quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Condoleeza Rice. One person, genius, proves women and minorities have opportunity and can succeed.
Condalezza Rice was born into a highly educated family, and was given many opportunities by her parents and community which provided her with an advantage in life. That is a good thing. It doesn't prove anything about anyone besides Condalezza Rice:
Courtesy of Wikipedia:
quote: Condoleezza Rice (whose given name is derived from the Italian musical expression, Con dolcezza, which means "with sweetness")[3] was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the neighborhood of Titusville. She traces her roots to pre-revolutionary African Americans in the American South. She is the only child of Presbyterian minister Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., and wife, Angelena Ray. Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by his father. Angelena was a science, music, and oratory teacher at Ullman.[4]
Rice started learning French, music, figure skating and ballet at age three.[5] At age 15, she began classes with the goal of becoming a concert pianist. Her plans changed when she realized that she did not play well enough to support herself through music alone.[6] While Rice is not a professional pianist, she still practices often and plays with a chamber music group. Rice made use of her pianist training to accompany cellist Yo-Yo Ma for Brahms's Violin Sonata in D Minor at Constitution Hall in April 2002 for the National Medal of Arts Awards.[7]
Both of her parents were professionals in the field of public speaking, and both were educators. That is not a typical experience, and it is not representative of anything. The fact is that of course there are many, many black people who grow uup in favorable circumstances that allow them to succeed. The fact also remains that many, too many, do not. Can you not appreciate the difference between Rice and countless other people, white or black? Your prospects for success in life have to do with more than your moral fiber- more than your personal character, or what you were born with- but where you were born, and into what circumstances.
Just a tidbit on what Rice's father's view of this subject might be:
quote: In 1967, the family moved to Denver, Colorado. She attended St. Mary's Academy, a private all-girls Catholic high school in Cherry Hills Village, Colorado. After studying piano at the Aspen Music Festival and School, Rice enrolled at the University of Denver, where her father both served as an assistant dean and taught a class called "The Black Experience in America." Dean John Rice opposed institutional racism, government oppression, and the Vietnam War.
Clearly, if one black woman born into an educated family, sent to private schools where her parents were closely involved with the educational process, and educated at a major university where her father was an assistant dean, can succeed in life, then ANYONE CAN!
quote: It is my hope that Obama can be the ultimate example for a people and change the victim mindset. I totally disagree with his politics but I liked the pride and sense of hope he brought to black people. What type of hope is it? Hope that he will provide for them or a sense of hope that anyone can succeed. I'm glad to see a different type of black leader. The Sharptons and Jacksons only reinforced the victim mentality every chance they got. True leaders are examples for a people.
I want to point out that you began in this thread claiming not to see race. Now we find that you have many opinions about racial groups- and in fact that many of your opinions are ill-informed and patronizing. Not that I didn't suspect this (as I think we all did) from the beginning. I just want you to take note of how transparent it is.
Beleaguered:
quote: Do you think you're better than me?
Clearly I do.
quote: You can find an example in any group to dispel the conversation. It would be impossible to discuss anything that includes more than one individual if any difference between the individuals could be used to nullify a statement. I could say, "The Jones family is nice" but you might respond, "that's not true their daughter is spoiled"
:snort: Do you realize you're saying that it frustrates you that the fallacy of your statements can be easily demonstrated? Try thinking of ways of making your statements more fitting if you don't want them dismissed as trivial and naive. Because most of them have been trivial and naive so far.
It's not that someone can take an anecdote and disprove a generalization. In your example, "the Jones family is nice," the anecdotal evidence of its falsehood would be: "the daughter bumped into me once," or "their dog is always barking and they never do anything about it." The anecdote fails to disprove the premise- nice people can bump into you or have a loud dog and not hear it. But "the daughter is spoiled," rather does work against the premise. The family can be shown not to be as nice as you think, because they have raised a spoiled daughter- nice people don't raise spoiled (implying mean) kids (one would hope)
So, the anecdotes that *you* have used to disprove generalizations have been useless, but the arguments against your generalizations- reasons why they are weak, have been very effective. You don't know how to argue effectively. That is no one else's fault.
quote: According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups"
Your misuse/abuse of the term racism is astounding. Has my philosophy indicated anything supporting the above definition?
Actually yes, I think so. I'll need to look back and find the instance(s) where I think you did speak under this assumption.
quote: The biggest form of racial tension left is an almost irrational fear of offending a minority individual.
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing you have posted so far. In all seriousness, if you believe this statement to be true, then I find you to be one of the most blinded, willfully obtuse people who have ever posted here.
quote:The republican party was founded for this purpose. Southern democrats were pro-slavery. Southern Dems were against desegregation. Abraham Lincold was assassinated three days after giving a speech calling for voting rights for blacks. How long did it take after that? The racist democrats didn't want to lose control, as soon as blacks were free to vote and desegregated, they found another means of control
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the issue for black Americans has never been "Democrats" versus "Republicans" as much as it has been conservatism versus liberalism. Take a look at the two parties' stances at the height of Jim Crow versus 2008 and you will understand why the Solid South went from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican, and why blacks went the other way.
quote:The most obvious example of bias comes in the case of reading comprehension tests, which have been proven pretty definitively to test first and foremost a person's familiarity with the subject being discussed in the text, and only secondarily their ability to comprehend the text.
I agree. I find most reading comprehension tests not only rely on how well you understand the topic, but also whether you understand the context of the questions. Sometimes these tests asks questions that I, an adult with a degree in English, sometimes have difficulty figuring out what they're asking.
I'm not sure these are racially biased, but they are certainly biased against actually correctly testing reading comprehension in any meaningful way. As far as I am concerned, the only way to test the reading ability of a person is to read with them and find out what they know by discussing with them where you as a real live person have a chance to rephrase the question if they don't get it.
A kid was told it was a writing test and became convinced it was testing his printing. He then went on to write very slowly, desperate to write neatly, try as I might to dissuade him. It's not an accurate assessment.
Standardized testing, especially for things like literature, is silly.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi- I thought that they showed that neat handwriting did improve test scores on writing tests. It isn't supposed to, but that bias does exist.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that may be true, but that ignores the point. He was so careful he only completed one or two questions, despite my insistance that it didn't matter.
Of course, none of these kids (grade 5!) can handwrite in what is called "cursive" in North America, so they're not really equipped at all.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Brazilians definitely recognize differences in skin color. The Brazilian census asks about skin color and allows people to enter whatever term they choose to describe themselves and they come up with a lot of different terms to describe all sorts of slight variations in color. And, if I’m remembering correctly, comparatively few Brazilians would label themselves as ‘black’, instead they’d use ‘dark brown’ or other terms that were similar but didn’t have the same connotations (I will look to see if I can find a source for this, but no guarantees – it’s been a few years and I don’t have access to many journals anymore).
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: In America, one's race is determined by one's ancestry. You belong to the same race as your parents, or the mixture of their two different races. In Brazil, it's determined only by your phenotpye. You're considered black if and only if you look black. It doesn't matter whether your parents were black or not; after all, it's assumed that most Brazilians have African ancestry anyway.
I agree with everything that Porter's said about race in Brazil. Additionally I would add that there's a socio-economic consideration to color. In other words, the richer you are, the whiter you will be considered. Race in Brazil is complex and often very nuanced, but it definitely exists and gets noticed.
In regards to Mexico, the government is color-blind in that it doesn’t track race or ethnicity or ask for it on any official forms. Basically, everyone is assumed to be of mixed European and indigenous ancestry and treated accordingly. Consequently the culture and heritage of people of other backgrounds, like the Afro-Mexicans, are ignored and forgotten.
As to racism in Latin America. It definitely exists. Just watch any of the Spanish language soaps on tv. Inevitably the leads are light skinned and frequently rich. Secondary characters are generally darker skinned, poorer and not infrequently played as caricatures of indigenous or Afro-Latinos.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are twisting my Condoleeza Rice comment completely out of context. Since you so often hold up one example as a rebuttal, I did the same in return. I made that statement to illustrate your inconsistency in this manner. It is rediculus to use one example to dismiss an argument, as you are so fond of doing. I turned it back on you....sorry you can't handle your own tactic. But you can pull one line out of context to illustrate to those who have not been folliwing the thread that I am racist.
How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.
Of course, being born with a silver spoon in your mouth is a leg up and having an 80% illigitimacy rate is a definite leg down. I grew up in a very poor family, four boys sharing one room, eating spagetti three times a week. I don't want to hear those excuses. You did much to prove my point. Condoleeza had a good father. She was one of the 20%. The cycle of racist blame was broken in her family and her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will be unlikely to fail and claim oppression. One good man changed the mindset and revectored his family lineage on a path of success. More people need to break this cycle, embrace personal responsibility and realize it is up to the individual to elevate one's self. The government can only create a legal system of equality of opportunity not of outcome. If you fail today, blame your father and mother. They had much more to do with molding and teaching you than the government and society.
My grandfather left the Indian Reservation but many of my relatives are still there, drinking and fighting. I am greatful that my grandfather revectored my family off that destructive path.
posted
Orinoco, Of all I directed to you, you chose to answer one of my questions:
quote: by beleaguered: you think you're better than me?
quote: Orinoco: Clearly I do.
In this case, I'll be sure to consult with you in my daily affairs. I wouldn't want the substandard results that I produce.
I placed that question rhetorically, since I believed you had more etiquette than to answer. My comment was an attempt to prove a point - that you have placed yourself on a self-created pedistal as king of this conversation.
My second suggestion is to remove yourself from this inexistent pedistal, and discuss these matters like a civilized individual. Your tactics are not very productive to coming to any resolve. It seems to me you are content the conversation has turned into the Monday night smack down on RAW (or whatever that event is).
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the Tampa arrest inquiry page. Fill in any date in the search block. Pretty cool really, arrest locations, charges, residence, employer and pictures too. I noticed the racial classifications are only white and black. Hispanics are white.
posted
Definition of hispanic based on US OMB: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. So, it would be inappropriate for someone to use hispanic as a racial identifier.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.
I'm having trouble parsing your words here. First, that is an inaccurate quotation: "God damn America, it's in the bible, for treating her citizens as less than human..." Having read and listened to the whole speech, I have the context to tell you that it was a hate filled pile of rubbish that played on the fears and resentments of the people listening to it. Are you against having the correct context for a point? Because the main problem with everything you've said, is that your arguments are weak- they are always poorly contextualized, ignoring the broader point; or alternatively they are excessively broad, and they ignore the obvious exceptions.
I'm not going to sit and tell you how to argue, but I will tell you that if the above paragraph is any indication of your mental organization, then I don't think you're capable of understanding anyone else here very well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Definition of hispanic based on US OMB: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. So, it would be inappropriate for someone to use hispanic as a racial identifier.
There are many different, and conflicting, definitions of the word "hispanic". Some, like the one you're quoting, don't apply directly to race, others do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Officially, the U.S. government tracks "Hispanic" as an ethnicity and not a race. You can be a black Hispanic, an Asian Hispanic, etc...
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.
I'm having trouble parsing your words here. First, that is an inaccurate quotation: "God damn America, it's in the bible, for treating her citizens as less than human..." Having read and listened to the whole speech, I have the context to tell you that it was a hate filled pile of rubbish that played on the fears and resentments of the people listening to it. Are you against having the correct context for a point? Because the main problem with everything you've said, is that your arguments are weak- they are always poorly contextualized, ignoring the broader point; or alternatively they are excessively broad, and they ignore the obvious exceptions.
I'm not going to sit and tell you how to argue, but I will tell you that if the above paragraph is any indication of your mental organization, then I don't think you're capable of understanding anyone else here very well.
Now you're quoting the Bible. I can do that too, the Bible sais to treat your slaves well. The Bible does not oppose slavery. I'm glad you heard his quotes in context because I did not and have tried to give hime the benefit of the doubt, unsuccessfully I'll admmit. You focus on the exeptions over the rule. If I did that you would call it stereotyping.
I'm impressed that you didn't fall into my trap and you admitted it was racist hate speech. One of the largest black churches in America putting forth racist hate speech. If the largest "white church" in the counnty had examples of racist hate speech, I guarantee one of it's preemenent members would not be elected president. Instead there would be protest on the church steps and call to shut it down (justifiably so)
posted
Dude, I'm quoting Jeremiah Wright, who says, and I QUOTE: "It's in the bible."
Quoting someone talking *about* the bible is not quoting the bible. Wright does also say: "One Psalm writer puts it this way: 'as thou has been, thou forever will be, thou changes not.'" Again, me quoting someone who quoted the bible, is not quoting the bible for my purposes, but to show the context of someone else's speech. In this case, Wright was quoting Psalms in order to reinforce the belief that the US government is incapable of changing, but that the Christian god's sense of justice does not change. It's a clever way of putting things, but it's also fear mongering and hateful. The people who complain that Wright was quoted out of context don't always realize that the greater context of his speech was even worse than the out of context quote.
Now, as to your other point, I don't really agree. Wright's position is not the position of his church *necessarily.* Obama also made very swift and effective strides to distance himself from the acrimony that Wright expressed, and he did so convincingly and thoughtfully in his Iowa "Speech on Race," which I recommend you read. I don't believe Obama could have said things the way he did, if he didn't believe that what Wright had said was wrong. I also find nothing at all wrong with belonging to a Church that espouses views you don't share. I doubt there is a single member of any church who is not in that position some of the time. Obama has not said or done anything, that I have ever been aware of, to indicate that he agreed with Wright on that point- and frankly I just don't think he does. It's a plus for me that he was so able to demonstrate that fact publicly.
There are hateful old people in every church. We do need to be able to parse the difference between the church members and their organization, if we can ever hope to maintain a separation of church and state- individuals are not responsible for the views of religious leaders, unless they publicly support those views.
Edit: Here's why I think Wright wasn't much of a factor for Obama- I didn't think it was because the media "let him off," or "covered it up." You heard the quotes on radio and television the same as I did, but Obama came back with an answer that I believed. In contrast to Obama's handling of the Wright situation, Sarah Palin never handled any of the questions about her religious affiliations well. When people asked if she was religiously opposed to the idea of evolution, or asked if she believed that dinosaurs shared the Earth with people, she didn't muster much of an effort to set the record straight. In my opinion this was largely because she was meant to appeal to religious extremists in the first place, and so an emphatic denial of any given belief would have weakened that appeal. Obama also could have benefited from a weak denial of Wright's speech (although the backlash would have been much worse if he had), by appealing to fringe minority voters who identified with that anger. Instead, he strongly stated his positions on the subject, and allowed the matter to drop.
I know you have trouble accepting this, but that is exactly why Obama "got away" with the things you wanted to be more discussed. He addressed things thoroughly and unequivocally, left no room for doubt in the voter's minds, and moved on. The doubts then, had to be generated at the fringe of plausibility, where Obama's mere mention of the "controversy" would have been laughably silly. Thus, Obama was not called a race-hating black power monger (even though the Wright connection was undeniable), but instead a "secret Muslim," an accusation that has absolutely no answer- what was Obama going to do, stand up and denounce Islam? Why should he? He isn't Muslim- and the act of denial would have been construed as a tacit confirmation of the idea. The problem with all of those little conspiracy and boogy-man theories about Obama is that even in their conception, they strained plausibility and flouted common human experience and logic. How does a short visit in Kenya make someone a lifelong devotee of a religion they never, ever claim to be a member of, or claim to share any sympathies with. How does simply knowing a former terrorist, a man who is known to be active in the local government where Obama lived, say anything at all about Obama's beliefs? It doesn't, and again, Obama was forced to deny the obviously unfounded- he even rightly pointed out that conservatives had dealt with him as well- the whole community had dealt with the man.
As long as the American conservative movement believes in the Machiavellian ideals that they have followed in recent years, in blatant voter intimidation, character assassination, and the targeting of disadvantaged people for disenfranchisement, they will not have my respect. I'm not going to claim that the democratic party smells like a rose- the politicians inhabit both parties fairly equally. What I will say is that in their commitment to those underrepresented groups, the democrats have had to, for the sake of survival, work on the assumption that the will of the people, and not just the strong and gifted and entitled, should be heard. Republicans used to be that way, but they aren't anymore.
He didn't quote the Bible. Go back and read what he wrote, then comment. How can you comment if you don't pay careful attention to what he actually wrote?
You're trying to put a three-pronged plug into the delicate many-pronged sockets like on electronics. However hard you jam it in, it's not going to fit; it's too big, too crude, too simple, too insensitive.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I misinterpreted your quote as his quote.
I don't deny Obama distanced himself from that church when it became politically expedient. Black Liberation Theology was politically useful for him when he was trying to garner support and win votes as a South Side Chicago State Senator but doesn't play well on the national level. He went to that church for 20 years, Wright is the God father of his children and conducted his wedding. He knew full well the positions of the church. I don't honestly believe Obama agreed with those racist positions but there were a lot of voters at that church and he let them thinkhe shared their view. "White greed runs a world in need"...Obama. If my church ever made crazy comments like, blacks are Nephelim of some crazy racist talk, I wouldn't remain. Maybe I would if it were the largest church in a racist district and I needed the votes though, huh?
It's a stretch to compare a creationist to a racist? There is no comparison between Palin's church and Obama's church. Excuse me, his racist church he dropped after 20 years in the middle of a presidential election. The fact that he did that illustrated perfectly his core beliefs. Ambitious politician who used south-side Chicago as a political stepping stone. How are things going in obama's old district since he moved on to national office. Have they gone above 27% graduation rate yet? Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation? He's a politician who is very effective at using division to gain political power. Racial strife or class warfare. Class warfare plays better on the national level. Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, great speeches about white oppression and inequality of wealth distribution. When the speeches are done, it's a chauffeured drive to a mansion in a rich white neighborhood with a quick stop at the bank to cash the checks of poor black people.
I've got old lotto tickets for sale, anyone interested?
quote:Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation?
Um....To the best of my knowledge, it has never been the "murder capital" of the nation.
quote:Class warfare plays better on the national level. Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, great speeches about white oppression and inequality of wealth distribution.
So do you believe that Obama is just giving lip service to weath redistribution with his proposed budget?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't deny Obama distanced himself from that church when it became politically expedient.
This is about as subtle as: "I'm sorry that you're an idiot."
My comparison of the political expedients used by Obama and Palin highlighted the fact that Obama disassociated himself from an extreme viewpoint, yes, in order to get elected. As you admit, it's unlikely he shared that level of skepticism about the government- and in fact all of his public sentiments have been in diametric opposition to those of Wright.
If you actually listen to the speech, which you admit that you have not, you'll come across this gem of a reference from Wright (which I believe predates, "change," in the Obama campaign): "Let me leave you with one more thing, governments change, God does not change. When governments fail, God does not fail, when governments lie, God does not lie..." That's probably a sentiment Wright had expressed before, and the idea of inevitable change probably influenced Obama when he was associated with Wright. However, the fatalistic and anti-government sentiments at the end of Wright's speech represent a totally different conclusion from what Obama reached. Clearly, to me, having read speeches by both men on the same topic, they took fundamental principles of morality and justice, and came to different conclusions about the way things could turn out, and what should be done about it. Kudos to Obama for making the right decision- I don't think being in Wright's church hurt him in the slightest, and in fact I think it taught him some powerful lessons about the way people think.
Yet you ignored the point of the comparison. When time came to state a position, Obama clearly stated his. He didn't pretend to be a member of that church, he was a member, but when it came to letting the people of the nation know his views, he came down outside of Wright's view. The only thing left is for you to think he was lying (either while a member, or after he was a member) which you are free to do. I just don't think so.
Do republicans not believe that people can change for the better? Does it never occur to anyone that the central theme of Obama's Presidential campaign may have had some resonance with Obama's real feelings about his own life and personality? I mean, seriously, George Bush was an alcoholic business failure, and in many ways a disappointment to his whole family before his political career began- yet many people believed that the experience had given him something worthwhile. He certainly shouldn't have been elected based on his actual CV.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation?
Um....To the best of my knowledge, it has never been the "murder capital" of the nation.
Malanthrop is probably under the mistaken impression that Obama represented the entirety of the city of Chicago as a state senator. In fact, Chicago has, I think, about 20 state senators- so Obama represented roughly one 20th of the city.
Ironically though, the city of Chicago recorded its lowest murder rate in 40 years while Obama was still in office there, with about 15 per 100,000 citizens. That's quite high, but it's also a 40 year low, down from 34 per 100,000 ten years earlier. That is for the entire city, btw.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Chicago hasn't been the murder capital of the nation for as long as I've been alive, I don't think. I mean, I've lived in Detroit and Gary, both of which have, and have also lived in Chicago, and the difference in violent crime between those cities is really quite stark.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose you could count Gary as part of Chicago. Washington DC is much worse, though, as is New Orleans. We usually rank in the middle of the "top ten".
There is a lot more to Trinity UCC than the Reverend Wright. The church has done an enormous amount of good in the city. And from people who know Rev. Wright personally, I got the picture of a brilliant, scholarly, charismatic man who, as he aged, got more entrenched in some very bitter ideas and his own ego. Remember his age. He experienced first hand enough discrimination to embitter many people. And are his conspiracy theories (while wrong headed) so hard to understand? Trinity has a extensive program caring for the victims of AIDS - people who were ignored by the government and most of society. While he was serving in the military (Marines and Navy) the US government was conducting the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on black men.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, they'd certainly be hard to understand from the perspective of someone whose view on race relations is, "There aren't any real problems anymore, and if there are, people should just get over them."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And who are those people? Black people of course. Black people are responsible for modern day racism! Think about it! It makes total sense!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: kmbboots, they'd certainly be hard to understand from the perspective of someone whose view on race relations is, "There aren't any real problems anymore, and if there are, people should just get over them."
Ya got a point, there, Rakeesh.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
And that's the reason why Baltimore's called "The City that Bleeds." Of course Detroit bleeds more than Baltimore does or anyone else, really.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was back in Detroit not too long ago to visit family, and I have to admit that it's horrifying to see what's happened to the city. It's a gutted shell, with the middle class struggling to get by in the suburbs and the wealthy literally barricaded in crumbling mansions. It's Thunderdome.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
KMboots, thanks for bringing up the AIDS issue. Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.
The pastor reportedly said in a sermon just after 9/11, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."..wright.
Thanks for the numerous examples of other Democrat cities that have elevated the minorities.
Here's a challenge for you, find a non-democratically controlled city that compares to Baltimore, Detroit, etc. In every city you've mentioned, there are ten Jeremiah Wrights scraping the dollars from peoples desperation.
Glad to see Obama had a change of heart after 20 years. I doubt you'd be as forgiving of a clans man who had a change of heart. Oh, I forgot about Robert Bird, great Dem leader. 2 time Dem Majority Leader and KKK "Exalted Cyclops". Let me restate, doubt you'd be as forgiving a Republican clan member.
You delude yourselves. You're fun to talk to though.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You delude yourselves. You're fun to talk to though.
Sadly, you're getting a bit less fun. It's like you're trying to channel the Freepers' Greatest Hits, often all in one post. So far you haven't accused the Clintons of having somebody murdered as part of a cocaine deal; I can only assume that you're saving that one for when someone actually mentions the Clintons. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:KMboots, thanks for bringing up the AIDS issue. Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.
I don't think you actually want to play this game of taking one inflammatory person and assigning his values to the entire group.
quote: Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream. -Rush Limbaugh
That's from the man the leader of the GOP apologizes to, that some say is the de facto leader of the GOP. That took me about fifteen seconds.
Of course, that's the kind of misogynistic message I could see you believing, so it may not be very persuasive to you.
quote:Thanks for the numerous examples of other Democrat cities that have elevated the minorities.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I was back in Detroit not too long ago to visit family, and I have to admit that it's horrifying to see what's happened to the city. It's a gutted shell, with the middle class struggling to get by in the suburbs and the wealthy literally barricaded in crumbling mansions. It's Thunderdome.
You might be interested by this. It's a TIME article on Detroit's decline and possible road to renewal. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, the magazine is still sitting on my desk.
And yeah, it is depressing. I don't go into the city much anymore, only for concerts or games or what not. But it seems like in the last year or two, Detroit has become a disease whose effects are spreading into what had been immunized suburbs. I live in a nice suburb and until recently never imagined we'd be in any sort of trouble. The decline of the Metro area has been sharp and shocking.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group. There's a black pastor at my church and plenty of black members. They come to be freed from sin rather than the white man's thumb. It is fair to point out Wright's church is the largest black church in the nation and Obama's spiritual home for half his life.
Now that you bring up the Clintons, maybe you should click on the link with Wright's speech and listen to what he had to say about them. I didn't hear anything but thousands of cheers from the white hating crowd.
You can't deny the hypocracy. If the largest white church in the nation railed on minorities to applaus and cheers, your judgement would be different.
Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.
What's going on with Kwame Kilpatric these days? Good to see democracy in action Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I've seen mentioned a lot here is education. What if you're from a country w/o good education? Does that mean that your vote doesn't count. The whole point of a republic is that the people decide who's in charge. If you weren't educated, are you not a person. I think that the only requirement should be that you are a citizen.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally by malanthrop: Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.
What's going on with Kwame Kilpatric these days? Good to see democracy in action
Taxes aren't the reason we're in the shape we're in. A lot of industries that have recently left were offered tax free status to stay just to keep the jobs here, but they still left to go to places like Mexico. Some of them are starting to be replaced by green energy, like the solar power company that replaced the Maytag plant in Greenville. They came here because of Michigan's small business friendly tax code and special tax breaks for green power companies.
Taxes aren't the reason auto companies build cars in Alabama, it's because of labor costs. Those same companies by the way employ thousands of people in the tri-county area here for various high tech research areas of the auto industry. They want access to the high tech, highly educated work force in a very small area that doesn't exist in places like Alabama. And guess what, most of those people were schooled at U of M, MSU, Wayne State, Eastern Michigan U and Oakland U, all of which are state school partially funded by the taxes you're against. If I have to choose between the manufacturing jobs that Alabama has and the high tech jobs that those grads get, I'm going for the high tech jobs. Why? Because some day when those guys are out of work, it's going to be considerably harder for them to transition to a new industry than it will be for the high tech workers around here. And for that matter, the high tech area around here will draw in green jobs that will translate into green manufacturing jobs that won't be going to Alabama.
Long term, we win. Short term, we're suffering for a lot of reasons, not one. Some of them are our fault, a lot of them aren't.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can't ignore the auto unions impact. I'm an IT pro. Come to Tamba Bay, you'll get a job. Here's some names for your resume (L3, Sypris Electronics, AC4S, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Mitre Corp, Thermal Matrix, Johnson Controls, McDonnel Douglas, SAIC, APPTIS, Dataline, Boose Allen) No income tax, company freindly conservative state. Stay away from silicon valley, does that place even exist anymore? Taxed out of Cali.
Consumers always pay taxes, not companies. Taxes are just another operating cost that is passed on to the consumer. Tax the company and the prices go up for the consumer, they lay off employees or move away. Tax the rich real estate owner, rents go up. Tax the evil oil companies, prices go up at the pump.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Helps a lot when you have a Defense Department sugar daddy I suppose. You just rattled off a bunch of companies that wouldn't exist if not for a $650 billion defense budget. In other words? You're being subsidized by all those tax dollars, but at the federal level rather than the state. You okay with that?
Either way, you're still wrong. Labor is a vastly more significant factor than taxes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defense of this nation is the primary purpose of the federal government. No problem with that. Labor costs have a lot to do with the local government. If there are high taxes, income, sales, realestate, etc, the worker still needs to survive. They pay what they have to in the area. Give me 60k where I live over 100k in NYC or LA.
You fail to mention the taxes associate with labor the employee already pays. Match all funds for SS and Med and LI. Labor is expensive, especially for a GM union worker averaging 75 an hour for tightening a nut trying to compete with Japanes paying half that. I'll take $30 an hour in Alabama, live good and the company save money. We have the 2nd highest capital gains tax in the world. The government collects more money from oil companies in the form of taxes than they earn in profits. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html Talk about windfall. Politicians scream for the little guy who's being gouged by oil companies but ignore the 80+ cents a gallon you pay at the pump. It should be illegal to include the price. The sign should say 1.20 plus tax and you get charged 2 when you pay.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apples and oranges much? You're talking about the taxes of cities like LA and NYC but we're talking about Detroit versus the south. Detroit is not a prohibitively expensive city to live in. It's not an expensive city to live in at all. There are ritzier suburbs, like any city has, that are more expensive, but I'd be surprised if a majority of auto workers lived in Grosse Pointe and Birmingham.
Furthermore, you know what makes up the differences between the US labor costs and the Japanese labor? Legacy costs. It's health care benefits mostly, and when the new agreements go into effect in the next two years, Ford's per hour labor will be on par with Toyota's and Honda's for their American labor.
And all without a single change to state or local tax codes, but through new labor agreements.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Defense of this nation is the primary purpose of the federal government. No problem with that.
So, basically, your argument was 'taxes are the problem! except for the taxes which support my examples!'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
You're such a twerp. I didn't say that he was the leader of the GOP, I said that he was a) a man the leader of the GOP apologizes true - that's a fact - and b) that some say Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, something which is also true.
quote:Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.
I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group.
In addition to being a twerp, you're also a liar.
quote: Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.
This might have a sliver of a chance of being persuasive if I wasn't quite sure that, even during the Reagan and Bush years, you either were or would have been complaining that the wealthy were paying more than their fair share.
So you're already a twerp (for sidestepping a direct question while appearing to respond to it but not doing that at all), and a liar (for saying one then and then claiming not long after that that you didn't say it, it seems likely you've got the memory of a hummingbird (or did you think 'the wealthy' weren't paying more than their fair share under Bush, Bush Sr., or Reagan?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apples and oranges much? You're talking about the taxes of cities like LA and NYC but we're talking about Detroit versus the south. Detroit is not a prohibitively expensive city to live in. It's not an expensive city to live in at all. There are ritzier suburbs, like any city has, that are more expensive, but I'd be surprised if a majority of auto workers lived in Grosse Pointe and Birmingham.
Furthermore, you know what makes up the differences between the US labor costs and the Japanese labor? Legacy costs. It's health care benefits mostly, and when the new agreements go into effect in the next two years, Ford's per hour labor will be on par with Toyota's and Honda's for their American labor.
And all without a single change to state or local tax codes, but through new labor agreements.
What else ya got?
Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
You're such a twerp. I didn't say that he was the leader of the GOP, I said that he was a) a man the leader of the GOP apologizes true - that's a fact - and b) that some say Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, something which is also true.
quote:Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.
I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group.
In addition to being a twerp, you're also a liar.
quote: Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.
This might have a sliver of a chance of being persuasive if I wasn't quite sure that, even during the Reagan and Bush years, you either were or would have been complaining that the wealthy were paying more than their fair share.
So you're already a twerp (for sidestepping a direct question while appearing to respond to it but not doing that at all), and a liar (for saying one then and then claiming not long after that that you didn't say it, it seems likely you've got the memory of a hummingbird (or did you think 'the wealthy' weren't paying more than their fair share under Bush, Bush Sr., or Reagan?
Running out of logical debate and resorting to insults are you?
Please point out what I lied about and what question I sidestepped. I'll gladly make you look stupid with a rational argument if you could get past throwing insults and calling me a liar without mentioning what it is I was suppose to have lied about. If you're calling me a liar for talking about Wright's position and stating it's valid to scrutinize a man's lifelong spiritual leader? Please don't sidestep and throw insults. Which party had a KKK leader as a majority leader ---twice---- (still in office), since you're bringing up Limbaugh who isn't even an elected official. I'll take Limbaugh over an "Exhaulted Cyclops of the KKK anyday"
Democrats say Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, it's the latest tactic to tarnish the GOP.
Wright believes AIDs was created by the government to target people of color......fact, not lie. Do you need audio clips?
Sorry, your president spent 20 years in a racist church. You are the liar and sidestepper. I can always tell when you fools are getting pinned in a corner. If you can only: call me a racist, insult me or call me a liar you only hurt your cause and prove your irrationality. You have no rational argument.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
