The Liberals claim that the world hates America and that anyone who supports America is doomed. Then John Howard goes on to win a decisive victory, Tony Blair is re-elected in historic fashion, Mexico and Canada move conservative and now France! Once again, it is as Bret Stephens wrote in the Wall Street Journal several years ago, that an historian looking for clues leading up to major events like the collapse of the Soviet Union or the end of the Japanese economic "juggernaut" would find (he says "most", I say all) contemporary journalism useless.
Why is the contemporary press so useless? Stephens says it's sloth, incompetence and ignorance. I say it's multiculturalism -- the desire to use their power to "prove" that America isn't special. They simply NEED to create a world where the Soviet Union is just as successful as America, where Japan beats us in capitalism and where the rest of the world hates us. It doesn't matter that it's not true because truth is meaningless to the Modern Liberal as proved by their adoration of Michael Moore, their silence in the face of Sandy Berger, their love of Bill Clinton and their embrace of the lie of "man-made" global warming.
Sarkozy's win is a HUGE victory for good which, of course, is while he'll be denounced as "Hitler" by those on the left who would have championed Hitler in any way against America for the sake of "multiculturalism." After all, you can't "impose" freedom on Europe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
436 comments:
1 – 200 of 436 Newer› Newest»Of course, you do realize that this "conservative" man supports:
-abortion
-evolution
-no death penalty
-the EU
-civil unions (but not gay marriage)
-nationalized healthcare
-a minimum wage
-action against global warming, and just called on America to lead the way in his acceptance speech.
He's conservative for France, but he's more left-wing by American standards than most American mainstream left-wingers.
Except we cannot compare it to American standards because we are not talking about America. The Left in France are basically communist. In other words, it is better than the alternative.
True, me, but "conservative" (in the sense I think of it) does not go hand in hand with the religious right or other "wing" opinions on some of the issues you mention.
I think you can be conservative and believe that abortion should be a personal (and state) matter. You can be "conservative" and not deny the science of evolution. You can be conservative and oppose the death penalty for a whole host of reasons, including limited faith in the court system. You can be conservative and consider the EU to be none of our business. You can be conservative and in favor of civil unions, with appropriate definitions and conditions. You can be conservative and still believe in a healthcare safety net, and believe the minimum wage is largely irrelevant or cuts both ways, so it is debatable at least.
I agree that Sokozny, all in, is more "liberal" in his views of government's role than most US conservatives would be. But that doesn't change the fact that he was the most "right" of the candidates there, and he won, all the time professing an affinity for the best of America.
Why should that bother us? Why should we not embrace that?
No, conservative does not have to go hand in hand with religiosity, although Sarko is allegedly Catholic, in a country where most people are agnostic or atheist. Also, Terry Ott, you conveniently glossed over the fact that Sark is a big supporter of "the lie of "man-made" global warming." (that's Sayet's own words). And his view on the minimum wage, it's not that it's "debatable." He supports a whole lot more than the minimum wage. He supports work contract that after 18 months of work turn into indefinite employment, he supports closing businesses on sunday so people have a day of rest. He has to, otherwise he would have never been elected. He supports unions, he supports taxes. He says he's a capitalist, he says he wants to cut taxes, but if someone like him were elected in the US, they would be on the leftest part of the left-wing.
And he was NOT the most onservative guy in the running. There was Le Pen, Villiers, and Nihous who were even more conservative than Sarko.
And what eactly do you think the EU is? It's an economic union, it's a harmonizer of standards, it's a taker of state sovereignty. It's already exclusively in charge of trademarks, antitrust law enforcement, and lots of other important economic issues. It's the direct opposite of states' rights.
Except we cannot compare it to American standards because we are not talking about America.
I don't see what the point of this kind of comment is.
all i know is a conservative kicked the shit out of a lib. that makes me very happy. the best is how the immature libs handle this defeat. they are crying and making threats. "that's not fair...we cannot lose (even though the majority of the french citizens voted for sarkozy)...conspiracy, recount...."
I don't see anyone saying that...
In particular, Royal said in her concession speech that the people have spoken and elected Sarkozy.
"I don't see what the point of this kind of comment is."
I think the point is very simple. This is the guy we wanted to win in France. Did you expect France to have a Reagan conservative win? Therefore, I really do not understand your point. So Sayet should be unhappy because this man is not conservative enough? I just don't understand why you felt the need to point out this mans conservative credentials.
Of course the Catholic Church is also opposed to the death penalty and endorses evolution.
"France's new leader wants to implement swift change to make his country more business-friendly, tougher on crime and less attractive to would-be immigrants.
Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy is promising a series of reforms in his first 100 days in office, including plans to undermine the 35-hour work week by cutting taxes on overtime, curbing union powers and tightening sentencing for repeat offenders, a Reuters report said.
He is expected to ring in a new political era after taking a decisive victory in presidential elections that he claimed as a five year mandate for change.
Sarkozy's promised reforms are aimed at shaking up France's labor market to revive the country's flagging economy...
Sarkozy added that he wanted to tell his 'American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us.'
But, he added, 'Friends can think differently.'"
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/07/france.election/index.html
The EU does not have to be all that bad either, as it can support free trade among the European countries.
I think the point is very simple. This is the guy we wanted to win in France. Did you expect France to have a Reagan conservative win? Therefore, I really do not understand your point. So Sayet should be unhappy because this man is not conservative enough? I just don't understand why you felt the need to point out this mans conservative credentials.
My point is that Sayet is, as usual, deeply stupid. In the same post, he celebrates Sarko's win, and calls global warming a man-made lie, even though Sarko fully supporting combatting global warming. My point is, also, that while Sarko may be MORE friendly to America than his precessor or opponent, he's still way out there.
As for the EU, I love the EU. I'm its biggest fan. I think if you or any other american conservative actually went to read the EU Constitution that was rejected (a miniature version of which he wants to adopt), you would be horrifed. For example, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would have become binding law if the constitution had been adopted, and probably will become binding law sometime in the future, has wonderful rights like:
Article 15
Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.
3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.
Article 25
The rights of the elderly
The Union recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and
independence and to participate in social and cultural life.
Article 29
Right of access to placement services
Everyone has the right of access to a free [job] placement service.
Article 30
Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
Every worker has the right to protection against unjustified dismissal, in accordance with
Community law and national laws and practices.
Article 31
Fair and just working conditions
1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.
2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.
This is what Sarko supports. Tell me again, how this is a "conservative" victory?
I think this is what anonymous was talking about.
"Riot police in Paris fired tear gas into crowds which gathered after Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential election victory.
The disturbances happened at the Place de la Bastille, a popular hub for demonstrations and strikes.
Thousands of police have been deployed in the capital and its suburbs.
Railway stations are also under high surveillance in case gangs of youths travel to disrupt victory festivities.
The trouble followed news that Sarkozy - a right-wing Conservative - is thought to have beaten socialist Segolene Royal by six points to replace Jacques Chirac."
This is what Sarko supports. Tell me again, how this is a "conservative" victory?
I think already told you how. When you are running against commies, anything is a victory. A victory for France would not necessarily be a victory for America. It is a very simple point.
I think the ideas expressed in the Charter are "commie" ideas.
As for the protests, I hardly think that the 2,000 people who gathered in Bastille represent the whole left.
In the long run, this might be a fatal blow to conservatives in France, because Sarko can hardly deliver on all his promises. First of all, as EU power increases, member states' powers decrease. some of the thign she promised might run up against EU laws. Secondly, France's biggest problem is its social problem with the north african minority. anyone over the age of 25 knows that hard-line "crackdowns" don't work well with problems like that. If he fails, he will hurt the right in france for decades. and i don't think he can succeed with the policies he proposes, in relation to the social problems.
As for the protests, I hardly think that the 2,000 people who gathered in Bastille represent the whole left.
Of course it is not the whole Left, but it is apparent this is what many on the Left do. They riot, protest, destroy property, and throw pies. Just look at the riots in Seattle against the evil "globalization".
Anyone with a brain knows that rewarding bad behavior gets more bad behavior. When you punish bad behavior, you get less of it. Anyone who owns a dog knows this. The Left did a wonderful job curbing the violence. Muslims riot and the Lefts solution is to give them more handouts? I should riot. What is telling is that the Left is not angry at the Muslim rioters, they are angry that Nicolas Sarkozy called them "scum". The Left gets everything backwards. They support societies worst attributes. They support the unproductive over the productive. They support Hamas over Israel. In the liberal world, good becomes evil and evil becomes good. It really is the Twilight Zone.
Of course it is not the whole Left, but it is apparent this is what many on the Left do. They riot, protest, destroy property, and throw pies. Just look at the riots in Seattle against the evil "globalization".
Of course people on the right never protest or riot, right? And what is so wrong with protesting? (i'm not supporting rioting or destroying property) And lefitst protests are always wrong and unjustified, right? Like those pro-democracy protest in Pakistan! So wrong! *eye roll*
Anyone with a brain knows that rewarding bad behavior gets more bad behavior. When you punish bad behavior, you get less of it.
Mhm, look at how well that's working in Iraq.
The Left did a wonderful job curbing the violence. Muslims riot and the Lefts solution is to give them more handouts? I should riot. What is telling is that the Left is not angry at the Muslim rioters, they are angry that Nicolas Sarkozy called them "scum".
I don't know if you're aware, but Sarko was minister of the interior while the riots were happening, so it was his job to quell them. He's still minister of the interior, so, well, look how well his policies have worked. The left is not in power in France. Chirac is from the UMP just like Sarko. Their policies on the social problems have been in place for at least 7 years , and look how well that's worked.
In short, Sarko is an antagoniser, and antagonizing does not solve these problems.
me,
are you a closet socialist?
but if someone like him were elected in the US, they would be on the leftest part of the left-wing. LOL!
It's obvious you have no idea just how far left America's Left wing extends.
"In short, Sarko is an antagoniser, and antagonizing does not solve these problems."
just like a lib to blame everyone but the people causing the problem. where is the accountability on left?
sometimes these leeching ingrates need a good ole fashion ass wuppin.'
sarkozy called them scum because they are acting like scum. is that wrong?
me is right. The Left won't let Sarkozy succeed. They'll do everything in their power to destroy any "progress" made. Just like they did to Bush.
I'm not a socialist. I'm very pro-capitalism, but i'm also very pro rights and other stuffs. You know, stuff not directly related to making money.
I don't think you can emerge from a master's program finance and think that laissez-faire is the way to go, all the way.
I think most of Sarko's ideas for fixing the french economy are very topical, not very serious. They SOUND serious, but having lived in France, and having studied economics, in the US and France, i think that France's economic woes go much deeper than anyone wnats to admit and if people don't like the current situation, the reforms necessary to provoke real change, I think are SO drastic that few french people would support them, even Sarko supporters.
The French love their free education and free healthcare and no employment-at-will. They won't do away with those things, and if they don't institute employment at will, there is no change. They want impossible things: they want all their benefits, and they want low unemployment. Well, as long as corporations have to pay massive taxes on each employee, be fined for firing people, etc. they will not be hiring and firing people at will. And Sarko's proposed reforms don't go NEARLY far enough.
The French have a different way of life, a different conception of the role of government, even the Sarko supporters. They don't want what we have here. Or, they want some of it, but in an impossible way: they only want the good parts, and not the necessary other sides of the same coins, i.e. the bad parts. You can't have excellent job security and ever-increasing quality of service, for exmaple. They're not compatible. But that's what they want.
"And lefitst protests are always wrong and unjustified, right? Like those pro-democracy protest in Pakistan!"
Democracy is a Leftist cause?
sometimes these leeching ingrates need a good ole fashion ass wuppin.'
sarkozy called them scum because they are acting like scum. is that wrong?
This kind of thinking doesn't help anything. Sarko is going to do it, and he will reap what he will have sown.
Where is the accountability on the left? I'll tell you where. France is, right now, in quasi-Jim-Crow days. There is no affirmative action, racial and ethnic discrimination is rampant, is the status quo. Who's responsible for the ghettos of Muslims? Well, you gotta ask yourself, how did these muslim people get to France? A popular and wildly incorrect misconception is taht they are illegal immigrants. Many of them came to France in the 1960's and 1950's when there was a construction boom after WWII and not enough epople to fill all the job opportunities. They came, as cheap labor, from North Africa. The French thought they could use them and send them back, but many of them stayed. Now their children are born in France, they are French citizens, but they have dark skin and strange names, and "native" French are WAY more racist than the average white American. These people have been margialized, ignored and discriminated. And they didn't do it to themselves, mostly.
So where is the accountability? sarko wants to blame all of france's problems on them, without acknowledging the role French people played in creating this underclass, and perpuating it.
And please, don't tell me, "oh, just pick yourself up by your boostraps," blah blah blah. The only people who say that are those who have never even been in a ghetto.
Democracy is a Leftist cause?
In many places in the world, it is. In pakistan, the president is a military dictator who is supported by the rightwing leader of the free world.
And FJ, i just LOVE your contention that it's not Bush who is responsible for his own failures, it's the left. Talk about accountability.
xkvsxe,
I guess out of my whole post, you decide only to address the democracy protests in Pakistan. Nothing about how well punishing the wrongdoers is working in Iraq, nothing about the fact that Sarko has been in charge for a long, long time.
Duly noted.
War is a test of wills. Bush never broke. The Left did.
What do you do other than punish people that do wrong? Do you reward them? The problem in Iraq is not crime; it's war, and war is sometimes necessary, as it was against Hitler and Japan. Are you suggesting we should abolish our prison system? Maybe when someone commits a crime, they should get a check from the government instead of a fine. Next time I illegally park, I want the government to pay me, and if someone happens to to steal your car, we should blame it on you for having such a nice car.
"In pakistan, the president is a military dictator who is supported by the rightwing leader of the free world."
What? So the president of Pakistan is a dictator, and Bush wants help from Pakistan, thus democracy is a left-wing cause? I think your logic is a little off. Who is it that is fighting for democracy in Iraq?
What do you do other than punish people that do wrong? Do you reward them? The problem in Iraq is not crime; it's war, and war is sometimes necessary, as it was against Hitler and Japan. Are you suggesting we should abolish our prison system? Maybe when someone commits a crime, they should get a check from the government instead of a fine. Next time I illegally park, I want the government to pay me, and if someone happens to to steal your car, we should blame it on you for having such a nice car.
Oh blah blah, honestly. But you know as well as I do that crime does not stop if you simply lock up the offenders and crack down on it. You have to look at the causes of crime waves to end them. Simply cracking down never works, not in the short term, nor in the long term. Sarko is not interested in those solutions, it seems. He's already shown us what he's interested in -- sending in SWAT teams. REad about Courneueve. I was in Paris when this happened.
"In pakistan, the president is a military dictator who is supported by the rightwing leader of the free world."
What? So the president of Pakistan is a dictator, and Bush wants help from Pakistan, thus democracy is a left-wing cause?
It is in Pakistan.
I think your logic is a little off. Who is it that is fighting for democracy in Iraq?
"Fighting for democracy is Iraq" is a cruel and sad joke.
It's time to get active people. Here's the deal.
The Senate is considering the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. In it, there is an earmark benefiting Nancy Pelosi (§ 5054 of H.R. 1495). The earmark would redevelop part of San Francisco's waterfront. Within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet of the area Nancy would have redeveloped, she owns properties with rental income around $3 million.
Call 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senator's office. Tell your Senator you want to make sure Nancy's earmark is permanently blocked.
Kill Nancy's earmark.
They are:
1301 Sansome LLC
Pelosi Real Estate Partnership
Rent Income: $1 million (2005)
945 Battery LLC
Pelosi Real Estate Partnership
Rental Income: $1 million (2005)
901 Battery LLC
Pelosi Real Estate Partnership
Rental Income: $15,000 (2005)
45 Beiden Place
Pelosi Real Estate Asset
Rental Incone: $1 million (2005)
Get on the phone. Call 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative's office. Tell your Representative you are opposed to Section 5054 of H.R. 1495 and want it struck at Conference. Tell your Representative to kill Nancy's earmark.
"Sarko is not interested in those solutions..."
What are the solutions? More welfare? More handouts? More government programs? The Lefts idea of a solution is to tell other people that they are not responsible for their own actions. It is "societies" fault, and Big Brother will save you.
"Fighting for democracy is Iraq" is a cruel and sad joke.
Your opinion of the war does not change the purpose of the war, which is to create a stable democracy.
Somebody needs to tell Stalin...
Simply cracking down never works, not in the short term, nor in the long term.
"Sarko is not interested in those solutions..."
What are the solutions? More welfare? More handouts? More government programs? The Lefts idea of a solution is to tell other people that they are not responsible for their own actions. It is "societies" fault, and Big Brother will save you.
Okay, so what are you saying? That all solutions other than cracking down are useless? how about enforcing anti-discrimination laws, hmm? Is that useless too?
"The beatings will continue until morale improves" doesn't work.
"Fighting for democracy is Iraq" is a cruel and sad joke.
Your opinion of the war does not change the purpose of the war, which is to create a stable democracy.
I thought the purpose was to rid Iraq of WMD. But let's not start this again, lest we go down the "war is peace" route again. It's a cruel and sad joke, whatever you may think otherwise.
You wouldn't know the purpose of Iraq if it bit you.
"how about enforcing anti-discrimination laws..."
Right. I think I will rob a bank and then blame in on discrimination.
"I thought the purpose was to rid Iraq of WMD..."
That was one reason for the war. Before the war took place, the adminstration layed out numerous reasons for the war, which included creating a stable democracy. I also do not remember anyone ever saying "war is peace", except for George Orwell. War is self-defense. You say you are not a pacifist, or a socialist, but you sure talk like you are both.
Anarchist is my bet.
She's here to tear down, not try and build anything.
Anybody who is so facil as to believe that a government proclaimation that you have a right to work in whatever field they tell you, is some form of liberty, will believe anything.
"how about enforcing anti-discrimination laws..."
Right. I think I will rob a bank and then blame in on discrimination.
So what are you saying, that the only thing to do is to crack down on the crime?
"I thought the purpose was to rid Iraq of WMD..."
That was one reason for the war. Before the war took place, the adminstration layed out numerous reasons for the war, which included creating a stable democracy. I also do not remember anyone ever saying "war is peace", except for George Orwell. War is self-defense. You say you are not a pacifist, or a socialist, but you sure talk like you are both.
Okay, so you're modifying to "A purpose of the war is to create a stable democracy" from "THE purpose of the war is to create a stable democracy."
I'm not a pacifist, but don't set up false dichotomies. It's not either "i oppose all war" or "i support all war." Some wars are reasonable, others are completely not. Use your head to decide which is which.
"Unprovoked, we're going to bomb you, shock and awe style, occupy your country, and then lead urban warfare in your cities, and this will establish a stable democracy" is the same kind of nonsense as "war is peace," and anyone who believes either, I've got a bridge to sell you...
Anybody who is so facil as to believe that a government proclaimation that you have a right to work in whatever field they tell you, is some form of liberty, will believe anything.
That would be Sarko.
Anarchists are like mad dogs. There is only one solution. They need to be shot.
This is why Sarkozy can't win. This is why Bush could not attain victory. The Left has abandoned democracy and the social contract. They have taken a vow to have it their way, or else no one will eat. They will burn it all down.
Napoleon and Murat simply need to clear the streets of Paris with grapeshot.
The Left has abandoned democracy and the social contract. They have taken a vow to have it their way, or else no one will eat. They will burn it all down.
Oh LOL. This is coming from a supporter of "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?! Isnt' that "my way or the high way"?
Pot, meet kettle.
Like I say, they've abandoned the social contract. They need to be put down for being the dogs they are.
Plato "Republic"
The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.
Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?
That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at any body who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.
When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.
And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.
Yes, he said, I know it too well.
Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.
Glorious indeed, he said.
If you want to begin to reduce our social problems, we have to instill good values in people. Bad values will correlate into bad actions, where as good values will correlate into good actions. We have to make people accountable for their own actions, instead of blaming everything on some outside force, which is basically what you appear to want to do. Liberals want to blame terrorism on Israel or the United States. They want to blame poverty on rich people. They want to blame the problems of blacks on white people. All social ills, and all evils are the product of discrimination in the liberal mind. As long as you keep making excuses for bad behavior or rewarding it, you are going to get more of it.
The problem is that liberals constanly tell others that all their problems are caused by other people. The riots is just one example. A bunch of Muslim immigrants riot and you blame the French. I think "being a liberal means never having to say your sorry" is an accurate statement. It is everyone else that should be sorry; for they made me do it.
xkvsxe,
I don't think it's Israel's or white people's or native French people's fault. It's a combination of factors, but i think you can't realistically look at the situation and say that the above-mentioned parties are completely blameless. Again with the extreme false dichotomies -- the truth is almost always in the middle.
As for your "values" idea, it's very vague and you don't specify (1) what kind of values, except for personal responsibility (and what is lacking in our values of personal responsibility now? you commit a crime, and 99.9% of the time, you can't blame it on someone else), and (2) how are you going instill these values while still respecting that people are entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs. You can't force values onto people, that's abhorrent. So, how would you do it?
Moreover, just giving people values is not enough. Suppose you somehow manage to "instill" the North African minority in France with values of personal responsibility and meritocracy, as Sarko says he wants to do. Without greater social reforms, people will quickly figure out those values are blatant bullshit lies, if they apply for jobs and they are not hired because they're maghrebin, and they have no recourse or support within the government. There is a great disillusionment and cynicism among the riotous youth -- France claims to stands for liberte, egalite, fraternite, but in reality, it is very often anything but those things.
the truth is almost always in the middle.
The truth is almost never "almost always in the middle.". Usually there's just a NIT's worth that the Queen of NITS jumps on.
What could possibly be the middle ground for a bunch of rioting individuals? Are they going to argue that they are only half responsible for their decision to destroy private property? I suppose the rapist is half responsible and the girl who is raped is half responsible. In cases of terrorism, rioting, and rape, partial responsibility is not an excuse. In certain cases, like car accidents, there often is partial responsibility, but I fail to see how one can blame "society" for the actions of criminals.
Good values come from many places, such as parents, churches, and schools. I have no idea what it even means to force values onto people, other than teaching them the difference between right and wrong. "Though shall not riot" is probably a command they could of used.
"if they apply for jobs and they are not hired because they're maghrebin, and they have no recourse or support within the government. There is a great disillusionment and cynicism among the riotous youth "
That would be blaming your problems on racism, which would ammount to lacking personal responsibility. If you are not hired, maybe you need to work harder, study harder, or spend more time searching for jobs. People need to stop acting like victims. Great evils are done by people who think they are victimized. Just look at the Virgina Tech shooting. He said "You made me do this. I had no choice. The blood is on your hands" No victicrats.
No, it's France's fault for not supplying them with their choice of employment. They are entitled and have a right to a goat-herders job.
There are six million qualified goat-herders demanding their right to be goat-herders, and a living wage. Why doesn't France just give it to them?
The "nit" of truth.
Good values come from many places, such as parents, churches, and schools. I have no idea what it even means to force values onto people, other than teaching them the difference between right and wrong. "Though shall not riot" is probably a command they could of used.
Well, now, actually a lot of the maghrebin are religious, speaking of churches. But i see you have no concrete ideas about to put this "values" thing into action. Good work. Vague platitutes seem to often win the day.
That would be blaming your problems on racism, which would ammount to lacking personal responsibility. If you are not hired, maybe you need to work harder, study harder, or spend more time searching for jobs.
Spoken like a true white male.
How dare you imply people work for a living you nasty, nasty white male, you!
I think I will start faxing unbelievable stuff to the local paper with fake letterheads and see what happens.
That would be blaming your problems on racism, which would ammount to lacking personal responsibility. If you are not hired, maybe you need to work harder, study harder, or spend more time searching for jobs.
This implies that you think racism doesn't exist and never plays a part in hiring decisions, that everything is a pure meritocracy. Well, maybe if you've never been discriminated against, you could convince yourself of that illusion. But that's simply not reality for people who belong to groups that are adversely discriminated against.
bigWhiteHat, i'm going to be friendly here and let you know that that is also known as "fraud" and "misrepresentation."
"Spoken like a true white male."
You're right. Only white males can succeed because the evil forces of racism are lurking in the shadows keeping non-whites down. I never worked a day in my life. I am simply the product of white privilege. I should give my tax dollars to one of the most trusted individual in America, Oprah Winfrey. Besides, if these Muslim immigrants do not like France, then can always leave. Last time I checked, it was not the Soviet Union; nobody is keeping them walled in. Always acting like a victim. Spoken like a true liberal.
You're being dishonestly extreme and you know it. It's not ALL one or ALL other. You're putting words in my mouth.
It would be ridiculous to deny that white men have many advantages in our society, and I don't know if you've ever been to France, but they have even more advantages there. It really helps to not look "ethnic" in France.
The applicant is responsible in part, but if racism and discrimination are rampant and never punished, the racist employer is responsible too.
I don't know how anyone could deny this except the most solipsistic white male.
Racism is not rampant. It is simply absurd to believe that it is. It is right up there with "Bush lied people died" in its level of absurdity. If the plight of black America is because of white racism, how do you explain all the poor white Americans? It must be racism! One can easily see the wholes in the racism theory. Most of the poor people in America are white, and that poverty cannot be explained by racism, unless one is going to argue that whites can be racist towards other whites. It also cannot account for the huge success of blacks in America. Denzel Washington, Oprah Winfrey, James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman were just listed among the top 10 celebrities most trusted in American. Maybe they simply are not black enough for whites to give a damn. Liberals have no explanations. They have ridiculous platitudes, like "racist, sexist, anti-gay, George Bush go away". It is pathetic and sad.
The unfair advantage that white males have in the job market is the belief that they should work their asses off. Employers know this, so they unfairly discriminate in employment gainst minorities in favor of white males.
LOL!
All though, these days, I'll take an Hispanic male over a white one anyday!
xkvsxe, you write, in relevant part:
Racism is not rampant. It is simply absurd to believe that it is... If the plight of black America is because of white racism, how do you explain all the poor white Americans? It must be racism! One can easily see the wholes in the racism theory. Most of the poor people in America are white, and that poverty cannot be explained by racism, unless one is going to argue that whites can be racist towards other whites.
Have you heard of these things called percentages?
"n 2004, the poverty rate declined for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003), remained unchanged for Hispanics (21.9 percent) and blacks (24.7 percent) and rose for non-Hispanic whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003)."
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html
How do you explain that, if not through a history of racism and discrimination that is ongoing, in part, today?
And it's not just about poverty.
It also cannot account for the huge success of blacks in America. Denzel Washington, Oprah Winfrey, James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman were just listed among the top 10 celebrities most trusted in American. Maybe they simply are not black enough for whites to give a damn. Liberals have no explanations.
Four counter examples to do not disprove the statistics. Why don't you tell me, what is the explanation for the lower income of blacks and their higher poverty rates?
Testing my ability to respond...
You have not given any evidence of racism. What you have done is given evidence of poverty and then assumed racism. You are simply using as evidence exactly what you are attempting to prove. It is simply not reasonable to argue that racism is the problem when our government has affirmitive action, minority business loans, and anti-discrimination laws, and that blacks are extremely successful. Apparently only selected blacks are targeted by evil racists. Some blacks make different choices than others. I know, those evil two words: personal responsibility. It is just so much easier to blame on the white man.
The large problem with the black community has to do with the break down of the family, gangs and crime, out of wedlock births, teenage pregnancies, and large high school drop out rates. As Bill Cosby put it, "as Black Americans we can't rely on the government to do the changing for us. When are we going to take control of our own communities?" and "It is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us, and it keeps a person frozen in their seat. It keeps you frozen in your hole that you are sitting in to point up and say, 'That's the reason why I am here.' We need to stop this." And you need to stop this. It is pathetic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200407/SPE20040702a.html
You're quoting CNS news? I'll respond with a post from MoveOn. then we'll be even.
The large problem with the black community has to do with the break down of the family, gangs and crime, out of wedlock births, teenage pregnancies, and large high school drop out rates.
And why are these problems in the black community more so than any other community, if we are dividing people into communities by race?
I was quoting Bill Cosby. Honestly, are you going to argue that white people force black teens to have children out of wedlock? Part of the problem is the message you want to give; that white people control the lives of black people.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking you why you think these problems plague the black community more so than any other community.
There are numerous reasons, including feelings of hopelessness, entitlement, poor work ethic and blame, or what Larry Elder calls the victicrat mentality, which is blaming others for everything that happens in your life. Bill Cosby suggest part of it is the inability or unwillingness to speak proper English.
Now I have never argued that racism does not exist. I am arguing that racism cannot deny anyone success in America. If you believe racism makes success impossible, then you will probably never succeed as you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are numerous reasons, including feelings of hopelessness, entitlement, poor work ethic and blame...
And so, why do THESE things plague the black community more so than other communities?
You've heard of percentages, haven't you? What is the current IQ distribution in the AA Community? Does it matter?
I'm not sure I see your point, FJ.
A large part of it has to with people, like the current Democrat Party, that tells blacks that the white man is out to get them. It has to do with the race baiters like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. It has to do with government programs that create a culture of dependency and entitlement. It has to do with part of "black culture" that glorifies drugs and crime, and of course it has to do with individual choice. Some people make different choices in life.
On numerous accounts, Barrack Obama has said that if he loses the nomination or the election, it will not be because of his race. Here is part of an interview with Larry King:
KING: Is 2000 different, Senator, in this regard? Is black -- being black, is that a mark against a candidate? Will people vote against someone just because they're black?
OBAMA: You know, I really don't think so. I think that the country has matured. I think that in this campaign, what we're seeing is that people are getting to know who I am. They want to know my track record. I'm relatively new on the national scene, despite my long track record of service back in the state of Illinois. And so, I think that we will be run through the paces like any other candidate.
Are there individuals who might not vote for me because of race? I'm sure there are, but, frankly, I think it's a small minority of the country. And there are folks that might not vote for me because of my political philosophy. And so, I think this race will be won or lost based on how well I am communicating to the American people that I can lead this country, that I can keep it safe, that we can put in place strategies to make sure that our kids are being educated, the American people have health care that is affordable and accessible, that we are dealing with an energy policy that's forward-looking and creating jobs and opportunity, and that we are bringing this war in Iraq to a close.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/19/lkl.01.html
So, let's see, we've got:
-the current Democrat Party, that tells blacks that the white man is out to get them.
-Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
-government programs that create a culture of dependency and entitlement. -"black culture" that glorifies drugs and crime,
-of course it has to do with individual choice.
I thought it was just individual choice that was responsible. What happened to your mantra of personal responsibility, etc?
Well, we'll let that slide. On your criticism of government programs, what do you propose instead? Just kind of laissez-faire, no safety-net kinda society? Show me a society where the standard of living is high where there is such a regime. Let me show you something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Top_thirty_countries_.28HDI_range_from_0.965_down_to_0.885.29
The top countries on the Human Development Index are all ones with EXTENSIVE safety nets. The worst safety net out of all of them is the US, which according to you is still too government-program oriented.
I think you are overestimating the influence that Sharpton and Jackson have.
Let me ask you something, why do you think "black culture" "glorifies drugs and crime"?
On numerous accounts, Barrack Obama has said that if he loses the nomination or the election, it will not be because of his race.
Omg, you take him at face value? You're kidding, right? How do you think a black guy is going to get elected to be president if he tells white people that they are racists? LOL.
"I thought it was just individual choice that was responsible"
Choices are not made in vacuums, but rather in context to something. When someone tells you over and over again that white people want to destroy you, it will create the context in which negative choices will be made.
"Let me ask you something, why do you think 'black culture' glorifies drugs and crime'?"
White people of course.
"Omg, you take him at face value? You're kidding, right? How do you think a black guy is going to get elected to be president if he tells white people that they are racists? LOL."
So you are calling him a liar? Wait a second, white people are racist, so how the hell can he be elected president anyway? This is so sad.
"I thought it was just individual choice that was responsible"
Choices are not made in vacuums, but rather in context to something. When someone tells you over and over again that white people want to destroy you, it will create the context in which negative choices will be made.
Oh no no no. You're starting to sound like a soft-hearted liberal. Context? What happened to, racism never stopped anyone from suceeding, or whatver it was you said? If we're going to talk about context, how about, when someone tells you over and over again, that you and your people are the problem, that you're all baby-having drug-using criminal leeches on the system, that it's okay to profile you, that it's okay to put you in jail, it will create a negative context in which choices will be made.
"Let me ask you something, why do you think 'black culture' glorifies drugs and crime'?"
White people of course.
Care to actually answer the question?
"Omg, you take him at face value? You're kidding, right? How do you think a black guy is going to get elected to be president if he tells white people that they are racists? LOL."
So you are calling him a liar?
Politicians lie. The pope is catholic. welcome to the real world.
Wait a second, white people are racist, so how the hell can he be elected president anyway? This is so sad.
I don't think all white people are racist, some are, for sure. And they're not the only racists out there: some asian people are racist, some black people are racist, some hispanic people are racist, and so on.
But white people have disproportionate power, that's a fact. They own most of the real estate, hold most of the powerful jobs, etc. They make a lot of the decisions. So they and their prejudcies have more of an impact on society than others, ceteris paribus.
Just look at Farmer John over here. Every few days he tries to make the argument that black people are actually inherently stupider, and that is why they are where they are today, as a group. He talks about IQ, he's citing to The Bell Curve, he even made a lovely little joke about how if black people were let into law schools en masse, you'd have to create a special law degree called Oral-Law JD with an asterisk, because you see, according to FJ, they wouldn't be able to learn any other kind of law. And he's aware of the existence of Clarence Thomas, Theodore Wells, and Thurgood Marshall.
And this is a man who claims he was an officer in the Navy. I.e. had considerable power over other people.
Now, one example does not prove or disprove anything. Just saying that if you thought such attitudes were more or less extinct, you'd be wrong.
xkvsxe: "There are numerous reasons, including feelings of hopelessness, entitlement, poor work ethic and blame..."
me: "And so, why do THESE things plague the black community more so than other communities? "
FJ: "You've heard of percentages, haven't you? What is the current IQ distribution in the AA Community? Does it matter?"
me: "I'm not sure I see your point, FJ"
You start with a handicap and prevent the culture from providing the means for remedying it, and you'd feel pretty helpless and looking to levy blame as well.
...and again you turn my arguments into stupid strawmen. Believe it or not, the racial "performance gap" is documented AND very, very real. Liberals prevent anyone from adressing the problem. Then they blame the poor performance on "discrimination".
Well, it's pretty clear where the source of discrimination lies. With those who "prevent" any improvements from being made or any constructive actions to be taken.
Liberals simply lower the water level for all boats until they're all level with the wreck at the bottom.
According to you, IQ is a measure of nature-given intelligence (as opposed to nurture-given), so if this is what you're referring to as "the handicap," that, as you believe, black people have lower nature-given intelligence, i'm not sure how you can "remedy" this nature-given problem.
*Needless to say, I don't agree with FJ's ideas on this point.
...and again you turn my arguments into stupid strawmen. Believe it or not, the racial "performance gap" is documented AND very, very real. Liberals prevent anyone from adressing the problem. Then they blame the poor performance on "discrimination".
Well, it's pretty clear where the source of discrimination lies. With those who "prevent" any improvements from being made or any constructive actions to be taken.
How exactly do you propose to address this problem? What are your ideas? What would you do if you were in charge? What are your ideas for constructive actions?
"that it's okay to profile you, that it's okay to put you in jail"
Are you actually implying that is wrong to put people in jail? People go to jail when the commit crimes, and it just so happens that black people commit crime. You seem to be saying that the cops just randomly arrest black people and then a racist jury convincts them and throws them in jail.
"Politicians lie. The pope is catholic. welcome to the real world."
Right. So Obama really believes racism is a huge problem in America, but he just says otherwise.
"But white people have disproportionate power, that's a fact. They own most of the real estate, hold most of the powerful jobs, etc. They make a lot of the decisions"
And in Japan, Japanese people own most of the real estate and make a lot of the decisions. Haven't you heard of percentages?
"that it's okay to profile you, that it's okay to put you in jail"
Are you actually implying that is wrong to put people in jail? People go to jail when the commit crimes, and it just so happens that black people commit crime. You seem to be saying that the cops just randomly arrest black people and then a racist jury convincts them and throws them in jail.
No, it's not what i'm implying. If you look at statistics, tho, being black puts you at a disadvantage in the justice system.
"Politicians lie. The pope is catholic. welcome to the real world."
Right. So Obama really believes racism is a huge problem in America, but he just says otherwise.
Any thinking person who lives in any racially diverse place and pays attention to the world around them realizes this.
"But white people have disproportionate power, that's a fact. They own most of the real estate, hold most of the powerful jobs, etc. They make a lot of the decisions"
And in Japan, Japanese people own most of the real estate and make a lot of the decisions. Haven't you heard of percentages?
Do you know what the word "disproportionate" means?
"No, it's not what i'm implying. If you look at statistics, tho, being black puts you at a disadvantage in the justice system."
Not at all. Blacks commit a large percentage of the crime. Do you know what disproportionate means?
"Do you know what the word 'disproportionate' means?"
What does this even mean? Is there some mathematical law that suggest that X amount of blacks should own Y amount of real estate? Please show me the formula because I would really like to know how much real estate I am entitled to.
Maybe you should began to view everyone as individuals, instead of racial groups, then this would not even make sense as some individuals own real estate and some do not. Why do you want to make everything into a black vs. white thing?
"No, it's not what i'm implying. If you look at statistics, tho, being black puts you at a disadvantage in the justice system."
Not at all. Blacks commit a large percentage of the crime. Do you know what disproportionate means?
Yes, and yet they are still disproportionately treated worse in the justice system than their white counterparts.
"Do you know what the word 'disproportionate' means?"
What does this even mean? Is there some mathematical law that suggest that X amount of blacks should own Y amount of real estate? Please show me the formula because I would really like to know how much real estate I am entitled to.
Oh don't play dumb. Let's divide up white people by the color of their eyes. Now let's see if they disproportionately own real estate according to eye color. In other words, let's say that 10% of white people have blue eyes. Wouldn't it be quite strange if you found out that they owned 50% of the real estate owned by white people? That is what is called "disproportionate." Another example: if all people are equal and there's no racism or disadvantages or anything, then if 13% of Americans are black, 13% of poor Americans should be black. But that's not the case.
Maybe you should began to view everyone as individuals, instead of racial groups, then this would not even make sense as some individuals own real estate and some do not.
I would love it if all people were treated as individuals, regardless of race. But that is simply not how it happens. And merely mentioning this, and numbers to that fact, does not mean that I endorse racism, or that i'm a racist.
And no it's not simply a "nature" problem. It's nature AND nurture problem. Liberal policies prevent any "nurture" driven cure. That would require black families to adopt an almost "Ashkenazi" level of culture and religious guilt. The Moynihan Report on "The Black Family" pointed to the "cultural problem". Of course since then, it's gotten twice as bad.
And the nature problem can only be solved eugenically in a way that "rewards" high IQ blacks for having a high level of fertility and discourages fertility in the less intelligent. That and a high rate of high IQ white inter-racial marriage, hopefully breeding high IQ with low IQ physical strength. Of course, the breeding remedy would be frowned upon, but effective in eliminating racial differences. (Plato, "Republic")
You wouldn't consider marrying a black football star for the progressive cause, would you?
...and IQ is a measure of the current level of nature+nurture intelligence INHERENT AT THE MOMENT.
me believes that the discrimination theory explains everything. What she fails to understand is the numerical precision with which the "intelligence theory" predicts social outcomes, and how the discrimination theory utterly FAILS to predict social outcomes.
And this from someone who prides herself in being "numerate".
So, uh, FJ, I gather this is your solution to the problem?
Why don't you ask some of your black friends what they think of this idea.
Or better yet, will your daughter and son volunteer for this noble experiment?
Somehow I think our friend FJ here would not be so hot on his his chaste white daughter having a black man's baby.
Appalling. Simply appalling, your idea. It basically boils down to, the only way for black people to improve their lot is to interbreed with other races i.e. to stop being black.
Other great moments in history from this logic: if Jews hate being persecuted so much, why don't they just marry non-Jews and stop being Jews.
I'm at a loss for words.
"if 13% of Americans are black, 13% of poor Americans should be black. But that's not the case."
Maybe we should break it up based on how many teeth people have. How about studies to see if people over six feet are discriminated against in the banking industry?This is a ridiculous assumption. Is the NBA racist towards white people? Is the NFL racist towards white people? Maybe we need racial quotas in sports. Do not be so ridiculous that you think you can predict every social outcome. Things do not happen that way for many reasons. This is basically what you are saying:
1) Bill Gates is a billionaire;
2) I am not;
3) Therefore I am being discriminated against.
Discrimination is not the end all be all answer to all social questions. Throw away your race card. It is getting old.
"But that is simply not how it happens. And merely mentioning this, and numbers to that fact, does not mean that I endorse racism, or that i'm a racist."
It does not happen like that because of people that throw around the race card and blame every problem in the White Man. As long as you keep up the Jessie Jackson attitude, we will never have a color blind society. Or is a color blind society simply code word for white racism as some people have suggested?
The NBA discriminates on height. I'm not sure why creditors should be discriminating on eye color.
You're mischaracterizing my arguments. Continue if it pleases you.
Care you comment on Mr. Farmer John's idea? No, didn't think so.
Thanks for proving my point.
Who my daughter decides to marry is her business. And if you're appalled at the idea of complete integration, then please present your "solution".
Course, you'll forgive me if I laugh uproariously at you should it fail to address the issues of nature and nurture.
...and thank you in advance for proving MY point, hammer girl.
All intelligence is, is neurotic behavior. And yes, that's neurotic from neuron. It's more of an "illness" than something healthful.
Most of my black friends enjoy fornicating with white women. It's afterwards, when they begin to open their mouths and tell them what they think, that turns them off and would prevent them from ever marrying one.
No, FJ, I'm not going to be presenting any suggestions. You speak of black people disparagingly, your idea is presented in the language of eugenics, of animals, not of individual human beings with rights, not of "all men are created equal." You speak of black people like you would speak about breeding horses. Plus, your solution is for black people to stop being black.
It's appalling. Like I said, please ask your black friends what they think of your idea.
PS your evasive answer to the question about your daughter: so telling. Why aren't you encouraging her to marry a black man?
Toby Keith
We talk about your dreams and we talk about your schemes
Your high school team and your moisturizer cream
we talk about your Nana up in Muncie, Indiana
We talk about your Grandpa down in Alabama
We talk about your guys of every shape and size
the ones that you despize and the ones you idolize
we talk about your heart bout your brains and your smarts
and Your medical charts and when you start...
You know talkin about you makes me grin
but every now and then
I wanna talk about me
I wanna talk about I
I wanna talk about number one oh my me my
what I think what I like what I know what I want what I SEE!
I like talkin about you you you you usually
but occasionally
I wanna talk about me!!
I wanna talk about meeee (me me me meeee)
I wanna talk about meeee (oh me me me meeee)
You you you you you you you you
YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU!
I wanna talk about- ME!
LOL! Sorry, I was just trying to be objective for a change. I thought perhaps that was what reasoning actually requires. Not the "can't talk about that" PC BS you spread.
Calling it PC BS doesn't make it so. Didn't you learn the first rule of expository writing, "show, don't tell"?
You know in legal writing they teach us to never use words like "clearly" and "obviously" because they just take away from your credibility. Using them shows that you are bereft of other arguments to support your point(s). It's best to unassumingly lay out the facts, the law, and the application/reasoning. That is the most convincing.
...and please note the appalling level of racism in her tone. She herself would never consider marrying a black man.
Hypocrite.
"You're mischaracterizing my arguments"
I really do not see how I am, but if you want to formalize exactly what you are saying, feel free to.
Bill Gates is white and average Joe is white, yet average Joe has not made billions. I mean, what else could it possibly be? Discrimination is the only variable apparently. It cannot possibly be for any other reason. You want to believe that all inequalities are the product of discrimination.
"Care you comment on Mr. Farmer John's idea? No, didn't think so."
Interracial mixing is obviously the equivalent to racial genocide.
How can it be genocide if an entirely new race/life results from it, and no one is killed?
Abortion is racial genocide. Look at the stats for minority babies.
Bill Gates is white and average Joe is white, yet average Joe has not made billions. I mean, what else could it possibly be? Discrimination is the only variable apparently. It cannot possibly be for any other reason. You want to believe that all inequalities are the product of discrimination.
Oh. My. God. Do you understand the words "normal distrbution"? Maybe that's the root of our problems here: you don't know very basic statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
So, i guess you support FJ's eugenic solution. I'm not against intermarriage, i'm all for it. But i'm for people choosing who they want to marry, and no government programs to reward high-IQ blacks for having babies of low physical strength. I think the low physical strength part of the idea is really the most disturbing. There is SO much implied in that.
That's the liberal solution. Flush the poor, unwanted black babies.
She herself would never consider marrying a black man.
Hypocrite.
Of course i would. I've dated all kinds of men.
The question was, why aren't you encouraging your daughter to do her part and have black men's children?
*shakes head* i can't believe i'm even talking to you, you're such a nutjob. the scariest kind of nutjob: seemingly calm and reasoned. Calmly reasoning his way to eugenics.
Indeed. Physical strength is capability. Women are neurotics.
And my daughter has dated black men. Who she chooses to marry is her business. I'm not Islamic, after all.
...and you've already calmly reasoned your way into homosexual incest, so lease, save the moral lessons for the sheep.
Indeed. Physical strength is capability. Women are neurotics.
LOL.
And my daughter has dated black men. Who she chooses to marry is her business. I'm not Islamic, after all.
You were the one who was telling me that your kids don't have premarital sex, that you wouldn't "let them."
Justice or wisdom. Choose your poison.
I'm pretty sure that advocating eugenics for black people is a whole lot owrse than homosexual incest.
And if think otherwise... well, it's your prerogative.
I never thought i'd meet someone who advocates for eugenics... really, I'm mostly very shocked.
Indeed. I don't approve of pre-marital sex. And having babies out of wedlock is lunacy.
Do you fellate on the first date, me or jump right in and start having babies? LOL!
Justice or wisdom. Choose your poison.
Are you saying your eugenics proposal is wise?
I thought I was recommending eugenics for white people to cure their neuroticism.
Do you fellate on the first date, me or jump right in and start having babies? LOL!
There you are again, fantacising about me in a sexual way. I told you, it ain't gonn happen.
The lack of fellatio in your life is most likely the root of all your problems.
I thought I was recommending eugenics for white people to cure their neuroticism.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize it. So you're advocating eugenics for white people AND black people. Is that just as bad, or twice as bad? I'm not sure.
I'm saying the eugenic proposal is an example of "wisdom". To treat a problem "objectively" and offer a solution that would really remedy a perceived deficiency.
To use people as a "means to an end", not an end unto themselves.
The opposite of "justice".
Kind of like when the Court substitutes it's "wisdom" for the "wisdom" of the legislature.
Socrates will not collect the voes in a democracy. to do so would be "an injustice".
erratum - VOTES not voes
...as for the sex, it was you that wanted me to encourage my daughter to make "black babies" out of wedlock.
I guess you don't like it when I imply that you should do the same.
I'm saying the eugenic proposal is an example of "wisdom".
Congratulations, you are certifiably out of the even the most expansive definition of the mainstream.
PS In another thread, you pasted quotes from Plato showing that no mortal can actually be wise. Your statement above claims such knowledge.
Has my writing been "expository" enough for you?
Can my proposal be implemented?
Hence, only a god could do it. Or a man who was the son of a god, like Achilles, or Theseus, or some other "father of a new culture/ civilization". An ancient "hero".
The incommensurability of values. Are you beginning to understand why no one will listen to Tiresias or Cassandra?
'Oh. My. God. Do you understand the words "normal distrbution"? Maybe that's the root of our problems here: you don't know very basic statistics:"
The problem is your view is not very well thought through. If you actually believe racism is "rampant" as you have suggested, then I feel you are a lost cause. There is no evidence to support your opinion and you have offered none. You have not even attempted to offer evidence. Show me some evidence of racism. What would you make you think that because 13% of the population is black that 13% of doctors should be black? It is not even reasonable to suggest such a thing. People are individuals with different views, different backgrounds, and different choices. Some people simply choose not to be doctors. You have this crazy idea that you can predict every social outcome. Stop trying to control everything. All things are not equal and discrimination is not sole or even major reason. All I have got from you is the Obama is a liar. It is truly pathetic and sick.
What is your solution? Do you want some soviet style government to force equality into everything? I thought you were not a socialist.
You did not answer the NBA question. Over 70% of the NBA is black, are you suggesting that the NBA is racist? Are they keeping out white males? Should we have racial quotas?
In a recent poll, 94% of Americans said they would vote for a black president and 5% said they would not. Compare that to the 72% that said they would vote for a Mormon and 24% that said they would not. I guess it must suck to be a Mormon in America. If you want to make a point you really need to show some evidence. What you have done is make illogical conclusions from certain facts. More blacks are in jail: racism. More blacks are poor: racism. All you have done is illustrated that more blacks commit crime and that more blacks are poor. None of this is evidence of racism.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/
I don't see many "philosopher kings".
What would you make you think that because 13% of the population is black that 13% of doctors should be black? It is not even reasonable to suggest such a thing. People are individuals with different views, different backgrounds, and different choices. Some people simply choose not to be doctors. You have this crazy idea that you can predict every social outcome. Stop trying to control everything. All things are not equal and discrimination is not sole or even major reason.
Of course it's not possible to have 13% of doctors be black right now, if black high school graduation rate is 51%, and white is 72%, if white families generally earn more than black families, and so are more able to support colelge education expenses, and medical school education expenses, if the quality of the high schools being graduated from by blacks is lower than whites. So you have to remedy those problems. It's an ongoing project to undo what has been done.
And your whole argument about individual choices, I ask you again, if eye color has nothing to do with the qualifications necessary for being a doctor, if it makes no difference, wouldn't you be surprised if a disproportionate number of blue-eyed people were doctors? What would be the possible answers: (1) eye color actually does have something to do with it, or (2) there is some kind of discrimination going on. The possibility of a huge statistical fluke is VERY remote, if your sample size is the whole country, for example.
All I have got from you is the Obama is a liar. It is truly pathetic and sick.
Politicians lie. You think it's sick. I thought i were more inteilligent than that. guess not.
You did not answer the NBA question. Over 70% of the NBA is black, are you suggesting that the NBA is racist? Are they keeping out white males? Should we have racial quotas?
They discriminate on height. Height has everything to do with it.
"They discriminate on height. Height has everything to do with it."
What evidence do you have to support that the average black man is that much taller than the average white man? You also seem to believe that height is the only variable in basketball. It is a bit more complicated than that.
I will ask you again. Show me some evidence of racism. I suspect you are having a hard time doing this, becuase you have no evidence. You assume racism and call it a day.
Just answer one simple question. If racism is such a huge problem for blacks, how does even one black person become a multi-millionaire? What did he or she do differently than the rest? He or she is just as black as the rest of them I suppose.
How about this for "evidence" of racism?
"The one-year death rate for blacks after hospitalization for heart attack is 1.7 times higher than for whites, say the researchers, who included Rajendra Mehta, MD, of Duke University Medical Center.
Blacks also have higher rates for stroke or major bleeding while getting clot-busting drugs in the hospital, find Mehta and colleagues, who reported the findings at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2004."
The differences must be because of white racism.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138048,00.html
The differences are because blacks have less access to healthcare. Why? Because blacks are less likely to have health insurance. Why? because they're less likely to have jobs that give them health insurance. Why? Because their high school dropout rates are much higher, and college graduation rates are much lower, Why? Because they are more likely to live in poorer families, poorer school districts, poorer neighborhoods, more suspecible to the bad influences those things have. WHY? WHY? WHY? It all comes down to money, to resrouces, to wealth.
Why are black people poorer than white people? If you're going tell me that discrimination, racism and Jim Crow has nothing to do with it, we're done here.
Hernmstein & Murray, "Bell Curve"
before controlling for IQ the annual wages for a 29 year old year round worker in 1989 were as follows
White- $27,372
Black- $20,994
Latino- $23,409
after controlling for IQ, for a 29 year old with an average IQ (100)
White- $25,546
Black- $25,001
Latino- $25,159
Before controlling for IQ, the probability of being in a "high IQ occupation" was
White- 5%
Black- 3%
Latino- 3%
After controlling for IQ, the probability of someone with an average IQ of 100 being in a "high IQ occupation" was
White - 10%
Black - 26%
Latino - 16%
Hmmm. Once you control for IQ, it would appear that minorities are NOT being discriminated against at all... in fact, they are being Preferred....
Before controlling for IQ, the probability of holding a Bachelors degree is
White - 27%
Black - 11%
Latino - 10%
After controlling for average IQ (100) the probabilities are
White - 50%
Black - 68%
Latino - 49%
Hmmmm, 100 IQ Black people seem to even be better educated than white people
...and at the low end of the scales...
before controlling for IQ the probability of being in poverty is
White - 7%
Blacks - 26%
Latino - 18%
and after controlling for IQ (average IQ 100) the probability of being in poverty was
White - 6%
Black - 11%
Latino - 9%
Yep, IQ sure explains away a LOT of social ills. Too bad liberals won't even look at the data. Nope, ALL Social Problems are attributed to the Theory of Discrimination. LOL!
63% of children who lived in poverty throughout the first 3 years of life had mothers in the bottom 20% of intelligence.
56% of all children from the bottom decile in home environment were born to mothers in the bottom 20% of intelligence
72% of children in the bottom decile of IQ had mother in the bottom 20% of intelligence.
45% of low birth weight babies had mother in the bottom 20% of intelligence
52% of illegitimate children were born to mothers in the bottom 20% of intelligence
57% of chronic welfare recipients are in the bottom 20% of intelligence
45% of people who ever received welfare are in the bottom 20% ofintelligence
62% of men ever in jail or rpison came from the bottom 20% in intelligence
64% of able bodied men who did not work in 1989 were in the bottom 20% in intelligence
2/3 of high school dropouts came from the bottom 20% of intelligence
48% of the poor in 1989 came from the bottom 20% in intelligence
Notice any patterns?
Yep, IQ sure explains away a LOT of social ills. Too bad liberals won't even look at the data.
Do conservatives look at the data? I don't see ANYONE except you and a few other kooks (and face it, it's what you are) talking about this "data".
You really sound like a rabid racist me. Apparently calling white people racist is an acceptable stereotype. I also noticed that you slightly changed your argument from racism being rampant in the present, to the Jim Crow of the past.
White people are not the biggest problem for the black community. Black people are the biggest problem facing black people today. They are the ones dropping out of high school. They are the ones joining gangs. They are the ones committing crimes and dealing drugs. They are the ones having children outside of wedlock. They are the ones having children in their teens. White people want to live their lives. They could not care less about trying to keep black people down. Again, I ask for evidence of racism, and you offered nothing, accept to yet again assume racism. You could not possibly imagine that their are other variables besides discrimination. It is ridiculous, lazy, and it only harms race relations in this country.
How about this for racism: Whites make up around 75% of the population but 90% of all serial killers, making whites proportionately more likely to be serial killers. It must be because of racism. All those evil non-whites forcing white people to murder. I guess you can only be accused of being a racist for so long before you snap.
Tell me, me, what percentage of whites are racist?
Now there's a good argument. Ignore the facts because you don't like them and only "kooks" are looking at it. Put data in "quotes" because it's not really "data" if you don't look at it! LOL!
So much for dealing with "facts".
Nobody else was opposing slavery, so I just went along with it. LOL!
I also noticed that you slightly changed your argument from racism being rampant in the present, to the Jim Crow of the past.
It's both.
White people are not the biggest problem for the black community. Black people are the biggest problem facing black people today.
Okay, we're done here.
Why don't you go ask your black friends what they think about your views? I've asked mine, and they and I are in agreement.
FJ, you didn't answer the question. Which conservatives are looking at this data and championing its application? You accuse liberals of ignoring it, but I think everyone is ignoring it.
I don't see any presidential candidate, for example, talking about this data, or the implications thereof that you suggest.
Also, xkvnv or whatever, for clarification, Larry Elder is does not count as your friend unless you actually are friends with him.
"Okay, we're done here."
That is too bad. I thought you could be cured. I guess I was wrong.
"Why don't you go ask your black friends what they think about your views? I've asked mine, and they and I are in agreement."
I will go ahead and do that, but I suggest maybe you should ask Larry Elder, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, and Bill Cosby what they think about your views. Here is an interview with Larry Elder.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=6644
Well, draft-dodging Larry Elder and I do agree on one thing: we're both against the war on drugs.
"Well, draft-dodging Larry Elder and I do agree on one thing: we're both against the war on drugs."
Yeah. That draft-dodging Uncle Tom.
The right started the conversation. The Left immediately went "high moral order"..."How DARE you talk about this" and hundreds of articles immediately appeared accusing the right of being racist b*stards and smearing Charles Murray, the author. The messenger always gets shot.
Then Clinton decided to have a "conversation about race" that only invited his friends that agreed with him... "it's NOT a problem". LOL!
Everyone knows the truth. No one can talk about it. It makes people "feel bad".
Politicans. G_d loves 'em!
Wisdom is soooooo evil that men can't even talk about it. Only the gods can.
Even I have difficulty discussing it with my closest confidant.
Murray's book contains a warning. That warning is not being heeded. And progressives like me are deliberatley set upon a diametrically opposed path.
Evidently the more "needy" people liberals can create, the more votes they get in Congress...
The problem, I think, is that there is no one reason that the statistics for success are what they are, when looked at racially. It's racism (& classism, learned helplessness, and the way we define success in the first place), but it's poor choices, too. Individuals are affected in individual ways, but as taken as groups, whites do better than blacks, and men do better than women. Denying that discrimination plays a part in that is as silly as blaming discrimination for it to the exclusion of all else.
That argument that "if 13% of the population is black, 13% of doctors should be black" was wrong, of course. Barring other factors, if 13% of the US population is black, 13% of those we judge successful should be black, and 13% of those we judge unsuccessful should be black, as well. To the extent those statistics vary from reality, one or more other factors are at play.
I'll read up, but I doubt that a disparity of innate intelligence between the races is one of those factors. Racism (including the racism that suggests a disparity in the innate intelligence between the races) probably is. Learned helplessness probably is. Cultural differences probably play a part. And yes, personal responsibility is more'n'likely also a factor.
The way I see it, there's no reason not to instill good values *AND* combat racism & poverty in society. There's no reason to just pick one & ignore the rest.
Of course it's many factors. But to deny that past racism, in all of its wonderful forms, and present racism don't play a part is sheer madness.
Also to deny that racism currently exists is sheer madness.
xkvsxe,
I don't know why you keep calling him an Uncle Tom. I don't.
He's admitted himself he is a draft-dodger. Can you take a black man at his word?
I think he's dishonest about other things, tho. Remember that ridiculous statistic he offered about the GDP of black America? We already had that discussion. The man is a highly intelligent, highly educated professional, he TOTALLY knew what he was doing and how the GDP/capita statistc would have been disproving his point, so he offered the GDP in general to mask the facts. Dishonest.
He received student deferments. He did not leave the country or break any laws. I am not sure how he did anything dishonest.
He was showing the size of the black economy at the macro level. Even though the United States does not have the highest GDP per capita, the United States is the most productive country in the world when taken as a whole.
The majority of blacks are doing just fine. In fact, it would be an extremely difficult task to find another country where blacks are better off.
I have already explained the main reasons why there is a large minority of blacks in the lower classes of society, but if racism is such a massive problem as you think it is, how do you even begin to explain the fact that most blacks are middle class? How do you explain affirmitive action, SBA minority loans, and the fact that blacks are twice as likely to hold government jobs? That certainly does not look like the actions of an anti-black government. This is not to mention that 94% of Americans said they would vote for a black president. Compare that to the 95% that said they would vote for a Catholic for president and the 72% that said they would vote for a Mormon. It looks like Mitt Romney has a tougher road ahead of him that Barack Obama.
He received student deferments. He did not leave the country or break any laws. I am not sure how he did anything dishonest.
He's a draft-doger just like Cheney.
He was showing the size of the black economy at the macro level. Even though the United States does not have the highest GDP per capita, the United States is the most productive country in the world when taken as a whole.
Again, I am amazed by your wilfull stupidity. The US won't be one of the best countries to live in in the world for long, if the populus only understands statistics, percentages, and fractions to the extent that you do.
The majority of blacks are doing just fine. In fact, it would be an extremely difficult task to find another country where blacks are better off.
That doesn't prove anything.
I have already explained the main reasons why there is a large minority of blacks in the lower classes of society, but if racism is such a massive problem as you think it is, how do you even begin to explain the fact that most blacks are middle class?
Again, you saw the numbers on Black GDP/capita vs. White GDP per capita. Middle class isn't not all that. You don't have be be earning that much to be in the middle class. And no, you didn't explain anything. You went two levels in, but at the question, "why does 'blacl culture' glorify guns, drugs and crime?" you didn't explain anything.
How do you explain affirmitive action, SBA minority loans, and the fact that blacks are twice as likely to hold government jobs? That certainly does not look like the actions of an anti-black government.
Those are good steps, but they're not enough. The Drug War, for example, may very well do enough to counteract all of the above. I want more action, you want to abolish it all.
This is not to mention that 94% of Americans said they would vote for a black president. Compare that to the 95% that said they would vote for a Catholic for president and the 72% that said they would vote for a Mormon. It looks like Mitt Romney has a tougher road ahead of him that Barack Obama.
Omg, you're such a moron. A better survey question is, "do you think your neighbors would vote for a black president?" and then the positive response drops like a stone.
"I want more action, you want to abolish it all."
Yes, abolish it all. Abolish affirmative action. Abolish welfare. Abolish food stamps. Abolish minority loans. Abolish discrimination laws. Get rid of social security. Get rid of all these government programs, especially the ones that favor minorities (we usually call that racism). Your solution to these problems are to treat black people like children.
The fact that most blacks are not poor dhows that racism cannot be a major problem, for if racism were a problem all blacks would be targeted equally. Why is that only a small minority of blacks are being targeted? Is only the really dark ones that white people want to keep down? Or do they just choose at random which ones to keep down?
"why does 'black culture' glorify guns, drugs and crime?" you didn't explain anything."
White people of course. White people force blacks to join gangs. I mean, it is not like they have a choice in the matter.
"Omg, you're such a moron. A better survey question is, "do you think your neighbors would vote for a black president?" and then the positive response drops like a stone."
Are you mentally challenged? Who would know better if you would vote for a black president or not -yourself or your neighbor? I mean this is elementary stuff here. I suppose your argument is they all lied! You are pathetic. Your response is basically "racism is hidden, you cannot see it, smell it, or taste it, but it is there, and even when people say racism is not a problem, do not believe them, for they are lying". If it so rampant, why can't you offer any evidence?
I ask you again, what percentage of white people are racist?
The black family was in an overall healthier situation back in the 60's when there was less distance from the evils of slavery so racism seems unlikely as an explanation for their problems today. Black families were intact and incomes were rising, approaching the national average. The Civil Rights Act removed the main obstacle in their path.
Since then, as presciently predicted by Senator Moinyhan, liberal entitlement programs have done untold damage. Welfare, coupled with other pet left-wing mantras such as feminism with an abortion fetish, anti-religious and anti-marriage policies, have managed to destroy the black family in a way that slavery did not. The leftist agenda which some whites dabble in during their college years, turns toxic in lower class and black culture. Middle class whites by and large eventually follow the anti-poverty prescription: get as much education as they can, marry, work steadily even at low-paying jobs, avoid crime. Meanwhile, under multi-cult and p.c., blacks are discouraged from even speaking the kind of English required for anything other than rap (Ebonics, anyone?)
Another example of liberal "one size fits all" policies that impact worse on blacks than whites is public educators "freeing" their students from supposed boredom by jettisoning phonics, rote and teacher directed learning. The damage done was mitigated in white middle class families with tutors, parental help etc. but was disastrous for many black students. Studies have shown black children do better as a group with more directed learning. Probably any academically under performing child whatever his color would do better with tried and true tools than being left to "invent" them on his own.
It all proves that the road to hell is paved with the good intentions of liberals who remain blind as bats to the damage their misguided policies have done and whose prescription is more of the same.
In fact, one can't be sure that modern day liberals are even well-intentioned anymore. With the debacle they've created available for anyone to observe, their persistence in creating groups of permanent dependents looks to be more a cynical exercise in pursuing power and buying votes from those now addicted to their soul-sapping handouts, despite the fact that the dependency is killing them.
With friends like "Me", blacks need no enemies.
Yes, abolish it all. Abolish affirmative action. Abolish welfare. Abolish food stamps. Abolish minority loans. Abolish discrimination laws. Get rid of social security. Get rid of all these government programs
Show me one country that is like your dream where the standard of living is high and income inequity is low. Or even one where the standard of living is high. Please, go on. Show me your libertarian utopia.
The fact that most blacks are not poor dhows that racism cannot be a major problem, for if racism were a problem all blacks would be targeted equally. Why is that only a small minority of blacks are being targeted? Is only the really dark ones that white people want to keep down? Or do they just choose at random which ones to keep down?
If you don't understand basic statistics, I can't help you.
"why does 'black culture' glorify guns, drugs and crime?" you didn't explain anything."
White people of course. White people force blacks to join gangs. I mean, it is not like they have a choice in the matter.
That's pretty much the same answer you gave last time. Amazing. You simply refuse to answer this question. Why?
Are you mentally challenged? Who would know better if you would vote for a black president or not -yourself or your neighbor? I mean this is elementary stuff here. I suppose your argument is they all lied! You are pathetic.
Yeah, racism is taboo enough that only 5% of the people say they wouldn't favor a black candidate simply on race. But when you ask them about their neighbors, why do their answers change? people lie. imagine that.
"Show me your libertarian utopia."
When you show me your communist one.
"If you don't understand basic statistics, I can't help you. "
I guess you have no answer to the question. I suppose whites just randomly oppress certain black people. I mean this is so stupid. You have no answers and no evidence. Simply saying "its statistics" means nothing at all. Show me some evidence.
"That's pretty much the same answer you gave last time. Amazing. You simply refuse to answer this question. Why? "
The answer is self-evident. Black people choose to join gangs, sell drugs, commit crime, have children out of wedlock. These are things black people do. White people are not doing anything to cause these problems. It is called personal responsibility, but I would not expect a liberal to have any clue what those two words mean. The white man made me do it is the liberal excuse.
"Yeah, racism is taboo enough that only 5% of the people say they wouldn't favor a black candidate simply on race. But when you ask them about their neighbors, why do their answers change? people lie. imagine that."
This is beyond stupid. So racism is rampant and widespread, yet is also taboo? What the hell are you talking about? It was an anonymous poll first of all. Second of all, why would they all lie about voting for a black president, but then when asked about voting for a Mormon they tell the truth? Or did they all lie and say that they would not vote for a Mormon, even though they actually would? This is pure comedy. Sayet has nothing on this.
"Show me your libertarian utopia."
When you show me your communist one.
Well, not communist. But the countries with the best standards of living are invariably ones with broad social nets, not narrow ones like you propose.
"If you don't understand basic statistics, I can't help you. "
I guess you have no answer to the question. I suppose whites just randomly oppress certain black people. I mean this is so stupid. You have no answers and no evidence. Simply saying "its statistics" means nothing at all. Show me some evidence.
You sound like you're demanding, screaming, "explain to me WHY 2+2=4! WHY? WHY??"
"That's pretty much the same answer you gave last time. Amazing. You simply refuse to answer this question. Why? "
The answer is self-evident. Black people choose to join gangs, sell drugs, commit crime, have children out of wedlock. These are things black people do. White people are not doing anything to cause these problems. It is called personal responsibility, but I would not expect a liberal to have any clue what those two words mean. The white man made me do it is the liberal excuse.
Why do black people do these things more than white people?
Why? Because it's much more taboo to be racist then to be suspicious of Mormons.
No one denies that there is racism. But today, it seems hardly more prevalent than any other form of "lookism". And affirmative action has so skewed the playing field, that the longer it continues, the more "justification" for racism will emergy. becuase let's face it, "affirmative action" is "positive racism".
Can anybody help me to understand how Putin can compare our foriegn policy to that of the 3rd reich? Surely this is for shock value in hopes of undermining our efforts to create democracy....right?
Liebensraum?
We've hardly got the masses necessary to populate it. Unless of course, you're some kind of green Leftie pol that thinks 6 billion needs to get reduced to one.
"You sound like you're demanding, screaming, "explain to me WHY 2+2=4! WHY? WHY??"
Do you understand what begging the question is? In logic, begging the question is when the conclusion is assumed to be true, which is exactly what you are doing. For example, if we found the average height of all males within the United States it would be a normal distribution, but if you decided to find all the asian men in the country, you would find that these men would be outside the norm because asians, on average, are shorter. What would need to be exlained is why they are shorter. If the proposition is "asians are shorter because of racism", then one needs to show evidence to support this claim. Simply showing that asians are shorter, only shows that asians are shorter, it does not show that racism is the cause. To assume that racism is the cause is to pressume exactly what is in question, which is known as "begging the question". Likewise, we know that blacks are more likely to be poor and more likely to commit crime, but these facts do not support that racism is the cause of these things. If you want to argue that point, then you need evidence to support it. You are assuming it a priori.
Now considering our government bends over backwards to help blacks, that we have discrimination laws in the workplace, that 94% of Americans would vote for a black president, that racism is taboo in America, that people like Imus get fired, it is ridiculuos to argue that racism is rampant. All the existing evidence shows the exact opposite of what you are attempting to prove.
"Why do black people do these things more than white people?"
Why do you continue to believe nonsense, like racism is rampant and Bush lied? Why are 93% of serial killers white males? Why don't you go ask them, they are the ones doing it. You cannot argue that white people use mind control to force blacks into gangs.
"Why? Because it's much more taboo to be racist then to be suspicious of Mormons."
Which is evidence of the opposite of what you wish to show. Racism is shunned and anybody that has any hint of being racist towards blacks will get Imused. They will be tared and feathered and humiliated. It suggest that anti-Mormon prejudice is more widespread than anti-black prejudice.
xkvsxe won't answer the question of why black people are more predisposed to do all those things he himself listed.
i wonder why...
I gave a few answers.
1) Victicrat mentality, which liberals bring about by telling blacks that white people want to destroy them;
2) Culture, such as hip hop and rap that glorify crime, drugs, and prostitution;
3) Personal responsibility. Individuals make choices in life, and it just so happens that individuals who happen to be black make poor choices, largely because of 1 and 2. Blacks choose to drop out of high school. Blacks choose to join gangs. Blacks choose to have children out of wedlock.
It is people like Bill Cosby that see right through the liberal nonsense. He says it is time that blacks stop complaining and start doing. White people did their part - they got out of the way - now it is time for blacks to better their own lives.
xkvxse you forgot something on your list.
elected black leadership, & guilty white plantiff attorneys.
i live in the deep south and i can say that these "liberators" exploit blacks to further their own ambition.
they keep getting elected to. that is the weird part. when my friend (R) was running for office he lost to a democrat. i ask some black democrats why they would not even consider a republican and they said because dems help the poor people. i then asked them if they were still poor in which i got no response. yes they were very poor as well as very ingnorant. they keep electing these guys that do nothing but enable their inability to pull themselves up. it is so obvious to many but for some reason the al sharptons of the world go unchallenged. is it fear? sort of like how organized crime works. is it pride? is it ignorance? i think it is a combination of all three.
Firstly, kudos to xkvsxe who is one of the few people to understand the term "begging the question" and point out correctly that this is what "Me" does, claiming she has proved that which she only assumes.
"Me" keeps asking why blacks disproportionate to their numbers shun education, are Welfare single mothers, commit crimes etc. because she believes there's no possible other answer than racism. I pointed out that when racism was much fresher in everyone's memory, back in the 60's, the black family was still intact but has been shattered since then, coincident with her leftist agenda being implemented, but she ignored this inconvenient fact.
By all objective standards, racism against blacks has abated since the Civil Rights Act. The blacks and their liberal friends such as "Me" who refuse to accept this and imagine the racism bogeyman around every corner are just entrenching learned helplessness in blacks. The grievance mongers will go so far as to denigrate blacks who are successful and who say personal accountability has something to do with their success, such as Bill Cosby for example. It is not whites who coined the term "oreo" for the Thomas Sowells and Bill Cosbies of this world. It is blacks who are contemptuous of fellow blacks who follow what they identify as the "white" system. Since it is the only proven prescription against poverty and works for anybody, it seems foolish to reject it: attain the highest level of education you are capable of, have children only in wedlock, work steadily at any job, stay away from crime and criminals.
At this point, whites are the least racist of the identifiable groups. They are still the majority and say they would vote for a black President. In fact, that's the main thing Barack Obama has going for him right now, is his half-blackness. Anyone with two white parents with the same lack of experience, indifferent senatorial record etc. would never have been seriously considered in the presidential race. Meanwhile, in black-dominated areas, there is real animosity between blacks and Asian, most often Korean store owners. Blacks consider the Asians as interlopers and blood suckers and conversely the shop owners consider them layabouts or thieves. Whites are more tolerant of both groups than blacks and Asians are of each other.
The charge of significant racism by whites is difficult to maintain in the face of Asian students being markedly disproportionately represented in American universities. Anyone who values education, is willing to work hard and has a strong family culture instead of glorifying negatives is going to succeed in the United States, whatever his color.
And by the way, this is the absolutely best country for non-whites to live in as a minority, bar none. Name one where there are fewer barriers to advancement. Name one. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.
Good job Tarkus. I completely agree.
xkvsxe,
I agree, the statistics are the sum of individual personal choices. But you're still not answering the question:
1) Victicrat mentality, which liberals bring about by telling blacks that white people want to destroy them;
Individual choice, right? ARe you saying that black people just believe whatever democrats tell them? that's a pretty low opinion of black people.
2) Culture, such as hip hop and rap that glorify crime, drugs, and prostitution;
3) Personal responsibility. Individuals make choices in life, and it just so happens that individuals who happen to be black make poor choices, largely because of 1 and 2. Blacks choose to drop out of high school. Blacks choose to join gangs. Blacks choose to have children out of wedlock.
But WHY? You don't answer that. Why do blacks make these poor choices with greater frequency than their other-race counterparts?
I'm sorry to say that, but it seems you guys simply don't believe racism exist. Why is it that minorities of almost every kind: religious, race, ethnic, etc., why do they vote democrat more often than their non-minority counterparts? if you say it's because of the "victicrat mentality," you're saying that all these minorities are somehow more susceptible to this victimhood mentality, that they all just vote for democrats because they love feeling victimized. I don't think that's realistic. I think the real explanation is that it's because they encouter prejudice based on their minority status, so they think, "well, hey, if there are people out there who are anti-Sikh, when blacks say there is racism against them, that might be true too."
I am a minority in triplicate, at least. I'm not a powerless victim, but I vote democrat because i have empathy. if i see myself being discriminated against based on my minority status or statuses, then i think, hey, maybe those other minorities, they get discriminated against as well. the whole "there is no more racism" thing is probably BS, since it's mostly white men who say it. plus, my hypotheses are confirmed by my black friends. black friends who are also very successful, who do not act like victims, who do not have a "victicrat" mentality.
And by the way, this is the absolutely best country for non-whites to live in as a minority, bar none. Name one where there are fewer barriers to advancement.
That was probably true for Jews during WWII - the US was the best place for them in the world. But there were still quotas for Jews at Ivy League universities. Just because it's the best place doesn't make it the best possible place. Surely you've read Candide.
Since it is the only proven prescription against poverty and works for anybody, it seems foolish to reject it: attain the highest level of education you are capable of, have children only in wedlock, work steadily at any job, stay away from crime and criminals.
So then why are blacks not doing this en masse? "Learned helplessness"? What on earth is that? Is it like lemarkian evolution? *eye roll*
"I am a minority in triplicate, at least. I'm not a powerless victim"
How did you manage in such a racist country? If you did it, what is stopping anyone else from doing it? Are you that much better than them?
I never said racism did not exist. What I have been saying is that in the grand scheme of things racism will not stop anyone from being successful. People may encounter some racist individuals. They may be called some names. In the long run, however, racism is not going to stop anyone from graduating high school, getting into college, law school, medical school, or other higher education. It is not going to stop anyone from getting a job or starting a business. It is not going to force people to commit crime or have children outside of wedlock. Racism, although it exist, is predominately irrelevant.
"Just because it's the best place doesn't make it the best possible place."
It also does not mean it should be relegated to the trash heap for trying.
What is the best possible place? You have no clue. You are not as smart as you think you are. If you could step outside your body and see what you are saying you would be emabarrassed.
"...my hypotheses are confirmed by my black friends..."
Do your "black" friends know that they are part of your experiment?
Are you some sociologist that frequents this blog to gather data?
It is you that judges us.
I've been tracking your posts and I've come to the conclusion that your only clear goal in life is to play the roll of the victim standing up to the big bad bully. Your endless determination to play this is stylized and laughable. Why don't you put down the mouse and pick up a guitar or something.
"black friends who are also very successful..."
And this proves my point...
But racism could cause your colleague to be promoted over you, cause you to get poor service, cause you to not be able to get an apartment or a house in a particular neighborhood. You think not? Or you think these things don't matter?
And you guys still don't answer my question. Let me repost for you, so you don't get confused:
1) Victicrat mentality, which liberals bring about by telling blacks that white people want to destroy them;
Individual choice, right? ARe you saying that black people just believe whatever democrats tell them? that's a pretty low opinion of black people.
2) Culture, such as hip hop and rap that glorify crime, drugs, and prostitution;
3) Personal responsibility. Individuals make choices in life, and it just so happens that individuals who happen to be black make poor choices, largely because of 1 and 2. Blacks choose to drop out of high school. Blacks choose to join gangs. Blacks choose to have children out of wedlock.
But WHY? You don't answer that. Why do blacks make these poor choices with greater frequency than their other-race counterparts?
But racism could cause your colleague to be promoted over you, cause you to get poor service, cause you to not be able to get an apartment or a house in a particular neighborhood. You think not?
I really do not think so. It is simply bad business to promote someone simply based on race. In a competetive market, a business must promote the most qualified individual regardless of race. It could happen, but so could many things. It is simply bad for business to be racist, considering racism is taboo, as you have agreed. If it just so happens you find yourself in a racist company, and you are really as qualified as you believe yourself to be, there must be other companies looking for someone with your talent. Those with racist policies will lose.
If someone goes to a restaurant and gets poor service, then they should walk out and go to another restaurant will they will get good service. I have recieved poor service before and I simply choose not to associate at such places. Poor service is not going to stop anyone from being succesful.
There are plently of houses on the market. Racism is not going to stop anyone from renting or buying a house or apartment. Not to mention that much of this is illegal under the Fair Housing Act.
Individual choice, right? ARe you saying that black people just believe whatever democrats tell them? that's a pretty low opinion of black people.
I believe it is conservatives that have a high opinion of blacks. Conservatives believe that blacks do not need government handouts. That they do not need affirmative action because they are just capable as anyone else. That they should not be treated like children and talked down to, like when Hillary Clinton says "the Republicans have been running the House like a plantation...and you know wud i'm talkin aboudt" in her phony "black" accent.
I think it is apparent that the liberals have a strong influence over blacks, considering that about 90% vote Democrat. The Democrats want to keep blacks angry because they know that without this monolithic black vote, they are done.
But WHY? You don't answer that. Why do blacks make these poor choices with greater frequency than their other-race counterparts?
I can tell that it is not because of racism. You would have to ignore a ton of counter evidence, such as all the things I have listed before, such as SBA minority loans, affirmative action, discrimination laws, the fact that the government is twice as likely to higher someone who is black, the fact that 94% of Americans would vote for a black president, the fact that racism is taboo, the fact that people like Imus get fired, the fact that the Duke lycross team was falsely accused of a racist crime.
You apparently want to explain why people make the choices they do. I am not sure anyone really understands that. I have tried to explain some reasons why I think blacks make certain choices. There is a strong feeling of victimhood in the black community, which does stem from past racism, but the fact is that is the past. It is time to drop the victicrat mentality and live in the 21st century. I have not been arguing that past discrimination is not responsible for any of these inequities. I have been arguing that racism is a thing of the past. If you work hard, graduate high school, and have a child after you get married, you will be successful regardless of your race.
But see, on one hand, you say:
I believe it is conservatives that have a high opinion of blacks. Conservatives believe that blacks do not need government handouts. That they do not need affirmative action because they are just capable as anyone else. That they should not be treated like children and talked down to
And then you say,
I think it is apparent that the liberals have a strong influence over blacks, considering that about 90% vote Democrat. The Democrats want to keep blacks angry because they know that without this monolithic black vote, they are done.
The two don't work together. Why would black people, who are just as capable of white people, fall for this Democrat mind control? You can't have both be true.
Then, in response to my question:
But WHY? You don't answer that. Why do blacks make these poor choices with greater frequency than their other-race counterparts?
There is a strong feeling of victimhood in the black community, which does stem from past racism, but the fact is that is the past... I have not been arguing that past discrimination is not responsible for any of these inequities.
See, again, this explanation doesn't really mesh with your previous statements. If being successful is as easy as making personal choices that everyone is equally capable of, why aren't blacks making these personal choices in droves? And how can this "victimhood mentality," if it's just a state of mind, unsubstantiated by any facts, hold the whole black race, pretty much, hostage? How is it that other races are not suseptible to the victimhood mentality, if it's SO POWERFUL that it will someone "make" people not make the right choices, allegedly easy choices, en masse?
The two don't work together. Why would black people, who are just as capable of white people, fall for this Democrat mind control? You can't have both be true.
People are infuenced by other people and when you have a large group of people telling you that racism is rampant so vote for us, it is going to have an effect. Many blacks, such as Larry Elder, do not buy into the nonsense. They see through it and eventually the race card will lose its effect.
if it's just a state of mind, unsubstantiated by any facts, hold the whole black race, pretty much, hostage? How is it that other races are not suseptible to the victimhood mentality
You make it sound as if the majority of blacks are homeless and dying. It is simply not true. Most blacks are middle class, but there is a large minority of blacks that are suseptible to the victimhood mentality because of dwelling on past racism, which the Democrats want to keep alive at all costs. Other races are not as suseptible because other races do not have a history of discrimination in the same way blacks have in this country. It is time to move on though and stop living in the past.
People are infuenced by other people and when you have a large group of people telling you that racism is rampant so vote for us, it is going to have an effect. Many blacks, such as Larry Elder, do not buy into the nonsense. They see through it and eventually the race card will lose its effect.
But now wait a minute, what about personal choice and individual responsibility?
You make it sound as if the majority of blacks are homeless and dying. It is simply not true. Most blacks are middle class, but there is a large minority of blacks that are suseptible to the victimhood mentality because of dwelling on past racism, which the Democrats want to keep alive at all costs. Other races are not as suseptible because other races do not have a history of discrimination in the same way blacks have in this country.
But if most blacks are middle class, why do they vote for Dems at such high levels? And what is this "susceptibility" to victimhood mentality? aren't blacks just as capable, intelligent, etc as whites? There is also a history of racism in this country against Asians. There is also a global history of anti-Semitism. Yet, for some reason, the story for Jews and Asians is not the same as for blacks. why is that?
But now wait a minute, what about personal choice and individual responsibility?
What about it? They are still responsible for their votes, but nobody lives in a social vacuum.
But if most blacks are middle class, why do they vote for Dems at such high levels? And what is this "susceptibility" to victimhood mentality? aren't blacks just as capable, intelligent, etc as whites? There is also a history of racism in this country against Asians. There is also a global history of anti-Semitism. Yet, for some reason, the story for Jews and Asians is not the same as for blacks. why is that?
Becuase even though they themselves work hard, graduate high school and do all the right things, they feel others are victims of racism. It is the same reason why white liberals feel this way. They feel they need to protect others from the Great White Bigot.
The history of racism against Asians and discrimination against Jews in the United States is nothing compared to the discrimination against blacks. There was also a lot of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic views in the United States, but again, it is not the same as slavery and Jim Crow.
Oh, and in case you wanted some examples of racism:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/henrietta-holsman-fore/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/10/recruiter-who-sent-racist-e-mail-is-re-assigned/
Becuase even though they themselves work hard, graduate high school and do all the right things, they feel others are victims of racism. It is the same reason why white liberals feel this way. They feel they need to protect others from the Great White Bigot.
So you're saying that most blacks never actually encouter racism, they just think others do? I wonder, why do blacks have such solidarity with other blacks? No other group votes in such a bloc. Why don't Jews vote in such a blo, or Asians?
As for Jews, it's true, but for Asians. Um, you've heard of Korematsu, right? It was just Japanese people, but still. And you've heard near-slavelike Asian labor used to build railroads in the west.
Racism poll.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html
The other day, I was walking back to my apartment iwth some friends, and one of them, a lovely guy, said, out of nowhere, "we'll walk you home, cuz you never know when a black guy will jump out of the bushes and rape you."
The other day, I was walking back to my apartment iwth some friends, and one of them, a lovely guy, said, out of nowhere, "we'll walk you home, cuz you never know when a black guy will jump out of the bushes and rape you."
That link did not work. I could show you some polls as well. Such as a poll that says blacks worry about the same things as whites, and racism is not one of them.
Did you know that Al Sharpton said basically the same thing your friend said? He was walking in the dark one night and heard someone walking behind him, he turned around, saw it was a white man, and said he felt "relieved". The chances that a black man would jump out of the bushes and rape you is rare, but apparently even Al Sharpton feels he is more likely to be mugged by a black man than by a white man.
Here is some more examples of racism.
http://www.larryelder.com/ascrimes.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/
racism.poll/index.html
And that was Jesse Jackson, not Al Sharpton. Fact-check yourself. Sigh.
And that was Jesse Jackson, not Al Sharpton. Fact-check yourself. Sigh.
Oh no! Regardless of who it was, the point remains the exact same. I tried to "fact check" it, but it is very hard to find, so I went off of memory. I mean really, is this the best you have? Sigh.
You didn't reply to anything else I wrote, about the Asians and the Jews. And it's not hard to find. Put in "jesse jackson" and "relieved" into google.
I think it's a racist thing to say. I was shocked my friend said it.
You didn't reply to anything else I wrote, about the Asians and the Jews. And it's not hard to find. Put in "jesse jackson" and "relieved" into google.
It was in you believe it to be Al Sharpton and you look up "Al Sharpton" and "relieved". But go ahead and nit pick on little facts. It sure is not bolstering your argument.
I think it's a racist thing to say. I was shocked my friend said it.
I would not say it, but do you think what Jessie Jackson said is also racist? It is simply a fact that "While less than 13 percent of the population, blacks commit more than 50 percent of all murders, more than 40 percent of rapes, almost 60 percent of robberies, and more than half of all violent crime."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder101801.asp
And why? Are you going to say that it's just all random individual choices that, year after year, magically somehow add up to the same statistics?
And why? Are you going to say that it's just all random individual choices that, year after year, magically somehow add up to the same statistics?
I have told you why over and over again. I have also showed how it could not possibly be racism, yet you refuse to accept the mountain of evidence directly in front of you. The best you could do is list a few examples of racism, which I countered by showing you the racist actions of Al Sharpton. For every racist action you find, I can find one to counter it. You already have it in your mind that racism is rampant and all the evidence in the universe apparently will not change that.
No, you haven't answered anything, except pretty much blaming the whole situation of black people on their "victicrat" mentality, which, as I have already said (see my Asian and Jewish examples) is not a very compelling explanation, since at its base is an as-of-yet-unexplained complusion, unique only to black people, to this victicrat mentality, in droves.
That's no explanation at all.
Racism is not an explanation. Are you arguing that white people force black people to commit crime? The thought is ridiculous.
Lets anaylze what you said though. If Jews and Asians have faced discrimination and they are not commiting crime, droping out of high school and having children out of wedlock, why are blacks doing it? I have never heard a Jew say "the Holocaust made me do it", yet apparently you think white people make black people do things.
Also, do you believe there was more racism in the 50's and 60's or today? The out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is much higher today than it was in the 50's and 60's. Unless you are going to argue that racism is more widespread today then it was then, it is impossible for racism to be the cause.
Pick one of the following, because I really want to precisely define what you are saying.
1) Racism is just as bad today as it has ever been. Nothing has changed.
2) Although racism has decreased some, it is still rampant and remains a huge problem for blacks.
3) Racism has decreased a lot, but racism is still a problem for blacks.
4) Racism, although it exist, is not a major problem for blacks.
I have been arguing point 4. I have never said racism does not exist.
My god, you're absurd. yOu STILL haven't answered the question:
Lets anaylze what you said though. If Jews and Asians have faced discrimination and they are not commiting crime, droping out of high school and having children out of wedlock, why are blacks doing it? I have never heard a Jew say "the Holocaust made me do it", yet apparently you think white people make black people do things.
First of all, i never said that. I'm just asking you, why? what's the difference? if getting yourself out of poverty is as easy as not having out of wedlock briths and graduating high school, as easy as you make it sound, why are blacks having such a problem (more so than whites)?
Racism is multi-faceted. There's overt racism, covert racism, institutional racism, etc. I think it's rampant, in all of its different ways. I have black friends, do you know how hard it is for them to hail a cab? How about engage in luxury travel?
My god, you're absurd. yOu STILL haven't answered the question:
Oh please. You have not one shred of evidence to support your position, yet you continue to beat the same old tired drum. I think the definition of absurd is denying what is right in front of you.
First of all, i never said that. I'm just asking you, why? what's the difference?
The difference is with attitude. I have explained many of these attitudes. You can ask why, why, and why all day long. It is as if you want me to explain the human condition or human consciousness. People make choices in life and we cannot always explain why they do it. Blacks choose to commit crime, join gangs, deal drugs, drop out of high school, have children outside of wedlock. These are things that people have the power to control. Nobody is forced to do these things. I cannot understand why you want to blame white people for these things. I mean why not blame blacks for forcing whites to enslave them?
Racism is multi-faceted. There's overt racism, covert racism, institutional racism, etc. I think it's rampant, in all of its different ways. I have black friends, do you know how hard it is for them to hail a cab? How about engage in luxury travel?
Lots of people cannot get a cab. You cannot assume that everytime somebody does not easily get a cab that race had something to do with it.
What do you mean "engage in luxury travel"? Do the airlines not accept their money? Do the hotels say "no blacks"? Give me a break. I have black friends that have traveled more places than I have.
I fail to see how you can argue there is "institutional racism" considering our government favors blacks and minorities. I do not think I have to list them all again. I think by now you know what they are.
If the racism is "covert" or hidden, how do you know it is there? This sounds like the "you cannot smell it, taste it, feel it, or hear it, but it is there" argument. We sometimes call this paranoia.
Overt racism does exist, but it exist in a tiny minority and is shunned by the vast majority of the population. Anyone that even appears to be racist will be crushed, just like Don Imus and Michael Richards. If anyone says anything remotely insensitive towards blacks that have to go on a two week apology tour. Overt racism is taboo and is hardly a problem in 21st Century America.
Have you heard about this interest rate discrimination against blacks? The fair housing authority still gets a shitload of complaints per year. Yes, the taxi cab bias is well-documented.
You refuse to answer my question. You want to explain blacks' lower incomes and lower achievement through one thing -- the "victicrat" mentality. I think that's absurd, and you still haven't explained why black people are so uniquely susceptible to this mentality, if this is your explanation.
Oh well.
Why not just come out and say it, the big elephant in your room?
Have you heard about this interest rate discrimination against blacks?
There is no such thing as an interest rate discrimination against blacks. What there is, is an income discrimination against those with low credit scores. If anyone, including blacks, have low credit scores, it is going to be harder for them to get a loan. I suppose you want the government to force banks to give loans to those that are incapable of re-paying the loan. Now it just so happens that blacks are more likely to have low credit scores, ergo, more blacks cannot get loan approvals. Banks want to make money and they do not make money by denying loans to people that can re-pay them nor do they make money by giving loans to people that cannot re-pay them.
Why not just come out and say it, the big elephant in your room?
The big invisible (covert) elephant does not count. If there is a physical elephant, surely you would be able to expose it. Instead, you just assume it despite all the counter evidence.
Now it just so happens that blacks are more likely to have low credit scores, ergo, more blacks cannot get loan approvals. Banks want to make money and they do not make money by denying loans to people that can re-pay them nor do they make money by giving loans to people that cannot re-pay them.
Oh, it just so happens? Just out of nowhere? Just randomly, for no reason at all?
I am familiar how banks work, how loans work, how economics work. It's not just that, there is actual discrimination. Besides, aren't you assuming that all economic actors are completely rational? and/or that the actions that these actors take that they think are rational actually ARE rational?
Could it be that less intelligent people are more easily snookered into paying higher interest rates? Could it be that people who are not as "numerate" as others might pay higher interest rates than people who are. Chinese people sure aren't paying higher interest rates...
Jes wondrin'
What racist thoughts... I know. But they do answer a question.
I hate it when smart people discriminate against stupid people. Especially when I buy 1,000 shares at $5 and sell them an hour later at $6.
xkvsxe,
Why don't you just agree with FJ and come out and say it, that you think the reason that black people "just happen to be" more likely to have teen pregnancy, commit crime, not graduate from high school, and be susceptible to democrat propaganda is because you think black people have lower IQs, are less intelligent than white people? Farmer John has plenty of evidence for you.
That's what you've been tiptoeing around, the "big reason" for all the various things you've pointed to as reasons for lower black achievement, earnings, educational attainment, etc.?
Also, please to god, someone explain to me what this man is talking about:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/12/more-on-wilkersons-impeachment-call/
he must be lying, right?
...and why don't YOU just come out and say it, too "dora/me".
You think it's all "discrimination". Discrimination against the less intelligent is YOUR elephant in the room.
Not "racial" discrimination.
We are all "equal" after all. Shouldn't we get paid that way? It's only fair.
Post a Comment