that check?
My affirmative statement would be how important welfare is for those less fortunate in society etc. etc. I have not given evidence of this but I would expect someone growing up on food stamps to appreciate their role. I regard this statement as being basically self-evident.
You respond (A) welfare encourages people to not work, and (B) welfare is abused You have provided some anecdotal pseudo-support for (B)- you've seen people on welfare wear nice clothes. You have no idea whether this is indicative of misplaced priorities (e.g. preferring clothes over three meals a day), indicative of having a wealthier relative who gave them a nice gift, indicative of someone wealthy having donated nice clothes or indicative of falsified income. I think the onus is squarely on you to show that your evidence shows what you think it does and that this phenomenon is widespread enough to call into question the integrity of the program at large.
For point (A) you've said:
quote:Isn't the entire advancement of humanity to make life easier? In the eyes of some, how much easier can life be than going to the mailbox every month for that check?
Presumably there are some behavioral economists who have looked into this sort of thing. Off the top of my head, I would guess that people are more motivated by, for example, the trappings of wealth and admiration of their peers, neither of which one would associate with being on welfare.
As an aside, I gather in the 70s the average American work week decreased, which is what people then thought would happen with technology increasing efficiency. That has long since reversed. It would appear that leisure time is not so highly prized. [Btw if you want a cite for this, you'll have to wait; I can't remember where I read it, and won't have time to search this afternoon.]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Very well put Orincoro.
Agreed. Well said.
Agreed. A similar phenomenon shows up in the apparent utter devastation that would follow the implementation of cap-and-trade.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Most humans are quite strongly motivated by status in their peer group, and are willing to work quite hard for it. The difficulty comes when, in a particular subgroup, status is correlated with not working, but rather with cheating the system. This is hard for your average middle-class poster here to identify with, but apparently does happen. But it's not a very large effect, as far as I can tell.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You have more respect for the fifth generation welfare recipient than a person who lived in poverty and now, as you said...makes over 100k a year. It must be horrible viewing people with either self righteous pity or poisonous envy. The US has achieved more in 70 years than any other nation due to capitalistic ideals. No need to worry...the progressives are quickly transforming us into the nations we've outperformed for that same period of time. Nations where equality of outcome trumps equality of opportunity. Next you'll push for a Euro style Amero...better to pull down America to help lift up Mexico. All people and all nations are equivalent and the world is just so unfair. But we're making "progress".....kumbaya my lord. (sorry, said lord).
[ December 08, 2009, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Actually no, the US achieved all of those things as a nation because of good old tax and spend liberalism before the war, and even bigger taxing spending during the war without which we would have ended up with, well, one finds it difficult to project.
FYI, the Euro has been *very* good for Europe, but I still live in a European country that hasn't been allowed to have it yet. There's a system, and there are smart people trying to make it work. Real world governance doesn't correspond to your cartoonish fantasies. Oh, but do spout your crackpot theories about Ameros and other nonsense. Your credibility can't be hurt now, anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You have more respect for the fifth generation welfare recipient than a person who lived in poverty and now, as you said...makes over 100k a year. It must be horrible viewing people with either self righteous pity or poisonous envy.
No, it's not self-righteousness or 'poisonous envy,' whatever in the world of amateur pseudopsychology that's supposed to be. The real issue is that the fifth generation welfare recipient can't be fairly compared to the "makes over 100k a year" guy because the latter is exposing himself to the forum as, well, a guy who argues like you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most humans are quite strongly motivated by status in their peer group, and are willing to work quite hard for it. The difficulty comes when, in a particular subgroup, status is correlated with not working, but rather with cheating the system.
From what I've heard, that's basically the entire country of Nigeria. LOL
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Next you'll push for a Euro style Amero...better to pull down America to help lift up Mexico.
From the viewpoint of pure utilitarianism, this might be true. The difference between a yearly income of 5k and one of 10k is much larger than that between 50k and 100k.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Next you'll push for a Euro style Amero...better to pull down America to help lift up Mexico
Actually, I'd rope Canada into the deal and call it the Camero. Our founding fathers demanded the forced inclusion of Canada into the United Colonies of Congress Assembled! Who are we to question their godlike powers of reason?!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't at all clear that creating a unified currency with Mexico would help Mexico. More likely it would eliminate the flexibility of Mexico's central bank to deal with currency situations (a flexibility they've needed several times in recent history), and the overall central bank would favor monetary policy benefiting the most productive parts of the US.
In other words, a merged US-Mexican (-Canadian) currency probably wouldn't lift up Mexico at all, or pull down the US. It would probably hurt Mexico to the benefit of the US.
And, unlike the old situation in Europe, there's relatively little currency friction between the US and Mexico. There just aren't enough currencies and countries involved to make the situation as byzantine (especially after various treaties). Thus, the benefits Europe has seen due to reducing transaction costs wouldn't be nearly as large.
This is before even talking about how one of the purposes of the Euro (and surrounding activity) is to prevent war in Europe, a situation that isn't of great concern between the US and Mexico.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I don't know. If I were President, I might be quite attracted to a way of solving the immigration problem once and for all. Just annex 'em.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You have more respect for the fifth generation welfare recipient than a person who lived in poverty and now, as you said...makes over 100k a year.
Well, if I actually believed you make >$100K/yr and are a truly self-made man, I'd have a great deal of respect for you. That's an impressive accomplishment. Your style of posting, however, and the frequent dishonesty you engage in, puts your credibility down a peg or three.
Though if you make >$100K/yr, and give more than you pay in taxes to charities, you must be giving >$50K/yr away before you ever get a dime of it at home. That is impressive...and highly unlikely, when viewed through the lens of angry conservative guy on the Internet.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
mystic, I more than most appreciate the role of welfare. My problem is with the fact that I feel the role has changed. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, welfare started as a program to help people get back on their feet so to speak. Now it seems to have become a lifestyle. Are there people who need it? Yes. Are there people who abuse it? Yes. I feel that the true problem lies in the open ended system itself. How many people would not like access to a never ending supply of cash? I truly believe that most people are honest, decent, and willing to put in a hard days work for a decent wage. The problem lies with the few who feel that the world owes them a living, and they are going to take it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Where is welfare a never ending supply of cash? It is enough to keep from starving, but not much more. By American standards, the life you live on welfare is pretty pathetic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And most states severely limit the time-frame you can stay on it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Silence! Because after all, which is better, the parent who is justly strict, or the parent who is wildly permissive?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: except a large part of the "immigrant problem" is really "the racism problem"; annexing Mexico doesn't remove that.
And yeah, kanelock1, you seem to be misunderstanding welfare. Welfare, especially in the last couple of decades, has been changed (from what was already not a permanent grant) into very focused, goal-requiring programs (that vary at the state level). In particular, the welfare program is very focused on making certain recipients have jobs.
Now, there is still a problem area. Due to how a variety of welfare programs are structured, there is a stretch of income where a person earning one more dollar will receive one (or more!) fewer dollar in benefits. This means that, for the span of that plateau, there is little incentive to improve one's income. It would be much better if programs were restructured so that earning an additional dollar only involved a loss of ~half a dollar in benefits.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM: except a large part of the "immigrant problem" is really "the racism problem"; annexing Mexico doesn't remove that.
Shush! I have a nice simplistic solution which only requires the use of a bit of force, readily applied by the American army - who would, I'm moderately convinced, love to have a straightforward conventional campaign against an actual army, instead of all this COIN shizzle - and then you come here and point out that the problem is more complex than that? What are you, some sort of commie-sympathizing traitor? Why do you hate America?
Edit: And besides that, being against immigrants is a near-acceptable form of racism. Being against citizens who speak Spanish and have brown skin, isn't. So, make all the Mexicans citizens and you at least drive the opposition underground, or else force it to come out into the open as racism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If the proposal is to give the Mexicans the rights and privileges of any other citizens, then you might not even need the force part.
Mexico's 100 million or so population combined with the pre-existing population in the US would control a pretty good chunk of US politics which should be a decently compelling reason to pass a referendum on joining or something similar.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well, obviously there would be a transition period in which the Mexicans were re-educated. :nods: Besides that, we can incorporate them as a single state - isn't it time 'New Mexico' had a matching 'Old Mexico'? - and what are they going to do with just two senators?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Once a citizen, they could always move to a different state. They're like, good at it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM: except a large part of the "immigrant problem" is really "the racism problem"; annexing Mexico doesn't remove that.
Shush! I have a nice simplistic solution which only requires the use of a bit of force, readily applied by the American army - who would, I'm moderately convinced, love to have a straightforward conventional campaign against an actual army, instead of all this COIN shizzle - and then you come here and point out that the problem is more complex than that? What are you, some sort of commie-sympathizing traitor? Why do you hate America?
I seem to remember another country doing something quite similar about 60 years ago. Does anyone remember how that turned out?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What you apparently don't remember, however, is this country doing exactly that, 170 years ago. Which seems to have gone quite well. What was your point, again?
There are any number of quite successful conquests in the history of the world; pointing to just one that failed rather spectacularly - and heck, it was a pretty close-run thing, at that; let Moscow fall in December 1941, and then try to land in France in 1944 - is not a good argument.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
60 years ago, annexation in 1949, hmmm, I thought that turned out pretty well actually.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What you apparently don't remember, however, is this country doing exactly that, 170 years ago. Which seems to have gone quite well. What was your point, again?
Oh no, I remember that quite clearly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, what was your point?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
What makes Mexican immigrants so differant from Cuban immigrints? one could even argue that Cuban nationals recieve better aid and standard of living than the northern Mexican populace. I was born and raised in Arizona, I grew up with friends who had to translate for thier parents who simply did not have the basic education necessary to read and write competently in spanish let alone learn a new language in addition to the difficult work they had to do to survive illegally here. Ofcourse there are things that bother me, such as the fact that the Mexican govt. watches its people grow ignorant and hungry, knowing that they will flee to America but will never relinquish thier patriotism, proven by many leaving families behind in Mexico and sending back as much money as possible. Billions of dollars are sent to Mexico from America, work done here, for here with the profits spent in a near dictatorship country, and not even Arizona's own John "Maverick" McCain would pretend to speak out against the oppression of the Mexican govt. on thier own people and the American south west.
Another pet peeve of mine is the foodstamps system, as noted it certianly makes it easier to stay on and make less money, openly deciding to stop advancing in society and leeching off of the others. But one thing many dont know is there is a twenty four hour fast track option for Mexican immigrants here, thusly treating them as people from a dire situation (which many of them are from) while American citizens can wait up to a month for assistance and only after spending a large amount of time in waiting rooms filling out forms. One of the most common complaints I hear from people who are trying to take care of themselves and thier children is that they cant get assistance when they have to work during the day, they have other things to do than wait three hours for a five minute meeting. While so many people who have no job and are unwilling to get a job have all the time in the world to go through the motions, AZ pays for thier medical, housing (of thier choice, no govt. housing here,) thier food and might even then give them additional money on thier EBT account to withdrawn to use as they wish.
The criminalization of being brown in the southwest is older than many may guess, and this current fad of blaming all of its faults on the ones who were so desperate that they would entrust thier wives and children to coyotes who are known for changing prices and doing unspeakable acts at will, this fad is just plain sick. Above I mentioned a problem with Arizona's assistance programs, but illegal immigrants did not write these documents, nor do I blame a parent with mortal fear for thier childrens health for taking advantage of every program presented, I blame the sycophants who draw our attention with pink underwear for convicts and graphs illustrating a drop in "reported" crime. Whole towns are known for nothing but junkies cooking drugs, a van is t-boned in an intersection and rolls three times but no one stops to cry for the dead in the van while news helicopter watches the police hunt down more than thirteen men that climbed out and ran. Ranches in the middle of nowhere with mexican slaves far from the eyes of society, men and women afraid to go back to a home that treated them worse. Identity theft is rampant as almost all is used to allow illegal immigrants to gain full paying work, only to pay a hefty percentage to check cashing stores who operate solely on the income of illegals and Americans who are trying to keep thier earnings from the govt. for various reasons.
In many ways the west is still wild, people still come here hoping to live as they choose without oppisition from thier nieghbors, but just to earn what they can and live. If Florida can accept every last Cuban that makes it to American soil and not burn to the ground whats to stop the south west?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: What makes Mexican immigrants so differant from Cuban immigrints? one could even argue that Cuban nationals recieve better aid and standard of living than the northern Mexican populace.
One could argue anything. The standard of living in Cuba is not good. Average incomes are in the tens of dollars per month- and that money doesn't go very far. The standard of living is estimated by some to be below 1% of what it was 50 years ago- so while the situation is dire in Northern Mexico, it is not going to be better in Cuba, sorry.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Section 8 housing and food stamps are not limited in time frame benefits. Agreed, welfare is no way to live but welfare voters will not bite the hand that feeds them. Neither will recipients of government run healthcare or illegal aliens granted amnesty. The political considerations of the party in terms of a voting block, are more important than the reality of lifting people out of poverty and doing what is best for our nation and the people they claim to care about. Hence, progressive blocking and elimination of school voucher programs. Can't have DC ghetto kids going to school with the president's children, back to the hood and a 28% graduation rate (even if it costs more).
Continue to spin without answering the challenge I put to you. Otherwise I won't engage and I encourage others not to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, so now the poorest people in the nation are out voting a lot? New to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Section 8 housing and food stamps are not limited in time frame benefits. Agreed, welfare is no way to live but welfare voters will not bite the hand that feeds them. Neither will recipients of government run healthcare or illegal aliens granted amnesty.
yeah, all those recipients of government-run healthcare won't bite the hand that feeds them ... better healthcare than our system? and those illegal aliens sure do vote a lot. wow, this all makes so much sense!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
malanthrop makes so much sense
sooooooo much sennnseeeeeeee
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, so now the poorest people in the nation are out voting a lot? New to me.
No, they're out voting twice a year.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
If you take off the rose colored glasses, you might be able to see that it is all about manipulation. Who do you think people are going to side with, the ones who give them things no strings attached, or the ones who expect them to actually do something to earn it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you take off the rose colored glasses
Ha! I'm a snide analyst that calculates most timeframes of potential systemic improvement against the political idiocy and ignorant malleability of citizens. Does that get to be called "rose colored" thinking, now?
The issue is that some issues, such as health care, can't be easily boxed into "giving" versus "making them earn." By all worthwhile metrics, we already know that things work better if you just give people healthcare. It's just infuriating to people who dislike the concept that it's better for the government to just give some things.
A perfect example is schooling. I will side with the people who give education to your children, no strings attached. Do you think I'm siding with them because I'm a leech or a cheapskate?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
No, thinking that the government is some benign entity that is going to step in and fix every thing does. The system can't be improved by a broken system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: No, thinking that the government is some benign entity that is going to step in and fix every thing does. The system can't be improved by a broken system.
This entire position is predicated on an illusory standpoint inferred on the part of some.
I would have trouble actually finding a liberal — any liberal at all — who actually thinks that the government is 'a benign entity that is going to step in and fix everything.' Yes, it would be troublesome if people voted on that premise in numbers large enough to create a notable contingent. But since this illusory contingent of voters largely doesn't exist, you're knocking on a mentality which has no bearing on figuring out why people vote the way they do.
It's like strawmanning conservatives by saying that they vote the way they do because they "hate gays" — unsurprisingly, the truth is much more complicated
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Ducking? Nothing but ducks and dodges between this post and my last. Anyone actually care to address the fact the the kind hearted progressives eliminated a program (conservative program) that cost $7k per poor black student to be sent to a private school in favor of $14k per in failing and dangerous public schools.
Maybe you're right, it's about fairness. Can't jeopardize any government teacher jobs and the teachers union is against the voucher program. It's unfair that only some get to go to the good schools. The universal, equal and fair failing govt system is more just.
The great equalizer is a good education. (Anyone care to argue that point) Can't have those blacks gettin' educated, they might grow up to be conservative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Anyone actually care to address the fact the the kind hearted progressives eliminated a program (conservative program) that cost $7k per poor black student to be sent to a private school in favor of $14k per in failing and dangerous public schools.
I'd be happy to address this after you get done addressing the questions already put to you, which you are avoiding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you take off the rose colored glasses, you might be able to see that it is all about manipulation. Who do you think people are going to side with, the ones who give them things no strings attached, or the ones who expect them to actually do something to earn it?
What rose-colored glasses? Y'all said or suggested that Democrats (or 'progressives', and freakin' damn, what will you guys try to turn into a bad word next?) were doing this at least in part to manipulate the people and buy voters.
I said that I was surprised to hear that apparently voter turnout amongst the poorest segments of our population was apparently high, high enough to merit massive catering to, as opposed to among the lowest in the nation. Rose colored glasses indeed.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: :sigh:
Continue to spin without answering the challenge I put to you. Otherwise I won't engage and I encourage others not to.
Would you care to restate your challenge. Going back I see you flat out calling me a liar, which is fine....in that regard I wont waste my time trying to change your mind. I have not misrepresented myself here.
If you are concerned about my income, it increases every year as it has since my first job picking strawberries when I was 13 years old. I spent 5k this year on training courses and studied for months to pass yet more certification exams....guess what, next year I'll make 10k more because I improved myself. I've paid off 30k in student loans and worked 96 hours a week during the summer driving swathers and combines to help with college expenses. I went to a Catholic school on a "scholarship" that required me to work 16 hours per week during the school year...sometimes in concessions, sometimes cleaning bathrooms. In the summer they required 200 hours.
When it comes to taxes....my property,state and local taxes are more that 10k a year. I tithe to my Church which is more than my Federal Income tax. You probably wont consider a Christian charity a real charity though. If you are looking at total tax burden, of course not....too hidden and everywhere. Sales, car tags, phone, electric, gas, SS, Medicair, FICA, and whatever is already included in the price of everything you buy, no way. The average American works half the year for Uncle Sam....some work a little harder and pay a little more. But the welfare lady down the road bought a new (used) car with her 8k tax return, child tax credits are great. Must be nice to get a return greater than your income.....If there's a time limit it must be more than 5 years, that's how long she's been there. Daddy gone, lots of kids...nice kids.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Forgive me...I forget your perspective, being European and all. I know many Americans are losing this belief, but here you can succeed and even become wealthy if you work hard enough. People are upset because we have a "post American" president who wants us to be fair and stagnant, like Europe.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: :sigh:
Continue to spin without answering the challenge I put to you. Otherwise I won't engage and I encourage others not to.
I went to a Catholic school on a "scholarship" that required me to work 16 hours per week during the school year...sometimes in concessions, sometimes cleaning bathrooms. In the summer they required 200 hours.
16 hours a week for a full-time student is nothing special. I did that all through my undergrad, and I graduated with 132 credit hours in 8 semesters.
Also, exactly what did your school requre 200 hours of during the summer? 200 hours of work a week? Multiply 24 times 7. It equals 168. There aren't 200 hours in a week.
If you're saying that they required 200 hours of work over 12 weeks of summer, big whoop. That's just not even worth mentioning.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
That was in high school, starting in 9th grade. I had other jobs to support myself. In high school I worked 40 hours a week. 16 for the school on the weekend, the rest at Taco Time, TCBY, a video store, a nursing home kitchen...whatever I could get.
In college I worked 96 hours a week in the summer and wrote a big fat check to the University in the Fall. I'm not bragging I just feel sorry for people who have accepted failure or mediocrity. It's a different mindset. If I seem cold and unsympathetic, it's because I believe in the American Dream. I'm upset because I see class warfare destroying that dream for my children. The white's are #3 in income in America by race. When minority immigrants come here and excel due to their hard work, I don't want to hear excuses from the native population. The difference is, they believe they can. "YES WE CAN" - "BELIEVE" Those words sound familiar don't they? In his context, those words were twisted to mean take from the evil rich. Even if that wealth comes from a hard working, minority, immigrant, small business owner. Once you enter a certain tax bracket you are no longer black, brown or white, you are green.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
As to how broken the welfare system is here in AZ, a new drug testing system has been added to keep people who are abusing illegal drugs from attaing assistance. Full write up here.
quote: "We don't want people who are abusing drugs to be on welfare," Kavanagh said, "because that means that the taxpayers are subsidizing and facilitating illegal-drug use."
All adult recipients must now fill out a new three-question statement on illegal-drug use to apply or reapply for DES benefits.
If answers on that statement provide "reasonable cause" of illegal-substance abuse, the department will notify the adult that they must complete a drug test within 10 days, at the state's expense.
At first I laughed when it hit the newspapers, and then I realized that my taxes paid for a room full of idiots to write up this poor excuse of a solution.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... The white's are #3 in income in America by race.
One of the races that has a higher median income is Asian. Whats the other one?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know many Americans are losing this belief, but here you can succeed and even become wealthy if you work hard enough.
Or are a liar, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: But the welfare lady down the road bought a new (used) car with her 8k tax return, child tax credits are great. Must be nice to get a return greater than your income.....If there's a time limit it must be more than 5 years, that's how long she's been there. Daddy gone, lots of kids...nice kids.
By all means, continue to take stereotypical anecdotes like this, project them onto the entire system, demand massive change because of that anecdotal experience, and insinuate that those disagreeing with you are either lazy, stupid, or unAmerican for doing so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, actually the hope and change I and many other people voted for was to restore checks and balances, a respect for science, a renewed adherence to international conventions we agreed to, and some measure of sanity to our government.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not that we're necessarily getting much of that, either, to be fair. Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
The previous election should tell you enough about why people vote. Why did Obama win? What was his main premise? Hope and change. How was he going to do this? By taking the wealth from people who actually worked for it, or from the EVIL CORPORATIONS, (you know, the ones who actually employ people) and dole it out to the poor, downtrodden masses. So, once again I ask, where is the motivation to better yourself when you have the leader of your nation telling you basically not to worry, he will fix it, by giving you what someone else has worked for? If that logic works for you than can I have your house, because I am tired of renting? As for evidence of peoples thought processes,I live in Michigan and a couple months back they were passing out I believe it was energy vouchers in Detroit. While interviewing people in line, they asked some of them where the money was coming from, and in response they said" I don't know, Obama. Obama money." No thought as to where it came from, so long as they got it. Now, who do you think they are going to vote for?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I know why I voted for him, and it didn't have anything to do with him taking money from 'people who worked for it' (as though everyone rich worked for it), or from 'EVIL CORPORATIONS' (as though taking money from corporations must always stem from ridiculous stereotypes like this).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Forgive me...I forget your perspective, being I know many Americans are losing this belief, but here you can succeed and even become wealthy if you work hard enough.
"Can" being the operative word. Lots of people work plenty hard and never escape from poverty. Or get sick and end up there. Or lose their job due to downsizing...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Where has President Obama told anyone that, kanelock? I'll ask for the first but probably not the last time: where has he said the far-right stereotyped liberal things you're saying he's said? He's not a hard guy to research, so I'm sure you can point to something in relatively short order without much difficulty.
This is an important question here, incidentally, though I doubt I'm the first to ask you to directly substantiate your claims. Are you going to be a hack like malanthrop, unwilling or unable to argue honestly and participate in a real discussion? Or are you going to be a thoughtful conservative who actually does something besides preach to your choir and behave as though they're the only sane, smart people left?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If that logic works for you than can I have your house, because I am tired of renting? As for evidence of peoples thought processes,I live in Michigan and a couple months back they were passing out I believe it was energy vouchers in Detroit.
If you're renting and don't want to be, and live in Detroit, I cannot imagine why you have not bought a house. Surely cost is not a problem.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He's not a hard guy to research, so I'm sure you can point to something in relatively short order without much difficulty.
So far nobody's even been able to pin down what country he was born in.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, the median home price for house purchases in Detroit a year ago was $7,500, and I doubt it has gone up since then.
Note, this is the median. That means half or more of houses sold in Detroit sold at that price or lower.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:So far nobody's even been able to pin down what country he was born in.
Well, yeah, Hawaii kinda settled that already, by providing proof of his birth and proof of the newspaper listing on the day he was born. But please, carry on with your conspiracy theory if you like. (Birther myths and easy refutations)
[ December 10, 2009, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
If you pay attention to anything other than the mainstream media, you can see many examples of this.How many times did he talk about the redistribution of wealth during the election? Do you honestly believe that this is not a manipulation of people based on class envy?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If that logic works for you than can I have your house, because I am tired of renting? As for evidence of peoples thought processes,I live in Michigan and a couple months back they were passing out I believe it was energy vouchers in Detroit.
If you're renting and don't want to be, and live in Detroit, I cannot imagine why you have not bought a house. Surely cost is not a problem.
Note, I never said I live in Detroit, but thanks for the assumption.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
By the way, I've lost track with all the ducking and topic-changing. What were we discussing?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Turns out, if you want to live the American Dream, you should move to Denmark.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: By the way, I've lost track with all the ducking and topic-changing. What were we discussing?
Forged birth certificates.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I never said I live in Detroit, but thanks for the assumption.
No, I suppose that's true. That said, if you live anywhere in Michigan, houses are available.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Forgive me...I forget your perspective, being European and all. I know many Americans are losing this belief, but here you can succeed and even become wealthy if you work hard enough. People are upset because we have a "post American" president who wants us to be fair and stagnant, like Europe.
Actually, studies show that in Europe there is greater economic class mobility. In several European countries (also Canada), for all its supposed aristocratic roots, my wealth as an adult is less dependent on my parents starting place. So, for those looking to pursue the American dream of doing better then their fathers, might I suggest moving to Canada? Statistically, you are far more likely to succeed there.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I never said I live in Detroit, but thanks for the assumption.
No, I suppose that's true. That said, if you live anywhere in Michigan, houses are available.
Once again my point goes unseen. It was not about if I could or could not by a house. It was more about the thought processes in the minds of some people. If a group of people are told over and over again that they have been kept down by another group, don't you think that some of those people will start believing that they are owed things? And when someone says their are going to redistribute the wealth to give them more, will not some of those people begin to expect it to be handed to them? I used that example to point out that the mentality of the "gimme, gimme" people is flawed. Your response seems to agree with me on that point. Am I wrong?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It was not about if I could or could not by a house.
Why not?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you pay attention to anything other than the mainstream media, you can see many examples of this.How many times did he talk about the redistribution of wealth during the election? Do you honestly believe that this is not a manipulation of people based on class envy?
OK, so you're a hack then. I suspected as much but couldn't be sure, because you're a new guy.`
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Mostly I saw him talking about the redistribution of wealth from people who gamed the system to cheat employees and investors, and the redistribution of wealth from corporate executives who run their companies into the ground while still pulling in multi-million dollar bonuses, and the redistribution of wealth from people who use every trick in the book to hide their income or exploit tax loopholes. I'm kind of OK with that kind of redistribution.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
kanelock1- I don't think that you have yet shown that there are people with that mentality yet. You have pointed to people you only know peripherally as examples, but who is to say what reality is.
For example, when I was on government aid, I had one nice maternity outfit (One of my wealthier friends lent it to me). I wore that one nice outfit for all my aid meetings. When I had my daughter, I dressed her in the nicest clothes she had (which were gifts from friends and family) whenever I went to my aid meetings. So, you may have looked at me and said, why is she getting aid when she can dress that nice, without realizing that I didn't spend a penny on those outfits. Which is why I am not willing to accept your examples- you are not in a position to know the full story.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm kind of OK with that kind of redistribution.
I'd actually like to see some of that redistribution, to be honest. It's manifestly not happening.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you pay attention to anything other than the mainstream media, you can see many examples of this.How many times did he talk about the redistribution of wealth during the election? Do you honestly believe that this is not a manipulation of people based on class envy?
OK, so you're a hack then. I suspected as much but couldn't be sure, because you're a new guy.`
You call everyone that disagrees with you a hack, yet when asked a simple question your response is always to call into question the opinions and integrity of the questioner? I agree with not only mal, but my own opinion that no matter what I could show you, it would not matter, so what is the point?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm kind of OK with that kind of redistribution.
I'd actually like to see some of that redistribution, to be honest. It's manifestly not happening.
A large part of what I voted for hasn't happened yet, and I'm not terribly happy about it. That's different from someone else deciding (incorrectly) why I voted and then arguing against it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is more of what you voted for happening than would have happened had someone else been elected in those elections where you voted for Obama?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
that is why I continue to specify SOME people. I cannot prove that is what people think. it is just my opinion. But to those who want me to PROVE my OPINION I ask; prove yours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But to those who want me to PROVE my OPINION I ask; prove yours.
Sure. My opinion is that class warfare was not a major motivator among Obama voters. My "proof" is that I, as an Obama voter, don't know any other Obama voters who'd cite it as their motivation.
So, moving on...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: You call everyone that disagrees with you a hack, yet when asked a simple question your response is always to call into question the opinions and integrity of the questioner? I agree with not only mal, but my own opinion that no matter what I could show you, it would not matter, so what is the point?
Well, now you're a hack and a liar. Go wander over to the Allen West thread, and you'll see me disagreeing with Porter, Tom, and Kmbboots all without calling any of them a hack. The reason is simple: they're not hacks, and you are.
The reason I'm calling you a hack is because you spout all kinds of stereotypical anecdotes and catch-phrases and political slogans, but when asked directly to cite the easiest possible one of them...you don't. That would be bad, but what puts you firmly over the line into the hack category is that not only didn't you actually substantiate your own claims (which, according to you, are obvious), but you continued on vaguely talking about what's said 'a lot' and suggested that you'd actually backed up your words.
The only good thing about being a hack is that you can stop at any time you like. You're welcome, at any moment, to actually quote President Obama's many, many speeches and say, "Here, this is what I'm talking about when I say Obama is encouraging a welfare state, he does it right here in this speech."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But to those who want me to PROVE my OPINION I ask; prove yours.
Another lie. This is not, in fact, what's happening. You're being asked here to prove President Obama has been saying what you say he's been saying. Unless you're claiming to have had private conversations with the man, that's a matter of public record and could, if you weren't a hack, be easily substantiated by you-particularly since you claim he says it a lot.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You know, Rakeesh, you disagree with me all the time. And I don't recall you even once calling me a hack.
What's up with that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was getting to it, get off my frickin' back, man!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You do realize for every conservative story of the Cadillac driving Welfare Mother, there is a Paris Hilton who is covered in unearned, undeserved wealth. (No, I don't mean her Fame-Money made after the airing of her sex-tape--I am referring to her inherited money).
There are the rich money men who's parents bought them MBA's, and who then proceed to screw up the good corporations that hard working folks put their effort into.
But its not them that lose their jobs, its the hard working folks who get laid off.
All this talk about the great Corporations who should be free to run wild reminds me of my days working for one. They wanted complete political and emotional employee loyalty, but offered no loyalty to the employees. When that happens people get mad, and when enough people get mad at something, they get to vote it all kinds of checks, balances, and taxes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There are the rich money men who's parents bought them MBA's, and who then proceed to screw up the good corporations that hard working folks put their effort into.
You forgot to mention the ones who screw up the economy of entire countries.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I know it is difficult to accept the profit motive of corporations. I listened to a senator explain how Cap and Trade will impact his district. He spoke with the CEO of a local ALCOA plant. Any idea how much electricity it takes to make aluminum? They do not want to move to another country but if the choice is to either go out of business or move to Mexico, they'll move. Raise taxes on the greedy corporations and to a point it will work. When it gets to a point where they have to decide between losing market share or moving to another country, they will move. The progressive will demonize them for moving due to the fact that progressive policies have forced them to move or close up shop. You forget, we are competing against countries where an employee might make $200 a month if he's lucky. Maybe the progressives should just take over all American business and make it illegal to outsource...problem is, they'd quickly run out of tax revenue to pay for the newly govt appropriated business.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Or you know they could make the investment to switch to greener energies that don't cause as much of a footprint.
Now Obama HAS said words to the positive effect of redistributing the wealth from people who earned hundreds of millions by driving their companies to the ground and losing jobs to the people who lost their jobs, it was in Moore's 'Capitalism a Love Story'
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They do not want to move to another country but if the choice is to either go out of business or move to Mexico, they'll move.
All the more reason to support global treaties.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:They do not want to move to another country but if the choice is to either go out of business or move to Mexico, they'll move.
All the more reason to support global treaties.
treaties?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... The white's are #3 in income in America by race.
One of the races that has a higher median income is Asian. Whats the other one?
You failed to acknowledge the most discriminated demographic in America...Arabs.
"Median income for Arab American households in 1999 was $47,000 compared with $42,000 for all households in the United States. Close to 30 of Americans of Arab heritage have an annual household income of more than $75,000, while 22% of all Americans reported the same level of income. Mean income measured at 8% higher than that national average of $56,644"
Such as treaties regulating carbon emissions. So a company can't just move overseas to avoid carbon taxes, for instance.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
so?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The UN want's the wealthy nations to pay subsidies to developing nations to offset the carbon emissions of devoloping nations. Technically, China is a "developing" nation despite the fact that it is the world's top polluter. So, America should borrow money from China to pay for progressive social programs and pay China since they are a developing nation with a very low standard of living. Maybe the Communist/Socialist Chinese govt should pay their people more and let them eat something other than rice. They do have a fair society thought, equal misery and a wealthy government.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
- arabs are not the most discriminated (against) demographic in America
- china does not have 'equal misery' and actually demonstrates a massive degree of class disparity
- malanthrop is just talking now
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: - arabs are not the most discriminated (against) demographic in America
- china does not have 'equal misery' and actually demonstrates a massive degree of class disparity
- malanthrop is just talking now
When you go into an airport are you worried about the black guy? Are you suggesting that an Arab woman wearing a burka in America is less an object of objection than a black lady walking down the street?
Go ahead and google the standard of living in China, our primary financier. We are financed by slave owners. Demand your health care that is financed by a govt owned corporation where the workers don't even have electricity and indoor plumbing. When America balances it's budget, these things can be considered. Until then, a starving family, knee deep in mud for subsistance wages is paying for your "free" doctor visit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just to clarify my "so?" was to Mal.
China's class disparity is actually according to the Gini Coefficient equivilent to that of the United States.
Also China technically pollutes less on a per capita basis then the United States AND is actually putting massive state investment into green technologies, green coal, and cleaner, safer nuclear power.
Next China actually does have 'classes' of rich, poor, and middle class, with those who are rich being mostly businessmen.
China is a developing nation because its GDP per capita is around 1700$ compared to USA's 50,000$ its economy while in Purchasing power parity terms is large and substantial still has much to go before it catches up.
Next the Chinese government IS giving money out, just not the way you think they're investing billions into developing the poorer regions of China, into greener more energy efficient technologies, and has abolished agricultural taxes on the farmers and agricultural workers.
While there are about 100 million people still living on one dollar a day to say that a majority of Chinese people diet consists of only rice is racist.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If I were a country of my own, I would be the greenest of all and have the highest per capita income.
They pollute less per capita because a large percentage of their population doesn't even have electricity....China is still the #1 polluter.
They are a country of elites. If only the wealthiest 10% of Americans owned cars and had electricity, would you use the same argument?
Sorry for my racist rice comment. Their diet is only 50% rice, the rest is whatever they can scrounge up. I hear bugs and rats are quite popular there....people need protein.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Your ****ing racist. Can someone ban him!?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Tom, I appreciate your response and though I may see things differently, I respect your opinion. As I stated in a previous post, that is what makes this country great. I realize that politics are a hot subject, and it is easy to get carried away. I have said for years that I DO NOT try to convince others to believe what I believe to be 100% fact. What I try to do is show people that there is another point of view. I admit that, when faced with ANYONE who believes that their way is the only way, no matter what side of the fence they are on I take an almost instant distrust of them, as I truly believe that the world is not black and white. Am I a conservative? Yes. Yet in some ways I am just as liberal as almost anyone. If the fact that I cannot bring myself to agree with a group of people that are trying to fundamentally change the country that allowed them to rise to the positions that they are in because they say it isn't fair, I ask you to think about this, if America is so unfair, how did a woman become Speaker of the House? How did a poor black child become President? That is all I have to say.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because its unfair to the point that the people elected such people into positions of office to make things fair?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"Per Capita" arguments concerning China are flawed. If Bill Gates moved into my home town the per capita income would be the highest in the nation. The same person who would use a per capita Co2 argument in defense would use a per capita income argument to prove victimization of economic justice. They are the poorest and therefore produce the least CO2. Are you asking me to admire a slave with a small carbon footprint?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Racist. For one thing China doesn't practice slavery, or serfdom.
Your a racist.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Btw, rakeesh. If you go to youtube you can see all of his speeches. Not that it matters, as you would probably say they are lies also. What is the point of trying to show you evidence when you would not believe it any way. As you say, I am obviously a liar. May the hope and change work out for you. I for one will not hold my breath. Have a wonderful day.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: If you go to youtube you can see all of his speeches. Not that it matters, as you would probably say they are lies also.
That doesn't even make sense. What does it even mean to say that a speech on YouTube is a lie?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Sorry, I probably should have said that my interpretation is clouded by my paranoid, extreme right wing mind. Wrong choice of wording. Thanks Matt.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Is this faux self deprecation just your way of saying that you can't find the quotes that support your claims?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Racist. For one thing China doesn't practice slavery, or serfdom.
Your a racist.
Very nice of you to use language in such a way. Serfdom is a word from a different country and doesn't apply to China. Of course China doesn't have serfs or slaves, they do not know such a word....does it matter?
Similarly, only the Congress of the United States can create laws and levy taxes according to the constitution. Hence, prohibition against alcohol was a constitutional amendment. Congress voting on a constitutional amendment was the correct way to go about regulating alcohol. They have learned their lesson well and do not want to be constrained by such things as "laws" and "taxes" limited to congressional approval. Now we have beurocratic administrations that create "regulations" and "fees" thus bypassing the constitutional limits of "laws" and "taxes". Today, banning alcohol would be so much easier, no constitutional amendment necessary, the Food and Drug Administration could just regulate it. Just as Carbon Emissions has a tough time passing via cap and trade through Congress and the will of the people, the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate it.
This is what happens when we elect lawyers instead of the common man, business people. They understand the constitutional limits of "taxation" but can create an organization that can impose "fees". They understand the constitutional constraints on the imposition of "laws" but they can create an administation that can impose "regulations". Call it what you want, a tax is a tax, a law is a law, a serf is a serf (even if the native language doesn't include serf). A fee costs the consumer the same as a tax and a regulation is as binding as a law.
The American people haven't realized that the executive branch has stripped all power from the other branches of government. There are no more check and balances. Which is good so long as you agree with the president......ready for BushII in 2012?
[ December 11, 2009, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QUOTE] [qb] Very nice of you to use language in such a way. Serfdom is a word from a different country and doesn't apply to China. Of course China doesn't have serfs or slaves, they do not know such a word....does it matter?
Oh lord, the magic never ends with your grasp of the language.
Tell me, does the fact that the word for "teacher" in Spanish, "Profesor(a)," also means what "professor" means in English prove that there are no "teachers" in Spanish speaking countries? And what about Czech/Slovak? "Lektor" means instructor, but it also means "assistant professor."
Do the vagaries of language cancel the actual real world similarities between people's jobs? I suppose your rationale tells us that since "Banana" is an English word, Chinese people don't have Bananas? What about the people there who can speak English? Are they allowed to have bananas?
I suppose the only consolation would be that they don't have the same word for "troll," so maybe they don't have any. "Tool" either, as it occurs to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The American people haven't realized that the executive branch has stripped all power from the other branches of government.
You know, you were here when Bush was president. Why weren't you complaining at the time?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Btw, rakeesh. If you go to youtube you can see all of his speeches. Not that it matters, as you would probably say they are lies also. What is the point of trying to show you evidence when you would not believe it any way. As you say, I am obviously a liar. May the hope and change work out for you. I for one will not hold my breath. Have a wonderful day.
No no no, kanelock, that's not how it works.
"He says it all the time, it's obvious, can't you people see?" is what you said. But when asked point-blank, "OK, show us where he said it. It should be easy, since it's so obvious, and he says it all the time, right?" And your response was...deafening silence.
You're not really trying to change the minds of people. Folks doing that actually make, y'know, an effort. What you're doing is looking for a choir to preach to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: - arabs are not the most discriminated (against) demographic in America
- china does not have 'equal misery' and actually demonstrates a massive degree of class disparity
- malanthrop is just talking now
When you go into an airport are you worried about the black guy? Are you suggesting that an Arab woman wearing a burka in America is less an object of objection than a black lady walking down the street?
If I didn't know for sure by now that you didn't genuinely think you know what you were talking about, I'd swear you were having me on. Regardless, arabs are not the most discriminated against demographic in the united states. Even openly gay guys have it worse than them, as well as transgendered people. Who I'm most worried about in an airport isn't a measure of that, it's just an anecdote. You just have no idea what you're talking about, as usual, and still feel yourself possessed of the need to talk as though you had anything resembling a worthwhile understanding of any of this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: You call everyone that disagrees with you a hack, yet when asked a simple question your response is always to call into question the opinions and integrity of the questioner? I agree with not only mal, but my own opinion that no matter what I could show you, it would not matter, so what is the point?
Ah, the time honored "up yours" when asked for substantiation of statements made.
There is no faster way to deflate one's credibility.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's pretty obvious "kanelock1" the same person who has been floating around here for months switching from alt to alt. Wasn't it "GinaG" not long ago? I'm sure there have been others, but the name escapes me. The stunning lack of competence and the conservative victim mentality is about the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's pretty obvious "kanelock1" the same person who has been floating around here for months switching from alt to alt.
I don't see what good that sort of speculation does. If s/he's an alt, s/he's an alt. Shouldn't matter.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
oriinoco, you don't know me, yet you keep insisting that I am an alt. I assume this means alternate identity. you are soooooo wrong ,but in your infinite wisdom, you will never admit it, so once again, what is the point. As for the "evidence", my BELIEF is based on my INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS SAID along with the ACTIONS OF HIM AND OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION. That is why it is pointless to show you "proof". You would never interpret it the same way as I do, because YOU do not want to see it. Or do you need to see proof of that to?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:my BELIEF is based on my INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS SAID along with the ACTIONS OF HIM AND OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION
Please provide a quote of Obama saying something that you interpret to mean what you're saying it means, and then explain why you interpret it that way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ideally several quotations. You have said that it was a prominent theme of his campaign, and what got him elected. These quotations you allege should be all over the place. There are websites full of quotations from Obama, this should be easy for you. After all, you've already seen the quotations (or you wouldn't be saying they exist, right?), so you can just scan through until you see the ones you remember.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Tom, I think you're talking to an angry 14 year old who hasn't figured out the difference between belief and opinion.
KaneLock- I think you're an alt and a 14 year old (maybe 15) based on my interpretation of what you said, along with your actions on this forum.
Let your last post serve as the basis for this opinion. Your writing style is suggestive of someone without a great deal of analytical experience or expressive range. Now, it will be easy for you to counter my interpretation with the actual facts- and you'll have to have a little faith that I'll believe you when you tell the truth, rather than go on believing what I already believe. The problem with everything you've said so far is that it shows absolutely zero faith in your own ability to form a sincere argument or project the smallest amount of sincerity.
I think you have probably been victimized in some way- but it did not start here. Here you have projected your victimhood, and invited others to ridicule you further. But your actions, and everything you have said, without exception, has invited ridicule- not just tempted it, but blatantly invited it. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Thank you Tom. not sure how to get the link, as my computer knowledge is pretty basic. One specific quote that comes to mind is in a speech to the SEIU in which he states that their mission is his mission. couple that with the fact that the head of the seiu has, according to the white houses on released information, visited the white house nearly 30 times. also, in my mind, it seems a little odd that EVERYTHING that he wants to do HAS to be done NOW. EVERYTHING is a CRISIS. I believe it was the TARP bill that we were told, pass it NOW, or else. and yet, once it was passed it took him 4 days to sign it? That seems strange to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: One specific quote that comes to mind is in a speech to the SEIU in which he states that their mission is his mission
Your goal is to prove that this was a major theme of his campaign. Ideally, you will look for quotes from his campaign to back this up. Try Google.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tom, I think you're talking to an angry 14 year old who hasn't figured out the difference between belief and opinion.
KaneLock- I think you're an alt and a 14 year old (maybe 15) based on my interpretation of what you said, along with your actions on this forum.
Wrong again! Btw, last time I checked, opinion was based upon belief, though as a 14 year old(I'm 37) I could be mistaken. I am at least willing to admit that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Vague statements of support for a supporting organization made up of American citizens, whose putative mission is
quote:belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide and dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society.
Noooo! He's going to institute socialism!
You are no doubt going to assert that workers and the services they provide having dignity and worth, that improving the lives of workers and their families, and that creating a more just and humane society are sekrit code words for socialism. But you're going to have to prove Obama meant that, instead of just a vague statement of solidarity with what, interpreted any sane way, are completely unobjectionable principles.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Thank you Tom. not sure how to get the link, as my computer knowledge is pretty basic. One specific quote that comes to mind is in a speech to the SEIU in which he states that their mission is his mission. couple that with the fact that the head of the seiu has, according to the white houses on released information, visited the white house nearly 30 times. also, in my mind, it seems a little odd that EVERYTHING that he wants to do HAS to be done NOW. EVERYTHING is a CRISIS. I believe it was the TARP bill that we were told, pass it NOW, or else. and yet, once it was passed it took him 4 days to sign it? That seems strange to me.
TARP seems like a strange example, since it was passed under President Bush last October.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... The white's are #3 in income in America by race.
One of the races that has a higher median income is Asian. Whats the other one?
You failed to acknowledge the most discriminated demographic in America...Arabs. ...
Regardless of whether they're the most discriminated demographic, which Samprimary is handling, I'll just note that Arabs usually aren't classified as a race (insert usual caveats about how race is arbitrary anyways).
They're just White (for example thats how they're classified in the US census).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Maybe the Communist/Socialist Chinese govt should pay their people more and let them eat something other than rice. They do have a fair society thought, equal misery and a wealthy government.
Ummm, China is one of the few major countries that is actually even more unequal than the United States. Also, employment by SOEs is probably at an all-time low so the government doesn't really pay all that many people. That said, government jobs like in the US are often quite well-paid. Also, food products is one of the few things that China imports from Canada and the US in very large quantities, not much of it rice.
So yeah I could have summed up by just saying you're wrong. And looking further, that sums up the rest of your "thoughts" on the topic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1:
Wrong again! Btw, last time I checked, opinion was based upon belief, though as a 14 year old(I'm 37) I could be mistaken. I am at least willing to admit that. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and yet there remains a *difference* between the two things. N'est-ce pas?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Noooo! He's going to institute socialism!
And that's bad, right? *tries to remember*
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: - arabs are not the most discriminated (against) demographic in America
- china does not have 'equal misery' and actually demonstrates a massive degree of class disparity
- malanthrop is just talking now
When you go into an airport are you worried about the black guy? Are you suggesting that an Arab woman wearing a burka in America is less an object of objection than a black lady walking down the street?
If I didn't know for sure by now that you didn't genuinely think you know what you were talking about, I'd swear you were having me on. Regardless, arabs are not the most discriminated against demographic in the united states. Even openly gay guys have it worse than them, as well as transgendered people. Who I'm most worried about in an airport isn't a measure of that, it's just an anecdote. You just have no idea what you're talking about, as usual, and still feel yourself possessed of the need to talk as though you had anything resembling a worthwhile understanding of any of this.
Only because you define discrimination based upon outcomes. Since arabs are successful in America, you can't bring yourself to admit that they are discriminated against. The fact that they can overcome the hate that surrounds them in this post 911 country, undermines your whole economic justice mindset. They succeed despite the glaring and distrust that surrounds them. I am genuinely impressed that they can exist in a nation where they are viewed as the enemy....and succeed.
On another point...I stand corrected, China does not have slaves. They have free people who work for the government for a couple bucks a day and go home to houses without electricity and indoor plumbing. Before we ask China to pay for our universal healthcare we should demand that they give their people universal toilets and electricity. I'm sure they have universal health care already...any good commie country does.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ignorant racist prick.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Only because you define discrimination based upon outcomes. Since arabs are successful in America, you can't bring yourself to admit that they are discriminated against.
You are a massive failure when it comes to reading comprehension. I have never claimed that arabs are not discriminated against. I've never claimed anything close to that. It's impressively irrelevant to anything I actually said to you.
You can't even figure out what my point is. I could lay it out for you with excruciating simplicity, as though I were talking to a child, and you still wouldn't get it. You'd just continue babbling about circumstantial subjects and presuming new arguments to imply on the part of the people who argue with you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
At least as of 2003, the median income in a number of Chinese provinces was only a few dollars a day. Most of those people didn't work for the government.
More relevantly, it isn't the case that if China were to suddenly double or triple their incomes through some sort of government fiat, their incomes would actually double or triple. The income distribution problems in China aren't because the poorer people are being cruelly cheated out of deserved wages, they are because the poorer people haven't become productive enough to command higher wages, yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
P.S., since I can see what road this is going down: locking the thread is not the answer to the behavior contained therein and only empowers the wrong people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
But he is racist, there's no reason to answer his arguments.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Just remove prick then. That would be name-calling.
The racist part is pretty self-evident too, so it can either go or stay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
But he is racist, there's no reason to answer his arguments.
So ignore them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
But he is racist, there's no reason to answer his arguments.
So ignore them.
That'll be the day, when Blayne ignores a negative comment about China.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi:
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Thank you Tom. not sure how to get the link, as my computer knowledge is pretty basic. One specific quote that comes to mind is in a speech to the SEIU in which he states that their mission is his mission. couple that with the fact that the head of the seiu has, according to the white houses on released information, visited the white house nearly 30 times. also, in my mind, it seems a little odd that EVERYTHING that he wants to do HAS to be done NOW. EVERYTHING is a CRISIS. I believe it was the TARP bill that we were told, pass it NOW, or else. and yet, once it was passed it took him 4 days to sign it? That seems strange to me.
TARP seems like a strange example, since it was passed under President Bush last October.
Thank you St. yogi As I stated, I may be wrong, and am willing to admit when I am. Let me just say that it seems as though every thing has to be done NOW. Why? Is the world going to end tomorrow if we take a little time to read the proposed bills? How many people would walk into a car dealership and just sign a contract to buy a car without reading it first? Does that seem like a wise thing to do? And I personally think that the future of this nation is a little more important than a car.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
But he is racist, there's no reason to answer his arguments.
So ignore them.
That'll be the day, when Blayne ignores a negative comment about China.
Its like asking me to ignore food.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Let me just say that it seems as though every thing has to be done NOW. Why? Is the world going to end tomorrow if we take a little time to read the proposed bills?
This meme befuddles me. Do you think no one thought about the proper way to respond to an economic recession or bank collapse before one actually happened? That emergent situations are addressed with emergency responses doesn't strike me as inappropriate. The planning should have been happening for months/years ahead of any actual action. Don't assume that just because a bill passed quickly that it's not informed by significant forethought.
If I see fire and pull the fire alarm, it's not because I'm flailing wildly at anything in reach. A lot of consideration went into the development of that fire alarm and I have a reasonable expectation about how it's going to behave and the appropriateness of taking that action at this time, even though I've only taken a moment to contemplate the actual decision.
Of course financial markets are a bit less predictably deterministic, but that doesn't mean quick action is necessarily rash action.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care. And the solution is the same no matter what. If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care. And the solution is the same no matter what. If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Oh, you mean like how WMD in Iraq were a crisis?
Yeah, I'm still hot about that one. I resent every single penny our government has spent on that stupid war. That money could have been spent on infrastructure here, or developing green tech, or many other useful projects. It's hard to hate the people who voted for Bush, though. They're too catastrophically STUPID to hate. It's like hating chairs and lamps.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Didn't The Daily Show do a montage of Bush telling us there was no time to think and reason, but we must act immediately (and on a variety of issues)? I know we got that line from Bush more then us.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care.
Let's look at health care. It's been a major political issue going back at least as far as the Clinton administration. It's been debated and discussed for years and even this particular bill has been formulated over a period of many months and still isn't done. There's nothing rushed about it other than the fact that Republicans don't want it to move forward at all and Democrats won't let them kill it.
And yes, these are all crises. The result of non-action in every case is predictably pretty grave. There may be an argument that the response was inappropriate, but I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest that these aren't crises.
quote:If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Iraq invasion. Patriot Act. Medicare Prescription Drug bill. Or better yet, how about just unilaterally creating secret new policy without even pretending to follow a democratic process - warrantless wiretaps.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Iraq invasion. Patriot Act. Medicare Prescription Drug bill. Or better yet, how about just unilaterally creating secret new policy without even pretending to follow a democratic process - warrantless wiretaps.
If memory serves, haste was also the reason for the award of no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care. And the solution is the same no matter what. If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Ignoring the fact that we really were in full-on crisis mode when we approached the presidential election (the commercial paper market was in a state that could very easily have caused the market to lock down even on otherwise fully solvent operations) the TARP bill passage scenario acts as a really strenuous counterargument to what you are saying.
The reason why 'everything seems like a crisis' is because we were in full-on failure cascade mode. A wide-ranging macroeconomic disaster that threatened to reverse over twenty years of economic and infrastructural development.
The only exception is health care, which hadn't suddenly become a crisis. It's been in crisis for years. If the republicans had done anything to confront that at the expense of our cherished private/actuarial model, I would have been ecstatic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: If memory serves, haste was also the reason for the award of no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
The stated reason, maybe. Halliburton's contractual benefits were plainly the result of spoils.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
What happened to the: Save-Tibet, Sweat Shop, Tiananmen Square protesters???? Maybe they're hanging out with the "Bush War for Oil" protesters and Code Pink. Can't protest Obama or the communist nation bankrolling our health care goals.
[ December 12, 2009, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Remember when I said that you would just continue babbling about circumstantial crap? Well, thanks for promptly doing exactly that. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What happened to the: Save-Tibet, Sweat Shop, Tiananmen Square protesters???? Maybe they're hanging out with the "Bush War for Oil" protesters and Code Pink. Can't protest Obama or the communist nation bankrolling our health care goals.
Tibet is a integral part of Chinese sovereignty and has been historically a part of China longer then the lifespan of the United States by a factor of possibly three. I could just as well yell out "FREE THE SOUTH" with the same level of legitimacy.
Sweat shops are a undeniable fact of life for developing nations as a PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE to agriculture and sustainence farming at least in any open market economy and they go away once the GDP rises to our standards.
May I remind you of the Kent State massacre?
Next China is bankrolling your low interests rates, if they weren't your country wouldn't be able to go nearly in debt as you are able to and wouldn't have the standard of living you currently have.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blayne, you only make yourself look silly when you defend China, you know.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, you only make yourself look silly when you defend China, you know.
Its still the truth. The above are recognized facts of the international community.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, you only make yourself look silly when you defend China, you know.
Its still the truth. The above are recognized facts of the international community.
Didn't something like a couple million Tibetans die when the Chinese took over?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, you only make yourself look silly when you defend China, you know.
Its still the truth. The above are recognized facts of the international community.
Didn't something like a couple million Tibetans die when the Chinese took over?
Pretty much... Not to mention that Tibetan language and culture is entirely different from Chinese language and culture and that Tibetans and Navajo are said to be related. A friend of mine knows more about this issue, but yeah, China's takeover of Tibet has been... rather unhealthy for Tibet.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Incorrect even the Black Book of Communism expresses doubt on the '1 million or more' figures.
Next Chinese rule has actually been for the overall best for Tibet, Tibet prior to Chinese liberation was a caste society divided between serfs and the theocratic aristocrat class where the worth of a single tibetan serf was less then that off a piece of string.
Penn & Teller for example explain how the Dalai Lhama is actually a asshole who recieved CIA funding.
The PRC claims that: From 1951 to 2007, the Tibetan population in Lhasa administered Tibet has increased from 1.2 million to almost 3 million. The GDP of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is thirty times that of before 1950. Workers in Tibet have the second highest wages in China. The TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to none in 1950. All secular education in the TAR was created after the revolution. The TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to none in 1950. Infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000. (The United Nations reports an infant mortality rate of 35.3 per thousand in 2000.) Life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000.
In 2008 the Chinese government "launched a 570-million-yuan (81.43 million U.S. dollars) project to preserve 22 historical and cultural heritage sites in Tibet, including the Zhaxi Lhunbo Lamasery, the Jokhang, Ramogia, Sanyai and Samgya-Goutog monasteries."
Blayne, nobody is disputing the problems with Tibetan society prior to Chinese rule. What we are disputing is that the loss of so many Tibetan lives was necessary. It's like the Iraq war. Over 500,000 Iraqis have died since the US invaded. Yes, we topped a cruel dictator, but...at what cost? Was it worth all those lives? It's a similar question.
On another note, dude, be skeptical about any news source that makes the Chinese government of the 1960s look good. Remember, this is the same government that killed tens of millions of native Chinese.
I have a friend who has been on 4 or 5 trips to China in the last 7 or 8 years. He visits Taoist holy mountains quite often. He said that in 1966, the Red Guard, with the knowledge of the Communist government, stormed many of the remote caves on these mountains, found various meditators sitting deep in meditative states, and doused them with fuel and burned them alive. This is common knowledge among the long-time mountain Taoists, of which there are a few still left.
The Chinese government of the 1960s was not known for...well, anything good in the area of human rights. Dude, really, your credibility is suffering.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne leaves out a few notable facts:
1) The Chinese gov't was not sovereign in Tibet for most of that period, they were suzerain, a very different legal state.
2) At the time when all the places that were suzerain were being divided up into sovereign/not sovereign (because suzerainty was ceasing to be recognized), China was not suzerain of Tibet.
3) The Chinese government acknowledged Tibet's independence and ability to conduct an independent foreign policy a number of years prior to invading them.
4) Tibetans did not identify as "Chinese", and did not want to be ruled by Chinese authorities. That would be why China had to fight a rather bloody war when it invaded the place, even though the central government was ineffective and fell immediately.
International legal precedent is remarkably clear about the right to self-determination by a region, when that region has an independent political existence and is subject to brutal oppression by those who attempt to control it from outside (see: the whole Balkan region).
Blayne is also confused about what the international legal community recognizes. They recognize that it makes no sense to try to separate Tibet legally from China, and so they acknowledge China's de facto sovereignty in the present day (as do I). This does not mean believing China had a legal right to invade, and this does not mean buying into China's "just so" stories about why their invasion was legal.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Blayne leaves out a few notable facts:
1) The Chinese gov't was not sovereign in Tibet for most of that period, they were suzerain, a very different legal state.
2) At the time when all the places that were suzerain were being divided up into sovereign/not sovereign (because suzerainty was ceasing to be recognized), China was not suzerain of Tibet.
3) The Chinese government acknowledged Tibet's independence and ability to conduct an independent foreign policy a number of years prior to invading them.
4) Tibetans did not identify as "Chinese", and did not want to be ruled by Chinese authorities. That would be why China had to fight a rather bloody war when it invaded the place, even though the central government was ineffective and fell immediately.
International legal precedent is remarkably clear about the right to self-determination by a region, when that region has an independent political existence and is subject to brutal oppression by those who attempt to control it from outside (see: the whole Balkan region).
Blayne is also confused about what the international legal community recognizes. They recognize that it makes no sense to try to separate Tibet legally from China, and so they acknowledge China's de facto sovereignty in the present day (as do I). This does not mean believing China had a legal right to invade, and this does not mean buying into China's "just so" stories about why their invasion was legal.
Incorrect at no point did China recognize Tibetan independance at any point, neither the Qing, ROC or PRC in anyway shape or form.
Inability to de facto control the region doesn't negate de jure control.
Also at no point did China give up suzerainty over Tibet at best it would be the transitional period with the changeover from the Qing to ROC in which Tibet had sent dignitaries to sign the new ROC constitution and no great power had recognized tibet during this period of de facto independence.
Proof of this in pretty much any US map of China during WWII.
Also there's significant skepticism over the number of supposed deaths of Tibetans using wildly inaccurate figures and false claims.
And I am not confused about anything, the International community doesn't decide "well we can't do anything so yeah" its "We recognize that there can only be and will only be One China which encompasses the follow regions..." Whichs includes Tibet a positive affirmation of Tibet as a part of Chinese sovereignty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The quotation you give only recognizes present sovereignty, as I specifically state was the case. You asserted the international community viewed China's invasion of Tibet as legal, an acknowledgement which is not in that statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Next China is bankrolling your low interests rates, if they weren't your country wouldn't be able to go nearly in debt as you are able to and wouldn't have the standard of living you currently have.
Blayne, you talk constantly as though the PRC didn't get as much or more out of the bargain than the USA does.
Sure, our financial dealings with China have been very beneficial to the United States. But that goes both ways.
quote:Tibet is a integral part of Chinese sovereignty and has been historically a part of China longer then the lifespan of the United States by a factor of possibly three. I could just as well yell out "FREE THE SOUTH" with the same level of legitimacy.
Well, the relevant parts of this are really only true because the PRC has lots and lots of guns and a willingness to use them. 'Historically a part of China'? If that were true, the conquest would not have been necessary.
'They've always been a part of China, that's why China had to conquer them.' I refuse to believe you're not smart enough to recognize the incredible dissonance in that idea, Blayne.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, you only make yourself look silly when you defend China, you know.
Its still the truth. The above are recognized facts of the international community.
No they aren't.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: If memory serves, haste was also the reason for the award of no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
The stated reason, maybe. Halliburton's contractual benefits were plainly the result of spoils.
Right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well the Southern States are a 'historical part of the United States' but still required military conquest to enforce, political sciences recognize that the state is the sole actor who can possess a legitimate use of force, having to use force to maintain your authority.
Also every modern state came to its current borders through armed conflict, Russia expanded against the Lithunain Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Sweden the the central asian khanates, United States had Manifest Destiny, Rome conquored over a million square miles that became the foundation of modern European states military conquest and the use of force is a political prerequisite to the formation of nation-states.
quote: Blayne, you talk constantly as though the PRC didn't get as much or more out of the bargain than the USA does.
I never said they didn't get an equally advantages part of the deal but was explaining to Misanthrope that US-Sino trade relations are extremely important to present US economy, I did not say that China did not get a good deal from this as well and frankly didn't have to its implied which begs the question of why you would bring it up.
quote: 'They've always been a part of China, that's why China had to conquer them.' I refuse to believe you're not smart enough to recognize the incredible dissonance in that idea, Blayne.
You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument that doesn't abide by your liberalistic principles inregards to state relations and underestimating my ability to use doublethink. However since the Yuan dynasty they have been a part of Zhongguo and since its already established that military conquest in the past makes those territories acceptable parts of your territorial sovereignty, sovereignty that was never given up since then it makes the PRC's military action in 1950's simply that of an internal matter of a nation securing its borders against a hostile anarchic international system.
And yes the international system does recognize it, any country that has official relations with China has to recognize that there is only One China which includes Tibet and thus a de facto and de jure recognition of China's claims and authority over the region and thus legitimate there is no doubt or grey area over this and inconsequential naysayings of "nah huh" from you won't convince me overwise, find me a diplomat who says otherwise [u]recently[/u] that isn't coloured by Cold War politics of the time.
I could bet you ANYTHING that if hypothetically had it been the ROC instead no one would have said a word unless the ROC had sides with the USSR.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument
And you aren't, by trying to compare tibet and china to the american civil war? It's the most convoluted analogue I've heard yet.
quote:And yes the international system does recognize it, any country that has official relations with China has to recognize that there is only One China which includes Tibet and thus a de facto and de jure recognition of China's claims and authority over the region and thus legitimate there is no doubt or grey area over this and inconsequential naysayings of "nah huh" from you won't convince me overwise, find me a diplomat who says otherwise [u]recently[/u] that isn't coloured by Cold War politics of the time.
This is not international recognition. This is China's internal claim. In reality, countries that have official relations with China are under no realistic obligation to recognize China's own internal "One China" argument. A perfect example is the Taiwan issue. Most of china's 'official relations' have made absolutely no recognition of their claim over Taiwan, yet trade and diplomacy continue.
It's a remarkably empty supposition. There is no 'international recognition' justification.
This is silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Also every modern state came to its current borders through armed conflict, Russia expanded against the Lithunain Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Sweden the the central asian khanates, United States had Manifest Destiny, Rome conquored over a million square miles that became the foundation of modern European states military conquest and the use of force is a political prerequisite to the formation of nation-states.
Oh, I see. And because other nations and empires have done it in the past makes it acceptable in the present?
Nonsense.
quote: quote: Blayne, you talk constantly as though the PRC didn't get as much or more out of the bargain than the USA does.
I never said they didn't get an equally advantages part of the deal but was explaining to Misanthrope that US-Sino trade relations are extremely important to present US economy, I did not say that China did not get a good deal from this as well and frankly didn't have to its implied which begs the question of why you would bring it up.
I brought it up because you have a habit of leaning enormously towards the PRC in any conversation where the PRC is even tangentially mentioned.
quote:You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument that doesn't abide by your liberalistic principles inregards to state relations and underestimating my ability to use doublethink. However since the Yuan dynasty they have been a part of Zhongguo and since its already established that military conquest in the past makes those territories acceptable parts of your territorial sovereignty, sovereignty that was never given up since then it makes the PRC's military action in 1950's simply that of an internal matter of a nation securing its borders against a hostile anarchic international system.
Yes, well Samprimary deals handily with the nonsense of your accusing someone else of oversimplifying this, particularly since your argument can be boiled down to, "Previously Tibet was bad, and every country conquers anyway so it's OK now."
Here's what I know, Blayne: in order to make its claim of sovereignty over Tibet reality, they had to use military force to do it, and have had since then to continue using military force to uphold it, along with a heaping helping of tyranny. Just because other nations have done it in the past doesn't make it OK. Just because the PRC extorts nations that do business with it into not protesting more loudly doesn't make it OK. Just because Tibet before the conquest was bad doesn't make it OK.
quote:I could bet you ANYTHING that if hypothetically had it been the ROC instead no one would have said a word unless the ROC had sides with the USSR.
I don't know what you're asking. Are you asking that if the PRC were instead the ROC, and the ROC conquered and dominated Tibet for half a century, nobody would complain? Don't be foolish, Blayne, you know that's not true either, even if you don't admit it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument
And you aren't, by trying to compare tibet and china to the american civil war? It's the most convoluted analogue I've heard yet.
quote:And yes the international system does recognize it, any country that has official relations with China has to recognize that there is only One China which includes Tibet and thus a de facto and de jure recognition of China's claims and authority over the region and thus legitimate there is no doubt or grey area over this and inconsequential naysayings of "nah huh" from you won't convince me overwise, find me a diplomat who says otherwise [u]recently[/u] that isn't coloured by Cold War politics of the time.
This is not international recognition. This is China's internal claim. In reality, countries that have official relations with China are under no realistic obligation to recognize China's own internal "One China" argument. A perfect example is the Taiwan issue. Most of china's 'official relations' have made absolutely no recognition of their claim over Taiwan, yet trade and diplomacy continue.
It's a remarkably empty supposition. There is no 'international recognition' justification.
This is silly.
This is factually incorrect and will leave it at this, in Susan Shirks "China Fragile Superpower" she states that the US in gact does recognize the PRC's official claim over Taiwan (de jure) and Tibet (de facto and de jure) but have the Taiwan Relations Act to to prevent the de facto Unification of Taiwan through armed force at this stage.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Oh, I see. And because other nations and empires have done it in the past makes it acceptable in the present?
Nonsense.
Misrepresenation of the argument.
quote:I brought it up because you have a habit of leaning enormously towards the PRC in any conversation where the PRC is even tangentially mentioned.
It doesn't even make sense in context of trade relations, I to Misanthrope said X, you assume I was saying Y when I did not say Y or imply Y, it makes no sense.
quote: Here's what I know, Blayne: in order to make its claim of sovereignty over Tibet reality, they had to use military force to do it, and have had since then to continue using military force to uphold it, along with a heaping helping of tyranny. Just because other nations have done it in the past doesn't make it OK. Just because the PRC extorts nations that do business with it into not protesting more loudly doesn't make it OK. Just because Tibet before the conquest was bad doesn't make it OK.
They use military force the same way Canadians send military patrols into the Northwest passage to maintain our sovereignty, maintaining sovereignty requires the presence of a military force. Tibet was led by a corrupt incompetent landed class who were resisting change that would force them to be equal with the serfs and slaves they oppressed for millennia of course they resisted and of course the PRC had to use military force.
it is the sovereign right and thus by definition OK for a nation to use military force to protect its sovereignty, Tibet was a matter internal to Chinese politics.
It is integral to state-society relations that the state is the singular legitimate owner of force in society.
Tibet before liberation wasn't just bad it was terrible you just don't get it, anything by comparison is better and should point out that there are plenty of Tibetans who don't want independence, for example I can name one female Tibetan PLA army officer.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Blayne, say it with me. China is not TEH AWESOM. China is just a country. It's people are just people. It's leaders are just people.
What's funny is that you take one of the lamer things about China, the Communist government, and act like it's somehow great. It's not great. Tienanmen Square would never have happened otherwise, broseph. It's a very average, human, and imperfect government. You know, like a lot of others.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: This is silly.
This is factually incorrect and will leave it at this, in Susan Shirks "China Fragile Superpower" she states that the US in gact does recognize the PRC's official claim over Taiwan (de jure) and Tibet (de facto and de jure) but have the Taiwan Relations Act to to prevent the de facto Unification of Taiwan through armed force at this stage. [/QB][/QUOTE]
... that's not a fully correct interpretation of relations between the countries, but even what you are claiming, if it were true, would prove what was said.
I really don't even think you know why?? I mean, you keep using de facto/de jure and stuff like that but it seems kind of like putting a facade over a blatant revisionism without a real understanding of the international scene unmarred by your blatant hard-on for China.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Good job saying unsubstantiated crap asshole.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Blayne, say it with me. China is not TEH AWESOM. China is just a country. It's people are just people. It's leaders are just people.
What's funny is that you take one of the lamer things about China, the Communist government, and act like it's somehow great. It's not great. Tienanmen Square would never have happened otherwise, broseph. It's a very average, human, and imperfect government. You know, like a lot of others.
*shrug* Your opinion is your opinion but my facts are my facts, your assertions and assumptions are also yours to make and mine to destroy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Blayne, cut the name calling out, please.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good job saying unsubstantiated crap asshole.
What I like the best about your china fanboyism is that you can't even be a polite apologist. You just become a raging hothead and then start childishly namecalling.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And things like "hard on for China" are the paragon of respectful debate and mutual respect for your peers, screw off.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: People, please dial it down. Personal attacks are not ok. Not out of the blue, not as a "proportional response," no matter how well-deserved you may think they are. Bad logic is bad logic, but it's not against the rules. Unsubstantiated and un-agreed-upon premises remain so, but they are not against the rules. Ignoring someone's argument is poor communication, but it's not against the rules.
You're free to be upset. You're free to voice your frustration. You're free to ignore people who make ridiculous claims (whether as opinion or as fact). What you aren't free to do is make personal attacks.
Please stop it (here and in other threads).
--PJ
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not going to touch on most of the political part of this clusterf***. But I'll just quickly note that while there is an obvious incompatibility between the CCP and the Tibetans, there is no real incompatibility between Chinese culture and Tibetan culture.
So in this case for example,
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: ... Pretty much... Not to mention that Tibetan language and culture is entirely different from Chinese language and culture ...
Buddhism has long been one of the most important cultural pillars of China and thus related Tibetan influences are pretty widespread.
And in areas of Chinese people, but no CCP, this explains the 20,000 followers in Taiwan that met him there after the typhoon http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8231009.stm
And as a fun fact, Jet Li is a follower of Tibetan Buddhism.
quote:Jet Li, a prominent follower of Tibetan Buddhism, said he has met with the Dalai Lama and respects his teachings but believes Tibet and China are part of one country.
The 44-year-old action star also said at a taping of an interview for CNN's "Talk Asia" in Hong Kong late Wednesday that Taiwan and China should be unified.
"From the religious point of view, he's the master," Li said of the Dalai Lama, adding when he met him in 2000 he told the spiritual leader he backs having the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you believe that the Chinese government is undemocratic, then you can't simultaneously claim that the CCP consistently speaks for Chinese people. The disagreement between Tibet and China is political, not cultural.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Didn't something like a couple million Tibetans die when the Chinese took over?
The actual claim that is often cited is the government-in-exile's claim that that 1.2 million died. But there is little independent corroboration for this claim which is usually why it is reported like so, "Dalai Lama says 1.2 million people were killed under Chinese rule. China disputes this" BBC link
Among those that are unbiased, you usually won't find all that much agreement on this issue.
For example:
quote:Barry Sautman, Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, spoke at UCLA December 2 to defend the thesis that claims of cultural repression against Tibetans by the Han Chinese are greatly exaggerated by Tibetan exiles in India and by the liberal Western press. His talk was met with some skepticism from discussant Nancy Levine (Anthropology, UCLA) and by some members of the audience, but he presented a wide range of data to support his view. The talk was sponsored by the Center for Chinese Studies. ... Barry Sautman responded on several fronts. On claimed declines in Tibetan population, he cited articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000. "What I think these articles show is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."
While I agree that there aren't any hard, reliable numbers to look at here for the 1.2mil claim...whose fault is that, exactly? It's not as though the PRC lets foreign reporters enter and examine the situation for themselves.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
China's claim on Tibet has been given international respect. Bush gave the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal and Obama refuses to meet with him. Just as talking to Hamas legitimizes that organization, I hear the current administration is considering talks with Al Qaeda. Doing so only validates them as a legitimate political organization.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... whose fault is that, exactly?
I didn't mention fault.
Don't much care to address fault with Blayne doing his thing. I'm just addressing the facts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And things like "hard on for China" are the paragon of respectful debate and mutual respect for your peers, screw off.
So if you mock it as falling short of your criteria for respectful debate and mutual respect for peers, why do you subsequently react to it in a way which is decidedly more personal and more abusive and less mature? Is there a sort of "they did it first, now I can sling all the insults I want" mentality going on here?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And things like "hard on for China" are the paragon of respectful debate and mutual respect for your peers, screw off.
So if you mock it as falling short of your criteria for respectful debate and mutual respect for peers, why do you subsequently react to it in a way which is decidedly more personal and more abusive and less mature? Is there a sort of "they did it first, now I can sling all the insults I want" mentality going on here?
Partly because I don't care anymore and partly because I don't like half of you and partly because all of you jumped onto insulting me first.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So you don't care anymore about even trying to be mature? You'd rather just jump to breaking the forum rules (granted, it's not like you seem to suffer anything even through repeated rule-breaking)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, if 'half of you' aren't showing you respect, it might be productive to look inward and see if some of the problem isn't with you, as opposed to half of everybody else.
---
And no, Mucus, you didn't. Though I do wonder why not, really. Saying, "There's no hard evidence saying such and such is accurate," without addressing why there is no hard evidence seems to me only half a point.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
Well, how about not responding to people disagreeing with you with swears? Name calling on any side doesn't really accomplish much.
Also, I politely disagree with your opinions on Chinese history.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
I thought it was quid pro quo?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
EQD.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And no, Mucus, you didn't. Though I do wonder why not, really. Saying, "There's no hard evidence saying such and such is accurate," without addressing why there is no hard evidence seems to me only half a point.
Well, I mentioned it earlier. Blayne's participation has already rendered the discussion rather free of nuance and thus I'm confining myself to matters of easily verifiable (viewed as relatively bias free by foreigners, if not necessarily by the Chinese community) facts through international sources.
"Why" questions are much more broad and subject to supposition. After all, even the question of which media organizations were allowed into Tibet at which times is not a straight-forward question to answer.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
Well, how about not responding to people disagreeing with you with swears? Name calling on any side doesn't really accomplish much.
Also, I politely disagree with your opinions on Chinese history.
Please politely disagree with verifiable historical facts and not supposition, until then its pretty much pointless discussing it. The idea that Tibetan and Han Chinese cultures being incompatible I don't think is within your qualifications to determine, and the current statistical facts show a net increase in the Tibetan population and any assertions of its decrease rely on highly inaccurate Tibetan In Exile sources and on their manipulation of statistics that include considering what constitutes Tibet to include territories as large as Schechuan, half of Sinking, and the Yumen area or 'Greater Tibet' which hasn't been under Tibetan control for centuries heavily distorting figures.
Glad to see no one asserting that Tibetans are currently a minority in Tibet something that is even more easily disproved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Verifiable historical facts when they concern the PRC don't mean much with you, Blayne. Though of course you won't even acknowledge that possibility, completely secure in your objectivity and expertise.
Really the only productive question anyone can ask you at this point concerning the PRC is simply this: is the problem with everybody else in these discussions, or is the problem with you?
When those kinds of questions are asked, the answer is very often the latter rather than the former no matter who it's asked of, but I'm sure this is one of those rare exceptions, and everybody else is the one discussing things incorrectly, and not you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No that is a fallacy and a distraction to the issue, everybody else is wrong because they and you don't bother with sources because you think those sources are tainted and interfere with your own predetermined view of the PRC as the next Big Bad.
Regardless of my views or my opinions my facts and arguments are correct and verifiable I have yet to see any of yours that don't derive from attacking the only available source material.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is a fallacy, yes. It's also helpful advice to consider. Note that I'm not saying, "You're doing it wrong because everyone disagrees with you," I'm saying, "If everyone disagrees with you, it's time to take a critical look at what you're doing and see if they're right."
I don't think the PRC is the next 'Big Bad', though I'm not surprised your understanding of my (and others') PoV is so incorrect and simplistic. I do think that they're going to be one of the, if not the, biggest players on the world stage in the 21st century...and I know that they're not especially nice to people who don't toe the appropriate line.
How do I know that? It's simple: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of information are all sharply restricted in the PRC. And as far as demonstrating that the PRC is a repressive regime, that's really all I need to demonstrate. If those things all true, it's a repressive regime. End of story.
Oh, and of course the sources are tainted if they come from the PRC, and the PRC doesn't allow anyone else to verify them. You are so much more credulous when it comes to the PRC's government statements than you are towards any other government's, even your own I suspect, though you talk very, very rarely about Canadian politics, that it's at times baffling, irritating, and jarring.
Listen to yourself in the very next sentence: 'my arguments are verifiable'. You trust the government of the PRC to tell the truth about itself to others about its own scandals!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
It only rarely works that way with you. It'll also never work in general considering the way which you argue subjects involving China.
You're basically declaring that respect is infeasible whenever you opt to argue on the forum, and then you're handwaving away any responsibility for your own loss of maturity and respect when you subsequently capitulate to namecalling.
Also: 'pro quid quo?'
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:. [/qb]
Please politely disagree with verifiable historical facts and not supposition, until then its pretty much pointless discussing it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
OK, but you'd only state that I am wrong despite having trying to make some sort of attempt to learn more about Chinese history for quite a while. I don't even trust my OWN government most of the time, let alone the Chinese government when it comes to responding to criticisms about their human rights violations.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...and I know that they're not especially nice to people who don't toe the appropriate line.
Well, it depends
quote:And, as a columnist, Michael Chugani, puts it, the democratic fight is waged with democracy-style freedoms. People take to the streets, mock their rulers in the press, or take them to court. When Britain handed Hong Kong to China in 1997, these freedoms were not certain to endure. Yet the Communists in Beijing have endured too. Their opposition to radical change has given politics the air of a theatrical set-piece. Everybody knows his part. ... Though democrats rarely admit it, political theatre, within bounds, has brought incremental improvements. In 2003 protests led the government “temporarily” to suspend a deeply unpopular anti-sedition law imposed at China’s behest. In the 2005 debate about political reform, democrats’ main beef was the absence of a timetable for universal suffrage, promised in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law. But in 2007, aware of growing local anger, China ruled that it would apply starting in 2017 for electing the chief executive, and from 2020 for Legco.
On the Reporters Without Borders index, Hong Kong maintains a position as 48 out of 175 places, above local points of comparison such as Taiwan or South Korea.
It can be said that they might be playing a long game and biding their time. But it cannot be said that don't play nice across the board.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if we're getting strictly literal here, much like you earlier didn't say anything about fault, I didn't say they didn't play nice across the board, either:)
If you lived in the PRC today, Mucus, would your posting habits on the Internet be the same? Would Blayne's?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: How do I know that? It's simple: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of information are all sharply restricted in the PRC. And as far as demonstrating that the PRC is a repressive regime, that's really all I need to demonstrate. If those things all true, it's a repressive regime. End of story.
Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
Various bureaucratic restrictions etc on these subjects doesn't count as authoritarian repression.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you lived in the PRC today, Mucus, would your posting habits on the Internet be the same? Would Blayne's?
Mine, yes. I cannot answer for Blayne (although I would really hope they'd be different)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: How do I know that? It's simple: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of information are all sharply restricted in the PRC. And as far as demonstrating that the PRC is a repressive regime, that's really all I need to demonstrate. If those things all true, it's a repressive regime. End of story.
Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
Various bureaucratic restrictions etc on these subjects doesn't count as authoritarian repression.
You do know that the PRC puts heavy restrictions on internet access, right, Blayne?
Bro, you just lost me. You went from being funny, goofy, and immature, to being scary, weird, and varelse.
NOBODY has the right to mess with my internet access. Any government that restricts internet access is a pile of worthlessness, period.
That's what's up.
I'm not saying they're as bad as Iran. But so what?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Restrictions that are acceptable within cultural norms and frankly the very same restrictions certain democratic governments like Australia currently impose (or in the process of imposing).
I converse with dozens of Chinese who played WoW or EVE-Online, the anti poop socking measures only in effect if your under 18 and even then if you at a internet cafe there's no such measures.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Have you even researched the issue, Blayne?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I raise you Susan L Shirk: China Fragile Superpower How China's internal politics could derail its peaceful rise.
Like c'mon I've read dozens of books and magazine articles and regularly interact with Chinese nationals and subscribe to Janes Defense Weekly and Sinodefence.com I know my shit.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Read that carefully.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Restrictions that are acceptable within cultural norms and frankly the very same restrictions certain democratic governments like Australia currently impose (or in the process of imposing).
The PRC's restriction of access to information isn't purely a cultural thing, Blayne. It's also profoundly political. Just because other nations are considering doing it doesn't make it any less repressive, Blayne. "Australia's considering doing it." How's that for a fallacy?
quote:Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
As usual, you're simply not listening. Nowhere did I say that PRC repression was universal. Even if I believed they wanted it, it would be impossible to achieve. But it happens a lot. Secret 'black jails', for example. Now I'm quite sure that you'll respond that this isn't an officially state-sanctioned policy, that it's done off-the-books, that etc. etc. CHINARAWKS!, with maybe a few, "America does it too," for good measure.
But the reality is that for all the facts and figures you know about the PRC - and I do grant you know quite a bit - you're remarkably good at simply ignoring or handwaving away stuff you don't want to consider.
I think your response to this post will prove me right about that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Mine, yes. I cannot answer for Blayne (although I would really hope they'd be different)
In what way would they be different? Assuming you had the same amount of free time, that is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Restrictions that are acceptable within cultural norms and frankly the very same restrictions certain democratic governments like Australia currently impose (or in the process of imposing).
I converse with dozens of Chinese who played WoW or EVE-Online, the anti poop socking measures only in effect if your under 18 and even then if you at a internet cafe there's no such measures.
People in the PRC have been unable to play WOW for about 7 months now Blayne, with that likely never changing in the near future. Not that that necessarily has to do with censorship but Blizzard has failed to get the proper Government approval to run their game in the PRC after the last contract expired.
Also when you talk about protests you need to consider what sorts of things are being protested. Farmers disenchanted with incomes being too low, check. Protests that the same freedoms Hong Kong enjoys ought to be nationally implemented, fraid not.
Come on Blayne, I was impressed when you came around with agreeing that The Great Leap and The Cultural Revolution were devastating. Agreeing that the Mainland Chinese government, while vastly improved over the last few decades, is still too totalitarian, is something you can say without also sacrificing any dignity. People on this forum do bait you from time to time, and we both know that you sometimes let them get your dander up. But back peddle, learn to control your own responses. Let them expose themselves as less than polite, it doesn't mean you have to play by those rules.
Ironically, I am asking you to be more of a China fanboi in that you actually acquire some of the traditional traits of a Chinese gentleman. Namely, remaining stoical when discussing things, recognizing the virtues and achievements of others - openly stating them, showing respect for others even if you cannot come to a consensus.
[ December 15, 2009, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
And as for not playing WoW in the last 7 months could've fooled me with all the farmers I see, but doesn't change that Chinese make up a LARGE portion of the EVE player base with CCP (funnily enough same accrynom as CPC) having an office in Shanghai and actively developing Dust 541 there (FPS tie in to EVE Online).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Alright, authoritarian is a better word than totalitarian.
WOW wasn't really my point, but more of a nitpick. Every other paragraph, is really what was important in my post.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
China also leads the world in the death penalty. Woo-hoo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
Maybe this is where we're going wrong. 'Authoritarian' doesn't start at the USSR or North Korea, Blayne. Just because you're better than North Korea (for pity's sake!) doesn't mean you can't still be authoritarian and repressive!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
Maybe this is where we're going wrong. 'Authoritarian' doesn't start at the USSR or North Korea, Blayne. Just because you're better than North Korea (for pity's sake!) doesn't mean you can't still be authoritarian and repressive!
Hint: the lesson is easier for the student to accept when you include a little more of the funny. Granted, I tried and failed to come up with a suitable funny when I tried to express what you just said, and so I gave up on it. However, that comment was just begging for a hilarious TomD-style one-liner.
Oh well. It's still there. We can try again later. So can others. I mean, it's just begging for it. It's a fastball, right over the plate, the fattest pitch on this thread.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What does having the death penalty have to do with anything, it has no bearing on whether a state is repressive or not.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
Various bureaucratic restrictions etc on these subjects doesn't count as authoritarian repression.
China heavily censors the internet and regulates information through state-owned media, and the people who take opinions critical of the government are handled by being charged with revealing state secrets and sent to prison, often for decades.
And you call this "Various bureaucratic restrictions"?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Doesn't make it totalitarian and is arguably necessary to maintain social stability in a country you could fit three times the population of Europe in.
Not only that people can be critical of the government, the line stops at questioning the authority of the CPC until then anything is fair game to discuss within reason but however to say it represses and censors everything is incorrect, there's alot of wiggle room on anything that isn't politics and alot of wiggle room on foreign and world events commentary.
There's alot of stories of people who make a critical blog who get shutdown or arrested but are quickly released especially when there's public protest, the government listens to the people and takes protests seriously in what is relatively speaking a very pragmatic and progressive manner that allows for progress.
People protest for many reasons and is seen that the majority of their demands are met a clear majority of the time, isn't this to a degree direct democracy that can quickly get government action on their side?
I stand that the current chinese formula of political centralization and consolidation on one hand with a wide range of economic freedoms on the other is the correct formula for such a large nation and is a significant and gradual improvement over previous governments that the country has a large support of because it provides economic growth, national pride, and a fair government, there are many worries in the documentaries I have seen that many Chinese intellectuals are worried that a western style democracy would put to much say in the hands of the currently economically downtrodded who may not be qualified to make national decisions until the level of development has increases and caught up with the more wealthier coastal provinces.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
So, the poor don't vote because they are not smart enough? What?!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: So, the poor don't vote because they are not smart enough? What?!
They have their own and relevent local elections for village and town leaders which have direct democracy where you do not need to be a party leader or member to be a candidate and are multiple candidates per position.
In theory they vote for and elect members to the 4000 member People's Congress which only recently started excersizing its constitutional powers to be something more then a rubber stamp organ of government.
Real power is in the selectorate, the various positions and powerblocs that select the next leader, and in the power control cartel of the propoganda office, the ministry of state security and the People's Liberation Army.
The Chinese government is scared of the idea of their people ever becoming dissatisfied with its rule and thus is putting every effort to fix the income gap, appease the army by increasing spending, showing a strong show on the international scene and putting huge investments into the poorer regions of China whose representatives in the Politburo/Selectorate have less say but a large population.
Your statement is too simplistic, but basically the idea yes everyone has the right to vote but the decision making power doesn't lie in the Legislature.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
So they get to vote, but it doesn't matter because the elite feel they are not "qualified to make national decisions". Sounds better that way, doesn't it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Doesn't make it totalitarian and is arguably necessary to maintain social stability in a country you could fit three times the population of Europe in.
Yeah, I'd sure like to hear that argument.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: So they get to vote, but it doesn't matter because the elite feel they are not "qualified to make national decisions". Sounds better that way, doesn't it?
Unlike in your screwed up country elite actually means something positive in other countries, as in people who are actually better educated and qualified to lead the nation choosen because of their credentials not because they happen to appeal to 50+1 percent of the population at a given time on false promises.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, that idea works if there's a sort of objective governing body that determines who is qualified in a way that prevents issues of corruption and self-serving maintenance of party power from turning the idealistic pipe dream of authoritarian self-review into the morass of China's regional corruption, crackdown on civil liberties to defend the stability of the government, and policy centered on the zealotic defense of the communist party from popular review.
It's an easy way to handwave away the issue by introducing a circular tautology. Why do the elite lead the country? Because they are qualified to lead. Because they are qualified to lead, they lead the country. Maybe it doesn't work out so well in practice, but Blayne isn't hearing a word of it. The Chinese Communist Party says that the Chinese Communist Party is working fine, so Blayne can conclude that it is a better system than democracy.
The same line of reasoning brings about this interesting point where Blayne Pro-Quid-Quo Bradley is stuck arguing in defense of China's system, not only through tautology, but through intended favorable comparison to North Korea. North Korea. Dear lord. When that's your defense of an authoritarian regime (alongside "it's okay to keep them ignorant; there's just too many of them to control otherwise"), well, you've definitely conceded something, even if you're not aware of what.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except of course we have an actual system in practice to draw results from, we have double digit economic increases yearly, a gigantic pool of graduates yearly that dwarfs anything from any other single country a growing number of scientific patents, a skyrocketing international trade and a society that brings millions of people out from poverty on a daily basis all done from a pragmatic and detailed understanding on how the different parts of government, state, society and the economy interreact with each that as Paul Kennedy wrote in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers showing a far more comprehensive long term national policy then that of coming out from either Moscow or Washington, no government can accomplish what they did with a political system split down the middle on partisan lines or maintain a consistent foreign policy.
You can argue all you want about tautologies but the fact is they were chosen by a selectorate of politicians who have a vested interest in insuring that the next generation of leaders not only have the undivided support of the senior politicians but are also QUALIFIED to continue China's progress, its common knowledge that their newest politicians coming out of the woodwork are technocrats people with a solid grasp on economics and their effects on society.
I can conclude that the very much unique Chinese political system is better then any other system thats far tried because so far there's is working with no real signs of it failing anytime soon, their obstacles while substantial are no different then what any other developing nation historical had to go through.
There are facts that show they're doing a good job and reliable opinion polls that show that they do have the 'mandate of heaven' as it were.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Except of course we have an actual system in practice to draw results from,
What a fallacious proof. If I run a totalitarian nation of slavers, and regardless as to our human rights abuses we produce a high total of graduates and we have high economic gains, does this excuse the methods we have used, ostensibly, to secure these gains? Does it justify my crackdown on free media? Does it justify my removal of democracy? Does it justify my slavery? By inextricably tying the practices of the chinese communist party as a whole-package deal that is 'evidenced' by the outcome, you do this. It's shallow.
You have figures, but they don't act as the proof you want it to be. The figure of graduates isn't even a figure per capita (china's is dismally low). From the 'actual system in practice to draw results from,' you make the introductory mistake of in many ways simply trusting the Communist Party to represent itself fairly. Yes, according to the CCP, the CCP is doing awesome, and <insert glowing future prognosis here>. So, according to Blayne, the CCP is doing awesome. Awesome enough to justify authoritarian repression of speech, press, and conclusively showing that democracy is simply not an option. That, in fact, the size of the populous itself justifies exactly what the Chinese government does. When pressed further, you even assert that they're okay because they're not as bad as North Korea.
Honestly, it's hard to come off worse. You have consistently shown yourself unable to credibly interpret the issues when it comes to objects of your obsession, and the CCP is no exception.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, I guess it needs to be said:
quote:There are facts that show they're doing a good job and reliable opinion polls that show that they do have the 'mandate of heaven' as it were.
You give nobody any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt on these "reliable opinion polls"
As far as we know, these polls are of state manufacture.
Cite them, or they have no bearing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...no government can accomplish what they did with a political system split down the middle on partisan lines or maintain a consistent foreign policy.
See, this is the sort of world view that actually makes me angry as opposed to irritated, confused, or amused: 'it's OK if it gets results'. I sometimes forget that that's what is at the heart of Blayne's constant PRC apologia.
The PRC isn't some country in a turn-based strategy game like Europa Univerpermissive' to 'repressive', the only consideration isn't, "Did it pay off?"
And of course, hey, lookit all that not answering my question about Internet usage Blayne did. It's things like that that go past irritating, too: they hint that he knows enough to know that the PRC actually is repressive...but it's OK, because he's not actually being repressed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Even if you accept "it's okay if it gets results" at face value, the connections between the practices in question and the results in question are often spurious. I mean, if someone wants to make a complex, evidenced social study clearly outlining how china's economic growth essentially requires repression and manufactured state-media reality — anything so causal, actually — then, great. Right now, that connection does not exist as asserted!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That too, of course.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Mine, yes. I cannot answer for Blayne (although I would really hope they'd be different)
In what way would they be different? Assuming you had the same amount of free time, that is.
(been busy)
You misunderstand.
Your question was whether my posting habits would be the same if I lived in China. Assuming that I had the same amount of free time, my answer was "yes." As in they wouldn't change. As in they didn't change when I was there and they likely wouldn't change even if I was living there for an extended period of time.
The firewall policies don't generally apply to middle-class Chinese on the mainland, let alone Canadian citizens or Hong Kong citizens living in Hong Kong. Furthermore, knowledge of countermeasures such as proxy servers, Tor, and the like are pretty common-knowledge since consequences to their use are quite rare.
From what I understand and based on the latest censorship directives, you'd probably have a better chance of rendering me unable to post on Hatrack if you posted a lot of porn and child pornography, rather than anything to do with June 4th for example (especially in English).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: There's no need to mock Blayne, nicknames are especially unnecessary. edit: (This is in regards to your last post on the previous page.)
Blayne: The early United States congress had the exact same dilemma with "Extending the vote = stupid people voting." We've had it both ways and it is reasonable to believe that giving everyone the vote is still better than any sort of check on the populace yet devised.
[ December 15, 2009, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... As far as we know, these polls are of state manufacture.
Cite them, or they have no bearing.
quote:According to the polls of the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, the Hong Kong people have increased their trust in the central government, often even more than their own HK SAR government. According to the latest poll in April, only 43% of the Hong Kong people have confidence in the Hong Kong SAR government but 56.9% have confidence in the central government. Among the respondents, 91% approved and have confidence in the future of China. This high degree of approval and trust in China and the central government is very much unexpected at the time when Hong Kong was returned to China. It is vastly different from when the future of Hong Kong was first discussed between Great Britain and China in the 1980's. These changes are directly related to the rapid economic development of China and the state policies towards Hong Kong. Based upon these developments, the people of Hong Kong will continue to increase their identification and approval of China and its government. However, the attitude of the Hong Kong people towards the June 4th incident is completely different from that of the central government.
The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme poll at the end of last month showed that 61.2% of the respondents supported the reversal of the June 4th incident, which was 12% higher than last year as well as the new high since 1997. Also, 68.9% of the respondents believed that the central government had acted wrongfully, and that is a 13 year high and 10.9% more than last year. Only 12.8% thought that the central government did the right thing, which was 2.1% less than the year before. 55.5% thought that the Beijing students acted properly, which was 5.4% higher than last year and also a high since 1994. 18.9% thought that the Beijing students acted improperly, which was 3.9% higher.
In general, Blayne is actually correct about the polling data. While this data is only for Hong Kong (which benefits from a free polling environment) it is consistent with the fact that Chinese citizens usually display a fairly consistent level of satisfaction and optimism about the future in Gallup polls on the subject.
Additionally, this data is generally consistent with my own experiences and conversations. While Chinese have many criticisms about specific government policies, such as June 4th noted above. You will find that it is a minority that want revolution or to change the government outright ("mandate of heaven" as Blayne puts it).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: But 43.1% of Hong Kong people do not trust the government. As for 91% approval, that's a statement of faith in the Chinese race, not just the government. It's like asking Americans if they have faith that their country will progress in the future. Besides a few loud mouths, most people will agree to that.
People in Hong Kong have always been enormously sympathetic to the June 4th incident. They still hold yearly candlelight vigils, and they are properly educated on the event, so of course approval of that incident should increase if those things remain constant.
Hong Kong cannot comprehensively represent Mainland Chinese opinion on the events of June 4th, especially when Mainlanders are misinformed systematically in their schools concerning the whole affair. In general I think they will of course be optimistic as things are genuinely improving in China. As long as Mainlanders feel like their standard of living is noticeably improving they will be fine. If it deteriorates for a long period of time (few years) I'm not so sure, especially if Hong Kong manages to remain unburdened.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, here we go. Pew, not Gallup.
quote:Most strikingly, China heads the list of countries that are, on balance, satisfied with the way things are going at home. More than seven-in-ten Chinese citizens (72%) express satisfaction with their national condition, while fewer than one-in-five (19%) are dissatisfied. These figures represent a sharp improvement from 2002, when only 48% said they were satisfied with their country while 33% were not. On this score, China far outstrips India, where only 41% say they are content with national conditions. And in China, the level of satisfaction is more than three times higher than in Russia, where only 23% are pleased with their country's direction.
For a democratic poll on a Communist government, I'd say a majority of trust is spectacularly good.
quote: Hong Kong cannot comprehensively represent Mainland Chinese opinion on the events of June 4th, especially when Mainlanders are misinformed systematically in their schools concerning the whole affair.
Of course they cannot comprehensively represent mainland Chinese opinion, but it is still better than the nothing that others have brought to the table in countering Blayne on that point.
Additionally, while Mainlanders may be misinformed on an education level, I disagree that the propaganda is all that effective.
My own personal experiences combined with stuff like PBS's Tankman program and reporting on the recent anniversary of June 4th indicate to me that the effectiveness of hiding the truth is quite low.
You can't stop the signal so to speak Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: But trust on the part of the Hong Kong people is essentially, "Keep letting *our* government make all the key decisions." It's because the Mainland government is not completely involved in the things that directly impact people in Hong Kong that they can remain popular while the Hong Kong government takes the brunt of people's frustration.
quote:but it is still better than the nothing that others have brought to the table in countering Blayne on that point.
Perhaps, but only in that when using any range for a scale, 1 is better than 0. The fact we cannot use unbiased polls to gauge Chinese sentiment is an insurmountable obstacle of very strong import.
quote:You can't stop the signal so to speak.
I want you to be right. People in the US have unrestricted access to basic information, and yet fundamental elements in their education are missing. Trust in one's government informs whether somebody believes what they are being told by one's government.
I confess though, I do not have much experience discussing politics with mainlanders. I usually avoided the subject when I visited so as to not get them in trouble. But that was back in the 90's. Taiwanese and Hong Kong people of course don't have the whole "Children spying on parents" dynamic from the 50's and 60's that Mainlanders had so they are quite happy to talk about their views on things.
But allowing the Chinese to easily leave the country to visit relatives, see the world, have the internet, etc to me represents enough possibilities that perhaps you can't completely stop the signal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Fair enough, Mucus. Hopefully if you did, you wouldn't be one of the folks who attracts too much negative attention. Though perhaps you'll say even that isn't much of a bad thing in the PRC.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The fact we cannot use unbiased polls to gauge Chinese sentiment is an insurmountable obstacle of very strong import.
It is certainly an obstacle. I disagree that it is insurmountable depending on the question, such as whether there is widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.
quote:... But allowing the Chinese to easily leave the country to visit relatives, see the world, have the internet, etc to me represents enough possibilities that perhaps you can't completely stop the signal.
Think about it this way. Americans pirate a lot of media despite government policies, they also disagree with the war on drugs, and often have belief in the forbidden fruit effect (that banning things like books, media, drugs often encourages people to seek them out under the table). Americans also generally believe that the government is unable to run a universal healthcare system due to incompetance.
However, the common belief seems to be that the CCP is so much more competant that it *can* effectively run a universal system of censorship despite being a developing nation with less resources. That the forbidden fruit effect doesn't apply to Chinese people. That the Chinese underground economy can pirate loads of illegal software, media, and books outclassing American pirates in all categories *except* for June 4th information.
No, I don't buy it and neither do these people either
quote:While the English version of Zhao's memoirs hit bookstores several weeks ago, the publication of the Chinese edition is potentially a more sensitive event for Beijing given the likelihood of copies being ferreted across the border to readers in mainland China.
"Not only do I want to read it myself, I want to buy it for my brother and friends in mainland China," said Chen Shi, who bought four copies in the bustling Greenfield store on Friday. ... "Eventually mainland readers will find their way to this material," said Bao Pu, the publisher of the Chinese book.
"It's just a matter of time. If people take the book across to China on an individual basis, there's nothing they can do except confiscate the copy."
quote:"Zhao Ziyang promoted plans for political reform, but unfortunately his plans were buried by June 4... Still, those calls for political reform have never stopped, and so there'd be widespread interest in Zhao's memoirs."
Du said that despite censors, Zhao's memoirs are also sure to slip into the mainland and then be copied.
"That's bad for royalties, but this time piracy might be a good thing," he said.
quote:It is certainly an obstacle. I disagree that it is insurmountable depending on the question, such as whether there is widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.
I don't understand this reasoning. Without unbiased opinion polls, how would any reliable information on widespread public dissatisfaction be obtained? The method used to obtain it is biased.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I disagree that the Pew and Gallup polls run in China are biased.
Or rather, I doubt they would be biased in favour of China given their status as American organizations.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What polls do you think would be unbiased, then?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Blayne, you know this is not a judgement I would make lightly: On the subject of China, you are as irrational as Ron on the age of the Earth. Sorry, but you show exactly the same weaknesses: Looking only at confirming evidence; ignoring contrary argument; growing angry when your 'crushing' citations are met with ordinary skepticism. I'm sorry to tell you this, but as you now stand, you would not survive my purge of the irrational; it would be a re-education camp for you. And I'm not your fantasy-land communist party which only kills bad people; my camps have a roughly 50% survival rate after a year, same as everyone else who's tried to do re-education in actual real life.
Theism is not the only way to be blindly irrational; you have allowed yourself to go far down the path of the Dark Side. I suggest you come back; it is not yet too late.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What polls do you think would be unbiased, then?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Let me expand my last answer:
One would realistically expect Chinese state-run polls to be biased in favour of China. One would reasonably expect American pollsters to be biased against China, although to a smaller degree.
With that in mind, the Pew poll (which is American) linked earlier displaying a significantly higher satisfaction with the "way things are going" in China than the US should be a fairly reliable representation of the truth, especially when it depicts the opposite in recent history.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just because one polling organization is more likely to be biased against, and yet shows results for, doesn't mean that those results weren't biased, Mucus. The second part of your statement, that it depicts the opposite in recent history, that's a compelling bit of information, but the first really isn't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Blayne, you know this is not a judgement I would make lightly: On the subject of China, you are as irrational as Ron on the age of the Earth. Sorry, but you show exactly the same weaknesses: Looking only at confirming evidence; ignoring contrary argument; growing angry when your 'crushing' citations are met with ordinary skepticism. I'm sorry to tell you this, but as you now stand, you would not survive my purge of the irrational; it would be a re-education camp for you. And I'm not your fantasy-land communist party which only kills bad people; my camps have a roughly 50% survival rate after a year, same as everyone else who's tried to do re-education in actual real life.
Theism is not the only way to be blindly irrational; you have allowed yourself to go far down the path of the Dark Side. I suggest you come back; it is not yet too late.
Riiiiiiight.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You should pay attention to KoM, Blayne.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well, off to the biodiesel vats with you.
Kmb, you have no leg to stand on in such a discussion; you wouldn't know rationality if it bit your toes off. Blayne and Ron can at least see the dang bend from where they're standing; you're so far around it that the universe itself has changed shape to accomodate it, and no longer has gravity, but merely a consensus that it's probably better, overall, to stick to the Earth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
hehehehe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Blayne, "you can see the bend from where you're standing" is not a compliment. Kmb is nuttier than you are; this does not change the fact that you're at least two walnuts short of a fruit cake.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But the cake is a lie.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes, and turning everything into a joke is a fine defensive mechanism, but nobody except you is actually going to be distracted from the central point, to wit, you're loopier than a string theorist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just because one polling organization is more likely to be biased against, and yet shows results for, doesn't mean that those results weren't biased, Mucus ...
Oh, in theory I wouldn't necessarily disagree which is why my last post is sprinkled with "expect", indicating that my statements are about probability.
However, in practice I think in either Pew or Gallup's cases, their body of work and their origin mean that the burden of proof of bias lie in proving that they are biased rather than not. For a more extreme example, imagine if the journal Science published a poll about their own unexpected polling result showing that scientists suddenly starting believing en-masse in homoeopathy. I would reasonably expect that they would have done their due diligence and double-checked their results due to how it goes against their expectations, at least compared to a poll done by a New Age magazine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I thought this was pretty relevant to what we were just talking about, I'm sure some of you already saw it in the news.
This reminds me of a pirated electronics mall in Hong Kong I use to frequent. Blatant pirated merchandise was on all the tables readily available, dvds, cds, video games, hardware, etc. The cops knew about the place, but they were either paid to ignore it, or didn't want to deal with such a massive place.
Once in awhile there would be a big police raid and the illegal parts of the place would shut down for about a two weeks or so, and then would reappear. The raids were few and far between. Eventually they increased and from what I understand so did jail sentences. The stores simply purchased apartments in neighboring buildings and sent representatives to the major mall to solicit those looking for merchandise.
You'd get a map, and upon reaching that location, another guy would take you to an apartment upstairs where there would be catalogs all over the room. You'd place your order, and pay the guy, then you'd wait and about 10-15 minutes later another guy would come with a bag containing your order, handshakes all around and off you go.
I think China just had another bust, but the ones getting busted will find another way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(We have CD/DVD thing in Canada too. There are at least three Chinatowns in the Toronto area that go through the same cycles of boom and literal bust
And in general, I agree)
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Rasmussen is historically the most accurate and it isn't looking too good for the current situation. Obama has the lowest approval index of any president at this point in his first year.
If you care about Time or CNN....the Chinese worker was close to being person of the year and there was not one picture of a tea party..... There was a goat with an IV and a picture of dust.
The Enquirer has gone main-stream. Michael Jackson's death is more important than Tea Parties (which far outnumbered Cindy Shehan's people...runner up from 2006).
The Colosseum of Rome is repeating itself. Watch the Christians being fed to lions and ignore the collapse of the empire. After all, the Romans in the crowd had a citizen's right to free bread.
[ December 17, 2009, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tell you what: you start feeding teabaggers to lions and I'll pay $15 for a seat in the balcony.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Funny,
A hypothetical Tea Party beats both established parties. "According to the poll, 41% of likely voters now have a favorable opinion of the tea party disciples, compared with 35% for Democrats and 28% for Republicans."
If you encourage the feeding of Tea Party supporters to lions, you might find yourself being fed to a lion in 2010.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The great thing about a poll like that is that it makes it possible to tell, at a glance, what percentage of the American electorate is dumb as a post.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
98% of African Americans give Obama a positive approval rating. At the same time, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US during his first year......who is dumb as a post? Perhaps, being dumb as a post is buying into a used car salesman's pitch. Compared to Bush, Obama is a magnificent speaker....I prefer deeds over words. Our current president is the greatest speaker (given a functioning teleprompter), but reality defies and people are getting tired of being told shit tastes sweet.
[ December 17, 2009, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: 98% of African Americans give Obama a positive approval rating. At the same time, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US during his first year......who is dumb as a post?
Okay, we get it. You think black people are retarded. Thanks for playing.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
No,
Even black conservatives on Fox News admit to have voted for him to break that glass ceiling. I thank Obama for breaking it, now there is no excuse. The conservative blacks will not ignore their beliefs next go around. It isn't a stretch to say that 98% of blacks approve of Obama, 95% are Democrat. Odd considering the fact that Democrats are the party that has historically oppressed them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
malanthrop: Blacks make up about 10-12% percent of the population. If I ran for president and every single Mormon voted for me that would still be an insubstantial number of people.
What does a favorable opinion even mean? If I were polled, while I disagree with what tea party goers are protesting, I still hold a high opinion of those who go out and make their voices heard and organize.
But you've caught me late at night, and I'm feeling a bit grumpy, I will say that I have a low opinion of tea-baggers in that the rest of us have jobs and bills to pay so we can't go out an protest like they do. Nobody would ever make that criticism in all earnestness right?
edited for grammar.
[ December 18, 2009, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If by "historically" you mean "before any of us were born," sure. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: 98% of African Americans give Obama a positive approval rating. At the same time, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US during his first year......who is dumb as a post?
Okay, we get it. You think black people are retarded. Thanks for playing.
I'm racist for pointing out the facts? Obama has the highest approval rating ever among African Americans and the lowest overall....who is incorrect? Stating facts is not an accusation of retardation. They aren't retarded, just prejudice.,,,,"retarded" was your term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I thank Obama for breaking it, now there is no excuse.
By that strange logic, there is 'no excuse' for anybody not to become President. It's profoundly stupid reasoning, because one human being doing it hardly means all the other human beings attempting it will do so under the same circumstances, or even similar circumstances.
But you keep telling yourself that 'there's no excuse' in order to make yourself feel better about your own beliefs, without digging a little deeper (like, half a foot) to examine the realities of the situations.
quote:Odd considering the fact that Democrats are the party that has historically oppressed them.
This is technically accurate, but in reality only somewhat accurate. Again, though, tell yourself what makes you feel better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you're saying they might just be prejudiced, and not actually dumb?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I know conservative blacks who voted for Obama. They didn't vote for him due to his beliefs. Given a choice between McCain and Hillary, they would vote McCain....despite the fact that Hillary is right of Obama. They voted for him because he was black....I respect them for admitting the fact that race trumps principles. The majority of blacks agree with Obama yet even those who disagree with him, voted for him,...he's black. He broke the ceiling, and now I know plenty of blacks who have told me they will not vote for him again.
No need to worry though. The blacks I'm siting are the family oriented fathers....you still have the other 80% victim mindset, absent father, african american vote. The blacks I speak of are no different than I and they now realize that principles matter more than color,.....thanks to the election of a black president. They'll vote for the white guy next time,....Obama no longer represents them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know conservative blacks who voted for Obama. They didn't vote for him due to his beliefs. Given a choice between McCain and Hillary, they would vote McCain....despite the fact that Hillary is right of Obama. They voted for him because he was black....I respect them for admitting the fact that race trumps principles.
Well, let's be clear here: you respect their honest in admitting this, but you most emphatically do not respect their point of view, or if you do, that respect clashes dramatically with nearly everything I've ever seen you post about race relations in the United States.
Here's something to consider, though: considering it important to get a qualified African-American into the White House could be, especially for a black man or woman, a principle in and of itself. Now I realize you're a working-class hero self-made man who gives more to charity than he pays in taxes and works many, many thousands of hours a year, but you might want to consider that getting an African American into the White House might have, quite aside from the 'ordinary' duties, accomplishments, and setbacks of any president, might do something more if it was an African-American.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
No need to worry though. The blacks I'm siting are the family oriented fathers....you still have the other 80% victim mindset, absent father, african american vote. The blacks I speak of are no different than I and they now realize that principles matter more than color,.....thanks to the election of a black president. They'll vote for the white guy next time,....Obama no longer represents them.
It's strange, but from your posts, it sounds like your life is largely built around working 100+hrs/wk, being a super-awesometastic father and provider, and when you're not doing those things, your time is spent around politically and socially conservative minorities, gauging their opinions and marveling at how much you have in common.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I respect the honest. My first post on Hatrack had to do with the fact that my mother, an anti-abortion protester right wing extremist wanted Hillary to win. As she told me "It's about time a woman was president". If Hillary had won, my mother would vote against her reelection due to her policies.
Do you really believe that Colon Powell supported Obama for his policies? I am grateful for Obama for the same reasons Jessie Jackson is terrified......no more excuses. Believe me or not, the black guys I work with will not vote for Obama again. It wasn't about position, ideology, etc,...he was black. I respect them for admitting their bias. Now they care about their lives, not the color of the president. White guilt has been expunged. There will never be another Obama. There will be another minority president elected based on his positions. Content of character, et all....another step towards MLK's dream. A dream where a black can vote for a white and a woman can vote for a man based upon the content of one's character. Obama made it possible. Obama proved that they are not oppressed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: White guilt has been expunged.
Your guilt, perhaps, though I doubt you ever felt any.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, he feels tons. That's why he needs to keep insisting that Obama was elected *because* he was black, in the sense that his blackness was the deciding factor, rather than in the sense that his blackness was what made him the person people wanted to elected as President.
Once again, and as always will be the case, mal has lots of "black friends," (in fact, "black guys I work with") who corroborate his opinions- could we expect anything different?
But don't you forget- Mal knows minorities like none of us do!
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
But there have always been people who vote not on policy, but on race, gender, religion, or party. Who can honestly say they don't know someone who votes for a party because that is what they have done for generations?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually Obama proved a minority could become president despite oppression. NOT that they are not oppressed. Big, big difference.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm racist for pointing out the facts?
Well, you're probably racist, but I don't even care about that as much as I care about the fact that you are convinced you are possessed of a superior understanding of racial and social issues in this country, while your posts demonstrate that you are in fact profoundly ignorant.
You rarely ever have any idea what you're talking about, but hell if you can figure out that everyone short of maybe Clive Candy is pretty repulsed by your rambling aggregations of hazy mistruths.
Keep playing at social commentary, though. You're at least entertaining.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Also, I have little interest in Rasmussen until they start including the actual questions asked in their robocalls along with their interpretations of the results. The wording of poll questions can make a big difference in the responses.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
In a nation that is 50/50 political split, 11% of the population is the deciding factor. Obama didn't get any higher vote from liberal whites but he did motivate the 11% of the US population to get out and vote. The 11% of black Americans came out to vote in unprecedented numbers. In a system where 1% is the deciding factor, this is significant. The same voters aren't going to show up in the fall of 2010 to support Chris Dodd or Harry Reid.
Ridicule me for siting my black friends if you like,....they've experienced the ridicule from their own for acting white. The black lawyer who sings at my right wing extremist church is a "sell out".....used to the defying your stereotype. If you call me a racist, he must hate his own since our opinions are congruent. He's shared with me many stories of ridicule for his intelligence,...who's the racist?
I do have friends of every race and my father is a card carrying Ojibwe. I don't hold these things out to prove I'm not a racist, rather to illustrate that minorities can have a different opinion. You can be black and be conservative. You would probably call them "House Niggers" though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
christ, now you're making even less sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You would probably call them "House Niggers" though.
Well, no. Frankly, I doubt the phrase would even occur to him. Occurred to you, though.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're not being ridiculed for being conservative, malanthrop, There are several respected conservatives here. You're being ridiculed for being a righwing nutjob. I grant you there's been some overlap in the news lately, but there is a difference.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Minority appointees to the Supreme court are wonderful unless appointed by a Republican. Unless you represent the success of affirmative action, you're a sell out.
As a grad student, I tutored many athletes who were ashamed of the Math Lab. They were too cool to study, despite the fact that what they were studying was a prerequisite to college acceptance. Tell me, who takes their freshman year a subject that is a prerequisite for acceptance into the university? As a math major I can tell you....the basketball team were exempted from this minimal requirement.
I heard they are considering cutting federal funding from colleges that have a high percentage of student loan defaults. Anyone want to guess what schools that might impact? Of course this progressive proposition will not impact minority universities disproportionately.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You've lost me. Why do you think what you're saying is remotely relevant to this conversation?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I heard they are considering cutting federal funding from colleges that have a high percentage of student loan defaults.
This has been the law for years. What changed recently is the economy (which slightly worsened the default rate, but not as much as had been feared) and the way the default rate is calculated (looking at 3 years post-grad instead of 2).
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone want to guess what schools that might impact?
Primarily proprietary schools. I'd love to see your reasoning for that being racist . . .
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It will probably impact schools that give grades for effort. The student's effort means nothing in the real world. It will likely impact universities who's admission policy is based upon something other than intelligence and grades. Disproportionately, funding will be cut from universities that have entrance qualifications based upon factors other than test scores and high school grades. Federal dollars will be taken from colleges that produce graduates who find the real world doesn't pay for effort or give extra credit for your disadvantaged status.
This policy is about repayment of loans. If the students don't leave college and make money, the college loses money. This policy is about success post college......real world success.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You clearly have a very poor understanding of what "default" means, and what graduates with low income can do to avoid it.
Leaving aside entirely your laughable grasp of college admissions practices.
quote: If the students don't leave college and make money, the college loses money.
Also wrong. The loans in question are Stafford loans, which means the money comes from either the federal government directly (Direct Loans) or from one of about 100 lenders (FFELP Loans).
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You clearly have a very poor understanding of what "default" means, and what graduates with low income can do to avoid it.
Leaving aside entirely your laughable grasp of college admissions practices.
All I know is my own experience. In WA you need two years of Algebra to be accepted to a state university. I was paid to teach Algebra 1 to plenty of jocks.
Maybe they did take 2 years of Algebra in high school but passed due to effort. Obviously, their knowledge didn't reflect their academic history. Eventually, the real world catches up. When the real world catches up with the idiot with a BA, their loans default.
Again....
Which Universities will be impacted most by a Progressive policy to cut funding based upon student loan repayment percentages? Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates? Is the average graduate of a minority university as successful as standard university? Not sure myself...I tend to believe affirmative action and effort grades will eventually meet up with needed competency.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Keep trying to turn lead into gold. Spend five hours a day practicing your raps or shooting hoops. The same effort might serve you better with an algebra book. If the 99% effort is wasted, you'll never achieve what you want. Anyone could be a college graduate, very few enter the NBA.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
The studies I've seen indicate yes, but it's not really that relevant. Traditionally minority institutions have (in general) lower tuition, and offer more in terms of grants and scholarships. That means their graduates finish with lower loan balances than say the average Stanford or USC graduate does.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone could be a college graduate
Patently false.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
That means their graduates finish with lower loan balances than say the average Stanford or USC graduate does.
That sounds fair.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I hope there is no disparity. I find it strange that the same party that opposes salaries based upon teacher success is proposing cutting funds from colleges with a high percentage of defaulted student loans. Afterall, grades are given while pay checks are earned. In one way, I agree with them on this....don't spend tax payer dollars on universities that fail to produce results. I still believe the cutting of federal funds based upon student loan repayment will disproportionately impact minority universities.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: christ, now you're making even less sense.
QFT
These feihua posts are giving me what must be the conversational equivalent of whiplash.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I find it strange that the same party that opposes salaries based upon teacher success is proposing cutting funds from colleges with a high percentage of defaulted student loans.
Is that supposed to refer to me? Because if so, you are wrong on both counts.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Afterall, grades are given while pay checks are earned.
Yeah, students' work has NOTHING to do with their grades! And everyone's paycheck reflects exactly how much work they have done.
Tell me, is the sky blue in your world?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone could be a college graduate
Patently false.
How could you not? Anyone can get a student loan. Is your objection due to intelligence or finance? Financially, anyone can....as I did. Student loads are not based on credit and the poorer you are the more grants you get. I was extremely poor, I had grants, yet had to repay 30k in loans AFTER graduation. There is no financial obstacle to college for anyone. Loans are deferred until you graduate.
Even intelligence is relative...you could major in an Ethnic Studies field or Underwater Basket Weaving. True, a guy with a degree in African American Culture might have a problem repaying his student loan. Unless he's fortunate enough to become a leading community organizer working for ACORN or SEIU. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
The studies I've seen indicate yes, but it's not really that relevant. Traditionally minority institutions have (in general) lower tuition ...
Just for the rest of us following this (however ill-advisedly). Does this mean that there really are things called minority universities? Would something like UC count due to high numbers of Asians or is this some actual classification?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Loans are deferred until you graduate.
For 6-9 months after, actually. And sometimes longer. (If you haven't figured out yet what I do for a living, you're paying even less attention than I thought.)
I know many, many people who have been unable to cope with finishing college. Sometimes the reasons are financial. Sometimes they are emotional. Sometimes they are academic. Sometimes they have more to do with the student's family or other commitments. Most often, it is a combination of more than one of the above.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Just for the rest of us following this (however ill-advisedly). Does this mean that there really are things called minority universities? Would something like UC count due to high numbers of Asians or is this some actual classification?
What are you TALKING about? They're in the middle of the process every school has to go through every 3-5 years to keep their accreditation. There's every indication they will do fine.
Their medical program has faced some criticism, but that's entirely separate from the school's Middle States accreditation, which affects ALL programs. Not just one or two.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But there have always been people who vote not on policy, but on race, gender, religion, or party. Who can honestly say they don't know someone who votes for a party because that is what they have done for generations?
I don't find the existence of some small amount of corroboration enough to justify the broad stereotyping that is being engaged in here. I think even if what mal was saying was closer to the reality, his totally shallow interpretations of other people's motivations in general blinds him to any other possibility but the one that is most "obvious," and subsequently very convenient for him. He's just lazy, really.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, mal, I'm still curious what this whole wildly inaccurate and uninformed sideline has to do with the actual topic of discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Very little. It was a very nice diversion, though. Like a really bitchin' `splosion.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, you talking about Jocks getting out of hard academic work does not make you a racists.
The fact that you automatically assume that those Jocks are all poor black men looking to find an easy way out does push you in that direction.
I went to a predominately white school. The Jocks there were mostly good old white boys playing football and basketball. Yes, they practiced this sport for hours every day and got out of academic programs that they would need later in life.
Its a shame.
Its not based on race or economics. Its just people dreaming the athletic dream making poor choices, and a community that pays for the school preferring to have a winning sports season to brag about to having a class of truly educated students to support the community later.
You brought up that "anyone can graduate college" then proved this point by mentioning the ease of getting college loans. Being able to afford college, and getting a degree from that college are not equal. Colleges will happily take money from people going there, but then not pass or graduate them unless they turn in the work.
You also have argued earlier that you spent many many hours working your way through college, at a variety of retail and food service jobs. (I think that was you.) Now you mention loans. Either way, what is the difference in academic effort between Joe who spends four hours of effort perfecting his hook shot, and Jane who spends four hours a night serving hamburgers?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interesting. I didn't know that kind of thing persisted.
To the best of your knowledge is there some reason Mal is using the term "minority universities" (as in is it some kind of code word with some connotations) rather than historically black?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would not wish to make any guesses about ANY of the odd word choices Mal makes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Keep trying to turn lead into gold. Spend five hours a day practicing your raps or shooting hoops. The same effort might serve you better with an algebra book. If the 99% effort is wasted, you'll never achieve what you want. Anyone could be a college graduate, very few enter the NBA.
Actually, studies of highly successful people bear out the opposite conclusion. While natural talent plays a significantly role in success in any given field, actual time spent engaging in any activity in which a person is talented is a major determiner of success.
One of the main racial problems in the US is the attitude you have just displayed- that black people have certain racially specific areas of talent. No, in fact the reason many influential black people are athletes or performers is because mainstream society accepts black success in those fields, after a very long and established history of black performers and athletes. There are as many (and logically, even more, given their greater numbers) of talented white athletes and performers, but our society implicitly allows whites to engage in a broader range of activities professionally. These are not evil or intentional or specifically racist trends, although intention and racism do play into the equation to a degree- they are mostly the conclusion of a well established pattern of social attitudes and behaviors. However, the idea that problems of racial economic disparity would be wholly solved by an adjustment in ambition on the part of blacks is naive. The entire society's expectations and understanding of black people needs to shift. This requires a conscious effort.
Although you don't demonstrate a real understanding of what affirmative action is, it is and was nevertheless used as tool for obviating the social biases of white dominated academia in order to promote candidates to positions which, for social and cultural reasons, rather than for reasons of actual ability or hard work, are less accessible to them. The "level playing field" does not demand a *lower level* playing field, but rather a playing field upon which the rules of the game apply to all people equally, rather than favoring the home team. You don't seem to get this. At least, you have yet to ever demonstrate an inkling of appreciation for the existence of this rationale, whether you could ever bring yourself to credit it with the slightest value. Affirmative action, applied correctly, can and does increase the pool of qualified candidates for any position, and encourages a higher level of performance. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is largely in disagreement with the actual data- and is frankly motivated by knee-jerk reactionary racism and scapegoating.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Their talent isn't shooting hoops or slinging drugs on the street corner. Unfortunately, growing up in the hood the drug dealer is your example of success. Unfortunately, rappers are the example of wealthy blacks. Without a hard working father, you follow the success you see where you live....the drug dealer. This isn't my argument. This is the argument of the African American community.
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle. Giving a D student enough extra credit to get a passing grade does not make the student any better despite the piece of paper they get for graduating. Employers expect results despite the color of the employee. I'm a government contractor and am fully aware of preference points. Usually it's a sham...most government contracting companies are female/minority owned - on paper.
Apply for a government job. A female minority has preference over a white male disabled veteran. A white male disabled veteran is equal to a minority female. If you're a female, minority disabled veteran you're guaranteed a job despite your ability. I've applied for several government jobs....I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed". I'm just a white vet who is equal to a white woman in terms of preference points. The qualifications do not matter...the initial filter of potential candidates is based upon factors that have nothing to do with job experience and qualifications. I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified.
[ December 18, 2009, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Their talent isn't shooting hoops or slinging drugs on the street corner. Unfortunately, growing up in the hood the drug dealer is your example of success. Unfortunately, rappers are the example of wealthy blacks. Without a hard working father, you follow the success you see where you live....the drug dealer. This isn't my argument. This is the argument of the African American community.
Literally every single time you try to talk about how things are or what the reality for african americans is, you come off as breathtakingly wrong, insensitive, and crass.
Why is it that if you find yourself in a hole, it just encourages you to dig faster?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed".
That's probably not the email response you got, because it doesn't make sense.
Perhaps you meant "preferenced?"
Though I would almost bet money it was "preferable." ha!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is the best and most useful thread ever.
quote: I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified.
Perhaps you're simply not the most qualified. Just because you're a veteran doesn't make you qualified for any governmental job. It means you're a veteran, which might put your further up in the pile, depending on the job.
In Canada, at least, applications for cushy government jobs is highly competative. Chances are, there were a preponderance of preferred candidates, perhaps recruited internally, which meant that you actually weren't the most qualified candidate.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
When an agency advertises job vacancies through the Office of Personnel Management or locally through direct hire authority the agency must select from the top rated eligible applicants. The official may not pass over a Veterans Preference eligible, however, and appoint a nonpreference eligible lower on the list unless the reasons for passing over the veteran are sufficient.
Veterans preference gives special consideration to eligible veterans looking for federal employment. Veterans who are disabled or who served on active duty in the United States Armed Forces during certain specified time periods or in military campaigns are entitled to preference over nonveterans both in hiring into the federal civil service and in retention during reductions in force. There are two classes of preference for honorably discharged veterans:
Five Point Preference
Five-point preference is given to those honorable separated veterans (this means an honorable or general discharge) who served on active duty (not active duty for training) in the Armed Forces:
During any war (this means a war declared by Congress, the last of which was World War II); or
For more than 180 consecutive days, other than for training, any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955 and before October 15, 1976; or
During the period April 28, 1952, through July 1, 1955; or
During the Gulf War from August 2, 1990, through January 2, 1992; or
For more than 180 consecutive days, any part of which occurred during the period beginning September 11, 2001, and ending on the date prescribed by presidential proclamation or by law as the last day of Operation Iraqi Freedom; or
In a campaign or expedition for which a campaign medal has been authorized, such as El Salvador, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, South-west Asia, Somalia, and Haiti. Campaign medal holders and Gulf War veterans who originally enlisted after September 7, 1980, or entered on active duty on or after October 14, 1982, without having previously completed 24 months of continuous active duty, must have served continuously for 24 months or the full period called or ordered to active duty.
Effective on October 1, 1980, military retirees at or above the rank of major or equivalent, are not entitled to preference unless they qualify as disabled veterans.
Ten Point Preference
Ten-point preference is given to:
those honorably separated veterans who 1) qualify as disabled veterans because they have served on active duty in the Armed Forces at any time and have a present service-connected disability or are receiving compensation, disability retirement benefits, or pension from the military or the Department of Veterans Affairs; or 2) are Purple Heart recipients; the spouse of a veteran unable to work because of a service- connected disability; the unmarried widow of certain deceased veterans; and the mother of a veteran who died in service or who is permanently and totally disabled. When applying for Federal jobs, eligible veterans should claim preference on their application or resume. Applicants claiming 10-point preference must complete form SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference. This form is included in the Quick & Easy Federal Jobs Kit Software program. Veterans who are still in the service may be granted 5 points tentative preference on the basis of information contained in their applications, but they must produce a DD Form 214 prior to appointment to document entitlement to preference.
Note: Reservists who are retired from the Reserves but are not receiving retired pay are not considered "retired military" for purposes of veterans' preference.
The Office of Personnel Management provides abundant information on these programs. To find out whether you qualify for veterans' preference, visit OPM's Veterans Preference Information page. (State employment service offices have veteran representatives available to assist veterans in gaining access to this information.)
What Does This Mean?
If you apply for a federal job, your knowledge, skills and abilities will be rated on a point system. You will receive points for related education, experience, special skills, awards, and written tests if required. The maximum points anyone can accumulate is 100. If an eligible five-point preference candidate accumulates 90 points, five additional points are awarded on preference for a total score of 95. Therefore, the preference veteran, in most cases, must be hired before an agency can hire anyone with less than 95 points in this example. A 10-point preference vet would have a total score of 100.
Hiring preference in civil service examinations is awarded regardless of scores. Qualified veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more are placed at the top of most civil service examination registers, except for scientific and professional jobs at GS-9 or higher.
A federal agency hiring candidates from an examination list must consider the top three available candidates for each vacancy. An agency may not pass over a candidate with preference and select an individual without preference who has the same or lower score, unless OPM approves the agency's reasons.
I don't see any mention of ethnic minority status and the only gender preference is for a mother.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle.
You can stop right there, because you have no idea what you're talking about, at all. Affirmative action seeks to provide the same level of opportunity to those who don't have it. The idea that it can or does pluck people up from the depths of nowhere and elevate them above others who worked harder than they did is pure and utter crap. It is designed to give the same amount of opportunity to a qualified minority candidate as to a majority candidate. Ironically because of people like you, we need such programs.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Here Malanthrop, I rewrote your paragraph for you:
Apply for a government job. A female minority has no preference over a white male disabled veteran. A white male disabled veteran has 10 preference points over a minority female. If you're a female, minority disabled veteran you receive 10 preference points just like a white male disabled veteran. I've applied for several government jobs....I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed". I'm just a white (nondisabled) vet who is equal to a white woman in terms of preference points because neither of us receive any additional points to our total score. The qualifications matter...the initial filter of potential candidates is based upon job experience and qualifications. I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified without preference points given to people who have served during active war, disabled veterans, or dependents of totally disabled or deceased veterans.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle.
You can stop right there, because you have no idea what you're talking about, at all. Affirmative action seeks to provide the same level of opportunity to those who don't have it. The idea that it can or does pluck people up from the depths of nowhere and elevate them above others who worked harder than they did is pure and utter crap. It is designed to give the same amount of opportunity to a qualified minority candidate as to a majority candidate. Ironically because of people like you, we need such programs.
Actually, as I understand it, Malanthrop is closer to the truth on the purpose of affirmative action than you are in this case. I could be wrong, but it seems like what you're describing (Orincoro) is the non-discrimination act which says that a person can't be denied an opportunity based on being a minority.
The point of affirmative action is to close gaps. (Income, education, etc.) If we didn't have affirmative action which occasionally pulls folks who are less qualified than non-minority applicants through, there wouldn't be a chance of closing these gaps. You're not allowed to discriminate based on minority status, but a lack of a decent education or job experience are easy things to pull the trigger on for an application and non-discrimination doesn't cover those. Without affirmative action society would be entrenched in the status quo.
So yes, affirmative action's purpose is to equalize the playing field, but we need to take extra (affirmative) steps (action) in order to achieve the equality.
ETA: I just read the post you quoted from, Orincoro. Yeah, you're much closer to how it's supposed to work. I know you're not a fan of folks rescinding their posts, so I'll leave the previous content stay.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thanks. The knee-jerk reaction to "affirmative action" makes people forget even the meaning of the phrase. The idea is that, yes, we should require our institutions to make a special effort to seek out qualified minority candidates is just too much for some people. Even worse, they forget the part where there *is* extra effort involved in finding well qualified minority candidates, and that they are not just taking whomever comes by who happens to be black, regardless of qualification. No part of affirmative action lowers the bar of qualification, and since it increases the pool of candidates by mandating wider searches, it can *raise* the standards beyond the status quo.
I have been affected myself by affirmative action. In this country, foreigners are not allowed to be hired until affirmative action has been taken to seek a native European to do the same job. Since my work generally requires the unique qualification of being an American (such as teaching American history, culture, and English), this is rarely a problem. However if I ever wanted to work as a tram driver or a street sweeper, those positions would be effectively closed to me.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
As far as I can tell veterans are the only ones who get preference in hiring for federal civil service jobs. However, that does not mean that there are no state, county, or city governments that give preferences based on gender or ethnic background.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: In Canada, at least, applications for cushy government jobs is highly competative. Chances are, there were a preponderance of preferred candidates, perhaps recruited internally, which meant that you actually weren't the most qualified candidate.
The same is actually true for certain agencies in the US -- but for many people, the concepts of "highly selective government job" and "lazy government worker" cannot exist simultaneously.
--j_k
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
But now we've tied economic justice with environmental justice. If you're a rural white guy, don't put too much hope in the future green jobs: (EPA Administrator speech for grants thanks to stimulus dollars)
Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Can you quote the relevant portions?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
You sited the Veteran's preference section from USA Jobs. When you actually apply, the preference questions are not only veteran question related. You can "claim" multiple preference categories. Perhaps the other categories of the questionnaire when applying are for statistical purposes only? No one should get preference, even veterans. They should review the most qualified, not the most preferred.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
No one should get preference, even veterans. They should review the most qualified, not the most preferred.
Doesn't that kind of invalidate the draft? Not that we'd have one again, but there were plenty of people who got drafted and had to fight whose lives are measurably worse as a result, from injuries, PTSD, etc.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I consider the draft equal to the declaration of martial law. I think a draft is inherently unconstitutional, like marital law. In times of great emergency, extreme measures.
I completely agree that anyone who was drafted deserves extreme compensation. Stop-loss compensation has been elevated. A draftee who is disabled deserves extreme compensation...although I can't understand why one would want to work for a government that forced them to serve. The draftee's should've been compensated directly at the time, or after the fact. I doubt their is anyone under the age of 55 who was drafted.
I know the college exemption to the draft is considered discriminatory in many ways but the military (although involuntarily) might have been a better career than the alternative. We should draft the dropouts first...we need the smart to develop weapons.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree. We should worry less about labels than reality. Republican/Democrat is meaningless when JFK would be considered a right wing extremist today. Position over party...stand by your principles. To be completely honest, I'm sick of the middle. At least Nancy Pelosi is consistent. The "independents" and "moderates" are for sale to the highest bidder.
Parties change but all parties have shifted to the left. I still insist that the Republican party has been the party of freedom. The republican party was formed as an opposition to slavery. The civil rights act met an opposition of 80% democrat. Republicans have always fought for freedom and individual responsibility. Dems opposed freedom then offered handouts. Individual freedom cannot exist without individual responsibility. Once you accept the handout you become a willing slave.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I consider the draft equal to the declaration of martial law. I think a draft is inherently unconstitutional, like marital law.
Here we go again with your bizarre inability to actually understand constitutional law. The constitution expressly provides authorization for the Congress to raise and support armies using conscription.
The only restriction the constitution puts on conscription is that any and all federally allocated funds for conscripted armies can last no longer than two years. That's it. If you think a draft is "inherently unconstitutional," it's not a matter of opinion, you're just flat out wrong.
Imagine my surprise when you don't change your opinion.
quote:Republican/Democrat is meaningless when JFK would be considered a right wing extremist today.
It's a good thing he wouldn't be considered a right wing extremist today.
quote: The republican party was formed as an opposition to slavery.
No, not quite. It was more in protest against the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The primary opposition was not towards slavery but to popular sovereignty. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'll accept that you feel that no one should have preference points, whether they be combat veterans, disabled veterans, or dependents of killed veterans. I don't think you've shown evidence that gender or ethnicity plays a part in the federal jobs you've applied to.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When I was active duty and preparing to leave military service, so too was one of the guys working for me on my team. I helped him prepare his resume. I had a degree and he didn't...I was higher ranking with more years of service. I was not only a military worker in the field, I was a military instructor in that field. He had 6 year experience and I had 12. We applied for the same job with the city. I didn't even get a call for an interview, they left the position unfilled for 3 months so that he could take it. In the end, I got a higher paying job than that one and he's asking me for a job. He was fully qualified for the position but not the best candidate. They are hungry for marginally qualified minorities. Evin Alvin (they guy I speak of) one of my best friends, calls and laughs about the hiring practices. Other than my superior education and experience, the only difference between us was race. I didn't even get an interview, they bent over backwards to hire him. He was qualified and also a minority.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Was he also obnoxious?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
No...he's one of the smartest guys I've ever met. He grew up in Colorado and was the extemest of extreme minorities. The only black in the class. He learned the same lessons of life and had the same opportunities as his classmates. Now he's one of the "sell out" blacks...he's a conservative. Between us it's a joke. He called me a couple days ago to ask how my trip to visit my mother with cancer went. I replied, it was strange being in a town without black people. He understood my comment, he was raised in a town without black people, other than him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure, malanthrop, that you are easily ignorant of the multitude of traits you have that would make people want to avoid hiring you if they were at all aware of them.
Hint: it has nothing to do with the color of your skin.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm sure those traits were obvious in my resume. His resume was almost identical to mine...his last 3 years was verbatim to mine (except I was his supervisor). We separated in the prior 9 years and education.
It served him well. In the end experience will pay off. In the end, I do have a better job. I'm a supervisor and he's asking me for a job. If I have an opening, I'll hire him...not because he's black.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Was he also obnoxious?
:snort:
He didn't get it...
:hugs:
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure those traits were obvious in my resume. His resume was almost identical to mine...
Did they interview you, contact any of your references, or have any contact with him, or check any of his references? (ETA, ah yes, they didn't interview you, hmm). Are you aware of all factors that went into the decision? As you say, your resumes were in fact different. Perhaps you were seen as overqualified and a liability, or perhaps he wrote a more convincing resume than you did. Or perhaps he lied, or perhaps he was an excellent interview. Or perhaps the interviewer had a good day and liked him.
How, after all, did they know he was black? Did the resumes include pictures? I can think of plenty of situations in which I would rather hire a less experienced individual over someone in the same field with similar, but more experience and status. First of all, you would have wanted more money, and you would have wanted more mobility- at least, they would have seen you as a greater liability in that sense. And I'm sure there were other factors. You were applying for a job which did not require a degree- it is difficult for an over-educated individual to get many of those jobs. Depends on the job, and the education.
quote: No...he's one of the smartest guys I've ever met.
Bingo. He's smarter than you- that is unless you're contending that the pool of the smartest people you've ever met are not as or equally as smart as you. If so, get out more- I haven't ever met anyone who could honestly believe that.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)