In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

[Mike375]

Brian,

Of course if I employ someone they "expect" to get paid even if their work is a failure. In fact the socialist type laws in Australia compel me to even pay them some extra when I get rid of them. This mindset is then carried through to something like.......I work my 40 hours and do not get enough income so the gov't needs to top things up for me etc and etc. If I work my 40 hours then I should be provided with healthcare and on it goes...

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I bet you and George would like to return to the days before women had the vote eh

Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I think that if I couldn't make a living working then I would take to crime.

That's terrifying.

 

[Brianwarnock]

That's terrifying.

Well George one's got to live and if that means stealing food so be it, the alternative of committing suicide by starving, isn't that immoral too.

Ah! there is a 3rd option, not liked by the American Right, help from the more affluent/able.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

Well George one's got to live and if that means stealing food so be it, the alternative of committing suicide by starving, isn't that immoral too.

Ah! there is a 3rd option, not liked by the American Right, help from the more affluent/able.

Brian

The 3rd Option is what the Early Christian Church taught. And I happen to think that they were correct in that. Just because similar views are held by different groups of people who may well disagree on other points does not invalidate those views.

 

[dkinley]

Just a thought when it comes to racism since that is what this thread is about.
In the last Presidential Debate Obama said:

"Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people. ... Now I would not provide a litmus test"

But in a speech (Jul 17, 2007) Obama said at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:
"But it’s those five percent of the cases that really count. And in those five percent of the cases, what you’ve got to look at is—what is in the justice’s heart. What’s their broader vision of what America should be. ... And we need somebody who’s got the heart—the empathy—to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges. Alright?"

Note, I added the emphasis. Keep in mind that he will also appoint justices all around America - I doubt that there will be an investigation when he fires all the sitting ones and replace those with the ones that will puch this agenda.

He wants judges that legislate from the bench?! I thought justice was supposed to be blind?!

Why not legislate to change the laws if they aren't correct? Why do you need to appoint sympathetic justices that will construe the law?

So if a white woman is raped or a white person is burgled by a minority, then the law will not be blind and slant to the minority? Is that not pushing racist agenda? Or is that merely disenfranchising everyone else?

By not changing the law, which is in a postion to do as a Senator but yet lies about how about how he will appoint, who is creating more racism per their agenda?

Now, the death row percentages aside - and even that is arguable, the following facts are listed for the whole racism disparagment argument everyone likes to make to blame whitey ...
http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp

-dK

 

[Rich]

He wants judges that legislate from the bench?! I thought justice was supposed to be blind?!

Why not legislate to change the laws if they aren't correct? Why do you need to appoint sympathetic justices that will construe the law?

Why not, Bush did

So if a white woman is raped or a white person is burgled by a minority, then the law will not be blind and slant to the minority? Is that not pushing racist agenda? Or is that merely disenfranchising everyone else?

By not changing the law, which is in a postion to do as a Senator but yet lies about how about how he will appoint, who is creating more racism per their agenda?

Now, the death row percentages aside - and even that is arguable, the following facts are listed for the whole racism disparagment argument everyone likes to make to blame whitey ...
http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp

-dK

You tell me when the last white man was executed in Texas for killing a negro, your argument has no merit

 

[Alisa]

How the hell do you get from

"But it’s those five percent of the cases that really count. And in those five percent of the cases, what you’ve got to look at is—what is in the justice’s heart. What’s their broader vision of what America should be. ... And we need somebody who’s got the heart—the empathy—to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges. Alright?"

to

He wants judges that legislate from the bench.

?

 

[dkinley]

Why not, Bush did
You tell me when the last white man was executed in Texas for killing a negro, your argument has no merit

Another broken record ...

Blame the liberals, they are the ones that have been posturing that the death penalty should be abolished.

Now that I think about it, the liberals are a funny lot in their logic. They want to kill an unborn infant because it's a crime against an expectant mother to burden her with an unwanted baby but yet protect someone's life that is a burden on society and has harmed society members by their crimes.

No wonder they don't make sense when it comes to anything.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

Blame the liberals, they are the ones that have been posturing that the death penalty should be abolished.

Now that I think about it, the liberals are a funny lot in their logic. They want to kill an unborn infant because it's a crime against an expectant mother to burden her with an unwanted baby but yet protect someone's life that is a burden on society and has harmed society members by their crimes.

No wonder they don't make sense when it comes to anything.

-dK

You are right. It is SOoooooo much more logical to demand full rights for a tiny cluster of cells that may or may not become a baby, while at the same time supporting policies that ensure that 1 in 5 American children live in poverty without adequate nutrition or education, and to support wars that kill thousands of innocent children and their mothers.

 

[dkinley]

You are right. It is SOoooooo much more logical to demand full rights for a tiny cluster of cells that may or may not become a baby, while at the same time supporting policies that ensure that 1 in 5 American children live in poverty without adequate nutrition or education, and to support wars that kill thousands of innocent children and their mothers.

Now, ya see? Follow your threads.

Let me repeat it for you ....

I would listen (and probably be) more attentively but all you do is attack, smear, and attack again with lies or distortion. If didn't sound so outlandish, you might get an honest reply. You aren't as open-minded as you claim ...

This is why I am not replying. You aren't having a discussion - you'd rather move off the topic I presented with a couple of brash questions and then redirect with some smears and such.

But, you think it works for you in whatever case it is you are trying to present - who am I to interrupt a fool(ess) in his(er) folly?

So my new policy for you is to not reply unless it is with some sort of stupid rhetorical question that acts like I didn't read or even understood what was said and then present a new attack and/or smear - whatever I am feeling at the moment. The difference is that mine will be well thought out and researched.

-dK

 

[Rich]

Another broken record ...

Blame the liberals, they are the ones that have been posturing that the death penalty should be abolished.


-dK

I guess it doesn't include the Blacks

 

[Alisa]

Now, ya see? Follow your threads.

Let me repeat it for you ....

I would listen (and probably be) more attentively but all you do is attack, smear, and attack again with lies or distortion. If didn't sound so outlandish, you might get an honest reply. You aren't as open-minded as you claim ...

This is why I am not replying. You aren't having a discussion - you'd rather move off the topic I presented with a couple of brash questions and then redirect with some smears and such.

But, you think it works for you in whatever case it is you are trying to present - who am I to interrupt a fool(ess) in his(er) folly?

So my new policy for you is to not reply unless it is with some sort of stupid rhetorical question that acts like I didn't read or even understood what was said and then present a new attack and/or smear - whatever I am feeling at the moment. The difference is that mine will be well thought out and researched.

-dK

You pointed out what you see as a logical inconsistency in the liberal position on abortion and the death penalty. Then I pointed out what I see as a logical inconsistency in the conservative position on abortion vs. social services and foreign policy. You just don't want anyone to disagree with you. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[dkinley]

I thought the title of this thread was "In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . ."? So I posted something that seems to be advocating racism (along with discrimination) to return the thread to it's original topic.

Your response was "How the hell do you get from ..." - if that isn't a statement of a closed mind, I don't know what is - so I assumed there was no discussion to be had.

I shall review ...

" ...what is in the justice’s heart. What’s their broader vision of what America should be ..."

to my question:

He wants judges that legislate from the bench?!

My interpretation and I think it is clear, and it seems that it is spelled out in Obama's words (which he lied about saying he would not have a litmus test for) by wanting the justices to judge from their hearts - what their vision is - NOT what the law states.

If a judge does not do what is prescribed by law, I ask, how are they not legislating from the bench?

For clarification, the definition of legislating from the bench is that the judicial sector of our system is not carrying out their responsibilites, but stepping into the legistlative areas and altering legislation by their rulings since our judicial system is based upon precedence.

The logic bit was an attempt to make sense of logic that wasn't evidently presented.

-dK

 

[ASherbuck]

Now I notice we are pulling away from race but tying it in with abortions now.

So I am going to go into abortion !!!!

No one is pro abortion. Well, maybe Maddox and some other angry people trying to get attention are, but when one says they are Pro Choice they are saying that they are against the government legislating the body.

And of course the right counters with the body in question is not yours it's the unborn child.

For me, It's not up to you, or me, or any human being to set the bar to when life begins. (If you ask me I would tell you I believed that it began sometime around the age of 3, as that's when my first memories begin but.) The best answer was given by Obama at the forum.

It's for a higher power to determine when life begins. Whatever God you believe in, Vishnu, Allah, Christ, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you have an abortion or push for an abortion it's between you and God, not you and the government. Not you and your neighbor. Not you and the Church.

If it offends you that someone has recieved an abortion simply because they didn't want to have a child, too bad - it offends me to. It offends me when people chew with their mouth open. I think we should "cleanse" the world of people who have poor table manners. It offends me when people breath through their mouth. They need "cleansed" as well. It would be really easy if we just put those pigs in camps where they could live together and be disgusting.

Oh and a judge legislating from the bench, to my knowledge a judge's job is to remain impartial but understand that JUSTICE is more than just interpretting the law. Judging from the bench refers to creating new laws, which would be case by based on their findings.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Well George one's got to live and if that means stealing food so be it, the alternative of committing suicide by starving, isn't that immoral too.

Ah! there is a 3rd option, not liked by the American Right, help from the more affluent/able.

Brian

Can't imagine why you think the American right doesn't like that option. It is the preferred option, and the Christian way. Helping your fellow man is what makes America great, IMHO. I work and live with a goodly number of the "right" and there is no lack of helping out those in need. I myself have even been the recipient when I was down and out. I certainly didn't need to resort to breaking the law though I was deperate.

Perhaps you can explain this to the recipient of the wheelchair ramp we built last weekend.

 

[Rich]

Can't imagine why you think the American right doesn't like that option. It is the preferred option, and the Christian way. Helping your fellow man is what makes America great, IMHO. I work and live with a goodly number of the "right" and there is no lack of helping out those in need. I myself have even been the recipient when I was down and out. I certainly didn't need to resort to breaking the law though I was deperate.

Perhaps you can explain this to the recipient of the wheelchair ramp we built last weekend.

What's deperate sweetie

 

[Rabbie]

Can't imagine why you think the American right doesn't like that option. It is the preferred option, and the Christian way. Helping your fellow man is what makes America great, IMHO. I work and live with a goodly number of the "right" and there is no lack of helping out those in need. I myself have even been the recipient when I was down and out. I certainly didn't need to resort to breaking the law though I was deperate.

Perhaps you can explain this to the recipient of the wheelchair ramp we built last weekend.

Unfortunately, George, that's not the message that comes across on this forum. I suspect that some people are less compassionate in their posts than they would be in actuality. we all know how easy it is to paint everything black or white when in reality it is just varying shades of gray.

Personally I regard it as a mark of a civilised society that there is health care for all and that there is not a stark choice between crime and starvation. As someone who is fortunately not in poverty I am happy to make my contribution to help those less fortunate. if this restricts my freedom to have everything I would like so be it - It makes me appreciate the things I have more.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I agree with Rabbie. It definitely comes across that the Republicans are against help organised by the government, sure they will help their friends and neighbours, the cynic in me wonders if that is because they can be seen to be doing good, the caring part worries about those without caring neighbours.

Brian

 

[dkinley]

Found this cartoon to sum it up.